12/11: End of the GOP?
I have so many thoughts in re Election 2008 that they are gridlocked at the intersections of my mind.
Allow me to begin the process of untangling in short and simple stokes.
First of all, is the Grand Old Party over?
Of course not. This is lunacy.
Nothing has proven more resilient in American political history than the two-party system.
Was it over for the Democrats after McGovern? After Carter and Mondale?
Was it over for the Democrats after the Congressional scandals of the 1990s?
Was it over for the Republicans after Richard Nixon? After Bob Dole won only 18 states in 1996?
Why is it never over? Because parties are peopled by human beings who have good intentions but are fatally flawed. The Democrats will overreach, eventually--and the GOP will be there to correct at some point.
As I have said previously, I am rooting for Obama to succeed. His success will be my success. But his success depends on a wise and careful reading of the political realities of the present. If he leans too far left, he is finished. But my sense is that he understands the necessity of pragmatic and cautious governance in this moment of national exigency.
If he is as smart as I think he is, we are going to see an administration wholly unlike any previous presidency. Four years from now, eight years from now, we may well be talking about a completely new version of political philosophy with roots in traditional American liberalism, but with a generous portion of American cultural conservatism. This potential hybrid might inaugurate an Era of Obama--but, even if it is flawlessly launched, this new way will ultimately falter. When it does, a loyal opposition, fine-tuned and re-examined, will offer a needed alternative.
The Day of the GOP is not over. Without a doubt, it may be cloudy right now. But our history indicates that storms come and go, and the sun and moon remain consistent points of reference. End of the GOP? Not likely.
Allow me to begin the process of untangling in short and simple stokes.
First of all, is the Grand Old Party over?
Of course not. This is lunacy.
Nothing has proven more resilient in American political history than the two-party system.
Was it over for the Democrats after McGovern? After Carter and Mondale?
Was it over for the Democrats after the Congressional scandals of the 1990s?
Was it over for the Republicans after Richard Nixon? After Bob Dole won only 18 states in 1996?
Why is it never over? Because parties are peopled by human beings who have good intentions but are fatally flawed. The Democrats will overreach, eventually--and the GOP will be there to correct at some point.
As I have said previously, I am rooting for Obama to succeed. His success will be my success. But his success depends on a wise and careful reading of the political realities of the present. If he leans too far left, he is finished. But my sense is that he understands the necessity of pragmatic and cautious governance in this moment of national exigency.
If he is as smart as I think he is, we are going to see an administration wholly unlike any previous presidency. Four years from now, eight years from now, we may well be talking about a completely new version of political philosophy with roots in traditional American liberalism, but with a generous portion of American cultural conservatism. This potential hybrid might inaugurate an Era of Obama--but, even if it is flawlessly launched, this new way will ultimately falter. When it does, a loyal opposition, fine-tuned and re-examined, will offer a needed alternative.
The Day of the GOP is not over. Without a doubt, it may be cloudy right now. But our history indicates that storms come and go, and the sun and moon remain consistent points of reference. End of the GOP? Not likely.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Confirmed: It Looks Like Obama Just Got Away With Largest Election Donations Fraud in History
From Gateway Pundit. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
From Gateway Pundit. The blogosphere continues to do the work the heritage media formerly did. May the MSM be haunted by the angry ghost of Fred Friendly.
11/11: Veterans' Day
Category: American Glory
Posted by: an okie gardener
Fly the flag.
Here is the link to the Liberty Memorial, our nation's official WW1 museum.
The National WW2 Museum.
Korean War National Museum
The National Vietnam War Museum.
The Veterans' Museum and Memorial, San Diego.
Here is the link to the Liberty Memorial, our nation's official WW1 museum.
The National WW2 Museum.
Korean War National Museum
The National Vietnam War Museum.
The Veterans' Museum and Memorial, San Diego.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From National Review Online, Jay Nordlinger on the sorry state of Middle Eastern Studies. During the Cold War Sovietologists were often apologists for the Soviet Union. Sinologists often parrot the Chinese government's positions. Middle Eastern studies may be worse, in part because of the combination of Political Correctness and funding from the Mideast. A ray of hope,
Last year, an encouraging event occurred: the founding of a new organization, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA). Their website is here. ASMEA was to be, in brief, what MESA should be, and almost certainly used to be. (The older group was founded in 1966, before the rot set in.) The new group’s chairman is Bernard Lewis, the great nonagenarian British-born scholar. On the academic council sits George Shultz — who, as I said at the outset, is so desirous of new and helpful institutions.
From City Journal (link from NRO), "Five Days at the End of the World: My visit to Afghanistan, and the War on Terror movie that Hollywood would never make". The author Andrew Klavan travels to Afghanistan, recounts his experiences, and outlines the movie he would make of the experience.
Here, then, is the movie I would make. It would be something like this, anyway. With maybe Ed Norton as Rory—Alda’s too old now. And Dennis Haysbert, President Palmer from 24, as Mitchell. Someone fresh like Jim Sturgess for Baronner. Perez? George Clooney doesn’t deserve to play him, but he could.
I would probably make the mission to build the bridge and the mission to buy the FOB site into one mission. A bridge is more visual, but the tensions with the natives over the site make good drama. I’d have the ambush happen at the end of the first act, with a likable gunner getting killed. Then maybe our guys wouldn’t be able to return to base because of the weather. They’d be stuck up in nowhere with some locals they couldn’t trust and the bad guys still in the woods. It would become a matter of life and death whether the PRT guys could count on the goodwill of the natives in order to smoke out the bad guys before getting smoked themselves.
That would be the theme, see: the frustrations of building goodwill in wartime. Because goodwill is the key to this multifront counterinsurgency. It’s the only way to win the locals away from the brutal scum who’ve enslaved them in the past and over to some semblance of liberty and the rule of law. That’s why Information Operations—what they used to call propaganda—is so important. That’s why the bad guys work so hard to spread lies about us.
And from Jihad Watch, another episode in the ministry of Father Zakaria Botros who I've posted on before as the most important man in the world you've never heard of.
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.
Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.
In a recent program on al-Hayat he challenged the notion that Mohammad was a true prophet.
For the first characteristic regarding prophethood, Botros opened by quoting Jesus’ famous saying: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt 7:15-16).
However, since Muslims may think that verse has been “corrupted”—the accusation of tahrif being commonplace when wanting to avoid biblical debates—Botros also went on to quote from none other than Ibn Taymiyya himself, radical Islam’s most favorite son, in regards to the characteristics of prophets.
According to Sheikh al-Islam’s Minhaj Al Sunna Al Nabawayya, Taymiyya said that false prophets, such as Musailima the Liar, were exposed by the fact that they were liars, oppressors, and possibly possessed by demons and jinn. However, when sober minded individuals studied their lives and deeds, they were able to discern that they were false prophets, that they were exposed.
After reading the relatively long quote from Taymiyya, Botros put his book down, looked directly at the screen, and flatly said that everyone of those negative characteristics indicative of false-prophethood mentioned by Taymiyya in fact apply to Muhammad.
Last year, an encouraging event occurred: the founding of a new organization, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA). Their website is here. ASMEA was to be, in brief, what MESA should be, and almost certainly used to be. (The older group was founded in 1966, before the rot set in.) The new group’s chairman is Bernard Lewis, the great nonagenarian British-born scholar. On the academic council sits George Shultz — who, as I said at the outset, is so desirous of new and helpful institutions.
From City Journal (link from NRO), "Five Days at the End of the World: My visit to Afghanistan, and the War on Terror movie that Hollywood would never make". The author Andrew Klavan travels to Afghanistan, recounts his experiences, and outlines the movie he would make of the experience.
Here, then, is the movie I would make. It would be something like this, anyway. With maybe Ed Norton as Rory—Alda’s too old now. And Dennis Haysbert, President Palmer from 24, as Mitchell. Someone fresh like Jim Sturgess for Baronner. Perez? George Clooney doesn’t deserve to play him, but he could.
I would probably make the mission to build the bridge and the mission to buy the FOB site into one mission. A bridge is more visual, but the tensions with the natives over the site make good drama. I’d have the ambush happen at the end of the first act, with a likable gunner getting killed. Then maybe our guys wouldn’t be able to return to base because of the weather. They’d be stuck up in nowhere with some locals they couldn’t trust and the bad guys still in the woods. It would become a matter of life and death whether the PRT guys could count on the goodwill of the natives in order to smoke out the bad guys before getting smoked themselves.
That would be the theme, see: the frustrations of building goodwill in wartime. Because goodwill is the key to this multifront counterinsurgency. It’s the only way to win the locals away from the brutal scum who’ve enslaved them in the past and over to some semblance of liberty and the rule of law. That’s why Information Operations—what they used to call propaganda—is so important. That’s why the bad guys work so hard to spread lies about us.
And from Jihad Watch, another episode in the ministry of Father Zakaria Botros who I've posted on before as the most important man in the world you've never heard of.
Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.
Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam “ten demands,” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.
In a recent program on al-Hayat he challenged the notion that Mohammad was a true prophet.
For the first characteristic regarding prophethood, Botros opened by quoting Jesus’ famous saying: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt 7:15-16).
However, since Muslims may think that verse has been “corrupted”—the accusation of tahrif being commonplace when wanting to avoid biblical debates—Botros also went on to quote from none other than Ibn Taymiyya himself, radical Islam’s most favorite son, in regards to the characteristics of prophets.
According to Sheikh al-Islam’s Minhaj Al Sunna Al Nabawayya, Taymiyya said that false prophets, such as Musailima the Liar, were exposed by the fact that they were liars, oppressors, and possibly possessed by demons and jinn. However, when sober minded individuals studied their lives and deeds, they were able to discern that they were false prophets, that they were exposed.
After reading the relatively long quote from Taymiyya, Botros put his book down, looked directly at the screen, and flatly said that everyone of those negative characteristics indicative of false-prophethood mentioned by Taymiyya in fact apply to Muhammad.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I am a regular reader of Roger Ebert's movie reviews. I first became aware of him over 25 years ago as half of the team on Public Television's movie review program.
Ebert is a modern liberal in his sympathies and beliefs, though I don't think he is on the lunatic fringe. Two of his recent postings reveal some of the assumptions made by the American left, strongly held in spite of, or against, the evidence.
Writing about the election of Obama.
Our long national nightmare is ending. America will not soon again start a war based on lies and propaganda. We will not torture. We will restore the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, and habeas corpus. We will enter at last in the struggle against environmental disaster. Our ideas will once again be more powerful than our weapons. During the last eight years, the beacon on the hill flickered out. Now the torch will shine again.
"Nightmare"? What nightmare? Since 9/11/01 we have had no major terrorist attacks on our soil. The economy has performed well, until recently (thank you Barney Frank, Barak Obama, and Christ Dodd, you weasels). "Start a war based on lies and propaganda." I assume he means Iraq. "Start." We have been in a state of war with Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait. Saddam regularly and deliberately violated agreements made in the cease-fire. His military frequently shot at Coalition planes doing reconnaissance. Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush 41. The terms of the cease-fire mandated that he not only dismantle his weapons programs, but prove to the world he had dismantled them; instead, he played a dangerous game of evasion with weapons inspectors. "Lies and propaganda." I assume he means that no recent weapons of mass destruction were found. See above on Saddam's responsibilities for dismantling his weapons programs. We know he had such weapons, he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. And, weapons of mass destruction were only one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq under Bush 43. "We will not torture." Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not inhumane torture; neither is panties on the head. "Restore the rights of freedom of speech"? How many Bush-bashing journalists, bloggers, actors/actresses, academics, were hauled into re-education camps? None. Sheer hysteria. "Freedom of privacy." So, is he thinking that privacy is absolute? Is he asserting that Americans who communicate with individuals, groups, etc. of concern should not have conversations listened in on? Is he asserting that all of us have had our privacy invaded? Is he assuming that if we cannot conduct a perfect war against radical Islam we should conduct none at all? "Habeus corpus." Is he suggesting that fighting radical Islam is a matter of law enforcement rather than war? Is he asserting that enemy combantants, who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, should be given U.S. Constitutional protections?
Listening to, and reading liberals, makes me feel like I've entered Bizarro World.
Ebert is a modern liberal in his sympathies and beliefs, though I don't think he is on the lunatic fringe. Two of his recent postings reveal some of the assumptions made by the American left, strongly held in spite of, or against, the evidence.
Writing about the election of Obama.
Our long national nightmare is ending. America will not soon again start a war based on lies and propaganda. We will not torture. We will restore the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, and habeas corpus. We will enter at last in the struggle against environmental disaster. Our ideas will once again be more powerful than our weapons. During the last eight years, the beacon on the hill flickered out. Now the torch will shine again.
"Nightmare"? What nightmare? Since 9/11/01 we have had no major terrorist attacks on our soil. The economy has performed well, until recently (thank you Barney Frank, Barak Obama, and Christ Dodd, you weasels). "Start a war based on lies and propaganda." I assume he means Iraq. "Start." We have been in a state of war with Iraq since its invasion of Kuwait. Saddam regularly and deliberately violated agreements made in the cease-fire. His military frequently shot at Coalition planes doing reconnaissance. Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush 41. The terms of the cease-fire mandated that he not only dismantle his weapons programs, but prove to the world he had dismantled them; instead, he played a dangerous game of evasion with weapons inspectors. "Lies and propaganda." I assume he means that no recent weapons of mass destruction were found. See above on Saddam's responsibilities for dismantling his weapons programs. We know he had such weapons, he had used them on the Kurds and Iranians. And, weapons of mass destruction were only one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq under Bush 43. "We will not torture." Waterboarding is unpleasant, but not inhumane torture; neither is panties on the head. "Restore the rights of freedom of speech"? How many Bush-bashing journalists, bloggers, actors/actresses, academics, were hauled into re-education camps? None. Sheer hysteria. "Freedom of privacy." So, is he thinking that privacy is absolute? Is he asserting that Americans who communicate with individuals, groups, etc. of concern should not have conversations listened in on? Is he asserting that all of us have had our privacy invaded? Is he assuming that if we cannot conduct a perfect war against radical Islam we should conduct none at all? "Habeus corpus." Is he suggesting that fighting radical Islam is a matter of law enforcement rather than war? Is he asserting that enemy combantants, who do not qualify for Geneva Convention protection, should be given U.S. Constitutional protections?
Listening to, and reading liberals, makes me feel like I've entered Bizarro World.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
What Barack Obama said at his first press availability as president-elect:
When asked if he had spoken with any ex-presidents since his election on Tuesday, Obama responded that he had spoken to all former presidents "that are living."
When a few titters of laughter ensued at his awkward phrasing, the candidate attempted to recover with humor:
"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances."
Why this is disturbing.
1. It is mean. Why go out of your way to slam a former first lady in her nineties?
2. It is wrong. Nancy Reagan never had any seances. She famously consulted an astrologer about her husband's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt that almost claimed his life.
3. It is a disturbing conflation. He was probably confused about the allegations that Hillary Clinton used a spiritualist to communicate with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
4. As good as he is in some facets of his public performance, he is often tongue-tied and extremely uncomfortable in other situations as a public speaker. This is a strange paradox that will plague his presidency and, undoubtedly, have some unexpected deleterious consequences.
Even more disturbing.
1. The Press laughed. If Obama "bagged" on an elderly woman, it must be pretty funny and appropriate.
2. The Press gave him a pass on the facts. No reporters challenged his erroneous assumption. He was wrong--and certainly there must have been some reporters who understood how wrong he was--but no one said anything. The coverage of the press availability generally ignored the comment. Of course, the right-wing media picked up on it and responded with outrage--but the mainstream papers are only now, and with palpable reluctance, reporting on the slight.
A Small Reason for Hope?
The best thing about this (and admittedly I may be grasping here), the president-elect has reportedly already called Nancy Reagan personally and apologized for his callous comment and his erroneous insinuation.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect, for that gesture of civility.
When asked if he had spoken with any ex-presidents since his election on Tuesday, Obama responded that he had spoken to all former presidents "that are living."
When a few titters of laughter ensued at his awkward phrasing, the candidate attempted to recover with humor:
"I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances."
Why this is disturbing.
1. It is mean. Why go out of your way to slam a former first lady in her nineties?
2. It is wrong. Nancy Reagan never had any seances. She famously consulted an astrologer about her husband's schedule after the 1981 assassination attempt that almost claimed his life.
3. It is a disturbing conflation. He was probably confused about the allegations that Hillary Clinton used a spiritualist to communicate with the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
4. As good as he is in some facets of his public performance, he is often tongue-tied and extremely uncomfortable in other situations as a public speaker. This is a strange paradox that will plague his presidency and, undoubtedly, have some unexpected deleterious consequences.
Even more disturbing.
1. The Press laughed. If Obama "bagged" on an elderly woman, it must be pretty funny and appropriate.
2. The Press gave him a pass on the facts. No reporters challenged his erroneous assumption. He was wrong--and certainly there must have been some reporters who understood how wrong he was--but no one said anything. The coverage of the press availability generally ignored the comment. Of course, the right-wing media picked up on it and responded with outrage--but the mainstream papers are only now, and with palpable reluctance, reporting on the slight.
A Small Reason for Hope?
The best thing about this (and admittedly I may be grasping here), the president-elect has reportedly already called Nancy Reagan personally and apologized for his callous comment and his erroneous insinuation.
Thank you, Mr. President-elect, for that gesture of civility.
07/11: Why So Un-Happy?
The election of Barack Obama will forcefully declare that America is not racist. Obama can prove the self evident truth that all men are created equal in this storied "land of opportunity," where, regardless of race, all persons are free to enjoy liberty and justice and for all.
Obama can be the person in our lifetimes who transcends (even redeems) our tortured past and accelerates a national healing process.
Moreover, I dream that Obama will be the ultimate role model for African Americans who will come to apprehend, finally, that the game is not rigged. For I believe that believing is half the battle. Obama can personify the notion of unlimited possibility, which will encourage children of color to work hard and expect success in an America where we all benefit from one another's successes.
Who said that? I did, actually--back in December of 07.
But in that same post, entitled "My Obama Ambivalence," I worried that those invested in the narrative of oppression would not let us have our great victory of racial transcendence--even in the face of proof that we truly lived in a "nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," continually striving to live up to that creed.
I worried that even Obama himself would be pressured to "sell out" that emphatic statement of American idealism for reasons of political expediency.
Time will tell.
Driving to work yesterday, with my car radio tuned to NPR, I listened in on a conversation between Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, Roger Wilkins, the ancient "race man," journalist, and scholar, and Taylor Branch, the acclaimed chronicler of Martin Luther King and his times.
What has NOT changed?
Wilkins: "virtually everything." The plight of African Americans continues to be one of disproportionate poverty, unemployment, "lousy schools," and incarceration (as a result of those other inequities).
Later, the three essentially agreed that the election of Obama existed as a powerful symbol, but the substance of real progress belonged to the future not the present.
It seems to me that there is a GOP Conundrum: this president's success might mean a watershed political moment of party realignment for Democrats akin to the Reagan Revolution of 1980. On the other hand, for the sake of our collective national interests, we desperately need this president to succeed. Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the aid of their country.
But there is also a Democratic Party Conundrum: the election of this president signifies a great step forward. On the other hand, if Americans get the sense that we are entering the promised land, what happens to the "coalition of the oppressed" that has been so essential to party unity and control over the past five decades?
On Wednesday morning, placards reading "Happy Days are Here Again, Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States" hung from numerous doors in our faculty office building. And, indeed, many of my colleagues, who had worked so assiduously for the election of Barack Obama, seemed truly happy--at least for a few fleeting moments.
However, by lunchtime yesterday, for many of them, their jubilation had turned back to despair and frustration, as they swapped stories of intolerance and racism around the lunch table. Our conversation was replete with incidents of insensitivity and prejudice.
--Republicans were reportedly already trying to impeach Obama and intent on implementing other dirty tricks
--some of my colleagues related stories of hateful emails and other abominations
--another confirmed that nooses were being strung all over the campus of the local private university in town
"This is appalling!" one colleague declared. "How can we be so backward after all this time!?!"
It did not take long for my colleagues to revert back to their default positions: this is a mean country.
Lighten up, my friends. Just because there are stupid people in America, it does not necessarily mean that we live in a stupid country. Just because there are vestiges of racism in America, it does not logically dictate that the promise of equality in America is a lie.
Asked for an immediate reaction to Barack Obama's election as president on Tuesday night, I noted that this is not the finish line on the road to racial reconciliation and equality--but it is a watershed moment, nonetheless. Sixty-three million Americans voted for Barack Obama for president of the United States. This is no symbol. This is substantial change. This is big casino.
My advice to all: claim this historic accomplishment as a victory. Enjoy it. Stop and smell the roses. Be happy.
We are approaching a moment of shared sacrifice in which we will all be called to rally around the flag. We Republicans will need to sacrifice short-term party interests for the collective good. You Democrats will need to let go of some of one of your most comforting and useful assumptions.
Let us go forward together.
Obama can be the person in our lifetimes who transcends (even redeems) our tortured past and accelerates a national healing process.
Moreover, I dream that Obama will be the ultimate role model for African Americans who will come to apprehend, finally, that the game is not rigged. For I believe that believing is half the battle. Obama can personify the notion of unlimited possibility, which will encourage children of color to work hard and expect success in an America where we all benefit from one another's successes.
Who said that? I did, actually--back in December of 07.
But in that same post, entitled "My Obama Ambivalence," I worried that those invested in the narrative of oppression would not let us have our great victory of racial transcendence--even in the face of proof that we truly lived in a "nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal," continually striving to live up to that creed.
I worried that even Obama himself would be pressured to "sell out" that emphatic statement of American idealism for reasons of political expediency.
Time will tell.
Driving to work yesterday, with my car radio tuned to NPR, I listened in on a conversation between Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep, Roger Wilkins, the ancient "race man," journalist, and scholar, and Taylor Branch, the acclaimed chronicler of Martin Luther King and his times.
What has NOT changed?
Wilkins: "virtually everything." The plight of African Americans continues to be one of disproportionate poverty, unemployment, "lousy schools," and incarceration (as a result of those other inequities).
Later, the three essentially agreed that the election of Obama existed as a powerful symbol, but the substance of real progress belonged to the future not the present.
It seems to me that there is a GOP Conundrum: this president's success might mean a watershed political moment of party realignment for Democrats akin to the Reagan Revolution of 1980. On the other hand, for the sake of our collective national interests, we desperately need this president to succeed. Now is the time for all good Americans to come to the aid of their country.
But there is also a Democratic Party Conundrum: the election of this president signifies a great step forward. On the other hand, if Americans get the sense that we are entering the promised land, what happens to the "coalition of the oppressed" that has been so essential to party unity and control over the past five decades?
On Wednesday morning, placards reading "Happy Days are Here Again, Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States" hung from numerous doors in our faculty office building. And, indeed, many of my colleagues, who had worked so assiduously for the election of Barack Obama, seemed truly happy--at least for a few fleeting moments.
However, by lunchtime yesterday, for many of them, their jubilation had turned back to despair and frustration, as they swapped stories of intolerance and racism around the lunch table. Our conversation was replete with incidents of insensitivity and prejudice.
--Republicans were reportedly already trying to impeach Obama and intent on implementing other dirty tricks
--some of my colleagues related stories of hateful emails and other abominations
--another confirmed that nooses were being strung all over the campus of the local private university in town
"This is appalling!" one colleague declared. "How can we be so backward after all this time!?!"
It did not take long for my colleagues to revert back to their default positions: this is a mean country.
Lighten up, my friends. Just because there are stupid people in America, it does not necessarily mean that we live in a stupid country. Just because there are vestiges of racism in America, it does not logically dictate that the promise of equality in America is a lie.
Asked for an immediate reaction to Barack Obama's election as president on Tuesday night, I noted that this is not the finish line on the road to racial reconciliation and equality--but it is a watershed moment, nonetheless. Sixty-three million Americans voted for Barack Obama for president of the United States. This is no symbol. This is substantial change. This is big casino.
My advice to all: claim this historic accomplishment as a victory. Enjoy it. Stop and smell the roses. Be happy.
We are approaching a moment of shared sacrifice in which we will all be called to rally around the flag. We Republicans will need to sacrifice short-term party interests for the collective good. You Democrats will need to let go of some of one of your most comforting and useful assumptions.
Let us go forward together.
07/11: A Journalism 101 Riddle
When is "dog bites man" news?
When the canine in question is the President's pooch, and the man is a member of the Fourth Estate.
Free Barney!!!
When the canine in question is the President's pooch, and the man is a member of the Fourth Estate.
Free Barney!!!
07/11: Sappy American
The tears finally came. Embarrassingly enough, they came in front of a class.
I was talking about the American Dream as a cherished idea--and I mentioned the fact that both campaigns had used Brooks and Dunn's, "Only in America," as theme music following their stump speeches.
Then some student convinced me to play it via YouTube and project it onto the big screen.
Sun coming up over New York City
School bus driver in a traffic jam
Starin' at the faces in her rearview mirror
Looking at the promise of the Promised Land
One kid dreams of fame and fortune
One kid helps pay the rent
One could end up going to prison
One just might be president
The YouTube video version here. The soulfulness of country music combined with the mystical force of the American creed and promise is a powerful brew--and I have become a marshmallow in my old age.
Cue the weepiness.
Only in America
Dreaming in red, white and blue
Only in America
Where we dream as big as we want to
We all get a chance
Everybody gets to dance
Only in America
Sun going down on an LA freeway
Newlyweds in the back of a limousine
A welder's son and a banker's daughter
All they want is everything
She came out here to be an actress
He was the singer in a band
They just might go back to Oklahoma
And talk about the stars they could have been
Yeah only in America
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Yeah we dream as big as we want to
I was talking about the American Dream as a cherished idea--and I mentioned the fact that both campaigns had used Brooks and Dunn's, "Only in America," as theme music following their stump speeches.
Then some student convinced me to play it via YouTube and project it onto the big screen.
Sun coming up over New York City
School bus driver in a traffic jam
Starin' at the faces in her rearview mirror
Looking at the promise of the Promised Land
One kid dreams of fame and fortune
One kid helps pay the rent
One could end up going to prison
One just might be president
The YouTube video version here. The soulfulness of country music combined with the mystical force of the American creed and promise is a powerful brew--and I have become a marshmallow in my old age.
Cue the weepiness.
Only in America
Dreaming in red, white and blue
Only in America
Where we dream as big as we want to
We all get a chance
Everybody gets to dance
Only in America
Sun going down on an LA freeway
Newlyweds in the back of a limousine
A welder's son and a banker's daughter
All they want is everything
She came out here to be an actress
He was the singer in a band
They just might go back to Oklahoma
And talk about the stars they could have been
Yeah only in America
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Yeah we dream as big as we want to
Yesterday afternoon a church member and I excavated to the back of a storeroom in the church. We brought out 3 old computer monitors, a tower, and printer that predate my arrival as pastor. We also found two typwriters. The church now will offer these items for bid, mostly to free up some space. But I got to thinking, what will we do with the computers if no one wants them? btw, we also are offering an old desk if you live near Apache.
This story from CBS demonstrates the danger to the environment caused by the modern electronic technologies we depend on. A CBS 60 Minutes crew followed ditched computers and cell phones from the U.S. to China.
E-waste workers in Guiyu, China, where Pelley's team videotaped, put up with the dangerous conditions for the $8 a day the job pays. They use caustic chemicals and burn the plastic parts to get at the valuable components, often releasing toxins that they not only inhale, but release into the air, the ground and the water. Potable water must now be trucked into Guiyu and scientists have discovered that the city has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. Pregnancies in Guiyu are six times more likely to result in miscarriages, and seven out of 10 children there have too much lead in their blood.
Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, outlines the e-waste pollutants and their effects. "Lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, and polyvinyl chloride, all of these materials have known toxicological effects that range from brain damage, kidney disease, to mutations, cancers," he tells Pelley. And there's no shortage of refuse that contains these hazardous materials. "We throw out about 130,000 computers every day in the United States...we throw out over 100 million cell phones every year," says Hershkowitz.
While filming in China, the 60 Minutes crew was roughed up when a group of men tried to seize their cameras. The crew escaped, though, with their evidence.
Moral of the Story:
1. Almost everything we buy eventually becomes trash. So cut down consumption.
2. Many things we discard are hazardous, so discard properly.
3. When recycling electronics, try to make sure the firm is environmentally responsible.
CBS reports that the Basel Action Network certifies companies that handle electronic waste in a safe manner.
The Electronic Take Back Coalition also lists responsible electronic recyclers.
This story from CBS demonstrates the danger to the environment caused by the modern electronic technologies we depend on. A CBS 60 Minutes crew followed ditched computers and cell phones from the U.S. to China.
E-waste workers in Guiyu, China, where Pelley's team videotaped, put up with the dangerous conditions for the $8 a day the job pays. They use caustic chemicals and burn the plastic parts to get at the valuable components, often releasing toxins that they not only inhale, but release into the air, the ground and the water. Potable water must now be trucked into Guiyu and scientists have discovered that the city has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. Pregnancies in Guiyu are six times more likely to result in miscarriages, and seven out of 10 children there have too much lead in their blood.
Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, outlines the e-waste pollutants and their effects. "Lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, and polyvinyl chloride, all of these materials have known toxicological effects that range from brain damage, kidney disease, to mutations, cancers," he tells Pelley. And there's no shortage of refuse that contains these hazardous materials. "We throw out about 130,000 computers every day in the United States...we throw out over 100 million cell phones every year," says Hershkowitz.
While filming in China, the 60 Minutes crew was roughed up when a group of men tried to seize their cameras. The crew escaped, though, with their evidence.
Moral of the Story:
1. Almost everything we buy eventually becomes trash. So cut down consumption.
2. Many things we discard are hazardous, so discard properly.
3. When recycling electronics, try to make sure the firm is environmentally responsible.
CBS reports that the Basel Action Network certifies companies that handle electronic waste in a safe manner.
The Electronic Take Back Coalition also lists responsible electronic recyclers.
