I'm so full of different emotions that it's hard to bring all of my thoughts together. We are so fortunate to be able to witness this history. As cliche and contrived as it may sound, I finally feel like this government truly represents its people. While no single person can erase the transgressions of the past, or right all the injustices done, a single unanimous act can start the hard work of repairing the schisms in our society. A single unanimous act can legitimize the struggle that so many have taken for granted, or regarded cynically as "the past." A single unanimous act can awaken people to the power we Americans can wield if we truly focus on the greater good. I personally now feel like I truly have a stake in our nation. It's weird because I know I have always been politically aware and studious and involved. But now, instantly, I feel different. it's hard to put into words, but I know you know what I mean.
E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. That was the un-official motto of the United States of America adopted back in 1782. Think of what that means now with Obama as the president-elect. To me, it indicates how America is moving toward a reality as great as it's promise. The electorate chose with a decisive and clear conviction this man to be our new leader and representative to the rest of the world. Out of all of the candidates, agendas, philosophies, and perspectives offered, a clear majority of diverse Americans converged on the selection of this one person whom we believe will be the best America has to offer to lead our country. Because of E Pluribus Unum, I see this as THE single unanimous act. A significant number of people voted for the other candidate, but in our democracy the majority rules. The majority in America has always sought the promise. Obama embodies the promise. That promise, simply stated, is that if you work hard, do right by people, and have faith in a cause greater than your own interests, you can achieve your destiny. I choose the word "destiny" instead of the cliche "dreams" because I believe anyone who abides by these simple tenets is destined for success. Our Father has determined what that destiny is for each of us. Obama's is apparently 44.
No doubt, he is anointed by our creator. But, being blessed and highly favored comes at a tremendous cost. We know that it's the good people who get tempted and besieged the most by evil because they have acquired the inertia and leverage to do the most good. But I'm so inspired by Obama because his life has been one of modesty, temperance, and hard work. He has intimately experienced the painful realities of abandonment, bigotry, identity crisis, poverty, and failure. He also has been rewarded by diligence, discipline, scholastic achievement, and true service to others. His life has not been one of privilege and entitlement, but it has been one of honesty and measured success based on hard work. I think that's why he has connected so personally with so many people. He is the closest embodiment to the average person's experience. He's just a man. But he's been able to tap into his natural gifts in a way that can benefit so many other people.
I think that's why 250,000 people flooded Grant Park last night. That's why people reveled outside the front gates of the White House. That's why citizens of foreign nations celebrated his victory, as if he somehow was also going to be their leader. It's because somehow, in a very intuitive way, people know where his heart is.
We are so fortunate to be able to have seen this day with our own eyes. There are so many loved ones of mine whom I wish could have still been here so that I could selfishly feed off of the tremendous pride and satisfaction that I know they would have in this moment. This moment instantly qualifies for the short list of "where were you when" moments of world history. This moment is also so pivotal to young inner-city and disadvantaged youth across America who have had nothing to aspire to except being the best of the worst. We've got to cultivate it.
Now, the real work begins for Obama. He needs prayer and protection like never before. His beautiful family needs prayer and protection like never before. He is just a man, but he's been called to do great things.
As I look over the past posts on this blog, and go through my volumes of notes (mental, written, bookmarked, and otherwise), I'm stricken by how insignificant and trivial they all seem now. As I think about all the slanders and mud slung, and it all seems so meaningless. It was all squelched by Obama's OVERWHELMING margin of victory last night, and the hundreds of thousands of supporters who have unashamedly demonstrated their trust and belief in his leadership throughout his candidacy.
I'm looking forward to the renewed feelings of being proud of America, of feeling like I'm part of the collective, and the feeling that there is true opportunity for a "we" approach in the national discourse instead of the familiar emptiness of "us and them". Just one man's opinion.
Peace,
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
It Will Get Much, Much Worse. Guaranteed.
These should be required viewing for every American. These videos should be broadcast by every major network news program during their highest rated shows.
The videos prove exactly what we've known all along, and why the race is as close as it is. They prove that Black folks as a monolith have some basis of justification for the resentment and distrust of the White majority. They prove how easy it is to kindle up the absolute worst in people with bold lies and distortions of the truth. But ultimately, these videos prove just how far the nation hasn't come in the 7 years since 9/11, let alone the last 44 years since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
Why do I think this is a Black/White issue? Listen to the code words spoken by the interviewees. The scariest part is most of these people look like my neighbors, past co-workers, people I'd run into on any ordinary day - not just some obscure, backwoods townsfolk from rural America.
Unless McCain himself takes the reigns on this to stop the anti-American slander/propaganda, and genuinely castigates this wide fringe of his supporters, they will interpret his silence as his condonation. This insanity won't end safely. If it's allowed to continue much longer, some idiot is going to try to make a name for himself under the guise of patriotism.
Please share these videos with everyone you know - so that we can snatch the covers off of this corrosive part of our society.
Peace.
The videos prove exactly what we've known all along, and why the race is as close as it is. They prove that Black folks as a monolith have some basis of justification for the resentment and distrust of the White majority. They prove how easy it is to kindle up the absolute worst in people with bold lies and distortions of the truth. But ultimately, these videos prove just how far the nation hasn't come in the 7 years since 9/11, let alone the last 44 years since Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.
Why do I think this is a Black/White issue? Listen to the code words spoken by the interviewees. The scariest part is most of these people look like my neighbors, past co-workers, people I'd run into on any ordinary day - not just some obscure, backwoods townsfolk from rural America.
Unless McCain himself takes the reigns on this to stop the anti-American slander/propaganda, and genuinely castigates this wide fringe of his supporters, they will interpret his silence as his condonation. This insanity won't end safely. If it's allowed to continue much longer, some idiot is going to try to make a name for himself under the guise of patriotism.
Please share these videos with everyone you know - so that we can snatch the covers off of this corrosive part of our society.
Peace.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
McCain - The Newest Trick (WTF) ?!?!?!?!
I know everyone has either seen or heard the debate/town hall from last night. Obviously, Obama handily won this debate on multiple levels - coherency, style, presence, and issues. Senator McCain.....not so much.
Just a few observations:
(1) McCain never said the phrase "middle class" during the entire debate. Should it matter? I don't know, but it seems like he just can't bear to bring himself to address the widest swath of the American electorate - just like he appeared unable or un-willing to look BHO in the eye during the first debate (and for most of the town hall).
(2) McCain's body language seems frustrated - like the "know-it-all" geezer who becomes indignant when he thinks someone less qualified is questioning his authority. I've noticed on too many occasions (more than I can count) - that McCain says "I know how to....(fill in the blank with 'win this war', 'catch bin Laden', 'fix this economy', etc.)" But, he never says exactly how he'll do it.
(3) Hidden racism - - not the "THAT ONE!" comment. That was just flat-out disrespect. I'm talking about McCain's dismissive assumption that the young Black man who asked about the direct impact of the rescue package on his individual situation - probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac prior to this crisis.
(4) I think BHO blew the answer on a so-called "Obama Doctrine" for committing forces to humanitarian efforts (Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, Congo, etc). Granted, it was a curve-ball, but BHO had a weak answer. McCain was much more definitive and pragmatic with his answer - saying that the US should determine its involvement based on its ability to beneficially affect the situation.
But the whopper of the night was McCain's supposed genius idea that he thought up all by himself - the $300Billion taxpayer buy-out of all "bad home loans". His rationale is by doing so he will help house values stabilize and ultimately preserve the American dream. WTF?!?!?!?!? The conservative base just had a stroke! If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is!
A few things about this original idea -
(1) - it was already a provision in the $840 Billion package (included under a section that gives discretion to the courts to intervene on "bad loans "under certain specific conditions).
(2) - McCain's plan calls for the re-purchase of these "bad loans" at the value that they were issued, then re-negotiate them at the current market value. That means the banks stay whole, and the taxpayer/homeowner pays twice!
(3) - this $300B plan is in addition to the $840 Billion already pledged. How does this fit into his "across the board spending freeze" and position that government is too big?
(4) who qualifies? Just about everybody I know has seen their home value fall.
But - even though it's another wild attempt at a game-changer, McCain has hit upon something that will resonate with the un-educated voter. The plan sounds like "McCain will fix my mortgage and save me from foreclosure!" A desperate American at risk of being homeless might pull the lever for McCain solely on this empty promise. Not good for Obama, not good for America.
I found a great plan that would position Obama as a economic champion - in much the same way that FDR provided sound leadership out of the Great Depression. Check it out here.
It's really worth the read because my summary can't do it justice. But the points are simply:
(1) A 2009 tax credit of $10K to homebuyers for had the FICO score and verifiable income, but still got sub-prime loans because of unscrupulous lending practices.
(2) Convert the loans for these qualified people to a fixed 5.5% 30 year mortgage backed by the US govt.
(3) A 2009 & 2010 tax credit of $3000 each year to people who purchase a primary residence in those years (to encourage people to start buying again)
(4) Offer banks incentives to convert delinquent ARM loans to fixed rate loans and provide a 3 month grace period for borrowers to get back on sound fiscal footing so they can begin to make regular payments.
(5) A US Treasury bond purchase program for 401K participants to help finance this housing stimulus package.
(6) extended unemployment benefits, and a re-hire incentive program for companies who had to lay off workers because of the economic crisis.
(7) A one-time tax write-off for Americans over 55yrs old who lost at least 20% of the value of their retirement or 401K in 2008. They could write off 50% of the loss up to $50K
-----------------------
Oh yeah, in today's AP wire:
"WASHINGTON — U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan on Aug. 22 killed some 30 civilians, far more than the military has previously acknowledged, Defense officials said Wednesday.....Gen. David McKiernan has said there are not enough U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan, so the military is relying more heavily on air power _ a greater risk in a conflict where insurgents don't wear uniforms and intentionally mix with the general population for protection."
This is only the latest rash of civilian deaths due to American military blunders. It will be interesting to see how long the McCain campaign accuses Obama of being un-patriotic when he spoke about air raids and civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Peace and blessings,
Mike.
Just a few observations:
(1) McCain never said the phrase "middle class" during the entire debate. Should it matter? I don't know, but it seems like he just can't bear to bring himself to address the widest swath of the American electorate - just like he appeared unable or un-willing to look BHO in the eye during the first debate (and for most of the town hall).
(2) McCain's body language seems frustrated - like the "know-it-all" geezer who becomes indignant when he thinks someone less qualified is questioning his authority. I've noticed on too many occasions (more than I can count) - that McCain says "I know how to....(fill in the blank with 'win this war', 'catch bin Laden', 'fix this economy', etc.)" But, he never says exactly how he'll do it.
(3) Hidden racism - - not the "THAT ONE!" comment. That was just flat-out disrespect. I'm talking about McCain's dismissive assumption that the young Black man who asked about the direct impact of the rescue package on his individual situation - probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac prior to this crisis.
(4) I think BHO blew the answer on a so-called "Obama Doctrine" for committing forces to humanitarian efforts (Darfur, Rwanda, Somalia, Congo, etc). Granted, it was a curve-ball, but BHO had a weak answer. McCain was much more definitive and pragmatic with his answer - saying that the US should determine its involvement based on its ability to beneficially affect the situation.
But the whopper of the night was McCain's supposed genius idea that he thought up all by himself - the $300Billion taxpayer buy-out of all "bad home loans". His rationale is by doing so he will help house values stabilize and ultimately preserve the American dream. WTF?!?!?!?!? The conservative base just had a stroke! If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is!
A few things about this original idea -
(1) - it was already a provision in the $840 Billion package (included under a section that gives discretion to the courts to intervene on "bad loans "under certain specific conditions).
(2) - McCain's plan calls for the re-purchase of these "bad loans" at the value that they were issued, then re-negotiate them at the current market value. That means the banks stay whole, and the taxpayer/homeowner pays twice!
(3) - this $300B plan is in addition to the $840 Billion already pledged. How does this fit into his "across the board spending freeze" and position that government is too big?
(4) who qualifies? Just about everybody I know has seen their home value fall.
But - even though it's another wild attempt at a game-changer, McCain has hit upon something that will resonate with the un-educated voter. The plan sounds like "McCain will fix my mortgage and save me from foreclosure!" A desperate American at risk of being homeless might pull the lever for McCain solely on this empty promise. Not good for Obama, not good for America.
I found a great plan that would position Obama as a economic champion - in much the same way that FDR provided sound leadership out of the Great Depression. Check it out here.
It's really worth the read because my summary can't do it justice. But the points are simply:
(1) A 2009 tax credit of $10K to homebuyers for had the FICO score and verifiable income, but still got sub-prime loans because of unscrupulous lending practices.
(2) Convert the loans for these qualified people to a fixed 5.5% 30 year mortgage backed by the US govt.
(3) A 2009 & 2010 tax credit of $3000 each year to people who purchase a primary residence in those years (to encourage people to start buying again)
(4) Offer banks incentives to convert delinquent ARM loans to fixed rate loans and provide a 3 month grace period for borrowers to get back on sound fiscal footing so they can begin to make regular payments.
(5) A US Treasury bond purchase program for 401K participants to help finance this housing stimulus package.
(6) extended unemployment benefits, and a re-hire incentive program for companies who had to lay off workers because of the economic crisis.
(7) A one-time tax write-off for Americans over 55yrs old who lost at least 20% of the value of their retirement or 401K in 2008. They could write off 50% of the loss up to $50K
-----------------------
Oh yeah, in today's AP wire:
"WASHINGTON — U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan on Aug. 22 killed some 30 civilians, far more than the military has previously acknowledged, Defense officials said Wednesday.....Gen. David McKiernan has said there are not enough U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan, so the military is relying more heavily on air power _ a greater risk in a conflict where insurgents don't wear uniforms and intentionally mix with the general population for protection."
This is only the latest rash of civilian deaths due to American military blunders. It will be interesting to see how long the McCain campaign accuses Obama of being un-patriotic when he spoke about air raids and civilian casualties in Afghanistan.
Peace and blessings,
Mike.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I'M BACK!!!
It's been almost three months since my last posting, and I am sure many are wondering why I've been silent. Well, it's because from July until now, the majority of the discourse has been on substantive issues where the differences between the candidates are more objective and rational. But, I think that these types of campaigns are fought on two separate tracts - one that deals with real issues, and one that deals with pettiness and smear. As it was with the primaries (and it has been historically with all general elections), smear become the weapon of choice when the substantive issues can't tilt the results.
Now we are in the home stretch, and nasty, hateful innuendos and outright lies are starting to be promoted. With 29 nine days to go, the Republican party is desperate to find anything to invalidate Obama. The list is long, laughable, and insulting to anyone with the common-sense to have followed the real issues over the last 9 months. But, some things on the list are divisive and violently catalytic for those who fear an America they've never imagined - one that is led by a Black man.
Examples?
- The JSM campaign admitting they will turn their messaging to character issues instead of substantive issues.
- Explicit guilt by association through the re-emergence of Rev. Wright, Rezko, and the baseless linking of BHO to Ayers.
- Mis-quotes, truncated snippets from BHO that are 100% out of context.
The impact? Shouts of "Kill him!", "Terrorist", and "Treason!" clearly heard from the Republican crowds that have gathered in the last several days. More shocking is that these epithets have gone unchecked by the candidates. You could argue that maybe they didn't hear it, but common-sense says otherwise. You want proof - check out this clip from a rally this week:
The canard about BHO and his so-called anti-American comments abut the Afghanistan war is especially troubling. Esecially when the truth is a US commander had to issue a formal on-air apology to Afghanistan for the high number of civilian casualties. See the proof...
Video length is 2:11
The substantive tract would address the fact that the Afghan efforts are being poorly executed and costing the US credibility in the region. The substantive tract would try to find ways to take BHO to task for not working to get the war back on an strategic path. (Obviously, no Senator can do this independently, but it would focus the argument on the issue.)
Instead, McCain's tract does not bring his own military credentials to bare on the issue. Instead, McCain's tract truncates BHO's comments, and isolates them to make them seem unAmerican. Then, McCain bets on the American peoples' lack of desire to be informed enough to know the ENTIRE context.
I guess the wheels have come off of the "Straight Talk Express", especially when you hear from McCain's own mouth his so-called "position" on negative campaigning....
This whole thing could easily devolve into some tit-for-tat campaign warfare that doesn't do any American any good. But, it's very clear that the baggage that McCain-Palin brings to this arena is very compelling. Past is prologue.
McCain's track record on protecting Americans from malfeasance and corporate greed (like our present-day debacle) : www.keatingeconomics.com
Video length: 8 minutes, but well worth it!
I'm just getting warmed up, so expect to see a lot more from me over the next 4 weeks until election day.
Peace.
Now we are in the home stretch, and nasty, hateful innuendos and outright lies are starting to be promoted. With 29 nine days to go, the Republican party is desperate to find anything to invalidate Obama. The list is long, laughable, and insulting to anyone with the common-sense to have followed the real issues over the last 9 months. But, some things on the list are divisive and violently catalytic for those who fear an America they've never imagined - one that is led by a Black man.
Examples?
- The JSM campaign admitting they will turn their messaging to character issues instead of substantive issues.
- Explicit guilt by association through the re-emergence of Rev. Wright, Rezko, and the baseless linking of BHO to Ayers.
- Mis-quotes, truncated snippets from BHO that are 100% out of context.
The impact? Shouts of "Kill him!", "Terrorist", and "Treason!" clearly heard from the Republican crowds that have gathered in the last several days. More shocking is that these epithets have gone unchecked by the candidates. You could argue that maybe they didn't hear it, but common-sense says otherwise. You want proof - check out this clip from a rally this week:
The canard about BHO and his so-called anti-American comments abut the Afghanistan war is especially troubling. Esecially when the truth is a US commander had to issue a formal on-air apology to Afghanistan for the high number of civilian casualties. See the proof...
Video length is 2:11
The substantive tract would address the fact that the Afghan efforts are being poorly executed and costing the US credibility in the region. The substantive tract would try to find ways to take BHO to task for not working to get the war back on an strategic path. (Obviously, no Senator can do this independently, but it would focus the argument on the issue.)
Instead, McCain's tract does not bring his own military credentials to bare on the issue. Instead, McCain's tract truncates BHO's comments, and isolates them to make them seem unAmerican. Then, McCain bets on the American peoples' lack of desire to be informed enough to know the ENTIRE context.
I guess the wheels have come off of the "Straight Talk Express", especially when you hear from McCain's own mouth his so-called "position" on negative campaigning....
This whole thing could easily devolve into some tit-for-tat campaign warfare that doesn't do any American any good. But, it's very clear that the baggage that McCain-Palin brings to this arena is very compelling. Past is prologue.
McCain's track record on protecting Americans from malfeasance and corporate greed (like our present-day debacle) : www.keatingeconomics.com
Video length: 8 minutes, but well worth it!
I'm just getting warmed up, so expect to see a lot more from me over the next 4 weeks until election day.
Peace.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Jesse Jackson, Surgeon General
A lot of attention has been devoted to this moment of candor that brought Jesse Jackson into the spotlight last week. While it's disappointing to see that even the greatest leaders within our diaspora cannot escape the pathology of our mental and social development in America, I think we do ourselves a disservice to honor it with much discourse.
That's my politically correct "King's English" way of saying Jesse is out of line and insecure. If he's stupid enough to say something that inflammatory around the media, then it's time for him to go sit down somewhere, for real. Nobody can argue his love and dedication to the Black community, nor the gains he's made for us as a people in America. But damn, we sure know how to be own own worst-enemy at the most in-opportune times.
Our older Black leadership has built their relevance fighting against a political and social system that has systemically stymied growth and access to opportunity for Blacks. These systems continue today, but not in the same contexts as before. Our new Black leadership has a different approach that aligns better with the contemporary nuances of a progressive, global, and broader multi-cultural world. The old paradigms don't work as well, and can sometimes be misplaced and counter-productive - a la Rev. Wright.
I think the whole episode tarnished Jesse's image the most - because it revealed the irrational and emotional aspects of what happens when someone who used to be "the man" realizes he's now the "old man." Passing the torch can be graceful or clumsy; it depends on the grip each person has on it.
Furthermore, if Obama was off-message, I might be able to see Jackson's point of view. But BHO was saying what we have always known to be true - take responsibility for yourself and your family. We know the system must become more inclusive and enabling to Black people, but showing initiative by refusing personal complacency will get a more positive reaction from policymakers. Let's use a real-life example:
Questions: How long should a single mom working full-time let her able-bodied boyfriend lay on her coach all-day?; How long should she accept her baby-daddy's refusal to contribute child support to her household?
Answers: Not one more day; Not one more day.
Just One Man's Opinion.
That's my politically correct "King's English" way of saying Jesse is out of line and insecure. If he's stupid enough to say something that inflammatory around the media, then it's time for him to go sit down somewhere, for real. Nobody can argue his love and dedication to the Black community, nor the gains he's made for us as a people in America. But damn, we sure know how to be own own worst-enemy at the most in-opportune times.
Our older Black leadership has built their relevance fighting against a political and social system that has systemically stymied growth and access to opportunity for Blacks. These systems continue today, but not in the same contexts as before. Our new Black leadership has a different approach that aligns better with the contemporary nuances of a progressive, global, and broader multi-cultural world. The old paradigms don't work as well, and can sometimes be misplaced and counter-productive - a la Rev. Wright.
I think the whole episode tarnished Jesse's image the most - because it revealed the irrational and emotional aspects of what happens when someone who used to be "the man" realizes he's now the "old man." Passing the torch can be graceful or clumsy; it depends on the grip each person has on it.
Furthermore, if Obama was off-message, I might be able to see Jackson's point of view. But BHO was saying what we have always known to be true - take responsibility for yourself and your family. We know the system must become more inclusive and enabling to Black people, but showing initiative by refusing personal complacency will get a more positive reaction from policymakers. Let's use a real-life example:
Questions: How long should a single mom working full-time let her able-bodied boyfriend lay on her coach all-day?; How long should she accept her baby-daddy's refusal to contribute child support to her household?
Answers: Not one more day; Not one more day.
Just One Man's Opinion.
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Politics of Audacity
As predicted, this presidential race is making it's way into the realm of vicious character assassination and malicious innuendo. The salvo shot is the audacious image gracing the front cover of a broadly respected and liberal thought-leading publication, "The New Yorker". It has a readership of over 1 million people across the US, their average annual income surpassing $81K. The publication is synonymous with intellectual thought and cultural enlightenment. And what better place to lay the groundwork of a subversive attack against Obama - directed at the core of his constituency. This cover also provides validation of the baseless fears and stereotypical suspicions of the "not so enlightened" among us. Here's why...
Satire is valid only if it re-enforces the truth. Otherwise, it's simply an ad hominem device.
The New Yorker has tried to explain the clever ironic satire of the cover image. But the #1 rule of comedy is - if you have to spend time to explain the joke, it ain't funny. Even more importantly, let's make sure we know what satire truly is. The dictionary defines satire as: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn; 2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly. In everyday life, we know satire when we see it by the exaggerated characteristics of a person (whether they be physical or philosophical) that are KNOWN TO BE TRUE. When we make fun of these truths, then it's funny. When we try to make fun of un-truths, it's not funny. And when a thought leader makes fun of un-truths, it's interpreted as reliable information to the less enlightened. Which brings me to my next point...
Two wrongs don't make a right (in other words, "a satire of a satire" only serves to re-enforce the stereotype).
The explanation provided is they are trying to dispel myths about the Obamas by exaggerating the imagery of those misconceptions. How are we supposed to interpret this? The cover provides no context - and this so-called "intelligent humor" simply goes over most people's head. The image doesn't doesn't challenge the misconceptions, it only illustrates them. That creates a problem because...
A picture is worth 1000 words.
The cartoonist has combined all of the fears held by an alarming percentage of Americans into one very handy 8 X 11 reference guide. Just look at these latest polls results from Newsweek (July 9-10):
POLL: How many people still think Obama:
Was raised as a Muslim 26%
Attended Islamic School 39%
Is a practicing Muslim 12%
Swore into Senate on Quran 12%
Which brings me to my final point...
Certain people only hear what they want to hear.
That goes for the educated and un-educated within our electorate, as well as the MSM. It doesn't seem to matter how many times BHO sets the record straight with clear and direct language. Obama has written a comprehensive OpEd piece that was published in the NYTimes. He has also laid out a very clear Foreign Policy strategy with 5 distinct goals. It doesn't get any simpler, yet still I bet the conservatives are going to say "He needs to clarify his position." See the OpEd article by clicking here.
Obama's full transcript of his speech laying out his strategy can be found here.
The fact of the matter is every vote carries the same weight (assuming every vote is counted). So, understanding the issues, knowing the facts and the truth, and challenging the rhetoric are the things that qualify a person's vote. It can mean the difference between "voting for" or "voting against". A voter from deep within Appalachia who never got beyond a 3rd grade education and who is deeply prejudiced has the same power in the voting booth as the multi-cultural Yale grad with a Park Ave job, a passport, and a 401K who lives in a gated suburban community. How each understands the real issues will help determine the direction of our country. God help us if more of this audacious bigotry goes un-checked.
Just One Man's Opinion.
Satire is valid only if it re-enforces the truth. Otherwise, it's simply an ad hominem device.
The New Yorker has tried to explain the clever ironic satire of the cover image. But the #1 rule of comedy is - if you have to spend time to explain the joke, it ain't funny. Even more importantly, let's make sure we know what satire truly is. The dictionary defines satire as: 1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn; 2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly. In everyday life, we know satire when we see it by the exaggerated characteristics of a person (whether they be physical or philosophical) that are KNOWN TO BE TRUE. When we make fun of these truths, then it's funny. When we try to make fun of un-truths, it's not funny. And when a thought leader makes fun of un-truths, it's interpreted as reliable information to the less enlightened. Which brings me to my next point...
Two wrongs don't make a right (in other words, "a satire of a satire" only serves to re-enforce the stereotype).
The explanation provided is they are trying to dispel myths about the Obamas by exaggerating the imagery of those misconceptions. How are we supposed to interpret this? The cover provides no context - and this so-called "intelligent humor" simply goes over most people's head. The image doesn't doesn't challenge the misconceptions, it only illustrates them. That creates a problem because...
A picture is worth 1000 words.
The cartoonist has combined all of the fears held by an alarming percentage of Americans into one very handy 8 X 11 reference guide. Just look at these latest polls results from Newsweek (July 9-10):
POLL: How many people still think Obama:
Was raised as a Muslim 26%
Attended Islamic School 39%
Is a practicing Muslim 12%
Swore into Senate on Quran 12%
Which brings me to my final point...
Certain people only hear what they want to hear.
That goes for the educated and un-educated within our electorate, as well as the MSM. It doesn't seem to matter how many times BHO sets the record straight with clear and direct language. Obama has written a comprehensive OpEd piece that was published in the NYTimes. He has also laid out a very clear Foreign Policy strategy with 5 distinct goals. It doesn't get any simpler, yet still I bet the conservatives are going to say "He needs to clarify his position." See the OpEd article by clicking here.
Obama's full transcript of his speech laying out his strategy can be found here.
The fact of the matter is every vote carries the same weight (assuming every vote is counted). So, understanding the issues, knowing the facts and the truth, and challenging the rhetoric are the things that qualify a person's vote. It can mean the difference between "voting for" or "voting against". A voter from deep within Appalachia who never got beyond a 3rd grade education and who is deeply prejudiced has the same power in the voting booth as the multi-cultural Yale grad with a Park Ave job, a passport, and a 401K who lives in a gated suburban community. How each understands the real issues will help determine the direction of our country. God help us if more of this audacious bigotry goes un-checked.
Just One Man's Opinion.
Monday, July 7, 2008
McCain's Got Oil on his Hands
McCain is a double-talking swindler. So much for his "straight-talk" express!
More of the Flip-Flop King:
More of the Flip-Flop King:
Monday, June 23, 2008
Love Is Stronger Than Pride
Another example of the conservative right-wing media twisting, truncating, and mis-representing facts to serve their malicious agenda. When I think about all of the slander and vilification smeared on Michelle Obama, this makes me really lose all respect for FoxNews (as if I had any left). Sean Hannity is the most repugnant of all the Fox anchors, even more than Bill O'Reilly.
While they have challenged Michelle Obama's patriotism and translated her statement about pride into an indictment against America, the conservative media (Fox specifically) has hidden McCain's confession that he didn't even love America until he needed her to save his ass from Vietnam! Just like how people suddenly find Jesus when they have a near-death experience. What's worse, he's made this confession several times, even as part of a stump-speech. Check out this clip of Hannity's interview with McCain conducted in March 2008. Then check out the link to the website that exposed the biased reporting.
Click on: FoxAttacks.com
Now, I'm not questioning McCain's patriotism or his dedication to the USA. His time spent as a POW give him credentials that very few others could earn. All I'm saying is that his words - especially in their full context - are very hard to misconstrue. They are every bit as inflammatory as they have made Michelle Obama's comments. The main differences are: (1) she's not running for president; (2) her statement qualified her increased pride (indicating that it already was there to start); (3) McCain's statement was a matter-of-fact that "he didn't love 'dem hoes" until he was desparate. Sounds like patriotic/political expediency to me. But what do I know?
Nevertheless, this type of biased reporting has to stop. The only way to stop it is to expose it for what it is - deceit. Sunlight is the best sanitizer. Spread this around to everyone you know who has an interest in this presidential election. Let's make the playing field "fair and balanced" for all.
One Man's Opinion.
While they have challenged Michelle Obama's patriotism and translated her statement about pride into an indictment against America, the conservative media (Fox specifically) has hidden McCain's confession that he didn't even love America until he needed her to save his ass from Vietnam! Just like how people suddenly find Jesus when they have a near-death experience. What's worse, he's made this confession several times, even as part of a stump-speech. Check out this clip of Hannity's interview with McCain conducted in March 2008. Then check out the link to the website that exposed the biased reporting.
Click on: FoxAttacks.com
Now, I'm not questioning McCain's patriotism or his dedication to the USA. His time spent as a POW give him credentials that very few others could earn. All I'm saying is that his words - especially in their full context - are very hard to misconstrue. They are every bit as inflammatory as they have made Michelle Obama's comments. The main differences are: (1) she's not running for president; (2) her statement qualified her increased pride (indicating that it already was there to start); (3) McCain's statement was a matter-of-fact that "he didn't love 'dem hoes" until he was desparate. Sounds like patriotic/political expediency to me. But what do I know?
Nevertheless, this type of biased reporting has to stop. The only way to stop it is to expose it for what it is - deceit. Sunlight is the best sanitizer. Spread this around to everyone you know who has an interest in this presidential election. Let's make the playing field "fair and balanced" for all.
One Man's Opinion.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A change of name?
Smokey Robinson's perspective on how we define ourselves....
or go to: Smokey Robinson-A Black American
or go to: Smokey Robinson-A Black American
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Barack Obama - A Photo History You Must see!
All,
Attached below is a beautiful collage of photos that chronicle the life of Obama - his truly American story that the conservative media doesn't want to tell. Nothing in these photos speaks of the elitism, anti-Americanism, Communism, or any other negative "-isms" that conservatives would have the American people believe. They portray humbleness, a strong sense of family bond, and a man who embraces his lineage - African and European.
Now, could these be "cherry-picked" photos? Of course they could, and they probably have been hand-selected by the Obama family. But just take a hard look at them - individually and collectively. The cliché "a picture is worth a 1000 words" comes to mind, but there are a few words/phrases that don't make the list based on these pictures:
silver-spoon, privileged, politically connected, elitist, anti-white, terrorist, baby-mamma, uppity, identity-crisis........
these are just a handful of the epithets and insinuations used by certain people and media outlets to "color" Mr. and Mrs. Obama. But. what the pictures do illustrate is the human experience that many of us do know - blended families (with grandparents heavily involved), struggling mothers, not having anything simply handed to you, having the odds stacked against you, succeeding in-spite-of, not forgetting your roots, discovering the love of your life, and being the best parent you can be.
Please share this with any and everybody - - the more we counter the enemy with truth, the more balanced we can make the political playing field. Then we can continue to get the focus back on the real issues worth debating. Those are arguments that Obama will clearly win.
Peace,
Mike Spriggs
Click here, or view the slideshow below.
Attached below is a beautiful collage of photos that chronicle the life of Obama - his truly American story that the conservative media doesn't want to tell. Nothing in these photos speaks of the elitism, anti-Americanism, Communism, or any other negative "-isms" that conservatives would have the American people believe. They portray humbleness, a strong sense of family bond, and a man who embraces his lineage - African and European.
Now, could these be "cherry-picked" photos? Of course they could, and they probably have been hand-selected by the Obama family. But just take a hard look at them - individually and collectively. The cliché "a picture is worth a 1000 words" comes to mind, but there are a few words/phrases that don't make the list based on these pictures:
silver-spoon, privileged, politically connected, elitist, anti-white, terrorist, baby-mamma, uppity, identity-crisis........
these are just a handful of the epithets and insinuations used by certain people and media outlets to "color" Mr. and Mrs. Obama. But. what the pictures do illustrate is the human experience that many of us do know - blended families (with grandparents heavily involved), struggling mothers, not having anything simply handed to you, having the odds stacked against you, succeeding in-spite-of, not forgetting your roots, discovering the love of your life, and being the best parent you can be.
Please share this with any and everybody - - the more we counter the enemy with truth, the more balanced we can make the political playing field. Then we can continue to get the focus back on the real issues worth debating. Those are arguments that Obama will clearly win.
Peace,
Mike Spriggs
Click here, or view the slideshow below.
Michelle Obama on the View - - June 18, 2008
Michelle Obama co-hosted the View this morning on ABC. I can really see her as First Lady. Here is the show, without commercial interruption.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Dispelling a rumor
John McCain has said BHO has been endorsed by Hamas - and implies that this is a threat to national security. He has tried to illustrate some type of "strange bedfellows" idea- so that those Americans who blindly accept whatever they hear will form strong negative opinions about BHO.
To be clear, Hamas has been recognized broadly as a terrorist organization, and deservedly so. BHO has publicly condemned Hamas (as has McCain), criticized Pres. Carter's visit to Palestine and meeting with Hamas leaders (as did McCain), and has supported legislations that would put pressure on Hamas (McCain as well). Furthermore, BHO has said explicitly that he would never sit down and meet with Hamas or any recognized terrorist organization - ever. For McCain to say he would is totally false. And for the record, meeting with Ahmadinejad (who is the President but not the Commander in Chief of Iran) is much different than meeting with Hamas.
McCain has re-iterated this spin over and over, in stump speeches, in fundraising communications, on websites, etc. But it is false, misleading, and a truncated snippet of the full quote from Ahmed Yousef - Chief Political Advisor to the Prime Minister of Hamas.
First, the interviewer asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about Obama's disavowal of Carter's visit with Hamas leadership.
Yousef's answer (quoting):
"No, no, I understand American politics, and this is the season for election, and everybody tries to be, sounds like he's a friend of Israel..........and I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse when one of them will be the President. And changing the policy, which are making these anti-American sentiments and hatred and bitterness is the worst in the history of this great country."
Next question: "Do you believe right now that your Prime Minister is ready to speak with Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton before the election?"
The full quote from Hamas spokesman Ahmed yousef was:
"We don't mind. Actually, we like Mr. Obama, and we hope he will [inaudible] the election. I do believe he is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles, and he has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance."
If you listen to Yousef's answer to the first question above, it's an apparent indictment of the Bush administration for causing the abysmal view that the region has of America. He didn't state it explicitly, but it's easily inferred as he hopes for Democrats to change diplomatic & policy direction.
Regarding the second quote from Yousef, he was responding to the idea of a potential discussion with either HRC or BHO. He answered that ("We don't mind..."), then went on - unprovoked - to mention BHO specifically, and likened him to JFK in terms of vision and principles. He see BHO as a catalyst for positive change in America's image on the world stage. He see BHO as being able to do this without "domination and arrogance."
If anything, Hamas (through their spokesman) was endorsing character, integrity, temperance, tolerance, and principles. If there were other candidates in this race who could also "walk this talk", then he probably would not have singled out BHO.
Check out the full audio of the interview.
I'm telling everybody right now, if we let McCain and the conservative right continue to make these insinuations and tell these bold-faced lies about BHO unchallenged and unchecked, it's going to be very difficult to fight on the offensive down the stretch. Obviously, McCain has every intention to play dirty and bully his way to the presidency. Spread the word, spread the truth.
My experience has taught me the best way to stop a bully is to punch him right in his fat mouth when he doesn't expect it, then hit him with a few more blows to let him know it wasn't just a lucky shot, then clown him in front of his boys.
Sorry - I had to go there.
To be clear, Hamas has been recognized broadly as a terrorist organization, and deservedly so. BHO has publicly condemned Hamas (as has McCain), criticized Pres. Carter's visit to Palestine and meeting with Hamas leaders (as did McCain), and has supported legislations that would put pressure on Hamas (McCain as well). Furthermore, BHO has said explicitly that he would never sit down and meet with Hamas or any recognized terrorist organization - ever. For McCain to say he would is totally false. And for the record, meeting with Ahmadinejad (who is the President but not the Commander in Chief of Iran) is much different than meeting with Hamas.
McCain has re-iterated this spin over and over, in stump speeches, in fundraising communications, on websites, etc. But it is false, misleading, and a truncated snippet of the full quote from Ahmed Yousef - Chief Political Advisor to the Prime Minister of Hamas.
First, the interviewer asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about Obama's disavowal of Carter's visit with Hamas leadership.
Yousef's answer (quoting):
"No, no, I understand American politics, and this is the season for election, and everybody tries to be, sounds like he's a friend of Israel..........and I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse when one of them will be the President. And changing the policy, which are making these anti-American sentiments and hatred and bitterness is the worst in the history of this great country."
Next question: "Do you believe right now that your Prime Minister is ready to speak with Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton before the election?"
The full quote from Hamas spokesman Ahmed yousef was:
"We don't mind. Actually, we like Mr. Obama, and we hope he will [inaudible] the election. I do believe he is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principles, and he has a vision to change America, to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance."
If you listen to Yousef's answer to the first question above, it's an apparent indictment of the Bush administration for causing the abysmal view that the region has of America. He didn't state it explicitly, but it's easily inferred as he hopes for Democrats to change diplomatic & policy direction.
Regarding the second quote from Yousef, he was responding to the idea of a potential discussion with either HRC or BHO. He answered that ("We don't mind..."), then went on - unprovoked - to mention BHO specifically, and likened him to JFK in terms of vision and principles. He see BHO as a catalyst for positive change in America's image on the world stage. He see BHO as being able to do this without "domination and arrogance."
If anything, Hamas (through their spokesman) was endorsing character, integrity, temperance, tolerance, and principles. If there were other candidates in this race who could also "walk this talk", then he probably would not have singled out BHO.
Check out the full audio of the interview.
I'm telling everybody right now, if we let McCain and the conservative right continue to make these insinuations and tell these bold-faced lies about BHO unchallenged and unchecked, it's going to be very difficult to fight on the offensive down the stretch. Obviously, McCain has every intention to play dirty and bully his way to the presidency. Spread the word, spread the truth.
My experience has taught me the best way to stop a bully is to punch him right in his fat mouth when he doesn't expect it, then hit him with a few more blows to let him know it wasn't just a lucky shot, then clown him in front of his boys.
Sorry - I had to go there.
Friday, May 30, 2008
That About Sums it Up
Here is an Op-Ed piece from Donald Sutherland (actor) that was submitted to the Huffington Post.
Quoting:
"It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?
And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?"
----------------------------------
And, for your viewing pleasure, here is a video of a well-respected GOP Priest doing an invocation at a NY state fundraiser. He makes a complete mockery of a prayer, totally tasteless and incendiary. I'm sure you won't see it on any news shows.
Quoting:
"It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?
And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?"
----------------------------------
And, for your viewing pleasure, here is a video of a well-respected GOP Priest doing an invocation at a NY state fundraiser. He makes a complete mockery of a prayer, totally tasteless and incendiary. I'm sure you won't see it on any news shows.
Monday, May 26, 2008
This man's stupidity is endless!
Anybody with half a brain would know that this theory is flawed. The surest way to piss off bees is to poke around with them while they're minding their own business.
I guess it proves that he's operating on less than half a brain.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Hillary Clinton - When All Else Fails, Kill the SOB!
Let me start by saying that we should all have some minimum expectations of our leaders. How these leaders meet our expectations is the measuring stick by which we can evaluate them. If our expectations are low – then we don’t expect much (ie – George Bush). If our expectations are high, especially during a political season such as this, we expect a lot, and justifiably so. We expect a lot because of the promises they make, the superior judgment they purport, and the emotional investment that we make in the ideal that somehow our hopes will intersect with their vision for our future.
Another expectation I have is simply this: If you are campaigning to convince people that you are best suited to occupy the highest office of the most powerful nation on the planet, and to be the leader of the free world……then you’ve got to have a tight reign on your lips……and have an intuitive understanding about how things will sound or be interpreted BEFORE YOU SAY THEM.
How does someone who’s been campaigning for President use the example of the un-expected assassination of an opponent as a justification for staying in the race? How that could ever be political acceptable in a democracy like America?
HRC is no dummy. She is shrewd, articulate, calculating, aggressive, determined, well-educated, politically savvy, and confident. I really believe that she exemplifies each of these qualities. But at the same time, she lacks temperance in some of these same qualities which pull the covers back on probably the most un-harnessed quality of all – ambition.
HRC has lived through the tumultuous run-up and aftermath of Evers, JFK, Malcolm, MLK, and RFK. She’s touts here political experience, so she knows the gravity of invoking that memory. In her feeble attempt at an explanation of the statement, she said the “Kennedy’s had been on here mind” due to the recent announcement of Ted Kennedy’s bleak diagnosis. Damn! That’s what you think about when you think of Ted Kennedy? Try again, HRC.
Here is something more sobering. HRC has always talked about her connection to the Black community and how it has been a major pillar of support for her and Bill throughout the last 15+ years. Since Obama has come on the scene however, obviously that support is not as “guaranteed” as it once seemed. But, given her affinity to the Black community, wouldn’t she intuitively know how this would be interpreted. Given the history of our country, wouldn’t she know how this analogy would sound? This might be one of the most insensitive things ever perpetrated in this campaign.
The threat of assassination is one of those “un-spoken” but very real understandings shared by African-Americans who know the history of this country, and who know the power of a very, very few but highly corrosive elements in American society. This fear has always been there, just below the surface. It started when Obama’s campaign reached that critical mass of viability and probability as the party nominee. Some of us take it so seriously that we feared voting for Obama because we didn’t want to contribute to placing him in a sniper’s crosshairs. This tragic dread of assassination is seldom spoken about because no one wants to bear having even a whiff of responsibility for planting this idea, much less any part in speaking it into a reality.
Regardless of HRC’s true intent, this transgression is very hard to get over. There are some likely reasons this happened. Maybe:
1 – She wasn’t thinking and it just blurted out.
2 – The long grueling schedule of the campaign has made her fatigued.
3 – It was a Freudian slip revealing her real expectations or desires
4 – She’s desperate to win and will say anything at this point
5 – She’s just stating facts and sometimes facts are harsh
The way I see it, none of these reasons are acceptable because:
1 – A presidential candidate should be able to think on her feet better than that!
2 – If the campaign schedule is hard, just take a look at the before and after photos of presidents from inauguration day to their last day. This is the easy part!
3 – If that is what she really wants or expects, then she’s not the candidate she claims to be
4 – Desperation will take you to your lowest point almost every time.
5 – Just because it’s a fact doesn’t make it applicable or appropriate.
Clinton should be ashamed of using such a despicable idea as a supporting reason for her to continue her lame campaign.
Here is Keith Olbermann’s Op-Ed piece on the topic.
Fox news co-signs the idea - by letting this woman get away with this remark....
Looking toward November, let's get educated on McCain
Here are some YouTube videos that analyze McCain's positions on some very important issues....
Thursday, May 22, 2008
A Rare But Precious Find
I know you're gonna love this! Tim Wise should serve in Obama's cabinet as Secretary of telling it like it T-I-is!!!
Adjust your speakers to maximum volume, especially if you are in an integrated area.
Peace,
One Man's Opinion
Adjust your speakers to maximum volume, especially if you are in an integrated area.
Peace,
One Man's Opinion
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Obama should pick Colin Powell for VP!
Now that the nomination is within close reach (don't want to jinx it and declare it just yet!), Obama must be strongly considering who should be his VP choice. Several names has been offered up my pundits, analysts, and others.
I think he should look no further than Colin Powell. Everyone really needs to check out the credentials on Powell. I don't think you'll find a more qualified candidate and complement to Senator Obama.
Here is my quick 30-second elevator sales pitch on the idea:
- His military record challenges McCain's record.
- He is very well-respected in Washington - even after the scapegoating that the Bush administration made of his service.
- He balances out the "foreign policy experience" question raised as a deficiency in Obama's candidacy.
- He is a very moderate Republican. (Talk about an equalizer!!!)
- Ex-National Security Advisor under Reagan
- Ex-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush 41
- Ex -Secretary of State under Bush 43
- Lauded Military Strategist who executed Dessert Storm
- Decorated soldier - earning the 3rd highest military award, plus others (Purple Heart, Bronze Star, etc.)
For a more thorough biography of his credentials, click here.
I really cannot think of a better choice for VP for Obama! Spread the word!!!
See this link for a great article in support of the Obama / Powell ticket.
Now, of course - everyone is saying, "Two black guys on the same ticket? Do you really think that is going to fly?" I say probably not, especially based on the results and sentiment throughout Appalachia. Not if the people who perpetrated these acts have any pull. Click here.
But if we could leave the harsh realities of American racism and just dream for 60 seconds about how it could be....two intelligent, able, hard-working, accomplished, spiritual men with dignity and values - serving as our leaders and as our image to the rest of the world. Men who did not get to where they are out of privilege, but ascended based on service to others and leadership based on genuine respect. And, oh yeah, they both happen to be "Black".
Just one man's opinion.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Pat Buchanan's Answer to Rev. Wright
You'll just have to read it for yourself.... Click here to go straight to the official website where Buchanan posts his views, or read the text below.
Let me re-iterate, 3 time Presidential candidate in the general election (not just the primaries), and a regular, respected contributor on MSNBC. Fair and balanced?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
March 21, 2008
PJB: A Brief for Whitey
posted by Linda
By Patrick J. Buchanan
How would he pull it off? I wondered.
How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?
How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about “the U.S. of K.K.K. America,” and howled, “God damn America!”
My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables.
Yes, Barack agreed, Wright’s statements were “controversial,” and “divisive,” and “racially charged,” reflecting a “distorted view of America.”
But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.
Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country.
The “white community,” said Barack, must start “acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds … .”
And what deeds must we perform to heal ourselves and our country?
The “white community” must invest more money in black schools and communities, enforce civil rights laws, ensure fairness in the criminal justice system and provide this generation of blacks with “ladders of opportunity” that were “unavailable” to Barack’s and the Rev. Wright’s generations.
What is wrong with Barack’s prognosis and Barack’s cure?
Only this. It is the same old con, the same old shakedown that black hustlers have been running since the Kerner Commission blamed the riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark, Detroit and a hundred other cities on, as Nixon put it, “everybody but the rioters themselves.”
Was “white racism” really responsible for those black men looting auto dealerships and liquor stories, and burning down their own communities, as Otto Kerner said — that liberal icon until the feds put him away for bribery.
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.
Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.
This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.
Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?
Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Lynching the (potential) First Lady? Star Jones response
Another AMAZING example of how the conservative media - through selective reporting - will sit on an obvious divisive, exploitive, and insensitive position. Was this a Freudian slip, just a fool with a microphone, or a call to arms like we often suspect is laced in the words in Osama bin Laden's video cameos?
How could something so inflammatory go un-acknowledged since it was first perpetrated on MARCH 19, 2008? Probably because it would have supported the very same racial themes that these same operatives were trying to use to discredit Obama vis-a-vis Jeremiah Wright.
Bill O'Reilly - esteemed journalist, respected reporter, and racial arsonist - talking about how Michelle Obama needs to be handled.
Check the link....
Bill O'Reilly said:
'I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels - that is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever - then that's legit. We'll track it down.'
'I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels - that is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever - then that's legit. We'll track it down.'
He retracted this (kinda') 2 days later by saying:
"While talking to a radio caller, I said there should be no lynching in the case, that comment off Clarence Thomas saying he was the victim of a high tech lynching (he said that on 60 Minutes, you may remember). I'm sorry if my statement offended anybody. That, of course, was not the intention. Context is everything...."
Within O'Reilly's feeble apology and pointless justification lies the core issue. A lack of common human respect for Black people. Do you think if Harvey Weinstein's or Joe Leiberman's wives had made a similar statement about their pride in America, he would have used a metaphor of "sparing them the gas chamber until fair & balanced vetting was done?"
Star Jones jumped in with a very targeted and appropriate rebuttal. A very thorough reprimand. Unfortunately, we didn't hear about this either. Thanks to the vigilance of people who care about truth, this was brought to my attention, and now I pass it on to you.
Jones said:
Jones said:
I'm sick to death of people like Fox News host, Bill O'Reilly, and his ilk thinking that he can use a racial slur against a black woman who could be the next First Lady of the United States, give a half-assed apology and not be taken to task and called on his crap. What the hell? If it's 'legit,' you're going to 'track it down?' And then what do you plan to do? How dare this white man with a microphone and the trust of the public think that in 2008, he can still put the words 'lynch and party' together in the same sentence with reference to a black woman; in this case, Michelle Obama? I don't care how you 'spin it' in the 'no spin zone,' that statement in and of itself is racist, unacceptable and inappropriate on every level.
O'Reilly claims his comments were taken out of context. Please don't insult my intelligence while you're insulting me. I've read the comments and heard them delivered in O'Reilly's own voice; and there is no right context that exists. So, his insincere apology and 'out-of-context' excuse is not going to cut it with me. And just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with the 2008 presidential election, me being a Democrat, him claiming to be Independent while talking Republican, the liberal media, or a conservative point of view. To the contrary, this is about crossing a line in the sand that needs to be drawn based on history, dignity, taste and truth.
Bill, I'm not sure of where you come from, but let me tell you what the phrase 'lynching party' conjures up to me, a black woman born in North Carolina ... Those words depict the image of a group of white men who are angry with the state of the own lives getting together, drinking more than they need to drink, lamenting how some black person has moved forward (usually ahead of them in stature or dignity), and had the audacity to think that they are equal. These same men for years, instead of looking at what changes, should and could be make in their own lives that might remove that bitterness born of perceived privilege, these white men take all of that resentment and anger and decide to get together and drag the closest black person near them to their death by hanging them from a tree - usually after violent beating, torturing and violating their human dignity. Check your history books, because you don't need a masters or a law degree from Harvard to know that is what constitutes a 'lynching party.'
Imagine, Michelle and Barack Obama having the audacity to think that they have the right to the American dream, hopes, and ideals. O'Reilly must think to himself: how dare they have the arrogance to think they can stand in front of this nation, challenge the status quo and express the frustration of millions? When this happens, the first thing that comes to mind for O'Reilly and people like him is: 'it's time for a party.' Not so fast...don't order the rope just yet.
Would O'Reilly ever in a million years use this phrase with reference to Elizabeth Edwards, Cindy McCain or Judi Nathan? I mean, in all of the statements and criticisms that were made about Judi Nathan, the one-time mistress turned missus, of former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, I never heard any talk of forming a lynch party because of something she said or did. So why is it that when you're referring to someone who's African-American you must dig to a historical place of pain, agony and death to symbolize your feelings? Lynching is not a joke to off-handedly throw around and it is not a metaphor that has a place in political commentary; provocative or otherwise. I admit that I come from a place of personal outrage here having buried my 90 year-old grandfather last year. This proud, amazing African-American man raised his family and lived through the time when he had to use separate water fountains, ride in the back of a bus, take his wife on a date to the 'colored section' of a movie theater, and avert his eyes when a white woman walked down the street for fear of what a white man and his cronies might do if they felt the urge to 'party'; don't tell me that the phrase you chose, Mr. O'Reilly, was taken out of context.
To add insult to injury, O'Reilly tried to 'clarify' his statements, by using the excuse that his comments were reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' use of the term 'high-tech lynching' during his confirmation hearing. I reject that analogy. You see Justice Thomas did mean to bring up the image of lynching in its racist context. He was saying that politics and the media were using a new technology to do to him what had been done to black men for many years -- hang him.
Regardless of if you agreed with Justice Thomas' premise or not, if in fact -- Bill O'Reilly was referencing it -- the context becomes even clearer. What annoys me more than anything is that I get the feeling that one of the reasons Bill O'Reilly made this statement, thinking he could get away with it in the first place, and then followed it up with a lame apology in a half-hearted attempt to smooth any ruffled feathers, is because he doesn't think that black women will come out and go after him when he goes after us. Well, he's dead wrong. Be clear Bill O'Reilly: there will be no lynch party for that black woman And this black woman assures you that if you come for her, you come for all of us.'
-- Star Jones Reynolds
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Facts They Fail to Mention
Here is some contextual information to help give a more complete view of the recent media barrage of acrimonious commentary against Obama and his so-called associates.....
In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,' gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.
In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)
The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.
What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.
While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/ sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities.
This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.
In 1961, a young African-American man, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,' gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the Marines.
In 1963, this man, having completed his two years of service in the Marines, volunteered again to become a Navy corpsman. (They provide medical assistance to the Marines as well as to Navy personnel.)
The man did so well in corpsman school that he was the valedictorian and became a cardiopulmonary technician. Not surprisingly, he was assigned to the Navy's premier medical facility, Bethesda Naval Hospital, as a member of the commander in chief's medical team, and helped care for President Lyndon B. Johnson after his 1966 surgery. For his service on the team, which he left in 1967, the White House awarded him three letters of commendation.
What is even more remarkable is that this man entered the Marines and Navy not many years after the two branches began to become integrated.
While this young man was serving six years on active duty, Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as the Marine/ sailor, received five deferments, four for being an undergraduate and graduate student and one for being a prospective father.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger than the African-American youth, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968. Both then avoided going on active duty through family connections.
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
After leaving the service of his country, the young African-American finished his final year of college, entered the seminary, was ordained as a minister, and eventually became pastor of a large church in one of America's biggest cities.
This man is Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ.
McCain - Senility, or just plain Pandering?
The Huffington Post today has run a very informative OpEd piece on some of McCain's inconsistencies. Says one thing, denies it later. It's a great read - full of fact-based events that help frame up McCain in the context of trust-worthiness.
The text is below.
What John McCain Told Me, And What It Says About How Far He's Fallen
by Arianna Huffington
Update: Through a spokesperson with the colorful name Tucker Bounds, McCain has denied telling me he didn't vote for Bush in 2000. "It's not true," Bounds told the Washington Post, "and I ask you to consider the source."
My sentiments exactly -- because John McCain has a long history of issuing heartfelt denials of things that were actually true.
He denied ever talking with John Kerry about his leaving the GOP to be Kerry's '04 running mate -- then later admitted he had, insisting: "Everybody knows that I had a conversation."
He denied admitting that he didn't know much about economics, even though he'd said exactly thatto the Wall Street Journal. And the Boston Globe. And the Baltimore Sun.
He denied ever having asked for a budget earmark for Arizona, even though he had. On the record.
He denied that he'd ever had a meeting with comely lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her client Lowell Paxon, even though he had. And had admitted it in a legal deposition.
And those are just the outright denials. He's also repeatedly tried to spin away statements he regretted making (see: 100-year war, Iraq was a war for oil, etc.).
So, yes, by all means, "consider the source."
Original Post: At a dinner party in Los Angeles not long after the 2000 election, I was talking to a man and his wife, both prominent Republicans. The conversation soon turned to the new president. "I didn't vote for George Bush" the man confessed. "I didn't either," his wife added. Their names: John and Cindy McCain (Cindy told me she had cast a write-in vote for her husband).
The fact that this man was so angry at what George Bush had done to him, and at what Bush represented for their party, that he did not even vote for him in 2000 shows just how far he has fallen since then in his hunger for the presidency. By abandoning his core principles and embracing Bush -- both literally and metaphorically -- he has morphed into an older and crankier version of the man he couldn't stomach voting for in 2000.
McCain's fall has been Shakespearean -- and really hard to watch for those, like myself, who so admired and even loved him. His nobility and his true reformer years have given way to pandering in the service of ambition.
But a large portion of the electorate hasn't noticed the Shakespearean fall. How else to explain The 28/48 Disconnect -- wherein only a die-hard 28 percent of voters still approve of Bush, but 48 percent say they'd vote for McCain, who is running on the "more of the same" platform?
The thing is, these voters clearly still think of McCain as the maverick of 2000, a straight shooter who would never seek the embrace of a man he couldn't bring himself to vote for, nor accept the regular counsel of Karl Rove, the man behind the vile, race-baiting attacks on him during the 2000 campaign.
And the main reason for The 28/48 Disconnect is the mainstream media's ongoing membership in the John McCain Protection Society. They too continue to party -- and report on McCain -- like it's 1999.
Look at the slack they cut him after his infamous stroll through a Baghdad market was revealed as an utter sham. James Frey was eviscerated for far less. Or the slack they cut him after his repeatedconfusion of Sunni and Shia. Or the slack they cut him when his promise to run a "respectful" campaign ran aground on his sleazy attempt to connect Barack Obama and Hamas.
Every time McCain screws up, the media jump all over themselves to make it better, as if grandpa had said something embarrassing at the dinner table and it needed to be smoothed over as quickly as possible.
The latest example came late last week when the Straight Talk Express hit an oil slick and skidded off the road. Click here for the blow by blow, but, in short, McCain implied that Iraq is essentially a war for oil, then tried to take it back, explaining that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War, then, when pressed, denied that he was actually talking about the first Gulf War.
And, by and large, the media gave him a pass. Chris Matthews called the original war for oil comment "an astounding development," but most everyone else was too busy picking over the bones of the Wright/Obama carcass to give it much play.
Interestingly, McCain's mental meltdown over the reason we invaded Iraq was prompted by a comment from a McCain supporter who said he hoped a group called "Swift Boats for McCain" would be formed to help McCain in the campaign.
The gentleman needn't worry. The group already exists. It's called "the media." And they are very well-funded, and highly motivated. The Swift Boat Media for McCain are, for instance, going to make sure that we hear a lot more about the nuances of Obama's decision to not wear a flag pin on his lapel than about McCain's ideas on a little thing like the Iraq war.
Witness the reaction to McCain's repeated declarations that he thinks we should be in Iraq for "100 years." The DNC had the gall to use McCain's own words in an ad, causing McCain to flip out: "My friends, it's a direct falsification," he said, "and I'm sorry that political campaigns have to deteriorate in this fashion."
So, to review: using a candidate's own words against him is off limits, but making disgraceful insinuations about Hamas and Obama isn't.
But instead of nailing McCain on the "deterioration" of his ethics -- to say nothing of his logic and reasoning -- the Swift Boat Media dutifully repeated his talking points, as in this AP lede claiming, without reservation, that the DNC ad "falsely suggests John McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq."
McCain tries to wriggle away from his "100 year" comment by saying that he wasn't talking about a hundred year war, but a very long term commitment of U.S. troops, like we have in Germany or South Korea. Maybe so, but the last time I looked no one was blowing up American soldiers in Wiesbaden.
The New Yorker's Rick Hertzberg, a writer who hasn't drunk the It's Still 2000 Kool-Aid, sums up McCain's Strangelovian "vision": "McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal -- that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."
The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn't on the ballot in 2008. And the proof has all but jumped up and grabbed the media by the throat: the ring-kiss of "agents of intolerance" Falwell and Robertson; the decision to make permanent tax cuts he twice voted against, saying he could not "in good conscience support" them; the campaign finance reformer replaced with a candidate whose campaign is run by lobbyists and fueled by loophole rides on his wife's jet; the hard-line stance against torture replaced by a vote allowing waterboarding; the guarded-by-a-battalion stroll through the "safe" neighborhoods of Baghdad; the use of Karl Rove as an advisor... and the embracing of the disastrous policies of a man he so abhorred he would not vote for him.
What will it take for the Swift Boat Media to realize that John McCain jumped the shark a long, long time ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)