U.$. elections: Tangent alert

September 3 2008

The selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate has raised some good potential tangents of discussion. Although Bush Jr. had some demographically diverse appointments at the top of his administration, this is the first time the campaign for president itself has had to parse racism and sexism questions as applied to individuals at the very top. MIM does not agree with trying to boil down social questions to individual careers, but nonetheless, some of the general questions arising are provocative. We concur with Cindy McCain's complaints about what the media asks Palin versus what it would ask men.(1)

We also agree with Democrat Susan Estrich(2) that the questions asked of Sarah Palin of late are unfair. Barack Obama is also not number one in being responsible for his children, but Sarah Palin is being roasted for her 17-year-old daughter and brother-in-law. Estrich points out that Barack Obama just does not have as much responsibility for his children as his wife does.

With five children, obviously a Vice-President Palin would have to make some adjustments away from the traditional nuclear family structure. Her husband or someone else in the family can play a greater role with the kids.

We reason the same way in connection to gender issues generally. We do not need opportunist flexibility, but the flexibility of the kind that solves problems. Even childless families can make contributions to child-raising. Whether we know it or not, childless families do make contributions to raising children.

Republicans should be so flexible in handling the gay marriage question as well. Those who are afraid there will be no unit for raising children should seek society-wide adjustments, not punish gay and lesbian couples.

Another good tangent arose, because Sarah Palin's husband has Eskimo ancestry. The Alaska Independence Party has endorsed the Lakota Nation's call for indigenous sovereignty.

Russell Means says that the struggle for Lakota Nation liberation in the mid-section of what the united $tates considers its territory is a non-violent struggle. We say that is fine.

The Wikipedia has done an excellent job on the topic of Lakota Nation sovereignty for those who wish to start the topic.(3)

Some of our critics say the Lakota Nation struggle is no good because a metaphysical entity called "the people" opposes it. If we count Euro-Amerikans as "people," then that is true. Historically, it is wrong to count them as "people" and that is no where more apparent than with indigenous issues.

The typical Euro-Amerikan labor aristocracy politicians and parties will call the Lakota Nation struggle a "secession struggle." However, the problem is that the Lakota Nation was there before the Euro-Amerikan population settled in the united $tates. One cannot say the Lakota Nation seceded from the united $tates. It would be possible for the indigenous people to ask the Amerikkkans to secede from the indigenous peoples. If the indigenous nations assigned the white population a territory, the whites could prove that they are worthy of being called "people" by seceding.

There is no doubt that the Lakota Nation struggle is controversial. Many with indigenous "blood" background will not agree with it. Yet, when we evaluate vanguard parties, we should look at whether they are able to lead from a minority position or not. The question is not whether there is currently support for the Lakota Nation struggle but whether Lakota liberation is necessary and efficient. No alleged "people's struggle" has support at this time with a U.$. majority, so to decide the question, we should look deeper to what is more likely to move the world's majority in the future. We say that the white so-called worker has to prove that he belongs to the "people" and thus far the white so-called worker has failed and belongs in the enemy category.

Those who say that there is a progressive white worker vehicle for change in the united $tates will logically conclude that the indigenous struggle should stay inside the united $tates and push for integration. Those who say that the future belongs to a stream of national liberation struggles against the united $tates will say that the Lakota Nation should look not at its white so-called worker neighbors for hope, but outside U.$. borders. The Lakota Nation is outnumbered by Bubbas in the united $tates, but it is not outnumbered globally. For us at MIM, the answer to this question is obvious because the underlying pattern of economic exploitation is severe in the Third World and non-existent in the First World.

Martin Luther King was for integration, but his non-violent, anti-war approach to whites is helpful to the Lakota people. Mao turned out right on making the focus the anti-war struggle in the imperialist oppressor nations. Mao was for communism, but for the foreseeable future, he saw long legal struggles like King's as exemplary.

Finally we would like to read a Chinese fortune to the Democrats: "those who apologize can be forgiven." Those who do not want to apologize take chances. Lately some Democrats intentionally try to raise a ruckus with us; yet, we are independent of both parties and cannot be taken over. We are under more pressure than ever to kow-tow one way or another.

Democrats are the party of affluenza that leads the relativist charge. In contrast, MIM has the proletarian outlook suitable for straight shooters. If Democrats apologize to us in the real world in plain English for real problems, we notice and we report that here in a general way--that there is obnoxiousness and there is particular obnoxiousness. When Democrats want to annoy us to see what we will do, we report that too. We have no particular interest in either Republicans or Democrats, but at various times the parties have their individual reasons for being more oppressive. We hope to hear from the Democrats in a couple days.

Notes:
1. http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/Conventions/story?id=5718292&page=1
2. "Sarah Palin and the Double Standard," http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,416102,00.html
3. www.wikipedia.org