Enjoy your blog and your work and have for some time now. I just feel compelled to point out that while the term "calling a spade a spade" is fairly antiquated and no longer commonly holds this meaning for most who hear or use it, it is nonetheless historically a racial slur.

I point it out here only because I'm seeing this crop up frequently lately, used by people who I'm sure don't intend to use it that way. Since your post is, among other things, about Barack Obama, a man that in another less enlightened time would be referred to as a "spade", thought you may want to take that into account.

Link for reference:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spade

It has been clear all along that Obama is not much of a liberal/left/progressive/populist within the range of Democratic party domestic economic policy choices/staffing/adivisors. This is in contrast to his foreign policy, policy shop and general orientation which is far more progressive, forward looking and interesting.

Of course Clinton talked a more progressive/populist line, espcially from Michigan primary onwards. The problem was few believed she would hold to it once elected.

Meanwhile, Edwards was the truest economic liberal/left/progressive/populist, which is why so many inside the beltway hated him so much.

his economic "soul"

"calling a spade a spade"

Gee Mr. Clemons... race much?

I am guessing you are trying to be self-ironic/cute, but not sure this is a good idea.

And per my prior note, you see I agree with your undelying point: Obama is picking from center-right within the Democratic spectrum of economic advisors (Chicago, Brookings/Hamilton) and not from the respectable center-left of say CEPR or EPI.

Hmmmm, speakin' of Presidential candidates and their economic advisors.....

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/house_committee_report_details_abramoff.php

House Committee Details Abramoff Connections to Bush White House

By Kate Klonick - June 9, 2008, 11:47AM

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a "proposed" report this morning finding that Jack Abramoff did indeed have "personal contact with President Bush" and that Abramoff and cohorts were "held in high regard" by White House officials.

The proposed report also finds that Abramoff and his associates "influenced some White House actions" and gave White House officials "expensive tickets and meals."

The report (.pdf), technically a draft of the committee's findings, will be marked up and voted on by committee members in a meeting on Thursday.

We'll be looking through the report and bringing you updates, but in a first read through here are some findings that stuck out.

Abramoff and team gave gifts to Carlos Bonilla, at the time a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and now an economic policy advisor for John McCain:

On October 18, 2001, Kevin Ring sent an unknown number of tickets to an unknown event to Mr. Bonilla by courier. In addition, in response to an offer from Kevin Ring, Mr. Bonilla requested and was provided with two tickets to sit in the Abramoff suite for the November 20, 2001, Washington Wizards game.

The report confirms much of what was already known about the Abramoff-led effort to oust Department of Interior official Alan Stayman, Abramoff's nemesis on issues involving his client, the Mariana Islands:

One action that White House officials took at the request of Mr. Abramoff was to intervene to force the removal of a State Department official, Alan Stayman. In a previous position at the Office of Insular Affairs in the Department of the Interior, Mr. Stayman had advocated positions opposed by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then a client of Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Stayman was appointed to his position at the Department of State during the Clinton Administration.

In a recent Committee deposition, Monica Kladakis, then-Deputy Associate Director in the White House Office of Presidential Personnel (OPP), confirmed that OPP became involved in Mr. Stayman's removal after White House officials were contacted by Mr. Abramoff's team.

"to call a spade a spade"

(Phrase Origins)

is NOT an ethnic slur.

It derives from an ancient Greek expression: _ta syka syka, te:n skaphe:n de skaphe:n onomasein_ = "to call a fig a fig, a trough a
trough".

This is first recorded in Aristophanes' play _The Clouds_(423 B.C.), was used by Menander and Plutarch, and is still current
in modern Greek. There has been a slight shift in meaning: in ancient times the phrase was often used pejoratively, to denote a rude person who spoke his mind tactlessly; but it now, like the English phrase, has an exclusively positive connotation. It is possible that both the fig and the trough were originally sexual
symbols.

In the Renaissance, Erasmus confused Plutarch's "trough" (_skaphe:_) with the Greek word for "digging tool" (_skapheion_;
the two words are etymologically connected, a trough being something that is hollowed out) and rendered it in Latin as _ligo_. Thence it was translated into English in 1542 by Nicholas Udall in his translation of Erasmus's version as "to call a spade [...] a spade".

(_Bartlett's Familiar Quotations_ perpetuates Erasmus' error by mistranslating _skaphe:_ as "spade" three times under Menander.)

"To call a spade a bloody shovel" is not recorded until 1919. "Spade" in the sense of "Negro" is not recorded until 1928. (It
comes from the colour of the playing card symbol, via the phrase "black as the ace of spades".)

This, of course, does *not* necessarily render the modern use of "to call a spade a spade" "politically correct". Rosalie Maggio, in
_The Bias-Free Word-Finder_, writes: "The expression is associated with a racial slur and is to be avoided", and recommends using "to
speak plainly" or other alternatives instead. In another entry, she writes: "Although by definition and derivation 'niggardly' and
'nigger' are completely unrelated, 'niggardly' is too close for
comfort to a word with profoundly negative associations. Use
instead one of the many available alternatives: stingy, miserly,
parsimonious..." Beard and Cerf, in _The Official Politically
Correct Handbook_, p. 123, report that an administrator at the
University of California at Santa Cruz campaigned for the banning
of such phrases as "a chink in his armor" and "a nip in the air",
because "chink" and "nip" are also derogatory terms for "Chinese
person" and "Japanese person" respectively. In the late 1970s in
the U.S., a boycott of the (now defunct) Sambo's restaurant chain
was organized, even though the name "Sambo's" was a combination of
the names of its two founders and did not come from the offensive
word for dark-skinned person.

Source: [Mark Israel, 'Phrase Origins: "to call a spade a spade"', The alt.usage.english FAQ file,(line 4562), (29 Sept 1997)]

Oops, sorry. Heres the link....

http://www.yaelf.com/aueFAQ/miftocllspdspd.shtml

PissedOffAmerican - I did not say the ORIGIN was an ethnic slur. I simply stated that the term "spade" was an ethnic slur, regardless of origin or any other path by which it came to be associated with "persons of color", through ignorance or otherwise.

So thanks for the history lesson, but it is a distinction without a difference in regards to the point I was making.

"...it is nonetheless historically a racial slur."

Rajaru - shame on you! Don't try to call back words once they are writ. It does not speak well of your honesty.

Rajaru and others: Thanks for noting this. First I did not know that "spade" at one point was a racial slur, but the term "calling a spade a spade" has historic roots and usages that greatly predate the racial uses of the word 'spade.'

Some of this is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade

But I was familiar with the term from other Medieval era literature. That doesn't mean that we can fall into easy grooves. I used to say "off the reservation" until a number of callers of Amy Goodman's brought me up to speed on the inappropriateness of that term, and I changed course.

In this case, however, I will maintain my useage as I mean no racial slur whatsoever and my use is clear and not meant to offend. I don't want to forfeit such terms to the hijacking that others have done of component words.

best regards,

steve clemons

Hey, don't get huffy with me, man. I was just tryin' to shed some light on it.

My mother was a southerner, raised in some little podunk town in Tennessee. I grew up saying "eenie meenie miney moe, catch a nigger by the toe". But it was ingrained, passed on to me by the bigotry of my mother's upbringing. I never gave it a thought, or saw it as a racial slur. For a child, it was simply the words of a silly rhyme about choosing. As an adolescent, the meaning of the words began to sink in.

My point is that often we are victims of yesterday, without guilt or malice. Old sayings die hard, and their meanings get lost, misconstrued, or interpreted in an over-sensitive manner. Steve's intent, I believe, was not to insult along racial lines, so it is YOUR own hyper racial sensitivity that created the insult.

You know EXACTLY what Steve was saying, and, taken in context, Steve's "spade" is just a shovel.

Jim: "Historically" and "originally" are different words with different meanings (heck, even different spellings, to help you tell which is which).

In any case, an acquaintance of mine with which I have had this same on-going debate have decided to go with the original "to call a fig a fig" and remove the controversy from the phrase altogether.

Unfortunately this means we'll have to find something new to argue about.

PissedOffAmerican - I guess we can say you chose your moniker appropriately!

I didn't say Steve was making a racist comment. I DID know exactly what he was saying, which is why I wrote this:

"I point it out here only because I'm seeing this crop up frequently lately, used by people who I'm sure don't intend to use it that way. Since your post is, among other things, about Barack Obama, a man that in another less enlightened time would be referred to as a "spade", thought you may want to take that into account."

Steve has already responded, and while I disagree with his decision, he has addressed it and I thank him for the response.

Steve wrote:
"they would be called "free traders" for the most part..."

I'm beginning to think "fair traders" are better for all in the world's marketplace than this over-used, under-defined "free trader" BS phrase.

Can a country's government that purposely keeps their ag workers income at the bottom end be called "free traders" and if so, so what?!

Steve: LOL. This is such a tantalizingly wonderful and seductive post. Please don't ever let me get on your bad side. I share your enthusiasm for Leo Hindery who was so real, candid, and refreshing in talking about the economy when you lined up the economic advisors to Edwards, Clinton, Obama, McCain and I think Romney. Hindery got lots of press time with that meeting, and Goolsbee too was interesting in that but clearly, Hindery had more answers that seemed to work in the real world rather than the theoretical one that the University of Chicago clan are usually thinking about.

Bravo Steve. I think you are the first to think through what this appointment of Dr. Furman means. No doubt, you are helping to define the game again, as usual.

Posted by Rajaru Jun 09, 2:42PM

I think you are over reacting somewhat.
People use "sayings" all the time without using them in racist ways.
You need to view it in the context of what is actually being talked about.

And POA..I am a southerner and I thought it was "catch a monkey by the toe"? Gads, now if someone tells me monkey is a code word for blacks I really will give up.

Caroll - you're joking, right?

"PissedOffAmerican - I guess we can say you chose your moniker appropriately!"

Yeah, I like to call a spade a spade.

Last weekend I was in my local campustown and saw a teen or early twenty-something somebody wearing a t-shirt with an angry-looking pillsbury doughboy with one dough-hand clenched with the phrase "white flour" written below.

It's proximity to racism I suppose made it so.

POA

Touche'

"So, congrats to Jason Furman on his new post -- but I am scratching my head wondering which direction Obama is really going?"
--
Obama is scratching his head, wondering which way he is going as well.

And with that I forfeit "head scratching" before someone nails me for calling BO a monkey.

I would simply point out that when Bob Rubin was at Treasury, the United States enjoyed tremendous economic growth. Unemployment fell dramatically, interest rates came down significantly and working people enjoyed better financial security than they had in a generation. Middle class and working class Americans enjoyed growth in real income that they hadn't seen in years and haven't seen since. Rubin handled the Asian collapse, the Latin American collapse and the Russian collapse seamlessly. I know that Rubin isn't entitled to all the credit. Bill Clinton gets some; Tony Blair gets some, Alan Greenspan gets some and even Gordon Brown (then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK)get some.

Why does Obama want to try and bring in people who are Bob Rubin disciples. It's simple. His policies worked.

When in doubt, crib Clinton.

To the victors go the spoils, the Clinton's certainly understand this.

BTW, isn't TE wandering into banned-troll territory with his/her's latest Obama crack?

The Language Police are knocking at the door ...

Yeah, they decided Matthews and Oberman were small fry vis TE.

Chris "if you don't cry when Obama speaks you're not an American" Matthews.

Say one thing do another, George Bush is for free trade, so is Barack Obama, this is why John McCain is just like George Bush....

PS- Canada's consulate got the message, anti NAFTA talk was just campaign rhetoric on Obama's part....

Um, what about pro-NAFTA Hillary in TX and anti-NAFTA Hillary in Ohio?

Even TE is likely scratching his/her Clintonian head over that one.

No, I agree with other posters who understand all pols pander & flip-flop. I just think Obama is the King, mostly because he so rarely knows what he's talking about.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/06/obamas_happy_ca/#comments

Like with the gas tax relief fraud? The entire economic community, and Obama, saying it won't make a difference vs the economically esteemed McCain (and formerly maybe admirable Carly Fiorina) and his follower Hillary?

More like Obama voting for gas-tax holidays over and over in the Illinois Senate because he knew they had some effect and some voters would be bought. At least Hillary articulated a policy that would pay for it with a windfall profits tax, unlike McCain. Obama flip-flopped into his new position so he could say "gimmick" 100 times a day, not out of principle.

Yes, that was plan B for Hillary... oops, it's bad policy (and I can't admit that). Well, hmm... what I'll do is Also tax the oil companies ("that's a winner")!

As Krugman said:

"The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/gas-tax-follies/

What he's actually saying is that Hillary's gas tax cut still wouldn't change gas prices, neither would the "windfall" profits tax on the oil companies.

RE:Obama, yeah I guess he did fall for gas tax holidays in Illinois... but he learned (!) and didn't fall for it again in the Presidential Primaries (as Hillary did) when McCain grabbed for the hot issue.

Hillary also made a major mistake, IMO, by pretending she was backing a valid policy (rather than one that the entire economic community understood was nonsense).

Krugman also gave us "Gas tax hysterics". Sounds like you're there:
--
Hillary Clinton’s proposed gas tax holiday is not, in my view, a good idea. But the furor over what is, when all is said and done, a small and temporary policy proposal is entirely disproportionate. What’s going on?

Part of it, clearly, is the fact that many people in the media really, really want Obama to win and Clinton to lose and have seized on the gas tax as their latest proof that she is ee-ee-vil.
--
There has been no Economics Revolution since Barry was pandering in the Illinois Senate. Politicians oppose all the economists in the world because they see data that shows some short-term relief. The gas-tax dustup is a played-out political drama. Either support short-term relief or attack your opponent as a gimmick solution who won't bring real Changeâ„¢. Obama flip-flopped to try on different roles and test their political viability. He is testing the waters to see how much you believe the oceans are under his control and no one else's.

Steve: Thank you for raising such delicate questions about the campaign's choice of Furman. In 2005 Furman wrote "Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story (http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf) and spoke out at CAP in favor of Wal-Mart's low-wage, low-benefit business model because he argued that it reduces prices and creates jobs. So add this specific concern to your broad worries about the relative roles of a Leo Hindery vs. a Jason Furman. Are we to believe that the person advising Sen.Obama on economics is advocating Wal-Mart's business model? If so, it seems too far-fetched that the candidate would listen. But, as you point out, it does mean it is fair to ask more clearly where they are going and given Wal-Mart's role as incendiary spark in any economic debate, his appointment may fuel some fire.

Someone the other day, in referring to Bill Clinton's erruption about the Vanity Fair article, scumbags and the like, said that in that instance, Bill was "off the reservation". I immediately cringed at the overtones.

Same with "spade" as a derogatory term for a black person. I am always impressed that Steve has these great gaps in his upbringing that give him a believable freshness!

As to "eeny, meeny, miney, moe . . . " my exposure was the same as POA's. And I'm from NY.

It's great we've made at least this degree of progress, to be able to speak openly about our embarrrassing history.

--------

and Tahoe, with a minimum of snark, you give new meaning to "licking one's wounds".

Someone the other day, in referring to Bill Clinton's erruption about the Vanity Fair article, scumbags and the like, said that in that instance, Bill was "off the reservation". I immediately cringed at the overtones.

Same with "spade" as a derogatory term for a black person. I am always impressed that Steve has these great gaps in his upbringing that give him a believable freshness!

As to "eeny, meeny, miney, moe . . . " my exposure was the same as POA's. And I'm from NY.

It's great we've made at least this degree of progress, to be able to speak openly about our embarrrassing history.

--------

and Tahoe, with a minimum of snark, you give new meaning to "licking one's wounds".

The wounds to be licked in November pale in comparison.

Hey "Editor," do you have any quotes on that?

Krugman was a Clinton supporter at that time, of course... thus the understandable waffling after the "pointless" and "evil" references. ('It Really isn't such a Big Deal! Really.')

But here's another take, via Greg Mankiw (former Bush economic adviser, if you hope to that think this is all partisan crap):

"Yesterday I was on the NewsHour to talk about the gas tax holiday. I asked if there was another guest and the producer said, "We tried, but we couldn't find anyone to argue the other side (that the gas tax holiday made sense."

here's the Mankiw reference:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-on-gas-tax-holiday.html

All economists turn their noses up at it because they are economists and don't like short-term stimuli. Many politicians face the elitist disdain of the economists and provide the short-term stimulus. You're transferring the economists' disdain for the short-term stimulus and hearing what you want to hear, that the university set thinks Hillary is bankrupt in thought. Welcome to your echo chamber.

"Editor," if Hillary were President and a group of economists (or scientists) supported her newest policy... well, let's more forward on that!

But if NO economists (absolutely none), or scientists, supported a stupid policy (creationism for example) Hillary would be wandering into President W's unreality-land.

That's what Hillary chose to do a few weeks ago in the Primary campaign, her Image was more important than any/all available expert advice.

Posted by jason Jun 09, 4:20PM - Link

Caroll - you're joking, right?

No I am not joking, but then I wasn't raised by or around people who called black people niggers or used slurs or slang when referring to other races or groups. I am aware that the word nigger was used by white trash and KKK types back then. But as I said no one I associated with referred to blacks as niggers. I think since I have been an adult I have heard someone that I was on speaking terms with use the nigger slur once.
Needless to say that person is not in my intimate circle of friends.

leo, this is not the first time this story has been told, and it's not a new story in any way this time around. lots of lawmakers provide short-term stimulus over the ivory tower's objection. you seem to believe this is the first time this story went around the block -- it's just that barack is driving a different car this time ...

Despite his variance with Hindery and what that signals about Obama's policy direction, you have to appreciate the pithiness of Furman's money quote today ... “when it comes to tax policy, I think that’s unfair to President Bush. John McCain’s tax policy is far more radical.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/09/1125516.aspx

As a Coolidge Republican, one of the things I have liked about Obama (and prefer to McCain) is that he's basically center-right on economics, strongly committed to a market economy but with tweaks to help those hurt most by globalisation (in my view appropriate, given the distortions of the Greenspan/Bernanke monetary policy and the Clinton/Bush years). His cap-and-trade program is more market oriented than McCain's (because the government auctions vouchers, it doesn't give them away).

If combined with a sound Volckerian monetary policy (and I'm delighted Volcker is an Obama fan) it would do a good job, with Obama's extra social spending being largely paid for by no longer messing around in the Middle East.

I agree with most of Dean Baker's critiques of the current arrangements, but a grown-up monetary policy with a Fed Funds rate of 8-10% for a few years would curer a lot of problems.

On catching things by toes -- one catches a tiger -- alliteration is a literary technique that improves all child rhymes.... And out of respect for readers who feel violated by seeing th "N-word" written out, please use the awkward written construct "N-word". Little things like this make the world feel unbelievably oppressive for many. Why make people cringe?

On Obama's economics, I think if you spend 15 minutes at the U of C, you end up breathing in respect for markets. If you spend 15 minutes outside of the campus, but in and around Hyde Park, and more especially, south of the Midway and north of 47th street and west of, say, King Drive, you develop respect for the profound need for government intervention in markets and you really come to understand the phrase "market failure." Obama has done both and my personal guess is that he has absorbed both the idea of personal choice and market efficiency, AND the idea of justice and equity in matters distributive.

Interesting that the word nigger, used as it has been on this thread, (as an example of the lingering vestiges of ignorance and bigotry that many of us grew up enveloped in), gets such moral indignation. Yet, some yahoo like MarkL can accuse someone of "virulent anti-semitism", with no supporting evidence, and nary a peep. Or TE can call one of our regular female contributors an "ignorant slut", and such blatant gender bigotry goes generally un-chastised.

Questions...I don't know about you, but most of the proverbial tigers I've caught, have been "by the tail", not by the toe.

POA, I quote SNL and you bandy about "Hitler". Are you really one to talk?

You might enjoy this piece -- a throwback to the days when "all Americans were afforded justice," etc.

When I Was a Boy, America Was a Better Place
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/when_i_was_a_boy_america_was_a.html

Back to the gas tax:

Joe S on Morning Joe:

"I can tell you this, Mika. You, and probably Willie and me, we want something long term. I agree with you. I would like to see the CAFE standards go up to $40 per gallon. I would like to see a massive, aggressive, almost radical overhaul of our energy policy in the United States of America [all part of Clinton's comprehensive energy strategy], BUT if I were the father of three, in Ohio, and I had to commute 30 miles to work and 30 miles back from work, I really wouldn't give a damn about what happened five or ten years from now, I'd want a gas-tax holiday right now. … This gas-tax holiday is far more immediate, but it helps working class people keep more money in their pockets. That's the reality of it. You have people who are drowning economically. They really aren't looking at the five-year forecast. They want to know, how do they pay their mortgage this month."

So Tahoe Editor... you sound so disdainful of Obama, are you one of those Hillary supporters who is voting for McCain?

On catching things by the toe, I think it has more to do with age than geography. I grew up in New England and we said "catch a nigger by the toe". Then, when I was raising my children, we said "catch a monkey by the toe", for obvious reasons.

Speaking as a Sicilian-American, what Steve calls "unAmerican", we are often referred to in derrogatory terms like "WOP", and regularly asked if we're criminals, as if all Sicilians, or for that matter Italians, are criminals. it's a sweeping stereoptype that Hollywood keeps alive and well. If there is anything that all Sicilians are, it's allergic to bullshit, braggadoccio and obseqiuos sycophants.

"catch a . . . catch a . . ." the neurons are beginning to fire better. As a child I remember hearing two versions, including the one "catch a tiger by the toe", and at some point I remember recognizing the dissonace and discomfort with those who used the "n-word". But it wasn't a simple thing. Going to a church summer camp for "underpriviledged children from Harlem" . . . my minister made it available to me and my brother . . . why I don't know. Maybe others in the congregation had the same opportunity but never took advantage of it. Maybe my mother, in her conflicted spiritual/social identity, thought it would be a good thing. Anyway, it was no big deal for me, as it is no big deal for most kids to be in an interracial environment unless their minds have already been poisoned by their elders. Race relations were never spoken about in my circles and de facto segregated environment, yet clearly there was a foment going on in the 50's that burst forth in the 60's.

POA,

I've actually been composing in my head for days a response to the "virulent anti-semitism" line. Without being overly long about it, here goes a less than perfect version (I'm more eloquent in the middle of the night when the computer has already been shut off!)...

The way that many kids grow up playing "cops and robbers" or the like, I grew up playing "Ann Frank". (Kind of weird, but what can I say!) Having a safe place to hide from the Nazis (in the 1970s, mind you!)seemed crucial, as did putting change in the blue and white collection box every week at services to send to Israel. And there was the annual sending of money for trees to be planted in memoriam to my grandmother who died before I was born (stroke, not Nazis....) Israel, then, plays this very intense role in my imagination as a place of promise, refuge, identity, memory, family, and as a repository for the three or four Hebrew words I still remember. BUT, this is the imagination of a child, not the understanding of an adult who sees what the Palestinian people have been through. (Presumably they have fantasies similar to mine about safety, homes and olive orchards....)

What I think MAYBE happens to some number of American Jewish people (I want to avoid generalizing) is that the fantasy of Israel overtakes the political reality of displacement and cruelty that mark the very real state. Zionists who have lost sight of the real state end up taking the fantasy as central to their psyches. Israel has large numbers of leftists who would like to atone, amend, make space (I saw 60% as a relevant number recently). The U.S. has large numbers of people who fantasize. Somehow American Jewish people really need to rethink what they advocate when they are overly Zionist. And perhaps they should think about their desire for "authenticity" -- being more Jewish as Americans than the Israelis are.

Re antisemitism, then, the easy notion is that anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism. But I think it goes deeper in the psyches of, again, U.S. Jewish people. Anti-semitism comes to encompass any slight suggestion that there are going to be some changes 'round here (to paraphrase some older song running through my head). This endless oversensitivity comes from being distant from actual anti-semitism and not quite knowing what it looks like anymore. Criticizing the zealous, dangerous and uncompromising religiosity of the settlers becomes anti-semitism. Criticizing the wall that is built through people's yards, houses, and olive orchards becomes anti-semitism. Suggesting that Palestinians have rights becomes anti-semitism. Wondering if bulldozing family homes is a rational response to ANYthing whatsoever becomes anti-semitism. Refusing to understand that were you, too, a Palestinian, you'd likely be hurling rocks and rockets. All of the identification is based on a false notion of the real state.

If I were to recommend anything for those who can't countenance criticism of the state of Israel, I'd recommend reading some accounts of the border crossings, the refugee camps, and domestic Israeli politics. I'd also recommend that people spend some time thinking about all of their political fantasies. Are they reasonable? Are you wishing for what is really just, or being self-serving? Is there a drop of reality in your daydreams?

And were I to recommend anything to the best critics of Israeli politics, I'd recommend realizing that you hold someone's fantasy in your hand and it's a place to tread carefully regardless of how utterly correct you are and how incorrect the other is.

And on to toes-- "Eeny meeny miney moe, catch a tiger by the toe, if he hollers let him go, eeny meeny miney moe" -- "toe" preserves the rhyme and the alliteration! So what I'm saying is that my oral culture is more authentic than yours! (insert smile emoticon here!)

Oh good, TE.

That means I can just tell you to "fuck off", and then justify it by saying I'm just doing a parody of Cheney, right?

Ha ha, all in good fun.

Hitler is your kind of fun.

/godwin

questions... thank you so much for your comments....and your very human insights to both sides. There is hope as long as we can see the other's point of view.

Hillary's plan, the windfall profits tax would in effect initiate price ceilings that would cap inflation's result from oil interests gaming the market.

At the same time it would keep revenue at or above current levels by expanding discretionary spending in other sectors, instead of one gas tax, it would be sales tax from generated demand, across several business exchanges, coming back to government and business instead of one sector.

That way the money serves as impetus for continued business, instead of a one stop item.

A reciprocal effect, with similar or increased return, and for half cent gas drops we put a billion in the economy daily during the 90's.

However, this yield was in proportion to the overall oil price which has since more than tripled tripled.

The CS Monitor claims for every cent difference in oil three billion is lost to other economic sectors. That's just when gas was trading in the 50$ a barrel range of 2004, mind you.

So if you double that we're talking about six billion plus a day saved for every cent oil drops per barrel on today's market price.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1008/p01s03-usec.html
In another CS Monitor story this net result was stated:
"Every $10 added to a barrel of oil is estimated to knock "at least half of 1 percent ... equivalent to $255 billion" off world GDP, according to analysis in May by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0827/p06s02-wogi.html

And to think oil went up over double the price it was listed in the CS stories, we've lost five per cent of the world GDP between now and then, when CS was pushing low growth expectations in America due to the fundamentals of fuel pricing.
Chinah, OTOH, increases its demand for fuel by third each month.

That's a wet dream for CheneyCo. Cheap slave labor in communist China, and the money saved goes to expensive oil.

On average Americans use 500 gallons a year(quite conservative IMO). More since the scale back of emissions/mileage standards under AWOL and Boss Cheney. Anyways, that's 92.50 times 288 million plus, on the '96 numbers.

CERA has a report that claims oil and gas prices remained stable as a percentage of what Americans use to purchase, this in 2006, with fuzzy math based upon on a weaker dollar, and in comparison to, of all things, health care.

So because we're spending more than ever for health care(thanks a First the Confederate Father), with a weaker than ever dollar on gas over three hundred percent increased, it's really like we're spending about the same!(60717-19)

Americans just getting by!
http://www2.cera.com/gasoline/press/
Oh, relative to 2005 prices in the CERA report, the cheapest gas in all of the decades of its availability was during Bill Clinton's term.(60717-3 , Cambridge Energy Research, API, Us Dep't of Energy)

One of the CERA benefits listed for Oil and Gas prices comparative to the developed world elsewhere is cheaper oil & gas tax!
(60717-9, Average Nominal US prices, third quarter data, 2006 averages)
Certainly they were pandering!

Get this, the only developed nation with comparable taxation levels as a percentage of fuel price, is China(both our countries edge out Mexico). That's right, China's boom is fueled by gas cheaper than ours in terms of US dollar expenses. We're paying to fuel our jobs going elsehwere.

Meanwhile, Hillary's plan is putting purchase money back into a consumer's hands, just over two buck per gasup. Sounds like someone paid for breakfast commute, soda break at work, etc.

Only this is creating more revenue by increasing sales tax revenue. This transaction reciprocates as well, instead of a one time deal with the gas tax. The additional demand drive emphasis for increased revenue by other means.

So a third of the gas tax is recovered immediately when the saved money is spent, not counting state and local revenue(cost plus benefit). That sales tax is from business made available, and it in turn creates more business in other sectors where money was spent, retail or service. So two purchases made there we've already restored two thirds of the base rate of the initial gas tax, no counting state and local revenue as extras.

Meanhwile the windfall profits puts a cap on the interests looking to manipulate the market to consumer disadvantage.

On average we're talking the 11.5 range and above on sales totals, there's about two thirds of the gas tax back on one purchase, only it's actually creating about 2.5 purchases, so we're coming out ahead, and at 18.5 cents off the double in price from the numbers shown in the CS article, we are putting $55.5 billion back to the economy in '96 numbers(stronger dollar then, so double that rate) or $111 billion back into the economy today off the 55.5 total at the going oil rate(more than double their 53 mark) or well beyond that with the value added comparison.

$111 billion times 11.5 sale tax combined, 12.76 rate times two and a half(increased demand) to reflect the number of sales on average resulting from the savings.

It's more than 18.5%, though it would reflect some diminished scale in terms of retail, it's most likely to be revenue neutral at worst but that would be a way of disregarding the actual nature of markets. Rarely does this money not find ways of being spent, this isn't a billionaire tax cut we're talking about, it's discretionary and also needs item spending non discretionary spending.

Back to the impact of oil going to the price it is, the world is being robbed of five per cent GDP plus due to oil prices, that's halfway to a depression of ten per cent GDP loss off today's $137/barrel close.

We're 'near recession' like Bush is nearing a legacy of worth.

Beware the Chicago boys

Barack Obama waited just three days after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the race to declare, on CNBC: "Look. I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market." Demonstrating that this is no mere spring fling, he has appointed the 37-year-old Jason Furman, one of Wal-Mart's most prominent defenders, to head his economic team. On the campaign trail, Obama blasted Clinton for sitting on the Wal-Mart board and pledged: "I won't shop there." For Furman, however, Wal-Mart's critics are the real threat: the "efforts to get Wal-Mart to raise its wages and benefits" are creating "collateral damage" that is "way too enormous and damaging to working people and the economy ... for me to sit by idly and sing Kum Ba Ya in the interests of progressive harmony".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/barackobama.uselections2008