Note critique of tech and housing bubbles.

CB

^^^^^^^

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=548&Itemid=1


The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand        
Wednesday, 05 March 2008  
by Pam Martens 

Despite Barack Obama's claim that his campaign represents a mass "movement" of 
"average folks," the initial core of his support was largely comprised of rich 
denizens of Wall Street. Why would the super wealthy want a percieved "black 
populist" to become the nation's chief executive officer? The "Obama bubble" 
was nurtured by Wall Street in order to have a friend in the White House when 
the captains of capital are made to face the legal consequences for 
deliberately creating current and past economic "bubbles." Wall Street 
desperately needs a president who will "sweep all the corruption and losses, 
would-be indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with 
an unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street." Who better to sell this 
"agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and foreclosed homeowners in 
minority communities across America than our first, beloved, black president of 
hope and change?" 

The Obama Bubble: Why Wall Street Needs a Presidential Brand 

by Pam Martens 

This article originally appeared in the print edition of Counterpunch.org. 

"We are asked to believe that those white executives at all the biggest Wall 
Street firms now want a black populist president because they crave a level 
playing field for the American people.” 
  
 
  
The Obama phenomenon has been likened to that of cults, celebrity groupies and 
Messiah worshipers. But what we're actually witnessing is Obama mania (as in 
tulip mania), the third and final bubble orchestrated and financed by the 
wonderful Wall Street folks who brought us the first two: the Nasdaq/tech 
bubble and a subprime-mortgage-in-every-pot bubble. 
To understand why Wall Street desperately needs this final bubble, we need to 
first review how the first two bubbles were orchestrated and why. 

In March of 2000, the Nasdaq stock market, hyped with spurious claims for 
startup tech and dot.com companies, reached a peak of over 5,000. Eight years 
later, it's trading in the 2,300 range and most of those companies no longer 
exist. From peak to trough, Nasdaq transferred over $4 trillion from the 
pockets of small mania-gripped investors to the wealthy and elite market 
manipulators. 

The highest monetary authority during those bubble days, Alan Greenspan, 
chairman of the Federal Reserve, consistently told us that the market was 
efficient and stock prices were being set by the judgment of millions of 
"highly knowledgeable" investors. 

Mr. Greenspan was the wind beneath the wings of a carefully orchestrated wealth 
transfer system known as "pump and dump" on Wall Street. As hundreds of court 
cases, internal emails, and insider testimony now confirm, this bubble was no 
naturally occurring phenomenon any more than the Obama bubble is. 

"Nasdaq transferred over $4 trillion from the pockets of small mania-gripped 
investors to the wealthy and elite market manipulators." 

First, Wall Street firms issued knowingly false research reports to trumpet the 
growth prospects for the company and stock price; second, they lined up big 
institutional clients who were instructed how and when to buy at escalating 
prices to make the stock price skyrocket (laddering); third, the firms 
instructed the hundreds of thousands of stockbrokers serving the mom-and-pop 
market to advise their clients to sit still as the stock price flew to the moon 
or else the broker would have his commissions taken away (penalty bid). While 
the little folks' money served as a prop under prices, the wealthy elite on 
Wall Street and corporate insiders were allowed to sell at the top of the 
market (pump-and-dump wealth transfer). 

Why did people buy into this mania for brand new, untested companies when there 
is a basic caveat that most people in this country know, i.e., the majority of 
all new businesses fail? Common sense failed and mania prevailed because of 
massive hype pumped by big media, big public relations, and shielded from 
regulation by big law firms, all eager to collect their share of Wall Street's 
rigged cash cow. 

 The current housing bubble bust is just a freshly minted version of Wall 
Street's real estate limited partnership frauds of the '80s, but on a grander 
scale. In the 1980s version, the firms packaged real estate into limited 
partnerships and peddled it as secure investments to moms and pops. The major 
underpinning of this wealth transfer mechanism was that regulators turned a 
blind eye to the fact that the investments were listed at the original face 
amount on the clients' brokerage statements long after they had lost most of 
their value. 

Today's real estate related securities (CDOs and SIVs) that are blowing up 
around the globe are simply the above scheme with more billable hours for 
corporate law firms. 

"The major underpinning of this wealth transfer mechanism was that regulators 
turned a blind eye." 

Wall Street created an artificial demand for housing (a bubble) by soliciting 
high interest rate mortgages (subprime) because they could be bundled and 
quickly resold for big fees to yield-hungry hedge funds and institutions. A 
major underpinning of this scheme was that Wall Street secured an artificial 
rating of AAA from rating agencies that were paid by Wall Street to provide the 
rating. When demand from institutions was saturated, Wall Street kept the 
scheme going by hiding the debt off its balance sheets and stuffed this 
long-term product into mom-and-pop money markets, notwithstanding that money 
markets are required by law to hold only short-term investments. To further 
perpetuate the bubble as long as possible, Wall Street prevented pricing 
transparency by keeping the trading off regulated exchanges and used 
unregulated over-the-counter contracts instead. (All of this required lots of 
lobbyist hours in Washington.) 

But how could there be a genuine national housing price boom propelled by 
massive consumer demand at the same time there was the largest income and 
wealth disparity in the nation's history? Rational thought is no match for 
manias. 

That brings us to today's bubble. We are being asked to accept at face value 
the notion that after more than two centuries of entrenched racism in this 
country, which saw only five black members of the U.S. Senate, it's all being 
eradicated with some rousing stump speeches. 

We are asked to believe that those white executives at all the biggest Wall 
Street firms, which rank in the top 20 donors to the Obama presidential 
campaign, after failing to achieve more than 3.5 per cent black stockbrokers 
over 30 years, now want a black populist president because they crave a level 
playing field for the American people. 

The number one industry supporting the Obama presidential bid, according to the 
widely respected, nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, is "lawyers/law 
firms" (most on Wall Street's payroll), giving a total of $11,246,596. 

"Other leading presidential candidates are taking money from lawyers/law 
firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one rallying with the populist 
cry that he isn't." 

 This presents three unique credibility problems for the yes-we-can, 
little-choo-choo-that-could campaign: (1) these are not just "lawyers/law 
firms"; the vast majority of these firms are also registered lobbyists at the 
Federal level; (2) Senator Obama has made it a core tenet of his campaign 
platform that the way he is gong to bring the country hope and change is not 
taking money from federal lobbyists; and (3) with the past seven ignoble years 
of lies and distortions fresh in the minds of voters, building a candidacy 
based on half-truths is not a sustainable strategy to secure the west wing from 
the right wing. 

Yes, the other leading presidential candidates are taking money from 
lawyers/law firms/lobbyists, but Senator Obama is the only one rallying with 
the populist cry that he isn't. That makes it not only a legitimate but a 
necessary line of inquiry. 

The Obama campaign's populist bubble is underpinned by what, on the surface, 
seems to be a real snoozer of a story. It all centers around business 
classification codes developed by the U.S. government and used by the Center 
for Responsive Politics to classify contributions. Here's how the Center 
explained its classifications in 2003: 

"The codes used for business groups follow the general guidelines of the 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes initially designed by the Office 
of Management and Budget and later replaced by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS)..." 

 

The Akin Gump law firm is a prime example of how something as mundane as a 
business classification code can be gamed for political advantage. According to 
the Center for Responsive Politics, Akin Gump ranks third among all Federal 
lobbyists, raking in $205,225,000 to lobby our elected officials in Washington 
from 1998 through 2007. The firm is listed as a registered federal lobbyist 
with the House of Representatives and the Senate; the firm held lobbying 
retainer contracts for more than 100 corporate clients in 2007. But when its 
non-registered law partners, the people who own this business and profit from 
its lobbying operations, give to the Obama campaign, the contribution is 
classified as coming from a law firm, not a lobbyist. 

The same holds true for Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that employed the 
criminally inclined lobbyist, Jack Abramoff. Greenberg Traurig ranks ninth 
among all lobbyists for the same period, with lobbying revenues of $96,708,249. 
Its partners and employee donations to the Obama campaign of $70,650 appear not 
under lobbyist but the classification lawyers/law firms, as do 30 other 
corporate law firm/lobbyists. 

"The total sum raised February 16-29, 2008 by bundlers for Obama from  27 law 
firms that engage in lobbying: $2,650,000." 

Additionally, looking at Public Citizen's list of bundlers for the Obama 
campaign (people soliciting donations from others), 27 are employed by law 
firms registered as federal lobbyists. The total sum raised February 16-29, 
2008 by bundlers for Obama from these 27 firms: $2,650,000. (There are also 
dozens of high powered bundlers from Wall Street working the Armani-suit and 
red-suspenders cocktail circuits, like Bruce Heyman, managing director at 
Goldman Sachs; J. Michael Schell, vice chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup; 
Louis Susman, managing director, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas. 
Each raised over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.) 

Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal 
lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of 
it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not 
the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American 
people? According to the website of Akin Gump, it takes a village to deliver a 
capital to the corporations: 

"The public law and policy practice [lobbying] at Akin Gump is integrated 
throughout the firm's offices in the United States and abroad. As part of a 
full-service law firm, the group is able to draw upon the experience of members 
of other Akin Gump practices - including bankruptcy, communications, corporate, 
energy, environmental, labor and employment, health care, intellectual 
property, international, real estate, tax and trade regulation - that may have 
substantive, day-to-day experience with the issues that lie at the heart of a 
client's situation. This is the internal component of Akin Gump's team-based 
approach: matching the needs of clients with the appropriate area of experience 
in the firm ... Akin Gump has a broad range of active representations before 
every major committee of Congress and executive branch department and agency." 

"Obama is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms 
registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists." 

When queried about this, Massie Ritsch, communications director at the Center 
for Responsive Politics, says: "The wall between a firm's legal practice and 
its lobbying shop can be low - the work of an attorney and a lobbyist trying to 
influence regulations and laws can be so intertwined. So, if anything, the 
influence of the lobbying industry in presidential campaigns is undercounted." 

Those critical thinkers over at the Black Agenda Report have zeroed in on the 
making of the Obama bubble: 

"The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing 
machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly 
related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating 
emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target 
audience." 

And slick it is. According to the Obama campaign's financial filings with the 
Federal Election Commission (FEC) and aggregated at the Center for Responsive 
Politics, the Obama campaign has spent over $52 million on media, strategy 
consultants, image building, marketing research and telemarketing. 

The money has gone to firms like GMMB, whose website says its "goal is to 
change minds and change hearts, win in the court of public opinion and win 
votes" using "the power of branding - with principles rooted in commercial 
marketing", and Elevation Ltd., which targets the Hispanic population and has 
"a combined experience well over 50 years in developing and implementing 
advertising and marketing solutions for Fortune 500 companies, political 
candidates, government agencies". Their client list includes the Department of 
Homeland Security. There's also the Birmingham, Alabama- based Parker Group 
which promises: "Valid research results are assured given our extensive 
experience with testing, scripting, skip logic, question rotation and quota 
control ... In-house list management and maintenance services encompass 
sophisticated geo-coding, mapping and scrubbing applications." Is it any wonder 
America's brains are scrambled? 

"Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped mortgage holders and 
foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than our first, 
beloved, black president of hope and change?" 

The Wall Street plan for the Obama-bubble presidency is that of the cleanup 
crew for the housing bubble: sweep all the corruption and losses, would-be 
indictments, perp walks and prosecutions under the rug and get on with an 
unprecedented taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. (The corporate law firms have 
piled on to funding the plan because most were up to their eyeballs in writing 
prospectuses or providing legal opinions for what has turned out to be bogus 
AAA securities. Lawsuits naming the Wall Street firms will, no doubt, shortly 
begin adding the law firms that rendered the legal guidance to issue the 
securities.) Who better to sell this agenda to the millions of duped mortgage 
holders and foreclosed homeowners in minority communities across America than 
our first, beloved, black president of hope and change? 

Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President 
Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, "Evidently, the 
giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military 
contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found 
him pleasing." 

That vetting included his remarkable "yes" vote on the Class Action Fairness 
Act of 2005, a five-year effort by 475 lobbyists, despite appeals from the 
NAACP and every other major civil rights group. Thanks to the passage of that 
legislation, when defrauded homeowners of the housing bubble and defrauded 
investors of the bundled mortgages try to fight back through the class-action 
vehicle, they will find a new layer of corporate-friendly hurdles. 

I personally admire Senator Obama. I want to believe Senator Obama is not a 
party to the scheme. But corporate interests have had plenty of time to do 
their vetting. Democracy demands no less of we, the people. CP 

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, 
long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public 
interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled 
to view it . 

Comments (11)Subscribe to this comment's feed
Why not McCain or Clinton 
written by Deadbeat , March 05, 2008 

There is really nothing here that indicates that Wall Street would want Obama 
above a McCain or a Clinton. All three will not go against Wall Street. 
Therefore that belies the question WHY OBAMA? 

It is not that Obama can better sell the transfer of wealth to the U.S. public. 
Both Reagan and Bill Clinton clearly sold rollback to the American public and 
the people voted for these right (white) wings. 

There is another reason and I think Ishmael Reed. Reed asserts the following... 


This is a problem that Obama faces. Wall Street wants him, Goldman Sachs, 
Lehman Brothers, J.P.Morgan are his contributors, and these wealthy people are 
beyond countries. Some of them don't even live here anymore. I think that the 
Firestones live in Turkey.These multinationals, some of them, they've been 
around, they are more sophisticated than the average American, they've seen 
diversity in the world. So, they're saying, "We need this guy to represent our 
interests." Because, this whole 1950's Country Club, Bush type image is not 
going to work anymore. I mean, those types of guys can't go anywhere, I mean 
they can't even travel places anymore. Bush, I mean, he can't go to Spain or he 
might get arrested. (Laughs.) So, what they need is this really pretty, dark 
face. When Bush traveled through Africa he was confronted with questions about 
Barack. It must have got to him because he started attacking Barack when he 
returned. An Obama election would be an enormous boost to the capitalist 
system, which seems on the verge of collapse. I could see enormous crowds 
turning out to greet him as he fronts for the system. If he went to Baghdad 
he'd receive a ticker tape parade and even the Taliban would turn out to get a 
glimpse of him. He'd be mobbed in Africa and Asia. 


I agree with Reed and that would seem a more appropriate reason why Obama 
rather than Clinton or McCain 


Ishmael Reed still writes and fights 
written by Michael Hureaux , March 06, 2008 

Yes. Ishmael has never played, and no one who knows his work would ever suggest 
that his primary reason for criticizing Obama is rooted in self-hatred. But 
Ishmael knows what time it is, and he doesn't play. Nothing would benefit the 
empire at this point more than having a black face to front for the empire. Why 
do the jerks that favor? 


Why do the jerks that favor? 
written by Deadbeat , March 06, 2008 

Because it would have a "calming" effect. 


Who should we vote for? 
written by Just wondering , March 06, 2008 

I'm just curious as to what the faithful readers of BAR think. I see story 
after story on Obama, but nothing on Hillary, McCain, or Nader. 

I was a John Edwards guy, but now he's out. The choices are rather limited. 
Personally, I would take Obama over Clinton, but that's just me. McCain is 
nothing but Bush, except much older. 

I guess we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. 


Politics is about changing the relation of forces 
written by Old Nass , March 07, 2008 

There is a fight going on among masses of people, and within the hearts of 
masses of people. It is a big mistake not to wade into that fight. 
Every reactionary force, every reactionary impulse in the U.S. will converge on 
defense of the white supremacist status quo. Most days, most years, that status 
quo reproduces itself ceaselessly, quietly, and needs no concerted defense. 
Right now, there is a challenge to that status quo. Barack Obama cannot be 
measured simply by what he says. If in fact biracial, to the white majority of 
this country he is AfricanAmerican. When he speaks, the meaning of his words is 
changed for tens of millions of white people by the very fact of who he is. An 
unprecedented number of white people in particular are attracted by the 
"meaning" of Obama's candidacy. That attraction to Obama -- not even Obama 
himself -- is itself a threat to the white supremacist status quo. For a 
variety of reasons, including the guy's own brilliance (you can't deny him 
that, no matter how low the regard in which you hold him) and also some good 
luck, the threat embodied in his candidacy has advanced deep into mass 
consciousness. 
In consequence, every latent racist assumption of U.S. life has surfaced or is 
in the process of surfacing. There are a million instances. Hillary Clinton's 
campaign said in the lead up to Ohio and Texas that they were going to throw 
"the kitchen sink" at his campaign. What does the kitchen sink look like in the 
U.S.? There's Minister Louis Farrakhan grievously ill and currently near 
inactive in public life: suddenly the national media wants to hear talk about 
Minister Farrakhan almost every day. When you raise the idea of "Muslim" about 
a Black man in the U.S. -- what is that about? Obama's middle name, "Hussein": 
what is that about? For tens of millions of white people, Islam is first and 
foremost a religion practiced among nonwhites -- among dark people. Dark people 
that this country happens to be bombing every day. There are hundreds and 
hundreds of other subterranean and also blaring coded messages being sent out 
there among millions of people. Every reactionary force and every 
antidemocratic impulse in the U.S. is at this time converging on Obama's 
candidacy. No, Obama is not the Rev. Jesse Jackson and doesn't have many of the 
outspoken progressive positions of Rev. Jackson. That has not spared and will 
not spare Obama or his candidacy from this collision. 
So where are we as this is going on? That's the question everyone has to ask 
themselves. Obama's candidacy presents the potential to fight out issues in 
mass consciousness, and so shift the relation of forces. The nature of that 
potential may not be completely visible to us now -- but it is there, and if we 
stand back and treat the Obama candidacy as simply the instrument of big 
finance, and not as a mass phenomenon, we will regret it for years to come. 
There are many ways to engage with white supremacist reaction around this 
candidacy -- it spills over into everything. But as that Reaction gathers 
power, gathers momentum, marches behind a thousand masks, takes the stage 
everywhere from "Saturday Night Live" to Clinton pointedly saying that she and 
John McCain -- the two white people -- are fit to be commander in chief, but 
Barack Obama is not -- as behind the chorus of "Obama is not ready" merge a 
thousand other shouts about how unprepared Africans or African Americans have 
been for a thousand other responsibilities, even if it's playing center field 
for the old near all white Mickey Mantle New York Yankees -- are Obama 
denouncers really suggesting that everyone under 25 years of age, down to 
children 4 and 5 years old, don't need us? 


Clinton is holding wall street accountable 
written by ann , March 09, 2008 

Most of Obama's economic plans are frighteningly right-wing. They favor big 
business, pro-wealth, and do little or nothing to help build the middle-class 
and lift people out of poverty. 

Hillary Clinton's plans are far more progressive and designed to build the 
middle class. She is taking on wall street and making them bear the brunt of 
the subprime bail out. Forcing a mortgage interest freeze is undoubtedly not 
very popular with them. 

As Hillary said when she went to the Black State of the Union her agenda is and 
always has been the minority agenda. The most dispicable aspect of Obama's 
campaign, to me, is that he his separated blacks and whites who previously had 
been working together for the good of all. 


Great analysis, Ms. Martens 
written by Bryen , March 09, 2008 

Meanwhile, over in corporate and progressive web land they are going ga-ga over 
the fact that some uninformed 18 year old, who was 8 when her likeness was 
filmed and recently used in Hillary's dynamite 3 a.m., is now for Obama---as if 
her "endorsement" is somehow news. 


original 3 am 
written by ann , March 09, 2008 

Bryen, 

That girl was used in the Mondale ad and now she supports BO. Just wanted to 
clarify. 

I totally agree with you, though, that what passes for news and investigative 
reporting in the main stream media is wild. I didn't used to read the Black 
Agenda Report but it's the only place I can get a fair reporting on the 
progressive agenda. 

I used to think when I saw the sexism in the media and from BO regarding 
Hillary that we hadn't really come as far as I thought. Now I see that it's 
actually BO and his supporters that are setting us back -- engendering racism 
and sexism in ways that hadn't been previously acceptable. If I talk about my 
concerns of BO as the democratic nominee I am accused of being a racist. In 
Bush's parlance, "If you aren't for him, you're a racist and against him." 

More and more BO reminds me of Bush and I will be forced to actively campaign 
against him should he get the nomination. His economic policies will be 
horrible for the poor and middle class. 


"The Only Way to Fight the Clintons" 
written by WOW , March 09, 2008 

Because it's good to be informed about all of the candidates, here is a link to 
an excellent must-read article reminding us what the Clintons did to the 
progressive movement (with the help of the movement itself). 

http://www.counterpunch.org/wypijewski03082008.html 

It's from the March 8-9, 2008 edition of Counterpunch. 



the only way to fight the clintons 
written by ed de larosa , March 10, 2008 


hey WOW! 

better check who wrote it and on what context did the writer pose the arguments 
against the clintons..i dont think that the different views of bill clinton 
subsumed the views of hillary...hillary as a woman has challenged the most 
difficult barrier facing women, than the issue of racial supremacy..what about 
blacks or colored men physically and violently denying women of their God given 
rights.? all of us have our own dark sides as well as our foibles...BO brags 
his opposition to iraq war started since 2002 until today..but the decision to 
oppose the war was done on what context of information he had received? or was 
that just knee-jerk reaction to oppose war simply by just opposing? opposing an 
iraq war is not a passport to presidency. Qualifications of the best candidate 
out there must be dispassionately scrutinized. while there is not yet evidence 
linking BO to some malfeasances with his relation to Rezko still that issue 
about his owning of mansion with the alleged help of rezko suggest that 
something is deeper than what the surface can show.. it also shows BO other 
side of better judgment...ha ha ha!seriously, the candidacy of hillary offers 
more substantive direction for political changes in US affairs. Women or gender 
oppressions and cruelty have been more horrifying than the abominable racial 
segregation and discrimination. 


The Only Way to Fight the Clintons 
written by WOW , March 10, 2008 

ed de larosa says 

"better check who wrote it and on what context did the writer pose the 
arguments against the clintons." 

The article I linked to is published in CounterPunch with a by-line, so anyone 
reading the article can know exactly who wrote it - and the context. I posted 
the link because I thought it would be an interesting reminder of who the 
Clintons are. If you don't want to read it, don't. It matters not to me; it's 
for those that want more information. Also, CounterPunch published the Pam 
Marten article which was also published in BAR. But I'm glad they also 
published the article about the Clintons. 

ed goes on to say, 

"seriously, the candidacy of hillary offers more substantive direction for 
political changes in US affairs. Women or gender oppressions and cruelty have 
been more horrifying than the abominable racial segregation and 
discrimination." 

As an African American woman, I totally resent and reject attempts to compare 
sufferings of one group to another, and to use your specious conclusion to 
justify choosing one candidate over another. First, I assume when you refer to 
"women or gender oppression" you are referring to "white women" as black women 
did and still do suffer under both gender and racial oppression. For the 
record, you in no way make an argument, you simply throw a conclusion up and 
make ludicrous assertions to "back it up." But since you were idiotic enough to 
try this tactic, let me just school you on a few things. 

It wasn't just racial segregation and discrimination. Africans were kidnaped 
and dragged across the Atlantic in conditions so barbaric and cruel, millions 
died on the trip over. Then they were enslaved, ripped from their families, 
deracinated, and when they rose up against their oppressors, were brutalized 
and tortured for not loving their enslavement. Then blacks were made to feel 
ashamed about our history, denied our humanity (something never denied to white 
women) - which was even codified in the U.S. Constitution - and were 
systematically lied about in scholarly and non-scholarly texts, churches, 
places of employment and television programs sent around the entire world. Our 
people have been taught to hate themselves and be ashamed of being black, that 
we had no history, that we were animals, etc. There are still organizations 
that heavily finance "scholars" who spend their time trying to prove that we 
are "inferior" and therefore not deserving of considerations given to white 
folks and others. And every few years some jackass comes out with a book or a 
study that "proves" that we are genetically "inferior" to white people. These 
books and studies are taken seriously and widely discussed in the press. That 
the premises are absurd on their face never stops these "scholars" being 
financed and promoted in the media as "experts." And the damage it does to the 
black psyche is never given any consideration. (Or, a more sinister 
interpretation is that the damage it does to the black psyche is precisely the 
consideration..) And this cycles continues, only to culminate in some ignorant 
person minimizing the suffering of despised black people as a justification for 
voting for a white woman. 

I personally don't give a flying fig who you vote for, but when you place the 
bizarre mental contortions you go through to justify you vote, you need to be 
corrected. 


 



_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to