How to Help the Newly Unemployed (NU)

In light of the current economic times, and in finding myself a new .00000000001 in the unemployment percentage, I have some observations that might be helpful to those of you who are thankfully, and blessedly, still employed, in dealing with that friend, loved one, neighbor or acquaintance who has suddenly found themselves sans job.

Some DOs and DON'Ts:

1. DO, upon hearing that your friend has joined the ranks of the NU: BE OUTRAGED for them. Tell them that you can't believe a company would be so STUPID as to let go of such a valuable employee - what are they NUTS? Did they use any criteria or JUDGMENT when they made that boneheaded call? Obviously your friend is TOO GOOD FOR THAT PLACE and the company's imminent doom is apparent if they can't make decisions any better than that. Hell, your friend is lucky s/he GOT OUT NOW, even if it wasn't by their own choosing. So long and good riddance, idiot company! Onwards and upwards. You can probably go too far with this, so be succinct with it, but let your friend know that they are valuable and anyone who doesn't think so SUCKS.

2. DON'T, upon hearing that your friend has joined the ranks of the NU: be casual about it. This is NOT the time for platitudes. "Oh, I'm sure something better will come along." "Enjoy the vacation!" "Ugh, I hate my job, I wish they would fire ME." "Gee, that sucks. But hey, I sent you a link to this comedy website - maybe it'll cheer you up!" - these kind of responses are sure to make the NU feel like you completely don't grasp the gravity of the situation, or that you just don't give a damn. Even if it makes you uncomfortable, or if you think being light-hearted about it is the way to go - ignoring the ugly fact that the NU has LOST THEIR JOB, and at this moment doesn't know when or how to get another one, is ignoring the reality of the situation. Ignoring the reality of the situation is what got the country into this economic mess; therefore, it's not a recommended strategery.

3. DO offer any helpful assistance you can to the NU. Listen to what the NU's concerns are, and if you have any leads - offer them! Got a lead on a job in their field - pass it on! Have a friend who's a great networker - introduce them to the NU. Know of a great sale, cheap rent on a good place, someone who might want to buy something the NU might need to sell - hook a friend up, G! Offer to babysit for free while the NU is on a job interview, or drive them to the interview... Anything you can do will be greatly appreciated and could be more instrumental in helping the NU than you even think.

4. DON'T add to the NU's money or life worries by ratcheting up the panic/victimization factor. "OMG! How will you SURVIVE?!?!" for example, is NOT helpful. Nor is, "How long will your health insurance benefits last - can you get COBRA?" Also, the NU doesn't want to hear tales of woe about your other NU friends, or worse yet your Long-Term Unemployed friends. The NU is going to have to figure the life/money/work situation out for themselves - they don't need their friends and/or family panicking FOR them. No one wants to think that their friends think they're headed for tent city, even if they are.

5. DON'T pity the NU. For example, if the NU posts something like, oh, I don't know "Jentutsy is feeling a little unmovtivated today..." The correct comment to this is "Me, too." Or "Take the Day off!" not "OMG, I hope you start feeling better soon, I mean, I know you will EVENTUALLY, but this is just so sad, and I just feel so bad for you..." This will ENSURE the NU stays unmotivated. Humor, goodwill and honest positivity (i.e. NO platitudes, see above) go a long way. Even if we are NU, we are struggling to put things in perspective and prioritize. We're realizing that we have people who love us, and our health (hopefully) and that things could be worse - we could be dead, or be that poor lady that got attacked by the chimp. And that makes us feel grateful for what we DO have. So don't take that away from the NU by pitying them. (Oh, and one other note, while it's ok for the NU to realize that they're lucky to not be the poor lady who got attacked by the chimp, it's not ok for YOU to point that out. That makes you smug.)

The biggest thing you can do for the NU is to be a resource. Someone who listens, and when they can, facilitates some help in whatever small way they can. The biggest thing we can do in these hard times, is help take care of each other.

Dear ABC News: We're Mad, and We Aren't Gonna Take it Anymore!

Unbelievably bad. Transparently biased. Tabloid journalism. Disgusting. Immediately blasted by other media outlets as hack journalism. Pompous. Fox News-worthy. Worst of all - irrelevant. In an election cycle in which the Democratic race is so hotly contested, and in a cycle when the electorate is facing war, recession, a mortgage crisis, healthcare failure, immigration woes, Executive Branch authorized torture, skyrocketing college tuition, the Katrina aftermath, infrastructure failures, manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas, and a slew of other issues that negatively affect the lives of the American people, your moderators (one of whom would have been disqualified for the job by most other news agencies due to his obvious conflict of interest) chose to turn their 2 hours of national exposure into a circus of "gotcha" attacks mostly leveled at Senator Obama. How stupid do you think the American public is? Charlie Gibson, who I used to respect before last night's shameful performance, was forced to twice proclaim "The crowd is turning on me," while on air last night, responding to the unrest in the audience at the National Constitution Center. Multiply that response by the millions of viewers watching at home, and I think you'll have an accurate view of how this right-wing framed smear of a "debate" went over last night. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos owe the American people an apology.

Is ABC proud of the level of questions asked by these moderators last night? Questioning someone's apparel - wearing a $1 flag lapel pin (probably made in China) - is the new standard of how we should judge whether a person is fit for the office of President of the United States? And Mr. Gibson's justification of the question: citing that "it's all over the internet"? That's what passes for rigorous vetting by the press these days? Or how about, "Does your pastor love America as much as you do?" First of all, how can anyone know the heart of another person, and secondly, who cares? Rev. Wright isn't running for Office... After that risible question, I half expected Mr. Stephanopoulos to ask Senator Obama if his dad was stronger than Rev. Wright's father. And I have news for both Mr. Stephanopoulos and his collaborator on the question about Mr. Ayers - Sean Hannity (do you have Mr. Hannity on your payroll since he's doing your journalist's job for him?), the 60's are over. No one is concerned about Senator Obama knowing a former member of The Weather Underground whose illegal activities occurred when Senator Obama was 8 years old. One half of the debate you televised last night was absolute rubbish. Completely uninformative. The second half was only marginally better. I promise you that the American public at large is much more concerned about the real economic issues they face, than they are about Charles Gibson's personal worries about his own capital gains taxes...

Your news department perpetrated a fraud on the American people last night. I find it interesting that NBC News fired Maria Shriver due to just a perception of a conflict of interest, while your agency chose to allow a former employee of one of the two remaining Democratic candidates in the race for the White House to moderate the debate last night. Thank goodness for the advent of Netflix and the expansion of the cable market. There is a plethora of quality news and entertainment programming being broadcast and distributed in this country - and I will be watching that instead of ABC from now on. And I'm letting your advertisers know.

It's Race! It's Gender! Or is it Generational?

A friend just sent me a "Sorry to see Barack imploding" email. Is this a bad news cycle for Barack Obama, you bet it is. Is it an implosion? Well, no. Explosion of the media, yes. But on a deeper level, we all have seen the battle lines being drawn in this country over race, even within the Democratic Party. Why? Is the generational gap just as big of a player in all of this?

Barack Obama has been talking about the racial divide in white and black American activism since he wrote "Dreams from My Father" in 1995. He addressed it, along with Rev. Wright in "The Audacity of Hope" in 2006. This video of the right Rev. Wright and the text of his sermons came up in Iowa just before the caucus. The campaign dealt with it in Iowa just as it has been this week - talking about the generational divide in politics amongst African Americans, and explaining his place and position in a church that has an amazing community outreach. And Iowans got it. And voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. Of course, news shows on FOX weren't fanning the flames and ringing the "unpatriotic" bell over and over again, so sane dialogue on the matter could be had.

I truly wonder if we as Americans are proving ourselves to be not ready for a black President. Every slur that's been aimed at Barack has had a racial underpinning. "He's a Muslim!" - he's not, but in having to defend against that, we've proven Americans as a whole are not tolerant of Muslims and don't trust one in public office. "His middle name is Hussein. Osama rhymes with Obama!" - again, see above about US attitudes toward Muslims. "He doesn't wear a US flag lapel pin!" - neither does McCain and about 1/2 the other people in public office, but no one ever brought that up about them before, so why just Barack? "He doesn't say the Pledge!" - also a lie. Again, questioning his "patriotism" which in turn points back to the "Muslim" rumors, which again, is racist. "His wife isn't proud of America!" - i.e. she's an angry black woman! And now, "His pastor/mentor is anti-American!" - which is basically using the "patriotism" meme to cry reverse racism. It's all racism in some degree or another. I'm sure if Barack were white and going to a fundamentalist Christian Church where his pastor preached about blowing up abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors, no one would care about that.

The fact is, there are a LOT of angry black men and women out there from a previous generation who until this moment, were watching their dream of equality wane as the years of their lives waned. If you remember, at the outset of this race, 50% of African Americans were pro-Hillary. Largely the older generation. Because they didn't dare let themselves believe that a black man could win. It would be too much of a heartbreak if he didn't and they'd pinned their hopes on a great hope one more time. Many spoke of him being assassinated and didn't want to contribute to that. It was the younger generation (aided by Bill Clinton's boneheaded remarks in NH and SC) and the win in Iowa that got them hoping again, and switching their votes from Hillary to Barack. But Barack is, and represents, the next generation - one that is tired of just playing the blame game and wants to turn the page and gain more power through more unified means. Could he have done that if people like Rev. Wright hadn't spoken out and stood up and been counted? NO. Does that mean that Barack must automatically believe that the ways of the last generation must be the ways of his? NO.

I think there is a similar divide in the feminist movement in this election, too. We are seeing a LOT of angry white women in this election. I got screamed at by a group of middle aged women leafleting for Hillary while I was walking my dog and wearing an "Obama '08" pin. I was called a "Self-hater," and a "Gender Traitor." I have felt since the beginning of this election that the far more important issues in this campaign were to remove a DLC powered candidate, who in my opinion represents the worst of feminism - victimization, coat-tail riding on her husband, letting unscrupulous men (Penn, Wolfson) set her campaign's agenda and tone, and using male behavioral patterns to try and justify herself as a woman who can lead (i.e. voting for the AUMF as a blatant political act to make herself look more hawkish and "tough on terror," even though she should've known it wasn't right) than to simply vote for a woman just because I'm a woman. Do I realize that I'm able to make these distinctions because women of another generation, like Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, fought for women when our voices didn't matter? Yes, I am the next generation, and I benefit from the previous generation standing up and being counted. Does that mean that I must automatically believe that the ways of the last generation must be my ways? NO.

I believe there will be a woman elected President in my lifetime, and my hope is, she will have earned it, and won't have been someone important's wife, and she won't come to office with a ton of baggage - historically, lobbyists, etc. But I understand there is a generation of women who fought really hard for things before me, and they see the reality of a woman President waning as their years wane, just as the black people of Rev. Wright's generation see the same reality regarding a black President. Put in this context, Geraldine Ferraro's racially controversial comments this week start to look a lot like Wright's comments. We have two older generations of folk who are angry that they never got their shot, and believe that their time has come, and that time is NOW. And the overriding message coming out of all of this hullabaloo? People aren't over race, yet. Black or white. Even Democrats and those who are supposed to be pro-Civil Rights.

Maybe I'm wrong. We'll see if the general populace will be able to differentiate between Barack and his pastor. Older generation vs. next generation. Barack has been doing some wonderful interviews that have very thoughtfully brought up this very topic. Anderson Cooper and Barack had a pretty great dialogue on it last night on 360, and then David Gergen and Roland Martin and Anderson discussed the same topic with clarity and reason afterwards. If that kind of journalism prevails, this could open up some really important discussions that we need to have as a country. If it just gets turned into a circus sideshow the way FOX likes it to, well, than I feel the country will be worse off for it. Whether Barack's campaign goes on or not. I think the losers will be the American people because this conversation has been about 250 years in the making and needs to happen. Also, we'll lose our first honest to goodness opportunity in our modern times to elect a people-powered, grass-roots, bottom-up, people-funded, PAC-free, lobbyist-free, democratic (in the larger definition of the word) NetRoots candidate who will be answerable to WE THE PEOPLE instead of the ruling class.

Olbermann. Tonight. MSNBC. 8pm EST. Be there!

I cannot express how much I am looking forward to Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" tonight. If you've seen him do one of these in the past, you know that they are FLAMING. I hope it gets some people's attention. Specifically the leadership of the Dem Party who doesn't seem to want to censure a high ranking member of the Party whose only strategy now - since she cannot win the pledged delegate or popular vote count even if she wins PA, has FL handed to her and wins KY, PR and WV - is to ruin Barack Obama for the general in hopes of her running against McCain in 2012.

I have a feeling Keith will mention these things tonight, amongst a few others, like Hillary's lack of response to Geraldine Ferraro's racist statements, her lauding of McCain over Obama, and her outright lies about Obama's NAFTA position, and just yesterday his energy policy vote which HAS increased our use of renewable energy despite her claims to the contrary, and which she voted against. And by saying Keith might "mention" these things, I mean he is going to FLAME Hillary, and rightfully so. It's time for the country and at the very least, the Dem leadership to wake up and stop looking the other way. Every mammal with a brain can see what she's doing. Even Rachel Maddow couldn't hide her open disgust when talking about Hillary on MSNBC last night, and she used to love her. We can no longer question what Hillary's strategy is, so the question becomes: do you care what Hillary is doing? And if you do care about it's ruinous nature, are you going to do something about it?

Well, ARE you?

Open Letter to the DNC

I am a registered Democrat in New York. I have been a dedicated Democrat for the past 10 years. I am under 40 and am the future of this Party. I have volunteered and canvassed for several Democratic candidates over the last decade, and I vote. Even when the polls are not favorable towards my candidate, or when it's raining and snowing, or when my life is so busy I can barely keep up with it - I vote. And I encourage those I know to vote. And I always encourage them to vote Democratic.

That being said, I am concerned about the tenor of this election. Our party has a former, very popular President who is actively campaigning using the Karl Rove play book to lie and smear another Democratic candidate for President. Bill Clinton isn't running for office, and needs to stop campaigning as if he were. The Clintons are dividing this party, in the same way I fear they will further divide this nation should Hillary Clinton win the nomination. Based on her conduct over the past month, I will never vote for her. And I will encourage any and all who will listen to me, to do the same. Hillary Clinton and her husband, who I used to admire greatly, are resembling Republicans in the way they are conducting their political strategy. The "Swiftboating" that brought John Kerry's campaign down was disgusting, but when we lost that election, at least we knew as a Party that we lost because we held on to our values. I have always been proud that although we lost for two cycles to George Bush, we ran clean and decent campaigns. We finally have a serious contender for the nomination that is moral, full of ideas and hope, and APPEALS to a broad coalition of voters - not just dyed-in-the-wool Dems such as myself, and the last Democratic President to do the same is actively trying to destroy this man's character by LYING about him. Does this make any sense to you?

I am imploring you to send a message to the Clintons to stop this immoral and indecent behavior on the campaign trail. I'm also asking you to consider, when it's time to commit to a nominee, that we are standing at a tremendous precipice of history. Are we as a Party going to nominate an inspired and inspiring candidate - one that the press and people all over the country are comparing to JFK? Or are we going to be the Party that gives into someone who feels entitled to the office because she was married to the last Democrat who held the office - and possibly go down in history as the Party who couldn't get their candidate elected after 8 years of George W. Bush?

Our Democratic Party has always differentiated itself from the Republicans as the Party of the people. The Party that cares. The social policy Party. Are we going to join the Republicans in rewarding dirty politics? Winning through treachery? In forwarding this ridiculous Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty? What's next? Jeb Bush and then Chelsea Clinton? If the Democratic Party is interested in encouraging a third party to rise in this country, nominate Hillary Clinton. And we'll watch Mike Bloomberg enter the race, and have another Republican in office come Jan. 20, 2009.

We have the opportunity to change this Nation for the better. To restore our image around the world. The Democrats do. But not if the Clintons ruin it for all of us.

Feeling the same way? Send your response to the DNC here.

Obama. The Un-Hillary. It's a Good Thing!

As I mentioned in a previous post, The Clinton campaign's tactics in NH were of the Karl Rove variety. This article in the Washington Post examines just how dirty they were, and speaks to the possible backlash - Democrats unwilling to support Hillary, should she win the Party's nomination. Apparently Hillary is running the risk of permanently ruining her chances in the general election based on her actions in the primary. The article is frank and unflattering. The comments that follow are full of infuriated people.

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, we're likely to have another Republican President. In polls being conducted now, Obama wins in a head to head with all the major Republican candidates. Hillary loses. A national poll released today shows that Obama is picking up momentum amongst Dems across the nation, narrowing a 10% gap to 1%, which falls well within the polls 4.7% plus or minus. Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics. For some wrong reasons, and for some right ones. There are those who "just don't like her," or are anti-woman, etc. And there are many of us who have scrutinized her record, her character and her words and find a candidate who doesn't meet our standards for the nomination of President of the United States. And Hillary herself is providing all kinds of examples of terrible behavior on her part in this election, to further polarize her from the American electorate. Hillary might be the only figure reviled enough in the Democratic party to actually lose to a Republican after the nation suffered through 8 years of the worst President we've ever had. Ugh.

Come on Nevada and South Carolina - stand up for Change! And let's hope the uncovering of the dirty tactics in NH, and this ridiculous race baiting crap this week, will lead to some curbed behavior in the Clinton campaign. If you can't campaign and win legitimately in the primary... Don't run! Although, it seemed to work pretty well for George W. Bush. I guess Hillary is using the same "strategery."

It's OK to Believe!

I truly believe the key to Barack Obama winning SC, is telling people that "It's OK to Believe!" Read an article in USA Today online, in which a black woman named Maggie Melvin in SC said that she "yearned" to vote for Barack Obama but was afraid to. Maggie feels that white people won't vote for a black man once they get behind the voting curtain, so she says she is voting for who she believes is the safer choice. I'm sure the stunning results from NH led her to believe that. Maggie believes that white people are saying one thing to pollsters, and then betraying those words when they get into the booth, because of their racism. This makes me sad. Sad to think that that could be true - although I think that that is not what happened in NH - and sad that there is a segment of our society that feels so discriminated against that they believe Barack Obama can't win because he shares the color of their skin.

I'm not naive, I know that there is still very naked and also hidden racial prejudice in America, but we continue to move in a progressive pattern in this country, on all issues, over time. We have gay marriage in Massachusetts, which was voted into law under the State's first black Governor, Deval Patrick. We have a black man and a woman running neck and neck for the Democratic Party's nomination for President - with a white man running a distant third. We have retained a woman's right to choose, despite numerous attempts to overturn it under several Republican administrations, since 1973. No matter how much the Conservatives of this country try and "conserve" the status quo, we are marching forward.

I believe that in my lifetime, I will see a black president, a woman president, probably a black woman president. I will see gay marriage signed into law across this country. My grandkids will probably have to learn Spanish in school, as it will likely become our second language. I know to some this is a nightmare vision of the future, but I'll bet the world we live in today, with its plethora of choices, women in the workplace, openly gay citizens, voting rights for all, etc. was probably the nightmare vision of the future that horrified the Conservatives 100 years ago. And you know what? It turned out all right. Sure, we have a slew of problems that go along with progress - but they had a slew of problems 100 years ago, too. Society will never be perfect, but it can be more fair. And that is a value that progressives cherish, and work for.

To Maggie Melvin of SC, I want to say: people in NH weren't telling pollsters they'd vote for Barack and then getting in the booth and voting for a white candidate. Blatant racists are, unfortunately, not afraid to say so. And the closeted ones aren't going to say they'd vote for Barack (to make themselves look good?) and secretly not vote for him because of his skin color. Closeted racists simply say "I really prefer John Edwards." Or Mitt Romney. Or anyone else with a white face.

What DID happen in NH was the media had christened Obama the double-digit winner, and then Hillary cried. I'm sure John Edwards' insensitive, vaguely sexist response to Hillary crying didn't help matters, either. Women told me over and over again as I canvassed on Primary day - especially middle-aged women - that they were all for Obama until the day before, and then they suddenly felt sorry for Hillary when she cried. They felt like the men were beating up on her. They said they identified with her as a woman trying to do everything and not getting the desired result. They were often apologetic, saying "I really LIKE Obama, I think he was the better choice, but I just really identified with Hillary." Many said the media made them feel like she was going to be handed a drubbing, and many of the women I talked to said they figured Obama would win anyway based on the polls, so they cast a vote for Hillary as a more or less pity vote, thinking it would at least make her loss less of a landslide.

The exit polls confirm there was a 15% shift in middle aged women who said before the polls that they were Obama voters and admitted to voting for Hillary after the election. In this case, the very polls designed to gauge the outcome of the election seem to have had a hand in determining the actual outcome. It was a confluence of unforeseen events.

To Maggie Melvin, and those like her who are afraid to vote for Barack Obama because you think white society won't vote for him, I say, "It's OK to Believe!" First of all, white people are voting for him - overwhelmingly. Not only did he win in Iowa where 95-96% of the population is white, but in the exit polls in NH, the only category of voters he didn't win was middle-aged women. Again, in a nearly white population, all other voters were overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. But that's not the main point. The main point is that if people who want to vote for Barack don't because they don't believe he can win - he WON'T. The very people who "yearn" to vote for him MUST. If these voters don't believe he can win and don't vote for him, they could be the very stumbling block that prevents his win. That's irony. So, to all the Maggie Melvin's out there, the rest of us who DO believe implore you to believe, too. Vote for who you WANT to win, and he can become the one who WILL win. It's OK to believe - in yourself, and in your dreams. This can happen now.

Clintons Playing the Race Card?

Watched Hillary on "Meet the Press" this morning. She's now attempting to paint the Obama campaign with the same stripes the media has been painting her with this past week - implying Obama is lying, exaggerating, and taking her and Bill's comments out of context in an effort to make them look bad. Calling into question the intent and the content of public statements made by Billary that are, if not overtly, at least inadvertently racist, is not the same as spreading innuendo and rumor through the internet. As to Hillary's claims that she fired people in her campaign for their false statements - she let the "Barack is a Muslim and attended a madrassa as a child" rumor fly for the entire NH campaign and didn't, at first, admit to it. Then when it was irrefutably traced back to her campaign, she waited until AFTER she'd eeked out a win in NH before firing the "responsible party" who was probably just some low level fall guy.

As to what Hillary is accusing Barack of - lying about her statements regarding MLK and Bill's now infamous "fairy tale" speech - several black leaders, such as SC Congressman James Clyburn, and concerned journalists were the first to take notice of the pattern of subtle race baiting that both Clintons have been participating in for some time now. The Obama campaign is calling into question direct quotes made by their opponent - that's responsible campaigning. We should ALL be looking at the candidates' records, questioning their intent, and examining their character before we just blindly give them our vote. Apparently Hillary thinks her extremely slow reaction to the slew of lies her campaign is slinging (slow enough to make sure they have enough time to hit and resonate before retracting them after the damage is done) gives her the moral high ground in her eyes, and Obama's calling her to account for her public words makes him "negative." I'm not buying it. And hoping millions of South Carolinians won't either.