It is amazing to me how the Republicans and all of their right-wing friends are trying to minimize the total repudiation they and their policies received at the hands of the electorate. According to these “objective” viewers there was no political realignment. The fact that Obama carried states that hadn’t been carried by a Democrat in years and put into play states that had been lost to Democrats for a generation does not mean that there was a redrawing of the electoral map according to these illustrious men. Their goal is simple to try and keep President Obama and the Democrats from enacting any sweeping legislation, instead hoping that they stay small and do little if anything. My guess is that they hope by trying these scare tactics and keeping the Dems thinking small that in four years if they accomplish little or nothing the Republicans can highlight how a majority Party did nothing to help the voters that elected them.
The Republicans contempt for the intelligence of the American people is infinite. It was only a few years ago that a man who garnered 271 and 286 electoral college votes in two successive elections had a mandate to suspend Habeas Corpus rights, expand government with giveaways to his cronies, and privatize Social Security with their blessings. So I guess based on their logic you only have a mandate and realignment if it meets their criteria and supports their agenda. This talk is why they are becoming more and more irrelevant. I am all for enlisting the support of all Americans for the monumental tasks that we face, but you don’t just get your butt kicked and then try to drive the car; you are lucky to be in the car! What these clowns refuse to see is the same reason they have lost touch with the majority of the American voters and lost the election. When it comes to the major issues facing the American public, they’ve got nothing. This is not the country they thought it was and they can’t accept it.
If I were advising President Obama and the Dems I would advise them to go big and go fast. Strike the iron while it is hot. I would begin with a stimulus package for the poor and the middle-class. I would force the banks to use the bail-out money for what it was designed for to make loans, not to buy other banks. I would then resubmit the SChips healthcare program for children. I would propose funds for states and local governments to ride through this economic crisis and to begin to do the badly needed infrastructure repair. I would look to pass the union registration legislation. I would begin to realign our armed forces to reflect the true nature of the dangers we face. I would invite the UN back into Iraq and give them some real authority to help and stabilize that government. I would then send my diplomats to embark on a worldwide tour to reassure the world that we do respect the world and want to be a part of it again. I would state unequivocally that the United States does not condone torture against anyone. I would enact a 10 year energy plan to make us completely oil free by 2019. I would reinstate and expand the Pell Grant program to help families pay for college for those who are willing and qualified to go. After consultations, I would develop a program to provide healthcare for the millions of Americans who currently don’t have it.
I know that this is a lot to chew on, but we have to remember what George W. and his greedy assed friends have left us with. We must mitigate the vastness of this Depression that we are facing, not wait until we are in the middle of it but while we can make a difference. I also understand that this still leaves plenty of other badly needed things unaddressed, but that was only the first day. We must not allow the naysayers and the small minded to diminish the scope of the critical programs that we need. Of course there will be shouts from the Right about the deficit and big spending liberals, but we must remember we have tried it their way and it didn’t work. A temporary allowance of deficit spending in the middle of a “recession” is not abnormal. Of course they would want us to do nothing because they will be able to ride out the storm and they could use the pain of those who would truly be suffering to rise back to power.
We also have to remember that this generation cannot sustain suffering. If this were a couple of generations ago we would just roll-up our sleeves and get it done, however this generation has not known suffering and hardship and frankly I don’t think they could handle it. They will require more support and coddling than their grandparents. So, there is much to be done and doing it piecemeal is not going to do it. We must strike hard, strike large, and strike fast…
Friday, November 7, 2008
President Obama’s Agenda
Monday, October 20, 2008
Of Course He Would Support Obama
After receiving the stunning news that General Colin Powell was going to support and vote for Senator Barack Obama the few GOP backers that McCain still has were quick to the airwaves with their pathetic attempts at damage control. Make no mistake that even though the Republicans tarnished his image and damaged his credibility to sell the Iraq War, Colin Powell remained the consummate solider and never once spoke out against this act of betrayal by the Neo-Cons. While he discontinued vocally supporting the war, he remained a loyal member of the party. I on the other hand would not have been so gracious to the people who bent me over to take one for the team. And now even after remaining silent about all the deceptions, lies, and misdeeds once again the GOP heaps another pile of crap on Powell.
The spin from the RNC and their shrills is that of course General Powell would support Senator Obama *wink *wink. You see General Powell was never really one of us. It’s like I’ve always said you know what the state troopers in Alabama call General Powell? A ni**er. So after he falls on his sword to advance their causes and now that he has outlived his usefulness the truth is being exposed. You see of course General Powell would support Barack Obama, he’s black isn’t he.
Whether you agree with his remaining silent and being loyal, you have to respect his sense of duty even though it was misplaced. Many Americans still regard General Powell as a hero and a professional worthy of respect so his supporting Senator Obama was huge. Not only was his support big but the reasons for giving that support spoke volumes about what other moderate Republicans are thinking. According to General Powell, Senator Obama possesses the necessary intellectual curiosity, demeanor, and judgment to be President. He cited the current economic crisis and the Senator’s steadiness during the last 7 weeks as evidence of his readiness to lead. He stated that while he didn’t have all the answers (Who among us does?), he was thoughtful in his responses and was willing to consult with those who did. General Powell went through a list of characteristics that separated Senator Obama from McCain that included judgment, temperament, and intelligence.
The biggest bombshell for John McCain was not his reasons for supporting Senator Obama but his reasons for not supporting McCain who has known for years. General Powell contrasted the behavior of McCain during the last 7 weeks and the erratic strategies of his campaign. He also leveled concern at the direction the Republican Party has taken in the last 8 years culminating in the campaign of John McCain and his selection of Governor Palin as his running-mate, a person clearly not ready to assume the Presidency. General Powell gave voice to a growing concern among many suburban Republicans who feel that the Party has been tilted to far to the right by the conservative wing of the Party. Despite the public face the Republican Party is not unified, we are watching it war against itself in front of our very eyes. If it continues to veer more and more to the right and ignore the moderate and suburban voters in favor of the rural and small town voters it will no longer continue to be a major Party in American Politics.
There are times in all of our lives when we have the opportunity to define the kind of people we are and what we truly believe in. John McCain is at one of those periods. As I watched video of some of his supporters waiting in line to attend one of his rallies I could not believe the vile things they were saying about Senator Obama. I understand wanting to support your candidate and your team and I understand that people can have policy and philosophical differences with candidates, what I cannot understand are these rabid and vicious personal attacks against Senator Obama. John McCain is fond of saying he is willing to put “country first”, well he has the opportunity to do just that. While my suggestion would be for him to just withdraw from the race, I am not counting on that happening. What he can do though is something just as important. He must remove the toxic partisanship from this election.
If I were advising John McCain I would have him go before a national audience and state clearly and unequivocally that we must stop the toxic political discourse that is engulfing this election. That while he and Senator Obama have real policy differences they must not be an excuse to demean and dishonor him or any other American with whom we disagree. He needs to state that this type of behavior is reprehensible and will not be tolerated by all respectable Americans. I believe that if he were to do this it would not only raise his respect among voters, but it would also allow him to keep his legacy intact. After the election McCain is going back to the Senate and if he allows this type of behavior to continue then he will be toxic in the Senate. He would lose any chance he had to have any influence with his colleagues (except Joe Lieberman of course) or the American people.
Senator McCain it is now time to truly put America first.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Gauntlet Has Been Dropped
The upcoming strategy for the Republicans for the fall campaign is beginning to take shape. The bulk of the campaign will revolve around the lack of patriotism of Senator Obama. He is already being cast by the Republican nominee and the Republican minions as being unpatriotic and a hater of America. Let the swift boating begin. The goal of this strategy is to scare the rural and working class white Americans who are being targeted because of the final weeks of the Hillary rural strategy. The belief is that Obama is vulnerable amongst these voters because of race, class, and patriotism. The Republicans have to get the debate away from the issues and focus on divisiveness. If the Republicans were to run on the issues this election would be over tomorrow.
The conservative editorial writers have already begun the onslaught. The latest to weigh in is one of my all-time favorites William Kristol. Now how this guy is still in print is beyond me. Mr. Kristol has a long and storied career of embellishing the lies of Republican administrations from the Reagan years until today, as well as his anemic war reporting of the pre and post Iraq invasion. It seems now that Mr. Kristol believes that after listening or reading the commencement speech of Senator Obama given at Wesleyan University in place of Senator Ted Kennedy who was ill at the time that the Senator is un-American. In his speech the Senator expounded on the virtues of service to one’s fellow man. In a time of unprecedented greed and selfishness in America it was an important topic and was delivered not with condemnation, but on the contrary with grace and personal examples.
Leave aside the fact that two years elapsed between Obama’s graduation from Columbia in 1983 and his heading off to Chicago in 1985. Dramatic foreshortening is, after all, sometimes necessary. And leave aside whether $14,000 in 1985 was really such a shockingly low salary for someone recently out of college — in inflation-adjusted dollars, it’s about what we pay entry-level editorial assistants today at The Weekly Standard.[1]
The Republican slime machine continues to mimic the same lines no matter who the target is, whether it is a “renegade” insider turned snitch or any objective voice in the face of their dishonesty. This line is similar to the one being promoted by another conservative rag which states that poor people in America are not really poor, just look at all the food they have to eat and whether earning less than the minimum wage is poor. Show me how many graduates from Ivy League schools who make the kind of money Mr. Kristol is talking about upon graduation. I know of Ivy Leaguers who make more than that while still going to school. If you can’t attack the message, then attack the messenger. What Mr. Kristol really wants to attack is the notion of someone from a top university being willing to give up making money for the service of their fellow man. This attack is not palatable to the masses, so it is disguised as an assault on the factual basis of the story.
My questions are simply these. If Mr. Kristol thinks that serving our nation in the military is such a fine calling why didn’t he nor any of his right wing counterparts partake of the honor? Also, why is it that no one questions the credentials of these hacks after they spew this crap? Because it plays to the false patriotism and fears of some Americans who believe that patriotism is a commodity that you can buy or display like so many flag lapel pins. True patriotism, like true love cannot be purchased. Instead like true love it is a verb and an action, not simply words espoused by warrior sheep who have no trouble debating the glory of war knowing that neither they nor their children will ever have to experience it.
But at an elite Northeastern college campus, Obama obviously felt no need to disturb the placid atmosphere of easy self-congratulation. He felt no need to remind students of a different kind of public service — one that entails more risks than community organizing. He felt no need to tell the graduating seniors in the lovely groves of Middletown that they should be grateful to their peers who were far away facing dangers on behalf of their country.[2]
These “peers far away facing dangers” on our behalf are in this position because Iraq attacked the US? No they are facing danger because Bush and in a large part Mr. Kristol chose to attack Iraq. While he played no role in the actual decision to attack Iraq, his writings on behalf of the invasion and in defense of President Bush’s decision to invade have been well documented. The goal of the Republican strategy against Senator Obama will be two-fold. They will openly attack his and his wife’s patriotism and secretly they will attack his race. They will attempt to exploit the fears of some whites of a black candidate. Of course it will be done couched in the usual code words with nods and winks. The southern strategy is about to take on a whole new manifestation as it is exported to all the small towns and rural areas of America.
These attacks must be exposed and dismantled by all true patriotic Americans regardless of Party affiliations. How can one man lynch another man? He can’t without the acquiescence of other so called “good people”. We are or we could be at a major turning point in America. We are at the crossroads of either moving forward as a nation or reaching backwards. The reason that Obama has been able to rally the young of America is because they recognize more so than older Americans where we are at this moment. This is no time in America to turn back the clocks based on fear and divisiveness, but to move forward as a nation towards inclusiveness and tolerance.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02kristol.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/opinion/02kristol.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Magical Mystery President
Every time I think we have reached the lowest point of the Bush presidency, he proves that I haven’t seen anything yet. In one of the rare press conferences of his presidency, President Bush demonstrated just how insignificant and out of it he has become. What happened to the arrogant and impotent man who was so full of himself and his political capital just a few years ago. Bush has been reduced to a world of fantasy and make believe, where he no longer wields any real political power, but just an imaginary magic wand. In his new found “Harry Potter” fantasyland, instead of actually doing something about the mounting economic crisis and the other important issues we face as a nation, Mr. Bush has decided that the best he can do is to invoke magic.
The incredible shrinking presidency of George Walker Bush hit a new milestone yesterday: The commander in chief turned to sorcery.
"You know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it," Bush informed Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times in a Rose Garden news conference. She had asked him about the recession, which everybody seems to be acknowledging but Bush.
Further, the wizard of the West Wing said he would use his supernatural powers, if he had them, to conjure up lower gas prices. "I think that if there was a magic wand and say, 'Okay, drop price,' I'd do that," said the illusionist.[1]
It has become painfully obvious that Mr. Bush has no intention of doing anything prior to leaving office about any of the many crisis’s his presidency has created. He refuses to change policy in Iraq, on the economy, or in his ineffectual rhetorical foreign policy. How anyone can or will be ever able to endorse this presidency as anything but a disaster is beyond me, but leave it up to the revisionist Republicans who in a few years will try and rewrite this presidency as reshaping the Middle-East and bringing prescription drugs to Medicare. It will take more than a magic wand to turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse.
I’ve got an idea Mr. President how about showing some leadership and using your last few months in office to change the direction and the tone of the public discourse, but considering that you have used your presidency and political capital to raise it to this level I guess it would be an apparition to expect it now. You would think that leaving office with a 30% approval rating would cause most people to try and elevate their status, but not George W. he knows that by the time the wing-nuts are through he will be the greatest Republican president since Ronald Reagan. It is amazing that he will be compared to Reagan since he is already displaying the same Alzheimer’s symptoms that Reagan exhibited prior to leaving office. But if I remember correctly it was Nancy that relied on the Ouija board for direction. I guess if your reality is so awful it only makes sense to want to retreat into escapism, however we as a nation can not afford for our leader to be off in la-la-land while we suffer from a imploding economy and a war with no end in sight.
Rather than hope for magic and a superhero to appear and rescue us from his disastrous policies maybe the President could actually act like a president for a change and clean up some of the damage he has wrecked on not only the US, but the world. It is hard to believe the level of disconnect being displayed by this president, talk about a Nero complex. I can hardly wait for the magician to come and do tricks in the Rose Garden to cover Mr. Bush’s lack of action on any issues. Instead of being presidential Mr. Bush continues his stale refrain of blaming the Congress. For most of his presidency he has been given unlimited power and a free hand to lead this nation, now as he nears the end of his presidency instead of having accomplishments that he can herald the best he can do is to blame the cowardly Congress that has shown no backbone in standing up to him. Talk about biting the hand that has fed you.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/29/AR2008042902548.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008042901305
Monday, April 28, 2008
Divisive or Descriptive?
The Reverend Jeremiah Wright spoke at the Detroit Chapter of the NAACP’s annual fundraising event over the weekend. The speech was carried by CNN live and allowed Reverend Wright to speak to his critics while at the same time speaking to the larger theme of the event which was, “A Change is Gonna Come”. Like so much of what occurs in American society the speech will be evaluated based on the listener’s frame of reference. For many in the black community the speech will be hailed as brilliant and will demonstrate Reverend’s Wright superior intellect and skilled articulation talents. For some in the white community it will be misconstrued and reinforce their views of him as being divisive. How is it possible that so many people can hear the same speech and yet reach so many different conclusions?
Are we so divided and so different that we can’t even acknowledge our differences. And having once acknowledged those differences can we not celebrate them or are we so tribal that anyone who is not exactly like us we view as deficient? In rhetoric and language befitting a leader in the black Church, Dr. Wright attempted to characterize the differences we share and their history to depict why there are those who are either unable or unwilling to understand his past characterizations of the country that he served. Let’s be clear, many of those who are questioning the patriotism of Reverend Wright have themselves chosen for whatever reasons not to serve their country, except as Mitt Romney so aptly described by campaigning for their fathers. Reverend Wright served this country as not only a Marine, but also as a member of the US Navy.
I am no expert in democracy or in Constitutional law, but I believe that if someone chooses to place his life on the line in defense of this nation, a nation that for a long time refused to apply equal protection for all of its citizens, has a right to criticize that same nation. I am so sick and tired of this false wing-nut narrative that anyone who criticizes America is anti-America or anyone who does not wear a flag lapel pin is giving aid and comfort to terrorists. As if to say that anything and everything that has been done in America and by America has been right. Forgive me, but my take on the Freedom of Speech clause is that as members of a democracy we have the right to criticize or to praise our nation as we see fit. Whether you agree with his views or not, Reverend Wright has every right to express them. Why is it that we have to display our war stance when it comes to surrendering our civil rights, but we do not have to display it when it comes to making actual sacrifices for the effort?
While I agree with the basic premise of Reverend Wright’s speech which is, why must everything and everyone be placed under “the white man’s burden?” For those who are not aware the white man’s burden is to elevate the blacks, reds, browns, and yellows of this world to the grand standard of Western European culture, as if to say no other culture has brought anything to the world but them. Just because you are a bully that doesn’t make you right, it just makes you a bully. If it were not for the Native American culture, those great European settlers would have never survived in this hemisphere. There are those who expect those of us who have received the brunt of American discrimination and racism to quietly accept our fate and anyone who “describes” those atrocities are being divisive. Are we to believe that those perpetrating these atrocities are doing so with the purpose of unifying us as a Nation?
Where I take exception with Reverend Wright and any other spokesman of God, is that while it is important to speak out against injustice and all the other deficiencies in human character, one must do so in a different forum than the Church. I understand that for many years in the black community the Church was the only release for the frustration and anger many felt with their conditions; however one must separate the worldly from the spiritual. In other words, it is a sin to steal yet there maybe extenuating circumstances to mitigate the stealing. Those mitigating circumstances cannot be a part of the message of the Church against stealing, that message must be delivered outside of the Holy proclamation. Social causes while important must not be allowed to interfere with the true message of the Church. The Apostle Paul only preached one sermon repeatedly; “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”[1]
Representatives of God should not use the altar to assail their brothers no matter how large their shortcomings. One can acknowledge evil and injustice in a way that does not cast aspersions on any one group. Evil and inhumanity knows no color or race. The recent blood-letting in Africa can attest to that fact. In my opinion pointing out the ills of a government should not be done from the pulpit, but from the soap box in the public square. Ministers should separate the Church from social commentary, just as we have separation of Church and state for the protection of the Church, we also need it for the protection of the Republic. While it is becoming increasingly difficult in our society to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to give to God what is God’s, it is a distinction we must maintain at all costs.
Read more!Thursday, March 6, 2008
Pickup Games, Black Guys, and Progressives
Anyone who has ever played pickup basketball games with some black guys will immediately understand this essay, for those who haven’t I will try to explain. There is a common belief that in pickup games black guys would rather look good and lose than win ugly. They would rather do a 360 slam dunk, than do the dirty work that insures victory like setting screens and blocking out on the boards. In other words it is not about the team or playing the game, it is about the individual looking good. I have come to the conclusion that there are many in the progressive and net-roots community who have this same mentality. They would rather lose holding on to some false sense of integrity, than win and accept piecemeal gains.
In their infinite wisdom the founders of this country created a system of government that relies on compromise. The problem with compromise is that it causes change to come very slowly. We have a system that short of an all out revolution takes years to change. Now there are many that will argue the merits or the disadvantages of such a system, but none the less it is the system we have inherited. In the last twenty to thirty years we have seen the system slowly being pushed to the right, so that now even the center is to the right. This of course has many on the left up in arms and desiring a full scale shift back to the left right now. This of course will be extremely difficult because as the center bar has been pushed to the right, so has the country. Any sudden shift will be seen and presented as radicalism to the general public. Such radicalism will be easily defeated through coercion from the media, the right, and the powers that be.
One of the difficulties of interacting with the net-roots and blogosphere is that there are many pseudo-revolutionaries. They preach all-out anarchy from behind their screens, but do nothing to actually bring about the change they seek. Not only do they not become active, they criticize anyone who is active but not an extremist. If you do not agree or support their agenda 100% then you are labeled as a sell-out and open to all manner of personal attack and criticism. As if wishing change will make it so. In their fantasy world of genies and wizards change comes at the waving of a wand. Unfortunately, in the real world of politics in America it doesn’t quite work this way. There will be no radical change to either the left or the right under the political system we have.
The problem is that we on the left have allowed the right to create these false narratives for the American public without disputing their validity. We have watched while our concerns and issues have been slowly recast as out of touch with “real” American values when the truth is the exact opposite. The truth is that the majority of Americans do believe in providing for those less fortunate, they do believe in privacy of the individual, they believe in diplomacy, and they believe in fairness, justice, and tolerance for all. Maybe the problem with those pseudo revolutionaries is that they are feeling the pangs of guilt for having given away the farm during the “Reagan Revolution” or the “War on Terror”.
If we are to swing the body politic back to a more progressive agenda it is not going to happen overnight. It is not enough to be right, we do not live in a world where good always triumphs evil. We must begin the process of reversing the current trend gradually through the election and promotion of those who may not agree with every point in our agenda but whom we can find commonness of purpose on the larger issues. We are pass the point of moral victories, it is the accepting of those moral victories that have placed us in the situation we are in. For too long we have allowed others to do the heavy lifting and then become angry when they have gone for themselves and abandoned our issues. The time has come for us to become active in not only crafting the agenda, but insuring it’s being instituted.
Rather you agree with Barack Obama or not you cannot deny that his message is resonating with millions of people, many of whom are first timers and this presents an opportunity. This opportunity is only as useful as we make it through direct participation. We must be willing to hold not only his feet to the fire, but also those who would obstruct and deny the will of the people. The reason that George Bush and the right can ignore the will of the people is because they are allowed to by the people. It is no longer enough to vote and participate only during elections, we must remain engaged and ready to mobilize against anyone who would try to impede the will of the people.
I am so tired of this crap about how we are too busy today to remained engaged beyond our daily grind. Ok, so you may not be able to attend rallies or marches, but we can all take the time to write a letter or make a phone call. This thing will not get better because we elected the right person, this thing will only get better because we held those elected accountable. The reason the center was pushed to the right is because they were united, we on the other hand are so busy looking at our sacred cow or only one tree that we have forgotten we are in a forest. So, if you want to do the 360 go right ahead, but don’t come crying to me when you lose.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Michelle Obama's Gaffe?
The two biggest problems I have with the reactions to Michelle Obama’s heartfelt comment about her finally having something to be really proud of this country about is this. We eviscerate candidates and campaigns for their scripted syncopated messages saying we want honesty and real emotions. Then we crucify those who would give it to us. America once again proves that “You can’t handle the truth.” I would expect the Republicans, pundits, talking heads, and the America; love it or leave it crowd to resort to knee-jerk reactions, but I find it very telling that Democrats and so-called Progressives are joining their ranks in condemning her remarks. The second problem is that it shows how we have allowed the Republican “fear factor” to color our perspective about who we are and what we have become. The same fraudulent media that can swift-boat a decorated war hero into a lying coward while at the same time turning a lying draft-dodging Reservist into a hero strikes fear in the hearts of many.
Any American over the age of 40 whether they be black or white should if they are honest be able to attest to the truthfulness of Michelle Obama’s statement. Forty years ago there were images being played out on television screens across America of peaceful black demonstrators being attacked by police dogs, high pressure water hoses and brutal police just for wanting to exercise their basic rights. Who in their right mind back then would have envisioned that today one of the major Parties is on the verge of nominating a black man for President? How many among us today thought that a black man could draw the cross-section of support that Barack Obama has been able to put together prior to this election? I mean come on people, the guy won Idaho. Forty years ago America’s urban centers and rural counties were ablaze with rage following the slaying of one of America’s greatest heroes, who by the way was long on rhetoric but yet was able to move a nation to confront it’s racist past.
Forty years ago college campuses were exploding with the calls for change to end a divisive war that was killing and maiming a generation; once again for the cause of spreading democracy at the end of a gun. Forty years ago a young man promising change and a new vision of America was gunned down and a fractious Democratic Party was left to sort out the pieces in Chicago amid chaos and smoke filled rooms. To those too young to remember these things or may not have lived through them they may seem ancient, but to those who were there for us to deny the validity of Michelle Obama’s statement is to deny ourselves. We look back over the last 40 years and I would ask anyone to tell me a prouder moment in America than the one we stand at today, with all of its historic significance. Not only have we been presented with the choice for the first time ever of a viable black candidate, but also of a woman.
We as a nation can not allow the right-wing nuts to minimize this moment or to marginalize it. The time has come to put an end to the false patriotism of either you are with us or against us, as if this were some western movie and the choices were as simple as the guys in white hats or black ones. I can love someone or love a nation and still be able to point out their flaws. The real act of love is not to ignore their flaws or to pretend they don’t have any, but to love them all the more in spite of them. It is precisely this myth of infallibility that keeps us repeating the same mistakes over and over again as well as keeps us tied to the ones we have already made. This fear of acknowledging our failings must be overcome if we are to become a greater nation. For one to acknowledge their mistakes is not a sign of weakness, but in fact is a sign of strength and a first step of growth and change.
I suspect we haven’t seen the last of this episode if Barack Obama goes on to win the nomination. The wife of Senator McCain has already weighed in saying, “that she has and always will be proud of her country.” Well given the fact that she was raised an only child to affluent parents and enjoyed the best that this country had to offer I can understand why she is so proud of America, but for those of us not quite as fortunate as Cindy McCain we have seen our share of moments when America was not looking or acting so worthy of pride. To those of us who grew up poor, black, or brown we can understand Michelle Obama’s feelings of pride and elation. Because while Cindy McCain was getting diversion for her addiction and drug stealing, many of us have had fathers, brothers, and sisters who were and are serving felony prison sentences for a lot less. I guess pride is like everything else in this world, it just depends on your perspective.
As a middle-aged black man, I can say that I have never been more proud of this country than I am now. The fact is that the number of whites who are willing to vote for Barack Obama is far more than I would have guessed in my wildest dreams fills me with pride and if this is wrong to say then who really is being dishonest? Michelle Obama and me or those living in a drug induced state of, “I can’t say I have made any mistakes.”
Friday, December 21, 2007
It’s The Mormonism
Despite his national speech in Texas concerning religion and government, Mitt Romney has a problem. It’s not a new problem, but it is one that will prevent him from becoming President. The reason it will prevent him from getting the Republican nomination is not because of his religion, but because of how he has cast his campaign around his religion. If Mr. Romney had run on leadership and business experience he could have avoided the whole Mormon issue, instead he has pandered to the Right on religious values thus bringing his religion to the forefront. By doing so he caused the same voters he was pandering to, to begin questioning his religion. And from the poll numbers and the rise of Mike Huckabee they didn’t like what they saw.
"Evangelicals like to find someone who shares their faith and their values. Usually you find one or the other; in Huckabee you find both," explained the Rev. Hal Lane, the pastor of West Side Baptist Church in Greenwood.
Romney knows he has a problem making himself acceptable to voters in a state where about 725,000 people are Baptists, like Burdette. That's a big reason that the candidate made a highly publicized speech Dec. 6 in Texas to explain the relationship of his faith to his values and politics.[1]
Unfortunately for Mr. Romney many of the religious right voters he courted, despite their protestations to the contrary, are bigots. They don’t understand Mormonism and you didn’t explain it to them when you had a chance, now you are seeing the true nature of your conservative brethren. They are not going to vote for you. The thing about America is that the polls are inaccurate. The reason they are inaccurate is because very few people will actually say what they truly believe, usually they say what they think they are suppose to say. It is only when they are alone or around like minded individuals do they feel comfortable enough to tell the truth.
The truth is simply this; many of your religious conservative friends do not believe that Mormons are Christians. When Mr. Huckabee ”innocently” asked about Jesus and the devil being brothers he knew exactly what he was doing and his rise bears that out. The fiscal conservatives don’t care what religion you are because their religion is money, but those down home true believers are the ones who are flocking to Huckabee by the boat loads. It is a dangerous game when you mix politics and religion, especially if your religion isn’t their religion.
The sad part about it all is that no one wants to deal with this issue truthfully, because if they do then they will expose the religious right for what they really are. Why do you think Pat Robertson endorsed an adulterer and pro-choice liberal from New York? You, Mr. Romney are not their kind of people. These people sad to say are intolerant of not only blacks, Latinos, and poor people; they are also intolerant of those who do not share their exact beliefs. The Evangelical movement in America has done more to promote disunity of the Church than any other movement in the history of the Church. Because of their narrowly defined views and belief that they possess the only “real truth” from God, they have alienated more than they have united.
The reason Mitt Romney’s speech failed is because he failed the litmus test. He failed the test by not taking it. The voters he hoped to assuage with his speech were waiting for him to explain Mormonism to them and to let them know that he was one of them, he didn’t do that. Instead he tried to play bait and switch, while he claimed that religion was not relevant to the political arena, he let those people know at the same time he still believed as they did.
But he did so, unfortunately, in a typically Romney-like way, with a corrupt little wink-and-nod to his evangelical inquisitors--oh, but don't worry, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind," etc.; just don't ask me about Mormon underwear. It is corrupt not because it is untrue, but because it aims to let him eat his cake and have it, too. He rejected demands to explain his faith, but did so while letting his interlocutors know that he was really one of them. Too clever by half, in the end, because they will not actually believe him, but this is what comes of positions of moral conviction devised by management consultants.[2]
The truth is that we are a nation of hypocrites. We espoused our belief in separation of Church and State but by our very process of electing leaders we violate those beliefs. These are supposed to be two Christians and you see the intolerance, imagine if one were a Muslim or Hindu? I however do not feel sorry for either, they both have used their religions to pander to the forces of intolerance and bigotry and everyone knows what happens if you play with fire. The Republicans are now scrambling to derail Mike Huckabee’s momentum, but they were the ones who opened the door for him to run through by their years of courting religious fanatics and bigots. I for one hope that he is the nominee, they deserve each other.
[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/23368.html
[2] http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/484tthrj.asp?pg=2
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Who Says We Don’t Have Socialized Medicine
Who says we don’t have socialized medicine in America. We have it, just not the way the rest of the world does it. You see in other countries the citizenry are covered by national healthcare, in America it is the corporations that are being covered by Medicaid and Medicare. I have never been able to understand how with the massive buying power of the federal government I can get better prices than they can. If anyone still believes that Washington is not teeming with thieves, stories like these should dispel any doubts. Everyone wants to cut government spending so long as it doesn’t affect them, so what if the country is going broke. Everyone agrees that the costs of Medicaid and Medicare are skyrocketing and that the system is on the brink of disaster and rather than businesses joining with the rest of America in trying to reduce the costs and solve the problem, we get this instead.
Despite enormous buying power, Medicare pays far more. Rather than buy oxygen equipment outright, Medicare rents it for 36 months before patients take ownership, and pays for a variety of services that critics say are often unnecessary.
The total cost to taxpayers and patients is as much as $8,280, or more than double what somebody might spend at a drugstore.
The high expense of oxygen equipment — which cost Medicare over $1.8 billion last year — is hardly an anomaly.[1]
The politician’s answer to our spiraling health care costs is to reduce the rolls and the services for the patients, instead of reducing the prices of the suppliers. The sad thing about all of this is that it is not new or secret, everyone on Capitol Hill knows that this price gouging is going on. In the prescription drug bill it was actually legislated into it that the American public would have to pay the highest prices available and could not use the tremendous buying power to negotiate lower prices. There is something seriously wrong with our government and our programs and the solution is not to shut them down or privatize them it is for the government to exert the control they were elected to do.
The wingnuts will point to this story and say this is why we need to get government out of healthcare, instead of dealing with the real issue which is the profiteering of their corporate benefactors. Why is government healthcare good enough for the government, but not good enough for the rest of America? If government healthcare is so awful why aren’t the Congress passing legislation for them to opt out? The truth is that it is hypocritical for them to denounce the same system that they use for themselves. It is hypocritical for them to want to cut people and services, instead of cutting the gouging that is taking place.
Welfare only seems to be good for the corporations, it is okay for companies to bill the government for millions of dollars of overcharges, but it is a national outrage for a single mother to get a few hundred dollars a month for her children. The people of this country have allowed the wingnuts to define the agenda and to demonize the long history of charity that is fundamentally a part of America.
Other companies that sell medical equipment have also flourished. More than 114,000 home medical equipment suppliers billed Medicare last year, according to HME News, an industry newsletter. Over 1,500 of them collected more than $1 million. One of the largest oxygen equipment suppliers, the publicly traded Lincare, collected over $789 million from Medicare last year, according to corporate filings.
Large private investment firms have also jumped in. Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, a $16 billion private equity group, has invested in numerous companies that profit from Medicare. One of its executives is Thomas A. Scully, who ran Medicare for almost three years, until 2003.
The government’s overall bill for Medicare soared last year to an average of $8,568 per beneficiary, up from $5,522 in 1999, an increase that outpaces inflation by 34 percent.[2]
The problem is not as the wingnuts have framed it that too many people are being helped and they are undeserving, the problem is that there are too many companies lining their pockets with government money. The rise in cost for these programs is not primarily due to increased participation, but due to increased cost per patient. These costs are a direct result of a lack of oversight by the government. The reason wingnuts want to keep the government small and remove government oversight agencies is so they can pilfer the public without fear or conscious. The fewer inspectors and overseers the less chance of getting caught. The sad part is that they have managed to convince enough of the public to buy into their false logic.
Today you have poor and middle-class people spouting wingnut talking points, seemingly unaware that it is them who will be hurt by the cuts they are screaming for. I don’t know how they did it, but the 30 years of concentrated effort has been paying dividends for the conservatives. Before long you will have the middle-class calling for an end to Social Security to save a few tax dollars. There is socialism in America, though it’s only reserved for the wealthy.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30golden.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/30golden.html?hp
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Is Hillary The Best Candidate?
Hillary Clinton made the case at the latest Democratic debate that she was the best candidate because the Republicans hate her. I got to thinking about the rationale behind this logic and whether it holds up to scrutiny. True enough the candidate the Republicans talk about the most is Hillary, at their last debate her name came up more than even the war in Iraq. Is that because she is the frontrunner or because she is the most formidable candidate or something else entirely? If the Republicans attack you the most does that mean they fear you the most, as Hillary depicts or is it as Obama and Edwards stated, it is because they believe she is the most unelectable candidate? In my opinion it is a little of all of these.
Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama almost stumbled over each other in offering a different interpretation of the Republican attacks on Mrs. Clinton than the one she offered.
“Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that’s a fight they’re very comfortable having,” Mr. Obama said. “It is the fight that we’ve been through since the ’90s. And part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems.”
Mr. Edwards offered a similar line of attack. “I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Senator Clinton is, Senator, she — they may actually want to run against you, and that’s the reason they keep bringing you up,” he said, adding, “I think that if people want the status quo — Senator Clinton’s your candidate. “[1]
Despite her baggage, Hillary Clinton will be a formidable candidate. According to the latest poll numbers she has the majority of democratic women and independent voters. While her unfavorable numbers are still high, she continues to consolidate her lead with democratic voters. The real unknown I think will be whether women will continue to support her in her efforts to write history and become the first woman commander in chief. So far according to the numbers, they are solidly in her camp. The other question is will Republican and independent women crossover to support her bid?
I think part of the reason that the Republicans are attacking Senator Clinton is because she is the frontrunner and appears to be her party’s nominee. They are laying the groundwork of what will be the most contentious general election ever. It’s funny how every general election is becoming the most contentious and negative campaigns on record. I wonder if we will ever return to civil elections or even if we ever had any? Plus, attacking Hillary is a cash cow for Republicans, just the mention of her name gets the wing-nuts blood boiling. Much of the venom and hatred from the far-right appears to be irrational, but could be damaging during a close general election.
I think another reason for the attacks is the far-right believes that Hillary’s negatives will be too much for her to overcome and they sense a real weakness. I think that the wing-nuts are overplaying their hand on this issue and that Senator Clinton’s negative numbers will shrink significantly enough by November to do less damage than they presume. I also believe that a lot of the negative ads will backfire against Senator Clinton with women voters, many of whom will view them differently when aimed at a woman versus a man. I think that the Senator is savvy enough to use this to her advantage during the campaign. Many of the wing-nuts do view her as their best chance candidate to keep the White House and I think a lot of the pundits and talking heads have been trying to either plant positive Hillary stories or demonize her to ensure she gets the nomination.
The real issue for the Party and the progressive net-roots community will be is Senator Clinton our best chance to win? There are two months before the first voting starts and we begin to find out. I am curious, if Senator Clinton is the nominee, will the Party and net-roots rally around her and support her candidacy or will there be a voter backlash? Even though she is not my first choice, I would support the senator over any Republican candidate. I believe the majority of Americans will do likewise. I don’t believe there is anything in Hillary’s negatives that remotely compares to the negatives currently held by the Republicans and their continued support for the bankrupt policies of Bush.
While I believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency won’t be as unifying as maybe some other candidates, I do believe she will be a step down the road that will lead to a real progressive candidate. Until enough people get tired of the same old crap, the same old crap will stay on the menu. So, is Hillary Clinton the best candidate? Probably no, but she could be a lot worse.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/us/politics/31debate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Why The Republicans Win
I use to wonder why with all of their racism, bad policies, and assorted immoral behavior Republicans continue to win elections and out maneuver Democrats. After what has transpired between the MoveOn.org ad and the latest flubs by Republican talking heads, I no longer wonder. It seems that no matter what the fodder given to the Left, they are unable to muster the same amount of indignation that the wing-nuts are able to produce on a moment’s notice. Is it that the base of the Right are more easily aroused by bullsh*t or is it that they are better at rabble rousing?
After the liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters sounded the alarm about his comments, Mr. Limbaugh said on subsequent shows that he was talking about only one discredited man who claimed to be a wounded veteran. “I was not talking about antiwar, active duty troops,” he insisted.
Yet analysts for Media Matters noted that Mr. Limbaugh’s first reference to the discredited man came nearly two minutes after his plural reference to phony soldiers. That group and like-minded Democrats have refused to back off. More than 40 Democratic senators signed a letter sent Tuesday to the company that syndicates the radio show, asking that Mr. Limbaugh’s remarks be repudiated.
But no Republican senators signed the letter, highlighting a significant difference between the responses to the MoveOn advertisement and the Limbaugh comments. The Republican-backed plan to condemn the Petraeus advertisement drew substantial Democratic backing in the House and Senate, while Democrats have been unable to splinter Republicans on Mr. Limbaugh.[1]
How is this possible? I don’t understand how the Right is able to pressure Dems into supporting their crap, but the Left cannot place the same pressure on Republicans. Is it that the Left does not have a vocal enough constituency? I think not. So could it be that the Left does not represent the mainstream values of America and that the issues they raise are not resonating with the public? While this idea has some merit I think that it does not explain the difference. I think that there are basically 2 problems that continue to plague the Left and the Dems. The dilemma for them is that these are also the 2 that represent their strengths.
The first is that when you have a big tent, you have many different types of people in that tent, each with their own agenda and pet projects. What happens is that because everyone has their own causes there tends to be a lack of focus, there is no uniform movement. With individualism comes a lack of cohesiveness and redundancy that drives the news cycle of today and for the most part the body politic.
Because the wing-nuts have such a small tent their issues are simple and easily defined. Their base is more cohesive and easily motivated by their designated leaders. Who are the designated leaders of the Left or the Progressive movement? There are none, we all march to our own beats and if by chance we are able to coop an issue cool, if not that’s cool too. There is no focus. The wing-nuts can converge on a single issue with the precision of a laser. We can’t even decide the best way to end the war in Iraq. If someone doesn’t exactly articulate our “feelings” or demand the resolutions we want then they are conformists or sell-outs.
The Left does not appear as disciplined as the wing-nuts and that lack of discipline displays itself in the above example. This brings me to the second point and that is because of our independent natures and free spirits it is much more difficult to broker compromise with us. We tend to be less inclined to accept concessions and more demanding of complete agreement. The wing-nuts on the other hand tend to be of a more conforming nature and tend to accept the conventional wisdom. They accept the party-line more easily and even in the face of overwhelming evidence will continue to espouse it. By their nature they seem to be more submissive and obedient to authority and tend to accept it blindly. We not only question the authority of the powers that be, we question each other’s authority. We question each other’s credentials, experience, and upbringing, right to believe or to think a certain thing and in the end it affects our willingness to accept each other and to work with each other. I remember it was an issue in past progressive movements and it continues today.
The wing-nuts will always be more focused and uniform than progressives; it is in their nature to be so. We on the other hand must continue to strive towards more and better communication, tolerance, and acceptance yet at the same time become more focused on the issues that unite us. We must get to the place where we can put our own personal agendas and issues aside for the bigger picture. We have to learn to adhere to an issue even if it isn’t quite how I would like it to be or framed in the fashion I would do it. The wing-nuts have made a living using divisiveness and fear; we have allowed our own paranoia of each other to prevent us from seeing the big picture.
When you have such a small constituency united by moral imperatives, it is easier to raise the level of indignation. It is also easier to overlook the inconsistencies and the hypocrisies that they are so famous for. Am I advocating that progressives become wing-nuts? God forbid, but what I am suggesting is that we incorporate some of their focus and willingness to compromise for the bigger picture which is the future of this country and the future of our children. This should be something we all can unite behind.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/washington/03memo.html?hp
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Conservative Reformers
It is sometimes alleged that Rove's arguments have not fully prevailed in the GOP -- which is true. It is further alleged that these arguments have been discredited by events -- which is not true. The complications of Iraq have obscured Rove's victories, not undone them. And his key historical insight is unavoidable: Republicans win as conservative reformers.[1]- Michael Gerson
Truer words have not been spoken. The end of the Rove era in the White House is not the end of the Rove era in America. Karl Rove has poisoned politics and our judicial system for years to come. The genius of Mr. Rove is that he remembered that all politics are local, it took him years but gradually at the local levels of government he built up the Conservative machine that took two national elections. Karl Rove took what he learned in Texas and expanded it nationally.
What did he learn in Texas? He learned that the way you build a movement is at the lowest level of the political spectrum. He started with the local elected offices and began getting elected those that shared his conservative agenda from the County Attorneys to the Municipal Judges. He realized that the way you build a movement is not with large televised rallies, but by developing support among the locals.
As those local politicians got elected to higher and higher offices the Conservative agenda grew through their loyalty to Rove. Texas went from purple to red and not just light red, but scarlet. With the help of Tom Delay and a group of conservative judges he consolidated a small Republican majority into a Conservative stronghold. Hopefully the courts will overturn the redistricting plan of Rove and Delay, but in the meantime the damage has been done. Texas is red.
With the same formula of divisiveness and “conservative reform” candidates, Rove was able to propagate his small majority (2000) into a larger Republican majority (2004). Once again, he used the loyalty of these conservative reform candidates and stacked conservative judges to politicize the Executive Branch and the Courts. Because of this politicalization, even if the Democrats win back the White House and expand their majority in the Congress, the effects of Karl Rove will reverberate for a generation. Loyalty was no longer to the Country or even to the President, but to the Republican Conservative agenda. Rove became the ultimate party boss, dispensing jobs and retribution to anyone who would have the nerve to stand up to him. With most Federal Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court under the Conservative influence, we are only beginning to feel the effects of Rove’s politics. I believe that whoever is elected will have a difficult time trying to undo the conservative tilt or initiate any progressive policy changes.
On the political front we are already seeing the effects, with more and more of the major candidates both Republican and Democrat emulating the Rove model. As the general election nears we will see his influence from both sides, especially if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. The onslaught they have waiting for Hillary will be like nothing we have ever seen in American politics and Hillary being who she is will use some of what she has learned from all of her previous experience to reciprocate. This should prove a most interesting election.
Was Karl Rove a failure being run out of town? Hardly, because of what he has done the conservative agenda is alive and well and will be played out in the courts of this country for years. Because he was able to turn back so many progressive policies, it will take atleast two election cycles just to get back to square one. In the meantime no new progressive policies will be enacted and the courts will be continuing with the precision of a laser to abolish the rights of the people.
This thing was never about the Congress and a majority; it was always about the courts. The courts are where the laws are interpreted and filled in. The Congress passes the legislation, but it is the courts that define the laws. Rove always knew that. The whole Republican majority for a generation thing was a smoke screen for what he was really after, the courts. Whoever controls the courts controls the agenda. Because we are a country of laws, whoever can define those laws controls the country. Think about what the Conservative agenda is and has been. What do the conservatives want? And then think who can give it to them, only the courts. The courts can do what the Congress and the President can’t do without Constitutional amendments or majorities. Don’t like Roe v. Wade, overturned. Don’t like Miranda, overturned. Want prayer in School, now legal. Want the Ten Commandments, now legal. Don’t like gay marriage, illegal. Don’t like affirmative action, illegal.
The ripples of this thing are only beginning to be felt. You watch how the things we once took for granted begin to disappear, as Karl Rove goes riding off into the sunset with the Bill of Rights firmly tucked underarm.
Read more!Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Supreme Court Overturns Roe v Wade
No they haven’t yet, but it won’t be long. This Court has shown with its recent decisions that it is not the Court it claimed to be. These same men who when testifying before the Senate, claimed to respect precedence and stated that the Court had become too activist, are now disrespecting precedence and being activist. This Court is merely waiting for the right case to hang their hats on to overturn Wade.
As for the Supreme Court, we now know that the president's two nominees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, are exactly what many of us thought they were: activist conservatives intent on leading a judicial counterrevolution. Yesterday's 5 to 4 ruling tossing out two school desegregation plans was another milestone on the court's march to the right.
Even after he was confirmed, Roberts was talking about something other than the 5 to 4 conservative court we saw this year on case after case. In a speech at Georgetown University Law School in May 2006, Roberts rightly argued that "the rule of law is strengthened when there is greater coherence and agreement about what the law is." It's a shame this quest for broader majorities had so little bearing on the 2007 Roberts-led court.[1]
Make no mistake about it, if you are a right to choose supporter, your right to choose is about to be greatly curtailed. It is human nature to take things for granted and for many having the right to choose has been taken for granted. It will always be there. No one would dare to turn back the clocks. Yes they not only dare, but will. The frightening thing about the latest decisions is the fact that this Court has no problem vacating precedence of previous courts, while at the same time citing the very precedence they are tearing down. Does this sound familiar to anyone? (Clear Skies, No Child Left behind, etc.)
Three conservative justices, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, were willing to admit that in voiding this part of the law they were overturning a precedent set by the court only four years ago. But Roberts and Alito pretended to follow the earlier ruling while ripping its guts out. Scalia called this "faux judicial restraint."
"The court (and, I think, the country) loses when important precedent is overruled without good reason," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the dissenters. Exactly. But upsetting precedent, directly or indirectly, is a major goal of this new conservative majority.
As Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute noted this week in Roll Call, the issue-ad decision demonstrated "not a careful, conservative deference to Congress" but instead "a willingness by Roberts to toss aside Congress' conclusions to fit his own ideological predispositions" -- the very definition of judicial activism.[2]
The Court has gone from legal scholars to a bunch of political hacks with a political agenda that the country has lost faith in. By allowing the Court to be politicized and polarized by these right wing zealots, we have turned the clock back on all of the progressive legislation of the past 50 years. If this Court has its way integration, labor, and abortion will return to their previous pre-war status; civil war that is. While the Supreme Court has always been the protector of White male privilege and over the course of the history of this country have rendered some bad decisions (Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Kelo v. City of New London, & Bush v. Gore), but atleast they were based in law, bad law, but still law. Today we have a group that is unconcerned with the rule of law and only the political agenda of the Conservative movement. A movement that has proven it is bankrupt in both ideas and support.
Those who are activist will need to dust off the protest signs and put on the marching shoes, because there is a fight brewing in this country. You cannot continue to deny people Constitution protection and not expect a backlash. As this nation transforms from white to brown, the old boy standards will try to hold back the tide of change. This Court has shown that those seeking equal protection under the law will need to seek it someplace other than in the Courts. Change will need to come not because of this Court, but in spite of this Court.
Maybe the positive in all of this is that it will force those who want progressive change to come together and wake up from their present apathetic state. We must discontinue the infighting and the separate agendas that have been the bane of progressives for the last decade. In an effort to enlarge the tent we have allowed the movement to incorporate ideas that most Americans are not yet ready to embrace. It is a shame that it will take the issue of abortion to get people off the couch, while issues of discrimination cause little more than a ripple.
Read more!Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Faith By Any Other Name
It is amazing to me how so-called Christians can with good conscience question the sincerity of another Christian’s faith. Time magazine did an article on the church going habits and faith of the Democratic candidates. It appears that the MSM continues to play into the hands of the right wing by questioning the veracity of the candidate’s commitment to their faith.
Why was this article even written except to cast aspersions upon the candidates, causing it to appear that they are pandering to other Christians who in the past have voted overwhelmingly Republican? Those Christians that have voted overwhelmingly for Republicans are so-called right wing conservatives. The MSM seems to believe that the only “real” Christians in this country are those Christians who identify with these groups.
As a Christian who does not identify with these groups, I find it frightening that if one does not accept their version of the Gospel, then one’s faith is in question. This is all too familiar with the current “with us or against us” philosophy that has characterized the past 7 years. It is precisely this attitude that has done so much to divide not only this country, but the world. It is this attitude that tells the world that if you do not accept our vision of God, then you are a heathen and we will visit God’s wrath on you. If you disagree with us, then you disagree with God. How arrogant of them to believe that they are the only ones who speak for God, that they are the ones in possession of all truth and knowledge.
In an effort to maintain peace with my right wing brethren I have not spoken out against this demagoguery, but the time has come where I can no longer in good conscience not speak out. I am no biblical scholar and I hold no advanced degrees in divinity from anywhere. I am just a man who tries to live a simple life of obedience to God as He has revealed himself to me. Let me state for the record that I believe that God reveals Himself to man at different levels of enlightenment and no one here today has received complete enlightenment. This includes all the many so-called men of God who have claimed otherwise. These are the folks who have gotten the misguided belief that the job of a Christian is to convert the lost to their religion or specifically their domination. Nowhere in the Bible that I read does it talk about converting anyone to anything. The only use of conversion in the New Testament is that we must be converted to little children to enter the Kingdom of God. My job as a Christian is to introduce you to the one who sent me, period. What happens after that is between you and God.
So why have so many gone so wrong? It lies in the fact that the modern Church has allowed the world to corrupt its mission and allowed certain leaders to lead it astray. No one has done more to divide the Church than many Evangelicals; they have come up with the notion that they have the only correct interpretation of God’s word. Yet their interpretation is in direct odds with what the Lord they are supposed to follow preached. As a Christian I would like to point out some differences in what they espouse and what I believe and not just myself, but millions of other Christians.
Many believe that God accepts and condones the use of nuclear weapons. Many believe that it is their job to convert the world to their brand of Christianity. Many believe that God hates sinners. Many believe that God does not care if they pollute and kill the earth. Many believe that God is a God of hell-fire and brimstone and seeks to extract viscous retribution on man. Many believe that God is racist and has chosen white people to lead the world. The list goes on and on, but the truth of the matter is that none of it is true.
The underlying principle in the Bible is love. Love of God and love of our fellow man is to be our guiding principle. We are to bear the weaknesses of others, if we are stronger. Instead of killing folks we are suppose to be loving folks. God does not hate sinners, He sent His Son to die for sinners; God hates sin. Unfortunately, many cannot separate the sin from the sinners, so they condemn them both. The earth is God’s and all that is in it, which means it is not ours to do with as we please. God loves all people regardless of their nationality or race. God is not a respecter of person.
No, these people do not represent Christianity; they represent a fanatical version of Christianity. As with many fanatics they believe that they are the holders of all truth, nothing could be further from the truth. There are many Christians in this country that do not hold to these teachings, but that does not make our faith any less real. We condemn the fanatics of other faiths, yet we ignore the fanatics who misrepresent us and our faith. We can no longer remain quiet as these zealots kill and maim in the name of God and in the name of our faith.
Are there things wrong in America? More than I can name. We have abortion, gay marriage, a humanistic agenda that places man as the head of the universe, rich people exploiting the poor, pollution of our environment, and the list goes on, but again we are not here to judge and condemn, we are here to show love as God has shown love to us.
Are the faiths of the candidates legitimate? I don’t know it is not for me to say. Only God can judge His servants. I do know that just because they don’t buy into the right wing conservative version of the Gospel doesn’t make them any less Christians.
From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth – oh God of Truth deliver us!— Unknown
Read more!
Stumble It!