When the Bread is Breakin' You

We're sure you've noticed the price of milk, meat, bread, and other staples shooting up over the last several months. For those who think that it begins and ends there, we urge you to think again. Don't take our word for it. Check out one New York Times article on the effects of skyrocketing food prices across the globe (complete with the traditional images of poor, darker skinned people). For a more in-depth assessment, check out Democracy Now! coverage. The bottom line is that while working and middle class people are strugglin' at the grocery store (and the gas pump), as usual, the issue has much dire consequences for the poorer people and countries of the world. Why bring this up? Riots are breaking out over rice, corn, and water. Hunger is driving new levels of violence and crime stemming from desperation and NGO's lessening ability to help those who they could normally feed (which already wasn't enough). Onyx Cranium believes that despite being front page news, the issue is receiving a somewhat muted reaction because the U.S. is so acclimated to seeing images of destitute and starving people, particularly those of color. We are so used to changing the channel when a Feed the Children ad or one of a similar nature flashes close-ups of big eyed babies with swollen bellies. Here's the difference. This ain't no commercial folks and it's bigger than making a single donation. Those who control the price of food (like those who control fuel prices and international trade regulations) are all in this. Global warming and related natural disasters, such as drought in one area and hurricanes in others, is also playing its part. Which means that ultimately, for those of us driving to work, shopping at Wal-Mart, Albertson's or even Trader Joe's, and watching as the price of gasoline shoot past $4.00 a gallon, have put in on this crisis as well. Our names, anonymous though they be, are all over this one.

Issues/Smishues: ABC's "Democratic Debate"

Last night's monitored exchange (we like that term better than debate) between Junior Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was billed as a debate.  Interestingly enough Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous were also billed as "moderators" with the whole televised argument being chronicled as a "tense debate."  For those of us who were waiting to actually have the two candidates thoroughly address vital policy issues, we had to wait until after Obama's much publicized comments and associations were brought up so that the so called moderators could look "tough" and Clinton could take advantage of him getting the kind of rough treatment she complained of receiving a couple of months ago.  That was nearly an hour of our lives that we'll never get back.

Long sigh.  Prayer for commercial break.  Long sigh again.

Eventually, the conversation (if you want to call it that) sauntered over to the topics of taxes, the economy, Iraq, Iran and Israel.  But this was really just a series of cursory comments that treated these issues as highlights rather than fundamental to America's future.  Clearly the candidates took the questions seriously, but the "debate" was ultimately about politics - not the policy issues that drive them.  We wanted someone to talk about why raising taxes on ANYONE is absolutely necessary to America's financial future - unless we want the entire budget going to Social Security, Medicare and interest on the National Debt by 2050.  We woke ourselves up to hear about what a troop withdrawal would mean in terms of initial damage and the candidates' initial thoughts on how an admitted defeat in Iraq would really affect the U.S.  Yeah, no luck on that either.  We also roused ourselves to see if there would be insertion about the federal government's renewed corporate welfare within and beyond the housing market and what role this will play in the recessed economy.  But apparently that wasn't as important as flagged lapel pins, truthful comments about bitter Americans, and the most blatantly naked appeals to superdelegates we've seen in a while.

The campaigns of both candidates, along with other sources that get away with labeling themselves "journalistic news outlets", admit that the focus has turned to white, blue-collar voters and who they are most likely to cast their ballots for once it's time to go the polls.  Onyx Cranium finds it interesting that after all this hoopla over racial diversity, gender empowerment and low key revolution, we're back to worrying about the same group of people. It may sound cynical, but we've become exhausted from NOT being surprised.

Really Though: A Case of Smoke Without Fire

Photo: Charles Dharapak

Unlike many other black operated blogs and websites, Onyx Cranium has no confusion about why Hillary Clinton has remained in the race for the Democratic primary election. No person would spend her entire career building toward being the first female leader of the world's (current) preeminent superpower, only to drop out when given a somewhat unexpected challenge from a brother most people didn't know existed until 2004. So despite her missteps and believing Obama "has her" on certain key issues, we haven't been advocating that Hillary narrow the choices for president by leaving until she has to.

Then we read about her sudden insistence that the United States boycott the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, China. And finally, we have to say, "What the hell?" Here's a short list of why her stance (if you want to call it that) is suspect, wasteful and distracting.

1) China's human rights abuses, the reported reasoning behind the suggested boycott, is well-known. Just because mainstream news has decided to focus on Tibet, labor issues and other instances of China's heavy handed rule doesn't mean it's anything "new." Sure the stakes have been raised by China through increased arrests, intimidation and violence against protesters and...uh-oh, this is starting to remind us of someone else. All that to say, if this protest was genuine, it shoulda come earlier.

2) Boycotting the opening ceremonies would be a more powerful statement if we were to say, also boycott the games. Though honorable, this is never a popular option no matter what the political climate. Why? Well, duh - the athletes. It's one thing not to walk into the Olympic Stadium, it's something altogether different to forgo competing in a sport you've trained in for life and not getting another shot to do so for another four years (assuming you make it through the next set of Olympic trials). We won't even get into endorsements. So, Senator Clinton opts to "split the difference." We don't doubt that she feels the pain of athletes anxious to compete, however this is a political tactic. It's a surefire way to alienate voters especially those who are like the majority of the American public, meaning rather ignorant (by choice or chance) of the United States' complex relationship with and dependence on China. We won't fault a politician for being political - that would be stupid. But supporting participation in the games and not the opening ceremony feels...shallow.

3) She knows it won't happen, so she won't have to deal with any fallout should the U.S. opt out of the opening ceremonies. Bush simply ain't havin' it. He likes to wrangle with China behind closed doors and so does President Cheney. Such a public and in-your-face demonstration would make China lose face. Though it's often touted, such a display could have economic consequences that our current economy (what with the "recession" and all) couldn't handle. Senator Clinton, no matter what others may say, is undeniably smart. And she knows this.

Bloggers and columnists suspect she's taking the spotlight off another high level campaign staff change and comparatively lower fund raising against her opponent. Sure she is, but so what. That's how the game of politics works. Our stance is that there are several more worthy ways for her to do so. Staff changes and raising several million dollars instead of several million more dollars are snoozers to us anyway. We'd rather Senator Clinton use the scrutinizing focus on her to steer us toward more important issues and problems that affect the entire U.S. population rather than just her campaign. We'll even take this time as an opportunity to focus on whatever her plan is to reduce our dependence on China and other countries for servicing our $9 trillion debt. Why? Because it directly impacts Medicare, Social Security, Defense and other "budget busters" our generation must grapple with. But opting out of the opening ceremonies as a gesture or symbolic statement? Nuh-uh.

News That Isn't News at All

And coming in with today's top honors for the category of No Shit/Not Really News, England showed off its ability to waste the money and man hours of its own judicial system on another investigation into the circumstances of Princess Diana's death, which occurred over a decade ago. Various "reputable" (read: corporate owned) news outlets are reporting that a jury ruled her death as [unfortunate] but accidental and NOT the result of a conspiracy for murder. We won't trivialize the trifling manner of her death which was the result of overzealous (and we suspect overpaid) paparazzi and an inebriated (and we suspect panicked) driver. Chalk this one up to needless obsession about a tragedy that's only been made more tragic by the spectacle driven spotlight shined on it.

Supreme Court FINALLY Rules Against Dubbya - Good News Right?

Ahhhh. American politics. Proving that once again, nothing can just be as it seems, the Supreme Court issued a major ruling against G.W. Bush yesterday while also managing to piss off those who can't stand him. According to the Los Angeles Times in a 6-3 decision, the court said President Bush's urging to re-open the case of Mexican foreign nationals serving time on death row was oversteppin' his bounds. The judicial arm of U.S. government noted that the President, including our current one, doesn't have "unilateral authority" when it comes to forcing states (in this case Texas) to comply with international treaties. But before you throw up your hands in celebration of these people FINALLY not giving Bush what he wants, note that it's ticking off those who say that the court is allowing the U.S. to be excused from honoring international treaties and laws (sort of like how approved torture ignores and belittles the Geneva Convention). But wait...there's more. If the court did give the "liberals" what they wanted in this ruling, then the cases of several Mexican citizens would be reopened. Here's the catcher, these nationals were charged and convicted of murder - hence their current location on death row. So who do you route for in this one? The neo conservative court, George W. Bush (gasp), Mexican murderers or....Man, these are the crappiest options we've seen in one story in a long time.

Yet Another "Smoking Gun" in Academic Corruption

We're tired of this shit. The "quick and dirty" on a New York Times article published today details how once again, critical research in the field of health is compromised by corporate funding. We're not saying that corporations shouldn't spend their big, tax-deductible dollars underwriting research meant to benefit the masses of society that they often utilize for profit. Still, isn't there something amiss with a cigarette conglomerate funding an organization or panel that is researching lung cancer?! While the article delves deeper than we will here, the bottom line is that a headlining researcher's conclusion that lung cancer can be more readily prevented through certain types of X-ray screening has been called into question.

1) Several other prominent people in the research field always questioned her findings since the same screening can lead to unnecessary surgery or procedures. 2) Turns out her research was funded by a foundation that was almost entirely funded itself by Ligget, a major cigarette maker. 3) The researcher in question stands to make a hefty profit as she already began gathering patents on certain types of machinery that would be used in these "preventative screenings." At the root of it all is the obvious point that when an industry funds research about itself or anything related to its product, (objective) research shows that the end result is compromised. Because this happens again and again in academia where most people don't venture, understand or have in any interest in, few recognize how it has anything to do with them. Everyone's too tired, distracted and entertained to connect the dots. All we know is that if certain "screenings" become part of the packaged deal with our healthcare and we have to cover it with a copay, we'd feel it then. Are we talking your language now mainstream America?

We KNEW IT! Here's a tip - keep ya money in ya pocket!

According to the Los Angeles Times, coffee giant, Starbucks has been ordered to pay back its baristas (coffee makers/cashiers) a truckload of tip money that was forcefully split with shift supervisors. In other words, when you dropped money in the tip jar, a good deal of it was going to managers and people who didn't serve customers rather than the baristas themselves. Time will tell if this ruling actually results in action, as (of course) Starbucks is appealing the San Diego court's decision. Unlike waiters in traditional restaurants who make less than minimum wage without tips, Starbucks baristas are paid above minimum wage in addition to their tips. Onyx Cranium isn't saying you shouldn't drop your change in the tip jar. But we don't. Sorry, you don't get our 35 cents simply because you handed out the amount that cash register told you to. This realization that the tips often don't end up in the pockets of the lowest paid employees that they were intended for just confirms our decision to save the tips for service that is above and beyond the basics.