Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
fredrickbernanke
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Obama as Father Figure on The Washington Independent
Comparing the Obama & Cosby Speeches
When I first saw the reporting on the Obama Father's Day Speech, I immediately thought of the speech given by Bill Cosby several years ago which ostensibly tried to make the same or at least similar points.
Cosby came in for much criticism, most of it from segments of the African-American (A-A) and Progressive communities. Obama's speech has almost been greeted with silence by both those communities; I, for one, have not seen a single negative commentary anywhere.
I just finished reading the full transcripts of both speeches.
Having done so, I am not at all surprised by the reactions they provoked, except for this: Barack Obama delivered one of the greatest American socio-political discourses that this cynical, son-of-a-bitch has ever read in his life, yet he is not getting adequate credit for his achievement.
Its Content far transcends race; its Form was nearly Poetic, and certainly inspirational. It cut like a dagger through party and racial and socio-economic lines. It could have been delivered at Hagee's church (minus the African-American specificity) and drawn as many shouts and claps of approbation as the largely A-A church in Chicago that had the honor of being its presentation site.
Short of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, I have never read a politico-social document (speech) like this in my life.
(Mr. Cosby's speech is best left uncommented upon.)
Maybe someone out there knows the answer to this question: Who wrote this speech?
MYBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
When I first saw the reporting on the Obama Father's Day Speech, I immediately thought of the speech given by Bill Cosby several years ago which ostensibly tried to make the same or at least similar points.
Cosby came in for much criticism, most of it from segments of the African-American (A-A) and Progressive communities. Obama's speech has almost been greeted with silence by both those communities; I, for one, have not seen a single negative commentary anywhere.
I just finished reading the full transcripts of both speeches.
Having done so, I am not at all surprised by the reactions they provoked, except for this: Barack Obama delivered one of the greatest American socio-political discourses that this cynical, son-of-a-bitch has ever read in his life, yet he is not getting adequate credit for his achievement.
Its Content far transcends race; its Form was nearly Poetic, and certainly inspirational. It cut like a dagger through party and racial and socio-economic lines. It could have been delivered at Hagee's church (minus the African-American specificity) and drawn as many shouts and claps of approbation as the largely A-A church in Chicago that had the honor of being its presentation site.
Short of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, I have never read a politico-social document (speech) like this in my life.
(Mr. Cosby's speech is best left uncommented upon.)
Maybe someone out there knows the answer to this question: Who wrote this speech?
MYBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
1 year ago
in Elite Smear Clashes with Tradition on The Washington Independent
Obama as the General Election Candidate: "Wanna Rumble?"
By Fredrick Bernanke - June 14, 2008, 7:47PM
Quote from a fundraiser, yesterday I believe, in Philly:
By Fredrick Bernanke - June 14, 2008, 7:47PM
Quote from a fundraiser, yesterday I believe, in Philly:
1 year ago
in A (Mostly) Graceful Exit on The Washington Independent
In world-class chess matches between International Grand Masters, when one of the opponents recognizes that he (not many "she's" in this arena of competition) is in an unwinnable position, he resigns. No dishonor attached to it...it's expected. In fact, it's an implicit complement to his opponent's skill. (If I can see I'm done, he also can.)
Hillary Clinton has established herself as an International--or perhaps more difficult in the USA-- as a National Grandmaster of Politics.
Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.
She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.
She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?
She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.
She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.
But in the end, she resigned...as any International Chess Grandmaster would do.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
Hillary Clinton has established herself as an International--or perhaps more difficult in the USA-- as a National Grandmaster of Politics.
Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.
She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.
She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?
She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.
She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.
But in the end, she resigned...as any International Chess Grandmaster would do.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
1 year ago
in Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction on The Washington Independent
Mr. Morris:
Among other things, I was a corporate bond trader in my youth, and though I left that career many years ago, I have maintained an almost hypnotic interest in Wall Street, in general.
I have blogged on my own sit, http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com,
for months about Bear, specifically, and the entire credit market fiasco, in general.
I myself had problems understanding exactly what these new derivative investments were, how they worked, what was their purpose.
Your article has moved my knowledge thereof up multiple pegs. Congratulations for providing this information, and to the folks at WashingtonIndependent.com for publishing it.
It sure helped me.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
Among other things, I was a corporate bond trader in my youth, and though I left that career many years ago, I have maintained an almost hypnotic interest in Wall Street, in general.
I have blogged on my own sit, http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com,
for months about Bear, specifically, and the entire credit market fiasco, in general.
I myself had problems understanding exactly what these new derivative investments were, how they worked, what was their purpose.
Your article has moved my knowledge thereof up multiple pegs. Congratulations for providing this information, and to the folks at WashingtonIndependent.com for publishing it.
It sure helped me.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
1 year ago
in McCain Website Launches New Blog on The Washington Independent
I just visited the new "site," and could not find any way to "interact" with the campaign. It appears to be a series of press releases that gives the reader the opporunity to rate the press release on a "star" scale of 1 to 5.
1 year ago
in McCain’s Disembodied Head Talks About War on The Washington Independent
Let's forget the Content, if it even can be called such, of this ad and talk about the Form.
As DeLong notes, it's eerie-looking.
For a candidate who has to cope with the always already there issue of Age to present himself looking like nothing less than an apparition is astonishing. He appears flat-out ghostly; half his face just not there, the black suit against the black background effectively makes his body disappear as well, leaving only the haunting half-moon of his pale white face and the vertical streak of brightness emanating from his shirt peeking through the darkness.
Perhaps his campaign was shooting for the serious/somber look; and given the subject matter, such a look would be appropriate.
But they've leaped right over serious/somber and managed to produce a video that can only be described as macabre.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
As DeLong notes, it's eerie-looking.
For a candidate who has to cope with the always already there issue of Age to present himself looking like nothing less than an apparition is astonishing. He appears flat-out ghostly; half his face just not there, the black suit against the black background effectively makes his body disappear as well, leaving only the haunting half-moon of his pale white face and the vertical streak of brightness emanating from his shirt peeking through the darkness.
Perhaps his campaign was shooting for the serious/somber look; and given the subject matter, such a look would be appropriate.
But they've leaped right over serious/somber and managed to produce a video that can only be described as macabre.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
1 year ago
in Clinton Exits, But Her Time Begins on The Washington Independent
By Resigning With Honor, HRC Creates an Proud Historical Legacy for Herself and All Women
Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.
She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.
She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?
She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.
She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.
She resigned with honor, like an International Grandmaster in Chess.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.
She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.
She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?
She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.
She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.
She resigned with honor, like an International Grandmaster in Chess.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
1 year ago
in Iraqi Politicians Push for Withdrawal on The Washington Independent
McCain's Ignorant, Incoherent and Confused Iraq Policy
The number quotes below are from McCain's Memorial Day speech in Albequerque, New Mexico.
1. "As we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq."
2. "I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them."
3. "We have new commanders in Iraq,... They are following a counterinsurgency strategy that we should have been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy."
McCain criticized Obama and Clinton on their plans to withdraw troops ASAP, saying, 4. "It would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions."
These quotes evince the befuddled nature of both the Iraq conflict and John McCain's understanding thereof.
Quote (1) needs no further elucidation.
Quote (2) is the first time this writer has heard ANY American politician dump blame for the Iraq fiasco at the doorstep of unnamed "military commanders." Which commanders made mistakes? What were those mistakes? Were they acting without the authority and approval of the civilian leadership at the White House and Pentagon?
These are questions that need to be put to the Republican nominee, particularly since no Democrat has made these accusations against the Military.
In Quote (3), McCain is explicitly stating that a "counterinsurgency" strategy should have been followed "...from the beginning...." Where was John McCain at "the beginning" advocating such a position? Did he anticipate an "insurgency" and keep mum on the subject? Did he ever raise doubts about the "candy and flower petal" reception our invading troops would receive from Iraqis? And how does he, today, define "insurgency?" Against whom is the insurgency being waged? And why? And who are the "insurgents?"
Quote (4) addresses withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Therein he raises the possibility of simultaneously strengthening (Sunni) Al Qaeda and empowering (Shiite) Iran. Perhaps McCain is unaware of the contents of the most recent communique from Osama bin Laden of just a few days ago in which bin Laden raises serious objectives to the hegemonic ambitions of Iran in the Middle East. And perhaps foreign policy expert McCain forgets that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we trundled on in there. Though Saddam's Baath Party was also Sunni, it was Iraq-Sunni, not Saudi-Sunni like Al Qaeda.
Again in Quote (4), McCain refers to "full scale civil war in Iraq" breaking out if we leave. Implicit in that remark is the fact that currently there is a civil war taking place, but it's not quite up to the full scale category because of United States presence. Again, the was no civil war, small or full scale, taking place in Iraq until we arrived. In the same Quote (4), McCain expresses concern that unnamed Sunni and Shiite governments in the region may intervene in the "full scale civil war," in support of the Muslim sect they favor, and thereby "destabilize the entire region...."
This remark is perhaps the most nonsensical of them all. It presupposes that a stable, or status quo, Middle East is in the best strategic interest of the United States. This writer is not sure that is a valid proposition. The current "stability" in the Middle East is allowing the oil producing nations over there--Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, etc.-- to rob the West of its wealth, without even holding a knife to our throats.
All the West should be concerned with is getting their oil as cheap as possible, period! Would there be some possible dislocations or even brief interruptions in oil flow if Iran and Saudi battle each other on Iraqi turf? Maybe yes; maybe no. They need those revenues as much as the West needs their oil. And they know that.
Internecine bloodshed in the Middle East is preferable to the blood of United States soldiers being shed there.
And, to give Iraqis some credit, perhaps they themselves could unite-as-Iraqis if they saw Saudi and Iranian soldiers invading their land---nothing unites two domestic rivals like a foreign enemy, be it the United States, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
The number quotes below are from McCain's Memorial Day speech in Albequerque, New Mexico.
1. "As we all know, the American people have grown sick and tired of the war in Iraq."
2. "I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them."
3. "We have new commanders in Iraq,... They are following a counterinsurgency strategy that we should have been following from the beginning, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy."
McCain criticized Obama and Clinton on their plans to withdraw troops ASAP, saying, 4. "It would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions."
These quotes evince the befuddled nature of both the Iraq conflict and John McCain's understanding thereof.
Quote (1) needs no further elucidation.
Quote (2) is the first time this writer has heard ANY American politician dump blame for the Iraq fiasco at the doorstep of unnamed "military commanders." Which commanders made mistakes? What were those mistakes? Were they acting without the authority and approval of the civilian leadership at the White House and Pentagon?
These are questions that need to be put to the Republican nominee, particularly since no Democrat has made these accusations against the Military.
In Quote (3), McCain is explicitly stating that a "counterinsurgency" strategy should have been followed "...from the beginning...." Where was John McCain at "the beginning" advocating such a position? Did he anticipate an "insurgency" and keep mum on the subject? Did he ever raise doubts about the "candy and flower petal" reception our invading troops would receive from Iraqis? And how does he, today, define "insurgency?" Against whom is the insurgency being waged? And why? And who are the "insurgents?"
Quote (4) addresses withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Therein he raises the possibility of simultaneously strengthening (Sunni) Al Qaeda and empowering (Shiite) Iran. Perhaps McCain is unaware of the contents of the most recent communique from Osama bin Laden of just a few days ago in which bin Laden raises serious objectives to the hegemonic ambitions of Iran in the Middle East. And perhaps foreign policy expert McCain forgets that there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we trundled on in there. Though Saddam's Baath Party was also Sunni, it was Iraq-Sunni, not Saudi-Sunni like Al Qaeda.
Again in Quote (4), McCain refers to "full scale civil war in Iraq" breaking out if we leave. Implicit in that remark is the fact that currently there is a civil war taking place, but it's not quite up to the full scale category because of United States presence. Again, the was no civil war, small or full scale, taking place in Iraq until we arrived. In the same Quote (4), McCain expresses concern that unnamed Sunni and Shiite governments in the region may intervene in the "full scale civil war," in support of the Muslim sect they favor, and thereby "destabilize the entire region...."
This remark is perhaps the most nonsensical of them all. It presupposes that a stable, or status quo, Middle East is in the best strategic interest of the United States. This writer is not sure that is a valid proposition. The current "stability" in the Middle East is allowing the oil producing nations over there--Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, etc.-- to rob the West of its wealth, without even holding a knife to our throats.
All the West should be concerned with is getting their oil as cheap as possible, period! Would there be some possible dislocations or even brief interruptions in oil flow if Iran and Saudi battle each other on Iraqi turf? Maybe yes; maybe no. They need those revenues as much as the West needs their oil. And they know that.
Internecine bloodshed in the Middle East is preferable to the blood of United States soldiers being shed there.
And, to give Iraqis some credit, perhaps they themselves could unite-as-Iraqis if they saw Saudi and Iranian soldiers invading their land---nothing unites two domestic rivals like a foreign enemy, be it the United States, Saudi Arabia or Iran.
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
