Showing posts with label identity politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identity politics. Show all posts

Monday, April 14, 2008

Hillary Clinton: Irrelevant but impossible to ignore... A few diseased trees in a much larger forest...

Forest. Forest. Must ignore tree.

Like every other halfway sane person in the world, I've been a little pissed off at Hillary Clinton since Barry O. opened his mouth and made the politically-unwise decision to attempt an explanation of why so many people are pissed off and, yes, bitter.

The Monster has been on the loose. She's running around faster than one of the infected from 28 Days Later, shrieking to all who will listen about just how damn elitist and "out of touch" Obama is.

It's the kind of fib-based, overcalculating, diseased thinking that exemplifies the Clinton campaign. After months of poo-pooing Obama's positive message and reminding us that things are so fucked up that only an experienced genius sniper-fire-dodger like The Monster can handle them, Hillary is now feigning shock that anyone might be even a teensy bit bitter about the way the economy and government have been doing their thing without offering the courtesy reach around to the "workin' folk."

Hillary four days ago: Wake up, people. Our country is up shit creek and I'm the only one with a paddle. Pregnant women are dying left and right because they don't have health insurance. Regular folks are watching the sheriff auction off their homes as we speak. Things are going to Hell in a handbasket! Do you really want to turn this clusterfuck over to a novice who isn't a Muslim, as far as I know? All Obama has is a pretty speech or two and this ultra-optimistic and utterly unrealistic belief that we can actually improve circumstances before the dawn of the next century. Give me a break. We need a little more alarmism and a lot less Norman Vincent Peale around here!

Hillary today: Can you believe my opponent? He actually thinks people are bitter over the state of America? Is he kidding? Why would anyone be bitter? Why would anyone be pissed off? Gee whiz, the people with whom I speak are optimistic, positive and excited about the future. How could anyone think things suck? Who would've put that kind of crazy idea into their heads, huh? Let's stop being smarty-pants elitists who draw attention to the bad stuff. Let's start being positive thinkers for a change!

That's a head-spinner, no?

Hillary is out doing shots, guzzling brew and playing with guns. She's reminding us that she's "in touch" with Joe Six Pack. She's running with the RNC talking points on her Blackberry, but going the extra mile by dropping her "g's" to sound more folksy.

The same Monster who tried to make sure the world jumped Obama's ass when he admitted a modicum of admiration for Ronnie Reagan's communication skills is now running to the right of Barry on every think imaginable in a crazed effort to convince Reagan Democrats that she's the Gipper without a penis.

Anyone who's still backing The Monster better be doing so out of admiration of her willingness to do absolutely anything to convince just one more person to vote for her. If you're willing to dump Obama for Clinton right now, she will personally give you a half-hour footrub and will chisel out a 10' ice sculpture of the White House for you. Toss in a donation and she'll kick her momma in the stomach, if you so desire.

If you're voting for Hillary, you are voting to reward the most obsessive and craven pursuit of power I have ever witnessed. A fighter? No. A disturbing freak. She is a zombie who, instead of feeding on the brains of others, dines on their votes.

Anyway, I get wrapped up in it all. It disgusts me, her intentional infection of the body politic with soul cancer. It intrigues me, too, because I cannot understand how anyone who pays a fucking shred of attention to all of this could possibly think she is anything short of dead inside. I get carried away with it.

I stare at the gnarled and dying trees she's planting and I lose focus on the larger forest. That's the point of this post. Hillary Clinton's campaign is a freakshow so compelling that it distracts us from the inevitable reality of her defeat.

We shouldn't give damn what she's saying, how she's saying it, how much it differs from both reality and what she said ten minutes ago, or to whom she's saying it.

Hillary Clinton isn't going to get the nomination and we all know that--at least those of us who are able to sensibly assess probabilities. The futures markets give her a slim-to-none chance. The math makes a mockery of the idea of Monster win. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest the kind of sea change she'd need among super-d's to capture the Democratic crown.

If she did defy all odds and nab the nomination, she'd get her ass handed to her anyway. Hillary Clinton cannot and will not become the President of the United States of America. She lost long ago and her lingering presence couldn't be less meaningful if her name was Alan Keyes.

But we watch and we have conniption fits because she comes at us from all angles with no memory of yesterday and no plan for tomorrow other than "kill, kill, kill". She is the evil robot monster run amok. The mindless serial killer chasing babysitters upstairs. She keeps going and going like Leatherface through the Texas woods.

It's good television and it pushes buttons, but it is nothing more than a few dried and dead trees rotting from within in a very large forest.

That being said, I'm not looking away. Here are a few other examples of just how hard it is for people to ignore the freakshow. For your additional reading pleasure (and because I know you can't resist, either):

*Bark, bugs, leaves and lizards has Hillary angst.
*Ben at Liberty and the Limits of Power sees a shameless monster, too.
*Carl Bernstein imagines a Hillary presidency--and sees an endless psychodrama.
*John Cole discusses Hillary Clinton, liar.
*Vichy Dems questions Hillary's bump and brew pedigree.
*Reign of Error has perspective and demonstrates great word efficiency.

Bookmark




Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags:

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Taylor Marsh revisited... Again... Complete pwnage, courtesy of John Brown, KS...

Just in case you haven't been following the curious case of John Brown vs. the Silliest Blogger in Town, here's a brief rundown...

I read a stupid entry at The Huffington Post by an author whose name I'd seen here and there several times before. I decided to find out who in the hell the anti-genius in question actually was. The HuffPo bio wasn't illuminating and the bio at her site seemed artificially glossy and a wee bit too self-serving. The poster in question? Taylor Marsh.

Although I think she consistently demonstrates a level of political acumen on par with that of my preschool-aged daughter, Marsh has a loyal following of goofs who have joined forces to create a batallion in The Monster's army. She's a recognizable figure online and is oft-quoted as source material by other bloggers. I had a little time and a little curiosity. I decided it would be worthwhile to uncover and share a little bit of info about Marsh with those who, like me, might be interested.

I posted the results of my little Taylor Marsh bio on this blog. A day or two later, someone emailed me some additional information about Marsh, which I also shared. As interest in her background and claims grew, I was sent a link to her self-published vanity book, which I read and reviewed here.

Somewhere along the line, this became a big deal. I've experienced a massive increase in traffic, a lot of attention, congratulations and attacks, and a three-pronged response from Taylor Marsh. She mentioned the "gnat" who was "plumbing" her bio in one of podcasts (she prefers to call it a radio show, meaning I can call the Brown family grocery lists epic poetry). She lumped me and those who linked to me into the category of "hate sites and diaries" who "attack" her because of her allegiance to Hillary. She held a special little chat session with her minions to clear the air about her past, which is "an open book". Oh, she also warned me (in an act of stunning hypocrisy and foolishness, that I might find myself on the receiving end of a lawsuit!

Many have asked questions. Many have made accusations. I'd like to speak to some of them.

JOHN BROWN IS JUST JEALOUS OF TAYLOR MARSH

Bullshit. Yes, I did mention the fact that her swampy-ass website outdraws my tiny little free blog. That's what we call fact, not envy. I also mentioned that it would be relatively easy for anyone with a little drive and a complete willingness to spin and exaggerate to do the same thing, but that I wasn't that interested in playing the bullshit game. The Brown family is doing just fine without extra blog income and I'm not jealous of Ms. Marsh for getting traffic anymore than she's jealous of the guy who posts the funny LOL cats pictures every day. Oh, wait, she probably DOES have an ax to grind with him. In any case, you can cross jealousy off of your list of motives.

JOHN BROWN HATES TAYLOR BECAUSE SHE LIKES HILLARY CLINTON

This was the primary argument Taylor Marsh used her response to the hubbub surrounding her inflated credentials. It is make believe. I don't care for Taylor Marsh's analysis and blog posts because they are stupid. I am anti-mendacity and that makes dummies my natural enemy. The Monster does cause soul cancer, but that's not why I was critical of Taylor Marsh. Shit, Helen Thomas is pretty supportive of Hill these days and you don't see me griping about her.

And therein lies the difference. Taylor Marsh pretends to be something she isn't. She pretends to be a radio host and she pretends to be an author. In reality, she's merely someone who was willing to cough up the cash to buy radio time at a teeny-weeny AM vanity station in the Nevada dessert. In reality, she's a former porn site editor who decided to assemble her rambling account of why the job didn't work out into a "book" that she paid a vanity publisher to print up. Her allegedly relevant experience with an alt weekly paper was actually a gig helping people to write their personal ads. When she did try to write columns, the paper slapped ADVERTISEMENT on top of them.

The reason I took the time to recount Marsh's autobiographical inflation had nothing to do with her love of The Monster.

I disagree with Taylor Marsh about many things and many issues. I don't dislike her because I disagree with her. If I spent my time getting into it with everyone who didn't agree with me, I would be way too busy to bother with Taylor Marsh.

Hey, and I've been at least somewhat fair. I pointed out that Marsh was not a johnny-come-laterly and that she's been a prolific blogger for a long time. I expressed that I was impressed with her ability to self-promote. When someone sent me a link to her book that allowed me to read it free, I opted NOT to pass that along, because she is trying to peddle the damn thing. I might be mean to her, but I'm not THAT bad. And so what if I am?

I decided to look into who she was because I was curious about the freakshow postings' author. I learned that she was crutching on an exaggerated bio in order to create a sense of gravitas and credibility. I think that's goofy grapes, kids.

JOHN BROWN IS A WAR CRIMINAL OR SOMETHING EQUALLY EVIL

I've seen comments on other sites about my Marsh posts that claim I'm shilling for Obama for cash. I've seen one person claim I'm a sex offender and a former juvenile delinquent. One person claimed I was running teen cheerleader porn ads on my blog. I'm secretly a Republican operative, I'm in league with the darkest forces on the 'net and I may even enjoy deep-fried furry baby bunnies for dinner.

It's all bullshit. The truth, as is so often the case (see: Taylor Marsh bio) is much duller than fiction. I'm just a guy with a free blog and occasional bursts of free time on his hands who has opinions and interests. That's it.

JOHN BROWN IS A RIGHT-WING NUTJOB WHO HATES PROGRESSIVES

Not true. I consider myself relatively independent, even though I am a registered Democrat. My views are varied and they're my own, but I'm certainly not a Republican hitman. If you tallied all of my votes and political contributions over the years, I would wager that 80% of the time I've gone with the people who have D's behind their names.

JOHN BROWN IS A NOBODY, WHY SHOULD PEOPLE EVEN CARE

Well, all I can tell you is that I speak my mind. I try to support my arguments when it makes sense to do so. When I'm speculating, I say so. If I'm wrong and am corrected, I will admit my errors. I am just a guy with a blog and I think anyone who wants to read it should evaluate the quality of my entries based on their content and their quality. That's one big reason why I blog under a pseudonym.

"Aha!" exclaim the Marsh-backers, "didn't you say no one should pay attention to Taylor Marsh because you don't think she has a credible background?"

No. I didn't say that. Not even close. Get the wax out of your fucking ears and listen good:

Taylor Marsh is free to say whatever silly dumbassery enters her mind. You are free to read it. You are free to believe it or to reject it. I hope you do so based on the quality of her arguments and her reasoning, coupled with an adequate knowledge base and a respect for intellectual honesty.

You should not, however, buy into Marsh's goobery BECAUSE of her inflated bio.

Do you get the difference? Judge her by her works, not by her tall tale of self-importance. Don't give her bonus points because she has a glossy fib of a bio at HuffPo or because she hired someone to create a site for her that looks like it belongs to someone who actually has a real radio show. Don't take her seriously BECAUSE of the disingenuous bells and whistles.

As noted a 28,483 times, I think crutching on an exaggerated bio is a misleading way of building ethos. Marsh laughed those criticisms off, exclaiming on her podcast that she was good at PR, just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Think about the implications of that perspective and choice of examples for a minute, okay?

It's EASY to create a mega-super-duper-bullshit bio. Unless you're a complete dreg, you can do it in less than five minutes. It's like amped up resume-pumping, but without the risk of losing a job because of it.

JOHN BROWN IS MEAN AND HIS POSTS ABOUT TAYLOR MARSH ARE A HIT JOB

As I noted in my own little online bio, I can be a complete prick. Guilty as charged. However, I tend to be right. And I am intellectually honest. You can dislike me. You can think I'm mean. You might be right. However, dismissing the arguments about Marsh based on perceptions of my personality would be foolish.

In all of the hand-wringing over my "hit pieces", no one has pointed out factual errors. Even Ms. Marsh didn't call me out for lying. You can call me a prick, but you can't say I'm wrong about the facts. If the facts represent a "hit" on the self-proclaimed "antidote to right wing talk" (see: when the cure is just as bad as the disease), so be it.

JOHN BROWN DIDN'T UNCOVER ANYTHING NEW ABOUT TAYLOR MARSH

Damn. There goes my chance to join the secret club of scoopers. I'm no Woodward or Bernstein. of course, I never claimed to be. I just took the time to figure out a few things and I put them all together in one place. I never claimed to have some sort of WWWEXCLUSIVE on Taylor Marsh.

The fact of the matter is that all of the crap I mentioned WAS pretty easy to find. It wasn't easy to find in one place and Marsh didn't necessarily provide all of the context to engender the information she does provide with meaning--at least not in one convenient read. So, if that makes me more of a news aggregator than an investigative reporter, I can accept that fate.

A FEW QUESTIONS OF MY OWN...

Why does it seem so difficult for people to combine a little common sense with their rage? I keep getting and reading all these comments about how mean I am, how I'm jealous, how I have penis envy (?), how wonderful Taylor Marsh is, etc. etc. NONE of them actually address the propriety of telling a tall tale to get attention and to build credibility. NONE of them provide a direct retort to my claims that Marsh inflated her bio. NONE of them actually defend her veiled threat of litigation relating to the use of her Glamour Shot-esque photos.

If you want to come down hard on me for not liking Marsh, for knowing that Hillary is The Monster, or for whatever else, please, please, please, please bring an argument to the table. Try to combine your attitude with a little substance. Just a little. Bring your A-game. Otherwise, it might get boring.

OH, AND THE ILLUSTRATIONS...

I hereby relinquish all copyright to my illustrations, created in response to Ms. Marsh's concern over the possibility I might be sued for using her image on my blog (Apparently, this strategy works better when you're a photographer than when you're Debbie Schlussel. Right, Taylor?).

I hereby grant permission to anyone to use the images as they see fit. You might even say I'm encouraging their use.

If you do use one of my illustrations, please leave a comment so I can keep track of where they're turning up.

YOUR BEST FRIEND FOREVER,

JOHN BROWN

Bookmark



Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Obama, Wright and perspective... Coming out of the fog... The devil IS in the details, sometimes...

I was watching Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan on Tim Russert's show this morning. They were talking about Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright. Again.

I think Tim Russert is a tool. I usually get a kick out of Hitchens and Sullivan. I agree with some of what both have to say and disagree with plenty, too. They may not be the two smartest men in the whole world, but they are far more intelligent and interesting than your standard weekend talk show guests.

Compared to the likes of James Carville and Pat Buchanon, Hitchens and Sullivan are punditry gods.

They were talking. I was listening. A haze slowly fell over me. I heard every word of their back-and-forth, but I wasn't processing it. It wasn't too complicated. It wasn't too deep. It was, however, too boring. And too stupid.

A moment of clarity. This is really, really dumb. The Jeremiah Wright/Barack Obama controversy is foolish.

Many, including me, get lost in the minutiae. We obsess over the details. We analyze every dynamic from all directions. We debate, discuss, support, mock and obsess over things that warrant far less attention than we provide.

So it is with Jeremiah Wright.

Reverend Wright says some really offensive things. He appears to hold some very stupid beliefs. He has a big bad side. He has a big good side, too. He is what he is. He's a nutjob and a good guy all wrapped up into one obviously-flawed and politically dangerous package. So be it. Barack Obama has said the same thing about Jerry W., with a little more care and eloquence.

Pastorgate is really a very simple matter. One sentence:

Barack Obama has a friend and church pastor who happens to have said a lot of really crazy shit.

That's it.

There's no evidence to suggest that Obama believes Wright's crazy positions. There's no reason to think the Senator prays for God to damn our nation every night before beddy-bye time. Barry had a nutjob standing behind the podium of his church. This is not the end of the world. This is just something that happens.

Obama rejected the weirdness and said that he recognized the preaching freakshow's good side. That's more than you'd expect from a candidate. Most would go apeshit attacking the preacher, feigning horror and disgust. Obama didn't sell Wright out, even though he leveled criticism.

Democrats who love The Monster seem to really appreciate the notion of loyalty. Bill Richardson became Judas Iscariot, selling out the Jesus of Bill or Hillary right before Easter, according to James Carville.

Richardson, we were told, was a piece of shit because he didn't display enough loyalty to a pair of very flawed human beings. The "betrayal" was enough to induce finger-wagging from the former President and a bit of red-facedness.

Loyalty is good for those who back Clinton, it's "questionable" when actually displayed by Obama. Go figure.

This is getting off track, though. See? It's easy to get lost in the minor squabbles.

Minor squabbles like Jeremiah Wright. Big news? Sure. Plenty of headlines. In the end, though, it's a porn scene without a money shot.

Obama doesn't plot with Wright. The two don't share a brain. And, it's really just about a guy who has a crazy friend prone to bouts of stupidity.

Eventually, I think most reasonable people will finally see and hear enough of the Wright stuff. They'll have moments of clarity. They'll finally stop listening to those who would continue to force this into being a real story. They'll shrug. They'll think. Out of the fog with a smile.

What difference does this really make?

And that will be the end of it.

Here we are wrapping up a nomination process and the Worst Thing to Happen to the eventual victor is that he has a pain in the ass friend. Not too shabby.

Perspective is a good thing. It's too bad it's often easy to lose.

Just a quick shout out to Monster fans (aka fans of The Lost Cause) and those who prefer John McCain to Barry O... If you want to have an argument... If you want to duke it out... If you want to prove your guy/gal/creature is a better choice than Barack, I'd recommend focusing your efforts on something more meaningful than how nutty some third party happens to be.

Just an idea.

Bookmark


Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

Rachel Maddow looked into the future to provide a Jeremiah Wright sneak preview... Plus, she's hot... Yeah, I know....

Back before John McCain wrapped things up in Republican land, a whole mess of second-tier candidates, including Mike "Before I Got Big Time" Huckabee, gathered in Florida to answer questions from ultra-religious types who are freakishly obsessed with anyone who doesn't limit his or her sexual interests to straight missionary sex, three times per month, for procreation only, between man and wife.

Anyway, before the debate over who could best pander to the homophobic kicked off, they had a choir sing a little ditty about America. It used the well-known God Bless America melody, but with very different lyrics.

Basically, the song asked why would God want to bless America? The answer wasn't "because we're so keen", either. The answer was that God probably wouldn't want to bless America. That's right. God shouldn't bless America, according to the choir.

Why not? Because we don't have a Christ-based theocracy, I'd imagine. The song argues that we've strayed, as a nation, so far from the truths of the holy gospel that we now find ourselves fucked. God has no interest in blessing our infidel nation. We ain't right with Jesus!

Back when this debate about who most loved Jesus and supported Christian tyranny was raging, Rachel Maddow did a little piece about it.

Maddow's analysis--offered months before everyone was watching Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America" sermon--was spot-on perfect.

Maddow noted that all hell would break loose if a lefty happened to re-purpose something like God Bless America in a way that didn't just gush about our nation's perfection. She observed that only a bunch of guys angling to be the most Christian could get by with something like that.

In light of the Jeremiah Wright blow-up, it's sort of cool to see Maddow peer into the future, albeit unknowingly. It's also a pleasant reminder that the shit Jeremiah Wright was slinging is often slung by guys on the other side of the argument, too. Oh, and it reminds you that not all kinds of stupidity are treated equally by the media and your average yahoo on the street.

Watch:




Now, a related note that has nothing to do with whether God should bless, damn, or otherwise take note of America.

I've been noticing Rachel Maddow on MSNBC more and more lately. I think she's hot. I don't mean "hot" like "growing in popularity and importance while attracting attention". I mean she's sexy. Seriously.

Yeah, I know. She's a lesbian. She has a partner. If she wasn't a lesbian, she wouldn't be interested in John Brown. She's pretty butch. Fine. I know. I'm just saying... She's sexy in a very unique Rachel Maddow kind of way. I'll leave it right there.

Bookmark



Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Maggie Williams and sub-prime lending...Clinton campaign honcho in the crosshairs... And I ain't gonna hate on Maggie's job no more...

I ain't gonna hate on Maggie's job no more... Nor should you.

Unlike Samantha Power, I won't apologize for calling Hillary Clinton a monster. Just to prove the point, let me do it again now. Hillary Clinton is a monster. No apology forthcoming.

My point? I am virulently anti-Hillary. I am biased. I'm so biased, in fact, that I truly believe Hillary Clinton causes cancer of the human soul.

So, you're probably guessing I'm sporting political wood over the "breaking news" that Maggie Williams, Clinton confidant and campaign manager, has some strong ties to the very sub-prime mortgage industry Hillary has been criticizing day after day. I'm loving every minute of this egregious act of Clintonian hypocrisy, right?

Wrong. I'm not aroused. I'm not on the attack. If you don't like The Monster, find something else to gripe about. At least for now. This Maggie Williams thing, as currently reported, is a non-issue.

For those with better things to do than browse news headlines while watching the Washington Nationals (side note for DC fans: it is a very bad sign when you're ace is Odalis Perez, even if you do win), a quick recap of subprimegate is probably in order.

Maggie Williams is running the Clinton campaign. Maggie Williams, a long-time Clinton associate and PR guru, served on the board of directors at Delta Financial Corp. for about 7 years. Delta is one of those sub-prime lenders everyone hates these days. You know, the ones we're all blaming for the recession and those nasty foreclosures? Maggie made about $200K plus a heaping pile of now-worthless Delta stock in exchange for her guidance and advice. Delta is now bankrupt.

The Clinton campaign manager was intimately involved with a nefarious sub-prime lender! Why, oh why, am I not using this fact as a means of attacking Hillary? Why is John Brown, the guy who'd eat shit and vote for McCain to avoid a Hillary White House, taking it easy on HRC?

Here are 5 reasons why attacking Hillary based on Williams doesn't make sense to me...

Maggie isn't Hillary. Maggie works for Hillary. That's it. The transitive property of political bullshittery, where we pretend everything those around a candidate do can somehow be used to impugn the candidate is baloney. Maggie did her own thing. Part of that thing involved working for Delta. That doesn't prove Hillary loves subprime lenders or that her calls for regulation aren't sincerely motivated. Please note that I'm not agreeing with The Monster. I'm just not questioning her sincerity based on the actions of Williams.

No evidence of wrongdoing. Even if you do play the "your person is dirty, thus you are dirty" game, which I again reject, there's no dirt here. Being involved with Delta doesn't mean you supported everything that happened there. It doesn't mean you even knew or needed to know everything while you were there. The role of directors varies with the operation and there's no evidence to suggest that Maggie Williams sat around a table with a bunch of evil super-villains and plotted ways to screw the Joneses out of their money and homes. None.

Evidence of good. Williams, based on the accounts I've read, was called in to help Delta do a better job with respect to meeting legal requirements and responding to problems. Additionally, I have no reason to doubt Williams' own comments about the sub-prime industry. She saw wider latitude in loan decisions as a means by which those in lower income groups could get a decent shot at home ownership. She perceived Delta's home equity loans as a way for middle and lower class people to survive financial hardships and to improve their circumstances. Now, we can doubt the wisdom of her judgment, but there's no reason to question her motives. Many people felt the exact same way and not all of them were evil bastards. The reason so many people are getting screwed as this house of cards collapses is because so many smart people like Williams didn't see it coming and believed that looser lending made sense.

Bigger fish to fry. I can think of at least 238,300,121 reasons to attack The Monster that don't involve Maggie Williams. Over 72% of those reason are far more significant than Maggie Williams' links to Delta. Time is a finite resource for mortals. If we feel a need to spend some of our precious time berating Hillary, we should use it where it counts.

Tit for tat, ad infinitum. Roasting candidates because their friends and allies did foolish things creates an infinite loop of stupidity. Those who'll look to the Williams story as a way of turning the tables on those who knocked Obama over Wright merely set the table for the other guys to bag on Barack because of something someone involved in his campaign did. In turn, someone in BHO land will find something not to like about another Hillary backer. We've seen this shit happen over and over again in the last several months. Now is a fine time to take a stand against it. Even those blinded with rage at Hillary can occasionally take the high ground.

I'm always a fan of uncovering new and exciting reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton. I'm going to pass on subprimegate, though. Unless something extraordinary develops, I think it's a non-starter. I will, however, use the Maggie Williams controversy as an excuse to play some Bob Dylan. Maggie's Farm.



Bookmark


Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Remember that one time? Real solutions for fishing...

Hey, remember that one time? The time I went fishing in Minnesota and I caught that record walleye? You remember. I had light test weight line on my reel and was just jigging the rocks for perch when I landed that monster. Almost fell off the boat. Crazy stuff. Remember how everyone was clapping for me when I finally brought it in? Took me the better part of an hour to reel it in, but that party in the lodge later was worth every minute. Man, that was AWESOME.

What? Oh yeah.

It was a baby bullhead. That's right. I caught it off the dock? Oh, right. Well, it did struggle. And that kid did clap. We did buy a six pack at the lodge later, too.

The important thing to remember is that I am an experienced angler who knows what it takes to land the big ones. I have experience with Minnesota lake fishing and can deliver real answers for your bait questions. I have REAL solutions for fishing.

That record walleye? Sorry, I'm sleep deprived. I was up late last night. People keep calling me at 3 a.m. with crises. I guess I misspoke.





Bookmark

Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

Friday, March 21, 2008

Jeremiah Wright's 9/11 Sermon... Listen to what Obama's pastor said... ALL of it, this time...

Interested in Jeremiah Wright?

Trying to figure out what Obama might've been listening to at Trinity on Sundays?

Here's the full audio of one of the "controversial" sermons. This is the "9/11" one. The one where the "chickens come home to roost".

Listen to it. Then see what you think about Wright. Maybe it'll change your mind if you take in some context and here him en toto instead of via a ten-second YouTube clip. Maybe it won't.

I might have time to write all about my long reaction this weekend. Suffice it to say that I'm a little pissed off at myself for not making the effort to get this kind of information earlier and for strangely accepting some spoon feeding about Wright from media sources. I'd like to hear more of the sermons from which controversial remarks were plucked.

Without further ado, I give you Jeremiah Wright:


powered by ODEO


Bookmark


Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags:

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!


Bookmark



Technorati Tags: Del.icio.us Tags: Furl Tags: