Obama, Wright and RELIGION... Whoops, we've sort of skipped that one... Why understanding Obama/Wright may not have THAT much to do with race...

Millions upon millions of words have been uttered or typed about Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama. We've dissected Wright's statements. We've parsed every word Barack Obama has said about the man. We've examined its impact on elections.

We've talked about white guilt, black bias, generational differences and their correlation to perspectives on racial equality, black vs. brown, black vs. women, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Sister Souljah, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton on Arsenio fuckin' Hall and when someone finally tore the last "coloreds only" water fountain from a wall in Mississippi.

Racist this and racist that. Inequality, history, bigotry and "do you think Obama could sufficiently distance himself from Wright if he called him a black-robed Klansman and proceeded to beat the shit out him with a lead pipe--if, and this is an important 'if'--the pipe was painted red, white and blue?"

We're a nation obsessed with race because a black candidate belongs to a church that had a preacher who yelled "GOD DAMN AMERICA!" and who unleashed a verbal shit-storm in whitey's direction. Racism, reverse racism, how could anyone possibly go to a church where someone isn't preaching racial harmony the "nice" way? "I'm offended, I'm impressed, I'm confused, I'm worried that Barack might put Louis Farrakhan on a postage stamp if he wins."

Barack gave the race speech. It was pretty good and it made a lot of sense. Now it's the Greatest Speech Ever Given by Anyone in the Whole Wide History of All Things. Either that or it's the Dumbest Pile of Crap Ever Spoken in the History of the Universe. Some say it was Another Example of Smooth Vote-Grabbing Technique and others argue the speech as nothing short of An Unnecessary Comment on an Issue Better Left Alone Forever.

Obama's speech was less than an hour long, if I remember correctly. If you added up all of the reaction pieces to it and read them aloud, you could fillibuster the Senate long enough to kill every civil rights bill ever passed. Strom Thurmond wouldn't have needed the phone books. I mention Strommy-Boy intentionally. Because I'm obsessed with race issues right now.

I went stopped at a 7-11 this morning for a Big Gulp and there was a black kid putting gas in his Toyota. I couldn't stop staring. I couldn't stop thinking about the black experience, white privilege, if he'd worry my grandma and what they might be saying at his secret black church when white guys like me aren't around.

Last night, I fell into a weird self-induced palsy. I was listening to Public Enemy's "Fight the Power" while reading Ann Coulter's criticism of Obama's speech. I just started vibrating.

God damn YOU, Jeremiah Wright! God damn YOU for opening this can of worms! Thanks to your little outbursts, I have to think and write about race very god-damned day! Why can't we just go back to the way it was before Jeremiah Wright showed up on YouTube? Why can't we go back to those carefree days of yestermonth, when America wasn't a nation so racially divided?

Thanks to Jeremiah and Barack, we have been forced to examine race from every perspective with the kind of intensity and acumen only available to us during Presidential elections. In other words, we get to turn it into a bizarre game played by TV talking heads. (Why won't CNN issue scorecards for home viewers and some kind of system to distribute points? Bob says Buchanan is winning by 2, but I have Gergen up by 3!)

We want to know about Barack Obama. Therefore, we must know about Jeremiah Wright. Thus, we must come to terms with race.

I think a good discussion on race makes sense. It's probably overdue. However, I don't think it's the best way to understand the Wright/Obama relationship. Before we begin investigating the possible race-based motives behind the hacking of Obama's passport info (current odds are 7:1 that the State Dept. employees are white lackeys of The Man), I think it's critical to mention one little thing.

The Wright/Obama thing isn't really a race thing.

No, I'm not kidding. Yes, it is partially about race. You can even say it's 50% about race, although I think that's generous. If you strip away pure politicking, the Obama/Wright mess is really, in very large measure, about religion.

Our reaction has been, predominantly, focused on race. That, kids, is a mistake. An error in judgment. It's the "good television" issue and it avoids the very real third rail of religion.

We didn't get lucky. We couldn't have just one of the R's on the table. We have to deal with religion, too. I'm not just talking about this whole "black church" notion, either. That falls back on the race side of the discussion.

Wright's stupidity may be about race, but Obama's relationship to Wright is a matter of religion. It's about the way different people approach faith and their relationships to churches and church leaders.

Before I went race crazy, I sort of touched on some of this. Since then, I've been shocked. The race frenzy has been amazing to behold, but no one is really talking about religion and how different people approach their faiths. This is at the CORE of determining the significance of the Obama/Wright relationship and it is being IGNORED.

I really am amazed. So many people think the relationship between Barry O. and Jerry W. is a critical aspect of understanding a potential POTUS and his outlook on the world, but no one is talking about that pastor/congregate relationship in terms of Barack Obama and HIS religion.

I'm not talking about "his" faith in terms of Christianity (notice how that "secret Muslim" shit has disappeared?). I'm talking about Barack Obama and HIS relationship to the faith of Christianity, and to his particular church.

Many people are aghast that Obama would belong to a church that had a pastor who said crazy shit. They can't figure it out! They can't understand WHY anyone would go to a church that consistently offered perspectives that are so out of the mainstream!

I mean, really. Would you go to a church for 20 years if you had to listen to someone tell you that you could only have sex if it was for procreation and that birth control was sinful? Would you worship somewhere that taught you that members of your faith were the only chosen people who could expect a happy afterlife? Would you go to some crazy church where pastors told you it was important to nuke Iran in order to usher in the return of Jesus?

Would you keep on going to some church where the pastor told you that your gay cousin was going to burn in hell for all eternity because pictures of Brad Pitt raise his steeple?

How could anyone spend 20 years in a church that's been populated by numerous pedophiles in positions of authority?!? How could any sane person maintain membership in a church that preaches the destruction of a competing religion through whatever means necessary--including violence--Sunday after Sunday?

Hmmm... People do that. Week after week. Why?

Well, there are a few reasons. And a lot of it might be the same reason Barack continued to hang out in a church led by some guy who was jumping around hollering "God damn America!"

Now, if you're Dick Morris, you argue that Obama's involvement with Trinity was purely pragmatic. Jeremiah Wright's church has big influence on the south side of Chicago, so Barack found an empty pew. It was political networking from a young organizer and future politician who recognized the non-supernatural powers of Trinity.

I'm sure Obama considered the positive mojo that was coming his way by virtue of membership at Trinity United. He ain't stupid, after all. However, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm ready to accept his explanation of how he came to be a member of the church.

Even more importantly, I believe his explanation of his relationship to religion. In his own words:

And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works.

Just in case you skipped over that, read it again. Carefully. This is Barack Obama explaining his Christianity. His individual relationship to the concept of faith and to the church. This is Barack Obama explaining why we should be looking at the Wright controversy in terms of religion instead of perseverating on race to the exclusion of all other considerations.

Today, on the way to work, I was driving across an overpass that spans a busy chunk of interstate highway. There was a guy standing there on the little fence-protected sidewalk. He was carrying a large wooden cross. He wanted every car headed westbound on I-435 to see the holy cross on Good Friday. That guy has a certain outlook on religion. He has a relationship to his faith. It's wildly different than my own. It might be different than yours. It's probably different than Barack Obama's.

There are stalwarts and true believers in every denomination. There are Catholics who never miss a mass and who make confession (and follow through with penance) regularly. There are Jews who really do keep kosher every single day. Some of them listen to every word their pastor, rabbi, or priest says and accept it as True. There are those who listen to those same leaders and funnel it through their own faith and understanding. There are those who listen and then storm out of church or temple, fuming.

Then, there are those who don't fall into the hardcore category. They have faith, but they have questions and they aren't necessarily willing to compromise their sense of reason and right because someone at the pulpit says so. They share much in common with the stalwarts who believe there is a difference between the voice at the pulpit and the voice of God.

There are cafeteria Catholics who get birth control prescriptions filled and who'll skip mass for the Steelers/Browns game. There are Jews who occasionally have a cheeseburger. There are fundamentalists who don't really buy into the whole "speaking in tongues" thing and who don't have a problem with a "gay lifestyle" even if their denomination's hierarchy says they should.

Then, there are those who don't belong to a specific church or denomination but share beliefs common to one or more. Then, there are the atheists. And the pagans. And the neo-paganistic druids. And the agnostics. Fuck the agnostics.

I don't want to argue about who's right and who's wrong (Except with respect to the agnostics. They're just narcissistic and/or cowards). I don't want to compare the merits of one outlook to another. I just want it recognized that one person's understanding of religion may be radically different than that of another.

Barack Obama doesn't sound like someone who believes his church has all the answers. By his own admission, he still has questions. He's still looking for answers. His Christianity isn't an exercise in gathering and following absolute political truths from his pastor. He's not there to follow the instructions of Jeremiah Wright to a tee.

He's just like the people who keep going to John Hagee's church even though Hagee is certifiably nuts. He's not unlike the Rod Parsley congregates who keep showing up every Sunday even though they have their doubts about the miracle healing prayer cloths he sells to the desperate.

Would you keep going to a church if you don't believe in everything the church leaders say? If you go to church every week, you probably are doing just that. You might be one of the stalwarts who never disagrees, but the odds are that you don't necessarily put the words of the person at the pulpit on par with the word of God.

Put simply, Barack's religious convictions aren't altogether different than those held by many others. It just so happens that his pastor is a little more fucked in the head than most of the other ones holding services on the weekends. Isn't there something in the bible about casting stones? There are few thousand people who might want to look that up, based on what I've seen lately.

Aha, you may say, there is a difference. The mellowly-presented anti-birth control stance of the Catholic Church isn't quite as radical as "God damn America". There's a difference between a biblical stance against hot girl on girl lesbian action and "the chickens have come home to roost". The protestant pastors who seem to have some questionable viewpoints aren't quite as "out there" as Uncle Jeremiah. It's not right to compare Wright to Billy Graham. It makes more sense to compare him to Fred Phelps.

People say they can understand someone sitting through sermons with which they may have minor disagreements but that they can't believe Barack Obama would nod along with Jeremiah Wright for many years. Most people, they argue, wouldn't keep going to a church that preached white supremacy or that consistently supported some other completely reprehensible world view. Why would Barack hang out with Jeremiah spouting all that nonsense?

That's an interesting argument. It's also one of the more sensible. Where do we draw the line between church statements that are tolerably questionable and those that are utterly reprehensible. Does damning the gays fall on one side of the line while "God damn America" falls on the other?

I do have an opinion about why we're drawing the line in a spot that puts Jeremiah Wright on the wrong side while leaving Pat Robertson in the clear.

Culturally, we're a lot more accepting, in political and social terms, of crazy clergy who keep their preachin' on the conservative side. That's a natural byproduct of our nation's history and traditional religious biases. When Barry Goldwater's progeny married the children of the religious right, U.S. culture sort of collectively decided to let some brands of crazy slide a little more.

There's another factor at play, too. We're suffering from a lack of context. Jeremiah Wright has been preaching and speaking for decades. I doubt he's gone more than 48 hours in the last 20 years without giving a presentation or preaching a sermon. We've seen nothing but excerpts. Snippets of the guy at his very worst. Based on what I know, Trinity United and Jeremiah Wright have done a lot of good things in Chicago. That doesn't excuse the lunacy, but it might help put it into perspective.

There may be enough good in that church to justify repeat visits even if some days are batshit crazy. The church may function as a community that's diverse enough to accept the idea that members can disagree with a pastor's politics.

(Not to get back on race again, but there is also a difference in how the majority interpret the behavior and commentary of black churches vs. those of white churches.)

But this isn't just about politics any more than it's just about race. Their both factors, but focusing on them at the exclusion of the individual religious experience itself is foolish.

I'm not a traditionally religious guy. We'll have an Easter egg hunt at the John Brown estate and the loveable giant bunny will make his presence known, but I won't be attending services. Just for this post, I decided to be a non-heathen for a few minutes and I dug this up in the bible. I thought it was pertinent, considering Hillary Clinton's White House ambitions... In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Paul wrote:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

By the way, I just tossed that out there because I couldn't bear the thought of writing a long post like this without finding some way to piss off Hillary Clinton supporters.

Have a happy and/or soulful Easter.

Save an egg for John Brown!






Technorati Tags: religion, race, Racism, identity politics, campaign, elections, barack obama, Obama, hillary clinton, Clinton, jeremiah wright, easter, easter bunny, sister souljah, bible Del.icio.us Tags: religion, race, Racism, identity politics, campaign, elections, barack obama, Obama, hillary clinton, Clinton, jeremiah wright, easter, easter bunny, sister souljah, bible Furl Tags: religion, race, Racism, identity politics, campaign, elections, barack obama, Obama, hillary clinton, Clinton, jeremiah wright, easter, easter bunny, sister souljah, bible

Why Geraldine Ferraro should go away...

Go away, Geraldine. Not because you're a racist or anything. Go away because you've gone sour and are bad for everyone.

I know you watched it and have probably read it again, too. Play along with me, though. I want you to read an excerpt from Barack Obama's "race" speech. You don't have to study every word carefully. Just read it and pay a little attention, okay? Great. Thanks. Here we go:

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

See? I told you it wasn't complicated! Very easy to understand, actually.

For those who need extra help with interpretation, allow me:

It is wrong to simply dismiss everyone who says something controversial about race as a crazed racist. That kind of simplification is silly and its not very helpful.

Just in case you need even more extra help, I'll simplify again:

We shouldn't call people racists every time they say something about race. That is bad.

Still having problems? Okay:

No call everyone racist. Bad.

That last "level of help" was written with Geraldine Ferraro in mind. I used to think of Ferraro as a relatively harmless relic from the Democratic party's bygone days. She had a landmark moment, served her constituency, and moved on. The end. I didn't dislike her and I certainly admired her willingness to be the first woman VP candidate. Beyond that, I didn't really think too much about Geraldine Ferraro.

I now realize that Geraldine Ferraro is a fucking moron of the first order. She is stupid. She lacks reading comprehension skills. She is a fool. I think you get the idea.

Wait! How can it be that this woman, a former vice presidential candidate, can be a complete dumb-ass? It seems impossible! How could an elected official with a long track record in Washington, DC be functionally illiterate?

I don't know. I really don't. But that's exactly what's going on with Geraldine Ferraro. Well, either that or she really isn't stupid and she's just saying stupid things for the sake of some political objective. I'd rather believe she's a Grade-A dummy than to think she's a conniving piece of shit, though. Wouldn't you?

Any way, she's either stupid or full of crap. We know that because she recently reacted to Obama's speech.

Just in case you've lost track, revisit the comment he made that referenced Geraldine. He said it was wrong for people to simply dismiss Ferraro as a bigot. He said that throwing people overboard on the basis of comments about race was short-sighted and foolish. He basically told the people who called Geraldine Ferraro a racist to stick it up their asses. Barack Obama stuck up for Geraldine Ferraro and cautioned those who'd call her a racist because of her "Barack is lucky to be a black dude" comments.

So, how do you think Geraldine Ferraro reacted? Do you think she thanked Obama for recognizing that she wasn't a racist? Do you think she applauded his willingness to explore what her comments and motivations really meant, instead of painting her as a crazed bigot?

Hell no. Geraldine Ferraro did exactly what you'd expect an idiot who can't understand simple sentences would do. Or, you could say she did exactly what you'd expect a sick, twisted political manipulator would do.

She became indignant!

To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable...


It also didn't happen. Nonetheless, that's what Geraldine told the now-halfway-famous Daily Breeze. She was pissed off that he somehow equated her remarks with Wright's yammerings. So what if he didn't actually do that. So what if he did something approximating the opposite of what seemed to piss her off. She's either too stupid to understand Barack Obama or she's intentionally faking rage to serve some other end.

Either way, she sucks. Big time. She's pure evil and her reaction to the speech is far more sinister and malignant than her earlier fool-talk about Obama's luck at being a black guy running for president.

Geraldine Ferraro mind has rotted. Or her political soul has gone rancid. You pick. I don't give a shit. Either way, she's bad.

The funny thing is that I sort of stuck up for Geraldine after her controversial remarks made headlines. I reasoned that her comments were less a product of racism than of her own involvement in women's issues and the context-built prism through which she might view the world. I thought she was wrong, but I didn't think she was a racist.

Well, no more sticking up for Ferraro. She is infected with either the stupid bug or the most dangerous political disease imaginable.

The latest round of Ferraro vs. Obama is sickening. Geraldine is pissed off at Obama for doing the opposite of what he did. That's bad enough. She's also hacked that he failed to criticize Jeremiah Wright.

Yeah, you read that right. She's all hacked off that Barack didn't come down on the pastor. Here's an example of her fucked up (non)insight:

(Obama) gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred...

WTF Gerry? Does this ring a bell?

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Apparently, Barack Obama must kill Jeremiah Wright, urinate on his corpse and then go on SNL and tear up a photo of him after singing a capella in order to "address" the matter to Geraldine's satisfaction. Fight the real enemy, Barack! What a load of shit. She's either beyond stupid or she's faking. We all know it.


And it really comes as no surprise. The "lucky black guy" stuff was followed by Geraldine making these weird accusations that they Obama campaign was calling her a racist. Of course, that never happened. They called her remarks "divisive" and "polarizing" but they never categorized the comments as "racist". They certainly didn't call Gerry a racist. That reality didn't phase her, though. She claimed it was true anyway. Then, Obama says that those who did call her a racist were wrong. That pisses her off even more, apparently. Idiot or liar. Your pick.

I guess there's a third choice--psychopath. I don't know which of the three options best fits Geraldine Ferraro, but I do know one thing. America better damn well be done with folks like her. Otherwise, we deserve every bad thing that comes our way.

If you want to know what a new politics should look like... If you're really interested in bettering the USA and its governance... If you want to know why people seem to love the idea of "change" and why hope is an increasingly popular antidote to the status quo... If you want to do any of those things, you can figure it all out by studying Geraldine Ferraro's behavior over the course of the past month.

She is bad. End of story.

Go away, Geraldine. Not because you're a racist or anything. Go away because you've gone sour and are bad for everyone.





Technorati Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity, Del.icio.us Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity, Furl Tags: ferraro, geraldine ferraro, barack obama, barack obama, Racism, race, identity politics, elections, campaigns, lies, stupidity

Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, religion, race and the political dance... The three lessons of Pastorgate...

The Barack Obama / Jeremiah Wright controversy's narrative is reaching its denoument for most of the world, although some of the more fearful and fear-mongering among us may continue to pound the story for a while longer.

Although the story isn't yet 100% complete, we can skip ahead just a few pages to study the lessons it teaches.

The Moral(s) to the Story

1. We don't understand religion in America very well.

The Unitarian and the evangelical Christian have very different views of what religion is all about. The Hassidic Jew and the cafeteria Catholic have very different outlooks on faith and membership to a religious group. Rod Parsley and anyone who embraces Islam are on very different wavelengths. You get the idea.

Unfortunately, a lot of the "Obama's militant preacher" crap is being offered with a certain perspective in mind. We hear from fundamentalist Christians who "can't understand" why a guy would stay in a church with a pastor "like that". We hear from more moderate, and predominantly protestant, voices who have a vision of what church membership means that probably doesn't mirror the way many people think. The outcome? The Wright stuff gets twisted into something it isn't, blown a little out of proportion, and still isn't treated seriously.

The religious perspective divide includes a black/white dimension, too. If you read anything more about Obama and Wright, check out these two articles. It may change your perspective on why Wright says the things he says, the context in which he says them, and why a parishioner might not consider them all that inflammatory.

Charles Coulter at the KC Star has a great piece on the topic. His little First Amendment argument at the beginning is silly, but the rest of the article is a great read. Here's an excerpt:

Rev. Wright has not said anything that has not been said or is not being said in bars, poolrooms, barber shops, hair salons or anywhere else more than three black people gather.

And don't fool yourself. It's not just the black urban poor, those without jobs, education or hope, who express these comments. Many members of the black middle class have the same sense of history; the same sense of anger.

Deborah Mathis at BlackAmericaWeb provides some interesting perspective, too. In part, she writes:

In a fair world, Obama would be able to elaborate about the black perspective and thereby give some context to Wright’s comments and the facts of black expression.

But, then, in a fair world, there would be no racial divide to bridge. Of course, Obama’s detractors would never consider that.

These two articles are the part of the Wright controversy you aren't hearing about from most news sources. Even if you don't agree with Coulter and Mathis, they're worth reading.

2. Race is still a big deal.

A few short weeks ago, it almost felt like the USA was proving that it had a great deal of progress in terms of race, racism and race relations. We had a black guy of mixed heritage leading in the polls and no one was saying anything about it.

Yeah, we obviously still had our issues with those of Latin origin and those darned Muslims, but it was starting to seem like we had that whole black/white thing resolved.

Not quite. The Wright thing is a HUGE reminder of the black/white divide. Not only are whites "not getting it" with respect to black churches, many people are expressing reactions that don't seem to understand the nation's racial history. You have those who foment racism without saying the "n word" pretending as if they're colorblind while they intentionally hit the right buttons to make white folk just a little bit nervous, if you know what I mean. Meanwhile, you have hypersensitive folk on the other side of the table finding racism where it probably doesn't even unintentionally exist.

Then you have the outright crazies, but that's another story. They're definitely out there, but I think their most influential days are long behind them. Nonetheless, they're stirring the shit pot so everyone can get a whiff.

We've got a long way to go when it comes to race. The Wright stuff proves it and you're gonna see a lot more of it in the coming months after Obama officially gets the nomination. I'm not just talking about McCain-backers coming down on Barack, either. This is going to cut both ways and no one is going to be able to pretend that we're running around inside the MLK dream.

3. Barack Obama isn't perfect.

I liked Obama's responses on the Wright question, for the most part. In fact, a lot of what he said wasn't much different than my own perspective on the matter. However, he did do one thing I didn't like. He acted like a pretty traditional politician.

First, he denounced all of Wright's "controversial" statements. That's a sensible thing to do when you're on a hot seat, but I don't think it's completely honest. Many of the "controversial" Wright statements aren't really, at their core, all that horrible. Sometimes, it's more about "how you say it" than it is about "what you say". Explaining the difference, however, isn't always politically feasible (or at least easy enough to justify when your objective is winning an election). I think Obama copped out a little bit in his across-the-board reaction to those who disagreed with Wright's sentiments.

Second, Obama parsed his language like a pro. He made sure we knew he wasn't in the pews when Wright was yelling "God damn America", but he sort of left some wiggle room when it came to the "did you know the guy said this sort of thing" question. That's because he probably DID know about Wright's more "radical" harangues but didn't want to concede it because of the nature of the media coverage. He probably felt it was too challenging to explain why those comments might not have been all that controversial within the walls of Trinity United.

So, he took the easy out: Repudiate while leaving room for interpretation. It's probably smart in some ways, but it's also very old school from a guy who's running on a "new politics".

Barack isn't perfect. Usually the recognition of massive personal imperfections comes long before anyone runs for the office. In Obama's case, however, it's hitting him late, so it feels like news. Me? I'm still backing the guy, though I wish he would have been willing to take the harder and more intellectually honest route on this one.




Technorati Tags: barack obama, Obama, race, Racism, jeremiah wright, wright, , religion, , Politics, Election, primaries, Del.icio.us Tags: barack obama, Obama, race, Racism, jeremiah wright, wright, , religion, , Politics, Election, primaries, Furl Tags: barack obama, Obama, race, Racism, jeremiah wright, wright, , religion, , Politics, Election, primaries

Clinton vs. Obama and racism arguments... You ain't seen nothing yet... Wait until it's Obama vs. McCain...

I'm really interested in how the Geraldine Ferraro/race thing sorts itself out. Not because I'm really all that concerned about the phantom racism of old white women who just happen to have stopped reading and thinking about feminism before all of the race/gender intersection scholarship and activism blew up old-school "woman is the nigger of the world" thinking.

My interest is more future-oriented. I want to see how this plays out because, when it comes to race, you ain't seen nothing yet.

If you think the Democratic primaries have started to reveal some lingering issues of race in the U.S., just wait until Barack Obama squares off against John McCain down the road. That's when the shit will really hit the fan.

Whereas Geraldine Ferraro is just a very frustrated warrior clinging to a dying vision of feminism, John McCain has a track record that makes her comments look incredibly trivial.

McCain voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr. Day a national holiday.

McCain hired Terry Nelson, the guy who put together the anti-Harold Ford ad that many decried as racist.

McCain had a dust-up over the use of the expression "tar baby".

McCain raised money for George Wallace's kid, a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization on the Souther Poverty Law Center's hate group list. The CCC celebrates America's "European heritage" and takes offense to things like mixed marriages.

McCain has that "I'll always hate the gooks" thing going for him. Yeah, he says "gooks".

McCain was "honored" when John Hagee, he of the "slave sale" fund raisers, provided an endorsement.

McCain hired Richard Quinn, founder of "Southern Heritage", a guy who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and blamed Martin Luther King, Jr., for creating perpetual dependence upon welfare among blacks.

Etc.

By the way, I don't think all of those criticisms prove John McCain is a bigot or anything. Some of them are weird, some are probably accidents, some are stupid. Some really are disturbing, but more in a "this guy has questionable judgment" way than in a "John McCain hates people" way.

However, this undoubtedly sets the stage for some race-related fireworks. Then, there's the traditional tension between blacks and the Republicans. You also have media "personalities" who will probably end up in McCain's corner who are certain to raise hackles and you can bet that at least a handful of surrogates will say stupid things--they always do (on both sides, by the way). The Republicans are sufficiently aware of that risk that they're already engaging in some prevention activities.

If Bill Clinton's allusion to Jesse Jackson when discussing Obama can make headlines and the frustrated grumblings of Geraldine Ferraro can trump Eliot Sptizer humping a whore in the press, you have to wonder what's going to happen with Obama vs. McCain.

That's why the reaction to the Ferraro babble interests me. It might be a sneak preview of things to come.

It'll be interesting to see how that plays out, huh?




Technorati Tags: geraldine ferraro, hillary clinton, Clinton, barack obama, Obama, race, Racism, identity politics, Politics, elections, john mccain, McCain, Del.icio.us Tags: geraldine ferraro, hillary clinton, Clinton, barack obama, Obama, race, Racism, identity politics, Politics, elections, john mccain, McCain, Furl Tags: geraldine ferraro, hillary clinton, Clinton, barack obama, Obama, race, Racism, identity politics, Politics, elections, john mccain, McCain,

Geraldine Ferraro, Barack Obama and covering Sam Cooke

Hey, Geraldine Ferraro. Before you keep on with this whole "being black is easier than being a white woman and that's why Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama" thing...

Maybe there's a different way to look at things?

Sam Cooke's classic, as performed by assorted whites, blacks, men, women, southern rock bands, a blues band with an Asian guitarist, and others. Take note, Geraldine.




























Technorati Tags: geraldine ferraro, ferraro, race, Racism, Sexism, gender, bias, society, campaigns, Politics, elections, hillary clinton, barack obama, Del.icio.us Tags: geraldine ferraro, ferraro, race, Racism, Sexism, gender, bias, society, campaigns, Politics, elections, hillary clinton, barack obama, Furl Tags: geraldine ferraro, ferraro, race, Racism, Sexism, gender, bias, society, campaigns, Politics, elections, hillary clinton, barack obama,

Sixteen Reasons to Celebrate Martin Luther King Day...

Happy MLK Day!

Yeah, I said "Happy MLK Day". I know people usually couch their sentiments about this holiday in a more sober manner, but I thought it might be nice to bring a little joy to the whole affair.

Why be happy on Martin Luther King Day? I have several reasons for you and none of them involve the extra day off from work you might be getting. Here they are...

One: Celebrate because you are NOT the guy from Shooting the Messenger. This Floridian Son (Daughter?) of the Confederacy took time out his busy schedule to run a King hit piece from noted dunce Don Boys which includes gems like:

"My research also indicates that King was a drunk, plagiarist, bisexual, and Marxist. Try to remember that we are not concerned with this race of complexion, but his character."

The article, not surprisingly, concludes with the author's decision to NOT celebrate the King Holiday.

Two: Celebrate because you are NOT Alan Stang. Prolific fundamentalist author, jabberbox and all-around-asswipe Alan Stang let's the world know that King was a fornicating communist who plagiarized like a mofo. That's not all, though... His "non-violence" was really quite violent. Oh, and Reverend King wasn't a real Christian. He also uses the occasion to take a jab at Barack Obama. Seriously, I couldn't make that shit up if I tried. Here's an excerpt of Stang's perspective"

"Because Mike [MLK] as a 'martyr' is still so valuable a revolutionary tool, the facts about him that routinely ooze forth despite such organized suppression are usually greeted with hysterical charges that this is a 'racist' country. Of course, such accusations are wearing extra thin in a country that soon could have a black President named Hussein. Join me in uncelebrating this spurious holiday."

Three: Celebrate because you are NOT James from The Hudson Valley Freeman. James supplies another anti-King post. This one seems to focus predominantly on King's assignations with prostitutes, but it does manage to sneak a little anti-Semitism into the mix, just for fun!

"Despite these facts, King's Jewish handlers and their allies in the media were steadfast
in their laudatory portrayal of King."

Four: Celebrate because you are NOT part of New York White Pride. Okay, that's something to celebrate every day, I know. Nonetheless, the cause for celebration is highlighted when you see NYWP whining about the King should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as dead white guys.

"These allegations were brought up on a now defunct Web page supposedly in order '[not] to bring down MLK, Jr.' but to "subject him to the same sort of dirt-digging that leaders such as George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, and other dead white guys have suffered."

Five: Celebrate because you are NOT the author of Things the Lord Told Me. "MLK the Dirtbag?" explains that King wasn't a real Christian. In addition to his alleged religious shortcomings, he was also just about every other bad thing imaginable. Warning: the site says "Open Theists Not Allowed". Keep that in mind in case you're an open theist, I guess. It's too bad that TTLTM is locking the OT crowd out. It keeps them from gems like:

"The man should not have his own holiday and should not be revered by Christians. He was a hypocrite in a very high manner that lied his way to the top of the social change/racial reconciliation movement. He also didn’t hold to many essential Christian doctrines (deity of Christ, resurrection, virgin birth, etc,) yet we call him a great Christian! It is also widely documented that king was a Communist (who by the way are atheists) sympathizer…so why give the man a holiday? Read his papers. You’ll be shocked (I was) Then, read the bible. We should all be more careful of people we revere as 'saints'…"

Six: Celebrate because you are NOT David Ben-Ariel. Ben-Ariel's Beyond Babylon joined the choir of those singing against King with "The Real Martin Luther King, Jr." Again, attention is focused on King and his (ab)use of prostitutes. Celebrate the fact that you don't write crap about those who...

"...would DARE share the plain truth about MICHAEL Luther King? Nothing like exposing the BIG LIE of MLK, but the sheeple continue to the slaughter, willfully ignorant and/or indifferent about such false idols."

Seven: Celebrate because you a NOT Carlton Huffman. Huffman celebrates MLK Day by posting a 25 year-old Jesse Helms speech at Conservative V.O.I.C.E. Again, I am not making this shit up. People actually think they're contributing something of value by trotting out old Jesse Helms' speeches. Hard to believe when they include:

"The conclusion must be that Martin Luther King, Jr. was either an irresponsible individual, careless of his own reputation and that of the civil rights movement for integrity and loyalty, or that he knowingly cooperated and sympathized with subversive and totalitarian elements under the control of a hostile foreign power."

Eight: Celebrate because you are NOT James Bronson. Bronson is credited as the author of a weird "It's a Wonderful Life"-meets-neo-nazi-fantasy piece that News from the West ran with the tag, "A Great Piece You Must Read".

"It's a Wonderful Race!" shows what happens when Clarence the Angel shows George the lippy liberal college kid what the world would be like if Europeans never existed. People live in caves and there are parts of the world that haven't discovered the wheel, etc. The highlight/lowlight of this twisted piece of shit is its portrayal of King as a with doctor with a penchant for casting evil spells name "Matunbo Lutamba Kinga". I am not kidding, people. Don't worry, there's a misguided professor named Dr. Silverstein, too, just in case you can't handle your racism without a little anti-Semitic seasoning!

Nine: Celebrate because you are NOT Jenab. Jenab's Fireside Chats has a standard-issue anti-King post, too. It breaks little new ground in the realm of stupid and hostile posts about MLK, but it does have a rousing conclusion:

"And this is Black people's great hero? This is their shining example? This is their model Black man? This is the man that other Blacks look up to? The cheater who got away with it. The con artist who beat the system. The pervert who never went to prison. The commie agitator who was honored with a federal holiday. The preacher who stole money from his own church. Very funny! Michael King was even more corrupt than most of his brothas are. He didn't deserve a single one of the honors and tokens of status he received: not his degree, nor his medal of freedom, nor his Nobel prize, nor his national holiday. The whole MLK-is-a-hero thing is a huge fraud."

Ten: Celebrate because you are NOT Kevin Alfred Strom. I know, this one is a little obvious. If you're creating shit like "The Beast as Saint" about King and people are re-running it on StormFront fourteen years later, the suck-o-meter is pegged and most people are probably happy not to be you. Nonetheless, MLK Day reminds us how thankful we can be for not being the kind of guy who says...

"Every January, the media go into a kind of almost spastic frenzy of adulation for the so-called "Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr." King has even had a national holiday declared in his honor, an honor accorded to no other American, not Washington, not Jefferson, not Lincoln. (Washington and Lincoln no longer have holidays -- they share the generic-sounding "President's Day.") A liberal judge has sealed the FBI files on King until the year 2027. What are they hiding? Let's take a look at this modern-day plastic god."

Eleven: Celebrate because you ARE capable of recognizing the disturbing history of race in America and the role King played in creating progress.

Twelve: Celebrate because you ARE smart enough to understand that King was both a flawed individual and a successful leader. You are allowed to admire his strengths while disliking his weaknesses.

Thirteen: Celebrate because you ARE able to differentiate between the establishment of a holiday designed to honor the positive aspects of King's legacy (and the overall value of a civil right movement) and making King out to be a perfect human being.

Fourteen: Celebrate because you ARE capable of reflecting on King and his life without obsessing over conspiracies involving massive race wars, Jewish control of fill-in-the-blank, the continued push to destroy white culture, and all of the other paranoid crap that seems to influence everyone from the White Power simpletons to "just plain folk" who don't like to think too hard.

Fifteen: Celebrate because you ARE able to find your own way to approach this holiday productively and with an eye toward improving our ability to function as individuals and as a society. Celebrate your ability to find positive messages and opportunities for real learning and discovery from King's messages and life.

Sixteen: Celebrate because you UNDERSTAND what those first ten reasons tell us about race in America and the challenges that still exist. Celebrate your ability to recognize the counterproductive and negative positions others hold and the responsibility it creates for the rest of us to effectuate some kind of positive change.

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

The guy liked fooling around with prostitutes. He may have even smacked one around. Sometimes he drank a little too much for some people's tastes. His politics were too left-of-center for a lot of people. He had a history of plagiarism.

He also challenged us to be better. Maybe even better than him. He mobilized powerful forces for change.

There are reasons why we have MLK day and they have nothing to do with evil Jews, political correctness hellbent on destroying all vestiges of Western culture, or a whitewashed record designed to create a tin god out of King.

MLK day is worth celebrating.



Technorati Tags: Martin Luther King, MLK, Racism, Politics, progress, holiday, Del.icio.us Tags: Martin Luther King, MLK, Racism, Politics, progress, holiday, Furl Tags: Martin Luther King,MLK, Racism, Politics, progress, holiday,