Are We Racial Cowards?

The Attorney General, Eric Holder, certainly stepped in it this week when he said this.



The cardinal sin that Holder made was to stereotype negatively. Now, politicians often get away with positive stereotypes though they are no less ridiculous. Americans have no problem being referred to as hard working, honest, or even patriotic. Of course, Americans are NOT monolithic. There is not one guiding trait that is a thread throughout all of us. There are plenty of lazy Americans, dishonest Americans, and unpatriotic Americans.



Yet, it is when a politician stereotypes negatively that it gets noticed and often it blows up. Such a stereotypical statement is absurd. That's because it has no context. There are several hundred million Americans. Some I am sure are cowardly when it comes to race. Others are not, and many have too many things going on in their lives to think much about race.



I do believe that there aren't nearly enough honest and frank conversations about race. I also think that many people are afraid to talk about race because such talk often winds up with someone being referred to as "racist". I also now that such a climate of fear is often caused by racial hucksters and demonizers. This statement is just yet another example.



I feel like I am in a unique position of authority to speak on issues of racism and bigotry. That's because I have faced it in one form or another most of my life. Throughout grade school and high school it was my country of origin, Russia. In college, it was my religion, Jewish. Besides this, while I am nowhere near perfect, one thing I know is that I judge everyone by the content of their character. So, when I hear what Holder said, I think that he is appealing to the worst common denominator of race. He is appealing to divisiveness rather than inclusiveness. Worst yet, he is doing much the same as those that he condemns.



Stereotyping only appeals to the worst elements of racism. In that sense, what Holder did puts him on a similar plain to the worst sort of racists. Just as the average racist is likely to take the most negative stereotype of whatever group they hate and apply them to the group, so to does Holder do it with all Americans. American is no nation of cowards, on race or otherwise. There are plenty of courageous Americans, on race or otherwise, that stand up everyday for what is right. America has a long way to go on race, that's for sure. Yet, it is only pushed back by the sort of divisive statement that Holder made.

Israel and the Marc Rich Pardon?

If you believe Joe Conason, then the entire Marc Rich pardon was done for no other reason than to appease Israel. You see, with scant evidence, Conason supposes that Rich was actually a secret Israeli agent and his pardon was necessary to their intelligence gathering.

Still, it would have been a refreshing change from the usual confirmation minuet if instead of humbly apologizing, Holder had tartly instructed the buffoonish Specter, his fellow senators, the press, and the public about the actual circumstances of the Rich affair. He might have started with the fact that continuous lobbying on Rich's behalf from the highest Israeli leaders and their American friends -- among whom Specter no doubt counts himself -- became even more intense in the days before Clinton left office. He could have noted that such pressures coincided with Clinton's efforts to conclude a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. And he could have explained to Specter that Rich's deals in Iran and Iraq were often related to his other role -- as an asset of the Mossad who gathered intelligence and helped to rescue endangered Jews from those regimes.

...

But Holder understood that there were deeper reasons why the pardon was likely to be approved, which had nothing to do with the political and charitable contributions of Rich's ex-wife, the Manhattan socialite Denise Rich. The New York Times offered just a hint in a front-page story that appeared shortly after the Holder nomination was announced. Only at the very end did the Times mention the pressure from "the Israelis" that had persuaded Holder not to oppose the pardon -- as he told Beth Nolan, then the White House counsel.

...

Echoing Barak's pleas on behalf of Rich were Clinton's old friend Shimon Peres, former Mossad director general Shabtai Shavit, and a host of other important figures in Israel and the American Jewish community. Winning the pardon was a top priority for Israeli officials because Rich had long been a financial and intelligence asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many hostile countries where he did business. Although commentators in the mainstream and right-wing media have discounted this aspect of the controversy, they often seem as unfamiliar with critical facts as the average
senator.

Following weeks of preparation by Clinton, the last round of serious peace talks opened in Taba, Egypt, on Jan. 21, 2001, the day after he signed the Rich pardon. Those negotiations eventually failed, yet they came closer to achieving a workable settlement than any before or since.

This supposition is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it weren't so serious. We have learned in the years since the pardon that Rich was trading with Saddam Hussein in violation of UN sanctions. We've also learned that Rich traded with Iran also in violation of UN sanctions. Long ago, we knew that Rich was a bad guy. Now, I understand the world of intelligence enough to know that so called assets, like what Conason claims Rich was, often play both sides. It wouldn't be unheard of for Rich to help Israel at the same time he was working with Saddam and Iran, both Israel enemies. Yet, it would be totally out of his character.

Still, even if he was helping Israel, it's likely they knew he was playing the other side. As such, while he would have been an asset it wouldn't have been one they counted on all that much. Furthermore, even if he were their asset, they wouldn't have needed him to be pardoned. It wasn't as though Israel would have needed Rich inside the U.S. for whatever it is that Conason thinks they were doing with him.

So, why would Conason make such a ludicrous claim? Conason, and others like him, are convinced that Jews secretly run our foreign policy. Since he has no hard evidence of this supposition, he just makes up conjecture. Now, many of my friends and colleagues scoff when I say that anti Semitism continues to be rampant all over the place. Yet, what should I make of a columnist putting forth such a preposterous theory with nothing to back him up? What's more dangerous though is that Conason continues to enjoy a wide platform for his blatant anti Semitism. While he is a regular columnist at Salon, I found this particular piece at the Sun Times. Conason enjoys syndication for his anti Semitism. Much like his colleague the race baiter Mary Mitchell, Conason enjoys a platform and a nice living for his blatant bigotry.

In the world of our media, being a bigot is only a problem depending on which group you are bigoted against. If you are bigoted against religious people, for instance, that isn't merely tolerated but often celebrated. Yet, try and be bigoted against gays and suddenly you are a pariah. In fact, Jimmy the Greek lost his career for saying about blacks, what Mary Mitchell routinely says about whites.

Folks like Conason have created a cottage industry for hate, conjecture and rumor mongering. In portions of our media, the subtle anti Semitism of proclaiming that Jews run our foreign policy is celebrated. Imagine if another columnist made up similarly unsubstantiated claims about gays. Yet, not only is Conason tolerated, he is celebrated and rewarded with a fruitful career. Mitchell finds similar financial fruits in proclaiming whites are the problem for everything. Being paid to be a racist it seems, can be profitable as long as you target the right group.

Blago, Burris, and the Democrat's Identity Politics

There is word reported from several media that prior to choosing Roland Burris, Governor Rod Blagojevich offered the U.S. Senate Seat to Congressman Danny Davis. Davis, like Burris, is African America. If you think this is mere coincidence, then I have bridge in Gaza to sell you.

To understand just how much this has the potential to rip the Democratic party apart you must understand the nature of the Democrat's race and identity politics.

Imagine, you are a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. You are now choosing between siding with the first African American President, who has gone on record as saying that Burris shouldn't be seated, and Burris, who would be the only African American Senator. There is the definition of threading a very sharp needle. If you are a member of the Congressional Black Caucus you are not necessarily in a much easier position.

What Rod Blagojevich has done is guaranteed a Democratic political civil war and he has guaranteed that race would play a major factor in the war. Nothing could have been more music to his ears than the sound of Congressman Bobby Rush uttering this blatant piece of race baiting.

to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer

The introduction of race into this selection means that there is no easy way out for the Democratic Party. Unlike Republicans, which are much more based on ideology, the Democratic Party is much more based on race and identity. That's why the Democratic party counts among it the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. By introduction an African American candidate, in fact the only one that would be in the Senate, Blagojevich also made sure that race would be a central point in the dispute. African Americans have long been a bread and butter constituency for the Democrats. So much so have they, that often it appears the Democrats have taken that constituency for granted. Now, that constituency is guaranteed to be fractured among several factions.

The worst part of all of this is that Blagojevich has done this for the benefit of only one person, himself. Some people, like for instance Charles Krauthammer, have found amusement in his antics and brash hardball politics. While his antics may in fact be entertaining, their entertainment value should NOT dismiss the fact that they are also purely corrosive and destructive. Governor Rod Blagojevich has guaranteed a political civil war and the injection of race simply so that he can hang on to the seat that he himself abused so much. The Democrats will now be divided on racial and mostly militancy lines. Militants like Bobby Rush will see any rejection of Roland Burris as nothing more than a racist insult. Meanwhile the moderate forces will see any choice of Blago's as unacceptable. While those two factions battle it out, Blago will have achieved one of militarism most basic principles, divide and conquer.

There is no doubt that choosing Burris benefits Blago. Yet, it comes at the expense of his own party, the political system and the country at large. I hope that everyone keeps it in mind as the marvel in amusement at his bold and brazen nature. Political theater is nothing of not entertaining, but this one will be poisonous and destructive. Even this political opponent can recognize that anyone that is willing to stoke racial tension at the expense of his own party is proving once again just how much scum they are.

A Modest Proposal for Long Term Peace in the Middle East

One of the greatest tragedies in the Middle East is that Israelis and most of those that consider themselves their enemies are ancestral cousins or even brothers. Trace their lineage back and you will find that all those folks that consider themselves enemies now were of nearly the exact same blood line. In fact, if they don't that one person is Jewish and the other not, it's likely you wouldn't be able to tell each apart.

The thing about hate, bigotry, and racism is that it comes from a position of ignorance. In other words, White racists rarely new any Blacks. Racists of all shapes and sorts come to their racism because they know very few people toward which their hate is directed. In my own experience, that's exactly what happened. Up through high school, I experienced a lot of bigotry because of my Russian birth. I was often the first person that anyone met from Russia. In college, I experienced similar bigotry because of my Judaism. Everyone that made a Jewish remark had made me the first Jewish person they met. Had all these folks been exposed to Jewish children when they were growing up, I think their racist remarks would have been much more limited.

The hate in the Middle East takes on a similar dynamic only in a much more intense and deadly form. Most Palestinians have never known any Israelis in any substantive way and the same can likely be said the other way. Unfortunately, adults filled with hate are likely beyond hope. In order to achieve any lasting peace we all must get to the children before they are corrupted by hate.

That's why I think that an exchange of school children as young as six, Israelis and Palestinians, would be a productive way to bring the two people together. Six year olds have an innocence that allows to get past the hate that their parents can no longer. If Israeli children are brough together with Palestinian children in an exchange in which they all simply act like children, that is the best way for both sides to get past the hate. If children simply interact as children, they will find that they really aren't very different from each other at all.

This is one of those plans that is easier said than done. It's likely many of these children would never allow such an exchange. Furthermore, in the Middle East, there is always the concern of security, especially in such an endeavor. That's why it would make sense for some of this to be created right here in America. Many reporters have mentioned that in private Palestinians dream of one day coming to America. As such, a joint tour of America sponsored and attended by both Palestinians and Israelis is a good place to start.

It's the sort of idea that would need support of leaders of both the Israeli and Palestinian community. It's best place to start is here in America where there is moderates on both sides. It's the sort of idea that for instance AIPAC, the Jewish United Fund, as well as all sorts of pro Palestinian groups in America would all need to get behind.

It couldn't merely be a small token statement to make a difference, but it wouldn't need to involve the exchange of entire populations. Kids talk and they will share their experiences with their friends back home. When they come back with great stories, other kids will also want to share in the same good time. This is the sort of idea that can start with a modest exchange and it could grow. Bringing children of both cultures together is in my opinion a great way for both sides to get past the hate.

The Integration of Fort Stockton

Introduction: I recently spent some time in West Texas. This is one of a few stories I will do that I found interesting on my travels there.

The area of land that is now Fort Stockton, Texas was originally settled by Native Americans. Throughout the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries explorers like LaSalle and Coronado travelled through this area of what is now West Texas. By the mid 1800's, the area was mostly settled by those of Mexican descent. Named after Robert Field Stockton, it was originally used by soldiers to protect settlers heading West from Indian tribes like to Comanches. In fact, several towns in this area of West Texas have Fort in their name and all of them were used for the same purpose. By the late 1860's, Fort Stockton became the home base of several of the regimen of the Buffalo Soldiers, a group of trailblazing black soldiers that became legendary out of the Civil War.

By the turn of the twentieth century, the demographics of Fort Stockton had evolved dramatically. By this point, a significant portion of Whites had settled in the town. By now, Whites accounted for about 70% of the town with Mexican Americans accounting for most of the rest. Fort Stockton also became a flash point for not only a bitter culture war, but a bitter battle over civil rights.

The town was essentially divided up into two. North of the railroad tracks was where the Whites lived. This was also the posh area of town. South of the railroad tracks was where the Hispanics lived and this was also the poor blue collar area. Furthermore, with no laws, the White population created their own brand of Jim Crow laws. Everything in the town became segregated: the restaurants, the movie theaters, and even the churches. They were segregated not because of specific laws but rather because the White population ran the town and that's how they wanted things.

Starting in about 1910, the Mexican/American community lead by Manuel Ramirez Gonzalez began a long and difficult trek toward civil rights in Fort Stockton. Gonzalez created the ultimate grass roots campaign long before that was in fashion. He did everything to draw attention to the injustice of the pseudo Jim Crow laws in Fort Stockton. Often, he would merely stop Whites on the street and challenge and question them on the injustice of separating the races. He also began organizing the Mexican/American community. By the 1930's, Mexican/Americans began running for local and regional offices. They would lose, and lose big, because the demographics were still not in their favor. Furthermore, the powers that be in Fort Stockton also instituted a poll tax of about a Dollar to vote. Much like all poll taxes, this was nothing more than a way to keep the poor minority, in this case the Mexican/Americans, from voting. The Whites, the aristocracy in Fort Stockton, had no trouble paying a Dollar to vote. Meanwhile, the poor working class in the Mexican/American community considered such a tax a burden. Furthermore, the Mexican/American community was largely uneducated and often illiterate. As such, many in the community weren't registered, didn't know how to vote, and often couldn't read the ballot. As such, Gonzalez had to organize efforts to get people registered, explain the voting process, and even have them understand which candidates were on the ballot.

The White population, on the other hand, often used standard operating procedures of all tyrannical classes. In the mid 1930's, the power structure in Fort Stockton came to Gonzalez and other Mexican/American leaders and offered to build them a brand new, state of the art, Catholic Church. Gonzales and other leaders refused. They refused to be bribed in order to look the other way. Gonzalez reasoned that a Catholic Church should welcome all people in the town and shouldn't be separated, no matter how nice it looked.

By the 1940's, Gonzalez' tactics became even more confrontational. His son, Abe, was of fairly light skin. Gonzalez would often send in his son into restaurants and movie theaters. Abe often wasn't recognized for his heritage and saw the White owners would serve this Mexican that looked as white as them. Once he brought his entire family to a movie. When the theater owner refused to let them sit on the bottom level. (the bottom level was reserved for Whites while the Mexicans sat in the balcony), Gonzalez took out a letter from the owner of the entire chain of theaters this particular one was a part of. The owner, from up North, wrote to Gonzalez and told him that anyone was welcome to sit anywhere in any of his theaters. The theater owner had to relent and one figurative wall was broken in the long struggle for integration in Fort Stockton.

Finally, the final straw came in the 1950's. The State Legislature of Texas passed a law that each municipality had to have legislature make ups that were representative of the demographic make up of the town. In other words, now Fort Stockton would have districts in which Mexicans were the majority. From then on, Mexicans finally had the political power necessary to finally end the segregation.

In the last fifty years, the demographic make up of the town has transformed again. Now, the Demographics have done another 180% reversal. Because of the Migration of Mexicans up North, the town is now about 70% Hispanic and only 30% White. The power structure is now dominated by Hispanics. Gonzalez work was not without its own fruits. A large stretch of land is named after his family. (Gonzalez Loop)

The court house is called Alex Gonzalez Court House, for his son a former District Judge, Alex Gonzalez.

Finally, the most successful (and from my own experience most hospitable) restaurant in town is Mi Casita, owned by Gonzalez' grand daughter, Adonna.

The struggle for equality and civil rights in Fort Stockton maybe in the past but reminders of its sacrifice can be seen all over Fort Stockton, if you know the story of how we got here.

Prop 8, Rick Warren, and the Irony of Intolerance

Many proponents of gay marriage will often say that opponents are simply intolerant of that lifestyle. I would argue furiously against such a characterization, however that is another story. What is ironic is the totally intolerant behavior that opponents of proposition 8 have shown to anyone that supported it. (H/T to Michelle Malkin) Look at what has happened to El Coyote Restaurant after it was discovered that one of its employees contributed to Prop 8.

The mainstream media have so far failed to get across the intensity of the ordeal that supporters of Prop 8 may now be subject to--something I realized on coming across this extraordinary blog account of a meeting at the legendary restaurant El Coyote in Hollywood, not far from where I grew up in Laurel Canyon. The meeting was between the elderly Mormon owner, who donated $100 to support Prop 8, and Prop 8 opponents, who are threatening a boycott, and it is as soul- grinding as something out of Soviet show trial history. Peacelovelunges.com--billed as "the blog of ex-Mormon, reformed porn star and Hollywood fitness trainer Sam Page"--reports:
In a dramatic, closed door meeting, the owner of a renowned Mexican eatery in Hollywood expressed regret in her decision to donate $100 to the “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign, but her remarks before a group of about 60 members of Los Angeles’ LGBT community fell short of an outright personal apology.

Just the spectacle of an American citizen expressing regret for her political conviction to avert economic harm is gruesome already. But it goes on:

“I’m sick of heart that I’ve offended anyone in the gay community,” said Marjorie Christoffersen, co-owner of El Coyote Mexican Cafe for 17 years. “I have had, and do have family, friends, and people I work with of course who are gay…and you are treasured people to me.”

The tall, frail Christoffersen stood in the center of the group. She appeared to be shaking during her prepared remarks which lasted about 3 minutes. Two young female family members flanked her to prevent her from fainting, according to a restaurant employee. At several points during her speech, Christoffersen simply became too emotional to continue.

Here's what happened to Scott Eckern, a theater manager that gave financiall to Prop 8.

Eckern gave $1,000 in support of Proposition 8, a donation that sparked criticism from theater workers and the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

"We have released a statement that Scott resigned," said Chris McSwain, community affairs director for the theater company.

He declined to comment further.According to the statement, the theater company's board of directors received notice today from executive producer Richard Lewis saying that Eckern has resigned.

In covering a Chicago area anti Prop 8 rally, the organizers made their intention known that the following week they would picket a theater owner that had given money to prop 8.

This now brings me to the case of Rick Warren's selection to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Opponents of Prop 8 are up in arms demanding that Obama take back the invitation because of Warren's support of Prop 8. Warren has already been labeled with the label homophobe. Given Warren's profile, this is a rather ironic label.

Unlike many of the activists, politicians, and media personalities on the social right who supported Proposition 8, Rick Warren is an actual church leader, with a unique and vibrant following at Saddleback and nationwide. A friendly, jovial presence who’s very in touch with the conversation of the times, he has been a leading voice supporting the idea that Christians should view politics through more than just the lens of hot-button issues like abortion and marriage.

One of the kings of the skim latte Christianity otherwise called the seeker-church movement, Warren is a major advocate for inclusion and openness among evangelicals, and hasn’t been shy about breaking with other center-right faith leaders on political issues. He’s made global warming a significant issue for his church and is a signer of the Evangelical Climate Change initiative, and he fully supported moderate court appointee Harriet Miers when most social conservatives were attacking her full bore. He’s also called on evangelicals to learn from the example of mainline churches when it comes to arguing for public morality (or government expansion) on issues like poverty, racism, and social and economic justice, founding an international church initiative (P.E.A.C.E.) supported by the likes of U2’s Bono.

Warren’s basic views on salvation and faith - such as believing that you have to accept Jesus Christ as your savior to enter heaven - are hardly out of the mainstream of Christianity. His “Purpose Driven Life” message appeals to center-right and center-left churchgoing Christians who increasingly care just as much about the plight of the poor and the diseased as they do about the unborn. Warren in many respects embodies the new mainline church, espousing a welcoming faith that urges its members to go out and do for the betterment of their neighbors, not just proselytize. His flock should be the first target of a Democratic Party eager to expand into the ranks of the faithful.

It’s worth noting that Warren has been a huge supporter of funding for the AIDS crisis in Africa, and invited Obama - who he has called “an amazing man” and said talked of his potential to be a great President because he is a man of “good character” - to speak to an AIDS conference at his church, much to the chagrin of those on the right, several of whom criticized him for the invitation.

The amount of good that Warren has done in this world is more than all of the good all of his Prop 8 opponents have contributed combined. Warren has been wildly successful as both a preacher, author, and philanthropist. There are few more qualified to give this invocation than Warren. Given many of Warren's stances, Obama's choice is also in line with his promise to reach out. Yet, none of this is good enough for proponents of gay marriage.

If you contributed to the passage of Proposition 8 in any way shape or form, then the only thing you are worthy of is public derision and abuse. Such intolerance is both ironic and totally hypocritical from a group that claims that it is the other side that is intolerant.

Bigotry, Homophobia and the Debased Marginalization of the Gay Marriage Debate

Here's how some in Hollywood see anyone against gay marriage.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Back in third grade, many arguments would end with this phrase, "you know I'm right". Calling someone a bigot, racist, or homophobe because of their position on any given issue is usually a cousin of the argument "you know I'm right". Whenever I write about gay marriage, I am invariably called a homophobe, intolerant, a right winger, or religious zealot. Here are a few examples.

Please, name me ONE... ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE legitimate, NON religious reason that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

...

I did not choose to be attracted to men, did you decide one day you were attracted to women? I love the person I am, therefore, I am not going to live a life of fear (like many gay people). When you start comparing gay people to people that harm animals or other people, you send a message that it is wrong to be gay. I am a teacher, where I am the co-sponsor of the Gay-Straight Alliance and when people like you give these harmful arguements you send signals to my students that they should somehow change who they are. I am sure you know the stats about teen suicide in relation to gay and lesbian youth. Stop the hate.

...

The Right wing has already moved toward violence toward Gays. Blaming the vicitms won't change the facts. THe intolerance is also coming from the Right. Gay couples are simply demanding the same rights as straight couples. This is, in fact, a conservative position. Marriage is a conservative institution. There is no "gay agenda" as right wingers like to scream about. The agenda is to be treated equally under the law. No church has to sign up to marry gays. This straw man is B.S. as well. Right wingers also fought integration. And lost. You will lose this battle too - because Gays have seized the moral high ground.

I've always found the monikor that I am some sort of an intolerant buffoon totally disingenuous. First, it is done by folks that make this determination by reading someone. Second, based on my history, I am the last person to ever be painted with the brush of intolerant, homophobic, racist, or in anyway bigoted against anyone. I was born in the Soviet Union. I came here when I was six years old. I then spent my grade school, junior high, and high school years being made fun of as some sort of closet Communist. Then, I got to college and spent the next four years being made fun of for being Jewish. I vowed long ago never to treat anyone the way I was treated when I was growing up and I have stood up vigorously against racism and hate since college. I am nowhere near perfect, but I can say with pride that I have always judged everyone by the content of their character and nothing else, and anyone that says otherwise is being dishonest. I have a uniquely visceral response to hate of any kind, and attempting paint me with a brush of hate is absurd, unfair and totally without merit.

Let's set the record straight. There are plenty of people that are against gay marriage because they are homophobes. There are also plenty of people for gay marriage because they are anti religious and neither is at all relevant to any real debate on the issue. That said, painting someone with the hate brush because of their stance on an issue is almost always a red herring. Rather than debating the point, what you want to do is marginalize the messenger so that their argument doesn't get a fair hearing. It's really no different than a third grader saying "you know I'm right". They don't know how to answer a point so they just marginalize the other side with an irrelevant point.

The same thing often happens in this debate and many others. Most people in any debate are simply not intellectually strong enough to stay on point for all too long. At some point someone makes a point that they can't answer. Rather than acknowledging the point, they marginalize the other side by painting them as bigoted, racist, or homophobic. That way an inconvenient point need not be answered. It's exactly what this video does. It doesn't address the legitimate concerns of those against gay marriage. Rather it dismisses anyone against gay marriage as a homophobe, and thus, they need not be acknowledged because their entire platform comes from a position of hate.

Here is the reality. If someone is truly against gay marriage solely because they are a homophobe, then their argument will inevitably be weak. It would come from a position of hate. It would have no merit. The argument could easily be broken down to its illogical conclusion without ever even having to mention the hate that it originated from. As such, painting someone as a bigot or homophobe is never necessary because the finer point of such an argument can be exposed without pointing out the obvious. As such, painting your opponent in any debate as a bigot, comes from a position of intellectual dishonesty, laziness, and weakness. It is a position I loathe and I will not stand for it.

Obama and the Socialists: On the Issues

Many may not know it but the Socialists in America have fielded their own candidate, Gloria La Riva, and a quick glance at their website finds some remarkable information. The platform of the Socialists and of Barack Obama has remarkable similarities. I won't make any ridiculous claims that there is no difference, on foreign policy for instance they see the world much differently, but on many domestic issues there is a dangerous symmetry.

1) Health Care.

No issue is more similar between the Socialists and Barack Obama. Here is how the Socialists view the problem of health care and its solutions.

None of the major presidential candidates pledge to implement what the people of the Unites States really need: free, universal access to quality health care. All the major candidates are stooges for corporations, including insurance companies, health care providers and pharmaceutical giants that profit from illness.

To deny the right to heath care is to deny the right to live. Even other imperialist governments, like Canada, Britain and France, provide universal health care. So, why can’t the U.S. government do the same? It can. A militant, working-class movement must demand it.

The La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign believes that quality health care must be free and available to all people. Capitalist insurance companies and providers must be dismantled and replaced with publicly-owned entities that provide health care for all.

Now, as many will remember, Barack Obama was clear in the last debate that health care is a RIGHT. When analyzing his assertion that health care is a right, I pointed out that this is the way that Communists view the world, and of course, Socialists as well. The Socialist party also makes an interesting point about Obama's own plan. If health care is in fact a right, then why isn't provided universally free to everyone? Obama's plan is that it combines our current free market system with government run health care. (I pointed out the fallacy of such a plan by comparing it to the structure of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) Of course, here I have to say that Obama is disingenuous. If health care is a right, then why should anyone pay for it. If he believes it is a right, then his honest plan should mirror that of the socialists.

2) The economy.

Here is how the Socialists view our economy.

In the United States, the productive capacity exists to meet people’s basic needs—here and all over the world. But under capitalism we experience repeated economic crises because goods are produced only to make profits for rich owners, not to meet the needs of people. Owners end up producing goods at a rate that exceeds the ability of the market to continue expanding.

The logic of this economic system requires the capitalists to stop producing goods or even destroy products that cannot be sold at a profit. Since human beings need these products it would make sense to sell abundant products at a lower price or just give them away. Instead, hundreds of thousands of workers are laid off from their jobs because they have produced more goods than can be sold at a profit. Under capitalism, profits come over peoples needs. Socialism reverses that equation.

More than 50 million people are already poor from low-wage jobs and now the
capitalist system is plunging the country into a severe recession and depressions. A depression is an exceptionally severe crisis of capitalism. The army of the unemployed grows by the millions. People lose their homes or are evicted from their apartments. Workers and even middle class people are confronted suddenly with the choice of buying either food or medicine when they and their families fall ill. Last year, more people were forced into bankruptcy than ever before; 50 percent were filed by people who could not pay their medical bills.

What can be done? There are only two choices. Either we can continue suffering under the present capitalist system with a tiny group owning everything and seeking to make greater profits. Or we can fight for socialism—a system where people are the priority, not profits. Under socialism, the economy is structured in a rational and ecologically sustainable manner to ensure that the basic needs of all people are met. Only under socialism will the economy brought into the realm of true democracy.

It should come as no surprise that the Socialists attack Capitalism and offer Socialism. The main problem that the Socialists see in our economy is that wealth is consolidated in the few wealthy. The only solution is the fair redistribution of wealth by the system of Socialism. So, what about Obama? Here is how Obama theorized about the problems of our economy and the solutions.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the Illinois Democrat said that he was trying to put together tax and spending policies that dealt with two challenges. One is the competition from rapidly growing developing countries, like India and China. The other: the U.S. becoming what he called a "winner-take-all" economy, where the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy.

...

Sen. Barack Obama shed new light on his economic plans for the country, saying he would rely on a heavy dose of government spending to spur growth, use the tax code to narrow the widening gap between winners and losers in the U.S. economy, and possibly back a reduction in corporate tax rates.

So, much like the Socialists, Obama sees the main problem in the economy is that wealth is centered in the few. Rather than proposing full Socialism, Barack Obama merely proposes a plan that has its roots in Socialism, income redistribution. Rather than outwardly proposing Socialism, Obama proposes a hybrid. Under his plan, what will happen is that wealthy will be punished, severely. Anyone making over $250,000 will see their taxes go up as much as 10%. Not only will their income tax increase about 6% but they will also pay an extra newly created payroll tax. Meanwhile, everyone under $200,000 will receive a tax cut, even those that don't actually pay any income taxes. That may not be Socialsim but it certainly is close.

3) Reproductive rights.

Here is how the Socialists see it.

Women’s rights are under attack at the federal and state levels. The continuing subordinate position of women in society, at home and on the job, originated in the rise of class society. It has been compounded today by vicious attacks against women’s right to control their own bodies, by the virtual elimination affordable high-quality child care, and by drastic cuts in welfare and health care benefits. Black, Latino and other women of color are confronted by institutionalized and individual racism as well. Violence against women is still at epidemic proportions in the United States. Women are still paid far less on average then men for the same work. More working-class women than ever before are being incarcerated in the prison-industrial complex.

The La Riva/Puryear presidential campaign demands full reproductive rights for women, including the right to free, safe and legal abortions on demand. Free or affordable child care must be a top priority. Women’s clinics must be defended, and anti-choice bigots who attempt to deny women control of their bodies must be prosecuted. Access to free, quality health care and prenatal care, and access to free contraceptives is necessary.

Well, here again we have symmetry between the Socialists and Barack Obama. Obama wants to insure equal pay for women so much that he wants to make it law. As for so called reproductive rights, there isn't an abortion that Barack Obama thinks is wrong or should be made illegal. In fact, Obama is so pro abortion that he even believes that sometimes the baby should be killed even after the baby is born. Here I see absolutely no difference between his ow positions and that of the Socialists.

4) Immigration

Here is the Socialists position on immigration (or what the rest of us call illegal immigration)

All undocumented immigrants and residents in the United States should have full rights and equality now. That means equal wages, benefits, union rights, voting rights, and access to free, quality education, housing and health care. The government’s war on immigrants must end. Racist home and job raids must be stopped and concentration camp-style detention centers must be dismantled. The border wall must be dismantled.

The La Riva/Puryear presidential campaign believes that the struggle for legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants is a top priority for the U.S. working class. Immigration is a natural outgrowth of imperialism and the forced uneven economic development of nations. “Free trade” agreements have eliminated national borders to enrich the capitalists, while the capitalists have erected borders against humans displaced by the effects of global capitalism.

So the Socialists are unabashedly pro totally open borders. .Here is how Barack Obama described the situation at the separatist group, La Raza.

And I will never walk away from the 12 million undocumented immigrants who live, work, and contribute to our country every single day.There are few better examples of how broken, bitter, and divisive ourpolitics has become than the immigration debate that played out in Washington a few weeks ago.

So many of us - Democrats and Republicans - were willing to compromise in order to pass comprehensive reform that would secure our borders while giving the undocumented a chance to earn their citizenship.

We knew that the American people believe that we are a nation of laws - that we have a right and duty to protect our borders. And we should also crack down on employers who hire undocumented workers so that we can protect jobs and wages.

But the American people also know that we are a nation of immigrants - a nation that has always been willing to give weary travelers from around the world the chance to come here and reach for the dream that so many of us have reached for. That's the America that answered my father's letters and his prayers and brought him here from Kenya so long ago. That's the America we believe in.

As for policy, Barack Obama has voted against stricter sanctions for those cities that practice sanctuary policies. He has voted for quasi pro open borders policies like the DREAM Act. He has come out against a border fence, and has not supported tough anti illegal immigration measure of
the SAVE Act. So, in words, he will "never walk away from the 12 million undocumented workers", and in deeds, he will support any pro open borders measure and oppose anything that will counter illegal immigration. On this issue, the only difference I see is that the Socialists are at least honest enough to say that they believe there are no borders in this country and anyone can come in. Barack Obama simply hides this belief with euphimisms.

5)Free trade

How do the Socialists view free trade?

In today’s capitalist-dominated world, capital is increasingly free to roam the planet in search of ever-greater profits. So-called free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA and other agreements negotiated through the World Trade Organization or bilaterally, serve the interests of the big capitalists. Unions and other organizations representing the interests of working people in industry and agriculture are excluded. Countries like Mexico have suffered severe economic destruction due to “free trade,” forcing millions of Mexican workers and farmers to emigrate to the U.S. for reasons of survival.

While the richer get richer and working people get poorer, racists and chauvinists like the “Minutemen” and Lou Dobbs try to scapegoat immigrants in order to hide the true cause of economic crisis—capitalism itself.

So, how does Barack Obama view free trade? Barack Obama doesn't take it quite that far but he comes close.

Improve Transition Assistance:To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

Rather than abolishing free trade entirely, Barack Obama believes in the nebulous concept of "fair trade". Once again, here the Socialists are honest about their total protectionist stance. Obama hides it with some Utopian concept known as "fair trade".

6) Jobs

Instead of using our tax dollars to fuel the destructive Pentagon budget of more than a half a trillion dollars per year, the La Riva/Puryear presidential campaign calls for redirecting that money to create millions of union jobs for unemployed and underemployed working-class people. We also demand that the minimum wage be raised to $15 dollars an hour now.

The highway and bridge infrastructure in the United States is in serious need of repair, More than 155,000 U.S. bridges need to be restored or reconstructed. The creation of hundreds of thousands of permanent, full-time union jobs could restore the infrastructure. Mass transit and high-speed national train systems also are needed to greatly reduce dependence on cars and to reduce global warming.

We demand that New Orleans and the Gulf Coast be rebuilt. There must be homes, schools, hospitals and parks for all those who were displaced in Katrina’s aftermath. Jobs and job training should be guaranteed first for the region’s residents. Environmental programs also must be created to restore wetlands and other natural areas, and to rebuild the levee system

The Socialists want to end war and use that money so that government can provide more jobs.

So, how does Obama match up? Here is how Barack Obama described his job's plan.

Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.

Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.

How does he plan on paying for this?

Obama explained that the money for his spending proposals will come from ending the Iraq war, cutting tax breaks for corporations, taxing carbon pollution and raising taxes on high income earners.

Remarkable...If you think that Barack Obama reminds you of a Socialist just compare him to a real one and see how close they are.

Epilogue:

To be fair on foreign policy, the Socialists see the world much differently than Obama. Here is their foreign policy view.

U.S. foreign policy has only one purpose: global domination through military, economic, political and diplomatic means. Washington uses war and the threat of war, economic blockades, sanctions and bribery to force other countries—particularly those in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East—to accept its dictates. There are over 700 U.S. military bases in over 130 countries. Governments that refuse to go along with the U.S. imperialists’ agenda are targeted for “regime change.” Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Bolivia, Zimbabwe and others are currently on their list.

U.S. imperialism serves the interests of the capitalists in corporate America, not working-class people. This expansionist, profit-based system seeks to gain control of resources and markets for unlimited exploitation. Imperialist leaders and their media lapdogs whip up racist campaigns against targeted countries to gain popular support for wars of aggression.

In place of chauvinist imperialist domination, the La Riva/Puryear PSL presidential campaign stands for relations with all nations and peoples based on equality, mutual respect, friendship, cooperation and solidarity. This policy could only be implemented by a government that was no longer beholden to the interests of transnational corporations and banks.

That sort of anti American hate doesn't come out of his mouth.

Is Illinois Racist?

Reverend and State Senator James Meeks certainly thinks so. Why? At issue is the crumbling state educational system, and the inherent inequity in the system. In today's Sun Times, he accuses the state apparatus of racism.

I want the whole nation to look at Illinois," said a defiant Meeks, pastor of Salem Baptist Church and a state senator. "I want the whole nation to ask, 'Why is Illinois racist?' I want them to ask, 'Why is Illinois treating low-income students like that?' "

The issue boils down like this. The state of Illinois ranks second from the bottom in state funding for education. As such, most funding is left to localities. As a result, areas like Winnetka, Illinois have funding that far outweighs that of the South Side and South West side of Chicago. Because Winnetka, home of New Trier High School, is mostly white and affluent, while the South and South West side is mostly African American, Meeks throws out the racism charge.

To protest the inequity, Meeks has organized a boycott for September 2nd, in which thousands of inner city students will get on a bus and head over to New Trier where they will attempt to register for school. As far as political stunts go, this one is about as grandiose as they come. That said, the punditry mostly takes issue with the method not the message.

Keeping kids out of school the first crucial days is just wrong, no matter how you look at it. But it's a wrong the Rev. James Meeks seems ready to commit Tuesday when he leads, by his estimate, about 2,000 Chicago Public Schools students on a three day protest to call attention to the shameful inequities in school funding in Illinois. Meeks and the students intend to ride buses up to wealthy north suburban schools, where the kids will make a show of trying to enroll.

...

We can't support Meeks' tactics, but we share his frustration. He's right when he says the state's current method of funding education has led to appalling extremes of rich
schools and poor schools, and he's right when he says it's not enough anymore to make speeches and write letters to the editor. The Sun-Times has editorialized for decades in favor of school funding reform -- and gotten nowhere.

Personally, I am not so upset with his method. Most of these kids have never been outside the confines of their neighborhood. It could do them some good to see the North Shore of Chicagoland. The message I have a problem with. The punditry and Meeks fail to see the 800 pound gorilla that is staring me in the face. That is that the state government is obscenely corrupt. Just over a month ago, the Chicago Tribune offered a preview of what would happen if Meeks plan ever came to fruition and the state was more intimately involved in funding for education. In this piece, the investigative reporters at the Tribune meticulously tracked how $20 million in funding meant for after school programs wound up in the hands of former criminals. Other times, the funding wound up going to programs that didn't exist. Once they walked into the location of an after school program to find a building with no electricity. This is what awaits us if funding becomes primarily a function of the corrupt and incompetent state government.

What Meeks wants is a system in which inner city schools look more like New Trier. Instead, what we will get is a system in which New Trier will look more like all the inner city schools. Inequity in schools is a bad thing, but there are worse things. Worse than inequity is a system in which every school is equally incompetent, inefficient, and corrupt, and if our state government runs our schools that's exactly what we will have. If Reverend Meeks really wants to improve inner city education the first thing he needs to do is clean up the State government that he is intimately a part of. Until then, I want our state government nowhere near our school system.

Racism is the Only Way for McCain to Win?

There is nothing worse than race baiters in the media in my opinion because they create an industry of racism. In my opinion, the worst is Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun Times. She began one piece about Jeremiah Wright like this

White people don't get it, black people do, now it's time to move on

The problem with race baiting as a media niche is that it pays. It is one thing for a few drinking buddies to get together and expound racism amongst themselves. While that is despicable, at least those folks still have to make a legitimate living. Mary Mitchell, on the other hand, earns her living by being a racist. I for one am troubled by racism as an industry. I don't think that racism ought to pay well.

That's exactly what we have with this piece by Jacob Weisberg.

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

This sort of race baiting, assigning racism to other groups, is nothing more than racism. It's shocking enough that an entire group of Americans, older white people, are assigned a racist motive in their votes. What's really shocking is that Slate, a for profit endeavor, would employ Weisberg to say this. Make no mistake. Weisberg is allowed to say whatever racist comments he wants. He is not free to make money doing it.

Weisberg goes into a series of straw man reasons for his racist theory.

Such prejudice usually comes coded in distortions about Obama and his background. To the willfully ignorant, he is a secret Muslim married to a black-power radical. Or—thank you, Geraldine Ferraro—he only got where he is because of the special treatment accorded those lucky enough to be born with African blood. Some Jews assume Obama is insufficiently supportive of Israel in the way they assume other black politicians to be. To some white voters (14 percent in the CBS/New York Times poll), Obama is someone who, as president, would favor blacks over whites. Or he is an "elitist" who cannot understand ordinary (read: white) people because he isn't one of them. Or he is charged with playing the race card, or of accusing his opponents of racism, when he has strenuously avoided doing anything of the sort. We're just not comfortable with, you know, a Hawaiian.

Then there's the overt stuff. In May, Pat Buchanan, who writes books about the European-Americans losing control of their country, ranted on MSNBC in defense of white West Virginians voting on the basis of racial solidarity. The No. 1 best-seller in America, Obama Nation by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., leeringly notes that Obama's white mother always preferred that her "mate" be "a man of color." John McCain has yet to get around to denouncing this vile book.

What Weisberg conveniently disregards is that for as many people believe that Obama is a Muslim, there are just as many that believe that McCain was some sort of VC sympathasizer, or that he has made up most of his POW experience. In other words, there are nuts all over the internet, but that doesn't mean that Obama will lose because Americans are systemically racist.

Furthermore, in his racist diatrobe he also conveniently disregards Obama's overwhelming support among African Americans. Are we really to believe that race had nothing to do with Obama's overwhelming support among African Americans over Hillary Clinton? Are we to believe that voter registration will explode in that community for reasons that have nothing to do with race?

I am not naive enough to believe there aren't racists in America. I am of the opinion that just as many folks will vote for Obama on racial lines as against. Weisberg is from the cult of Barack Obama where his candidate can do no wrong. Those that oppose him can only do it for nefarious reasons. Barack Obama is one of the most culturally, economically and militarilly liberal Presidential candidates EVER. He wants to raise trillions of dollars worth of taxes. He believes in abortion on demand even after the baby leaves the womb. He will appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He will attempt to lose in Iraq, negotiate with Iran, and attempt to reduce our own nuclear arsenal while Russia strengthens. Yet, in Weisberg's world, the only reason to oppose him is racism.

Frankly though, I don't much care what racist thoughts Weisberg has. What I do care about though is when Slate decides to pay him for them.

Stoking a Racial Controversy with More Racial Nonsense

In an article about the growing controversy over the "race card" played by Barack Obama, Powerline, a site I generally like, had this very troubling passage.

Shelby Steeledivided African-American public figures into two categories:
bargainers and challengers. Bargainers state, in effect, “I will presume that you're not a racist and by loving me you'll show that my presumption is correct.” Challengers say, in effect, that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by conferring tangible benefits on them. Oprah is a bargainer; so was Louis Armstrong. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are challengers.

Barack Obama made his political breakthrough as a bargainer. By constantly referring to the national yearning (including, he said, by many Republicans) to "come together" as blacks and whites, Obama presumed we are not racists. His reward was an almost magical appeal to broad portions of the electorate.

However, Steele (who believes that bargainers are masking their real, more subtle, view of whites) predicted that Obama would not be able to maintain his bargainer status. That prophesy began to come true when the tapes of Rev. Wright surfaced. Now, as Obama feels the heat of the campaign, he continues his transformation to challenger. In Steele's terms, he no longer offers us the assurances, required of bargainers, that he knows we’re not racists; we now have to prove it to him. Having issued this challenge, Obama can no longer receive our unconditional love.

This is a very sneak and despicable passage, and I expect a lot more from that site. First, the controversial remarks are attributed to Shelby Steele and thus, I can only assume they pass off their responsibility. It is total nonsense and very divisive to stereotype ALL BLACK LEADERS into one of two very unglamorous categories, bargainers and challengers. This is just flat out unfair. First, I am no fan of Oprah but I don't for one second believe that she is looking for positive reinforcement or she will immediately call one a racist.

Furthermore, I don't think that all African American leaders take everything in such a racial way. Juan Williams doesn't fit into either category and neither does Dr. Marc Lamont Hill. Frankly, Barack Obama doesn't see the world through such a prism either. I think he made an awful mistake, but that doesn't mean his entire perspective is predicated on such a racial level. Powerline was so eager to attach to "race card" to Obama that their own race baiting is just as bad as anything that Obama did.

Misunderstanding the McCain Ad

In light of the racial controversy that it ignited, this McCain ad has gotten more attention than it deserves.



Frankly, I find it stupid, silly and downright disprespectful to compare Barack Obama to either Brittney Spears or Paris Hilton. controversyIs it racist though? Bill Press certainly thinks so.

Of all the famous celebrities they could have compared Obama to, why not Tom Cruise? Or Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Donald Trump, or Oprah Winfrey? Why Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? Why two white blond bimbos?

Only one reason. It's a somewhat tamer version of the white bimbo ad used so successfully against Harold Ford in Tennessee. In juxtaposing Barack Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the McCain campaign is simply trying to plant the old racist seed of black man hitting on young white woman. Not directly, but subliminally and disgracefully.

Bill Press can't really be this dense. After all, the reason that Spears and Hilton were used is they are generally famous for being famous. That is the comparison. The ad tries to say that this guy is not famous for any other reason but that he is famous. The subliminal message is that Obama is here by accident and that he has done nothing to get here. That's why they didn't use Oprah, Donald Trump, et al. All those have legitimate reasons for fame.

Now, again, I find the comparison trivial and way too provocative but the comparison is supposed to elicit the point that he is an empty suit. They were NOT chosen for some racial reason. What I can't figure out is how a relatively intelligent guy as Bill Press couldn't understand the point. After all, there is plenty to criticize when you do understand the point of the ad. It's almost as though he is stoking racial fears where he knows there aren't any. That couldn't possibly happen in the media could it? (snicker in cynical indignation here)

Obama Condemns Ludacris

Barack Obama condemned a song by Ludicrus that attacked John McCain in a number of crude ways.

As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn’t want his daughters or any children exposed to," said spokesman Bill Burton. "This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics."

Some on the right are already treating this with cynicism making snide references to another supporter being thrown under the proverbial bus. It's true. Barack Obama has done a lot of distancing throughout this campaign. That said, I for one am glad that he has taken a stand against rappers. Though to be fair, it is extremely disingenuous for him to proclaim that he has always taken this stand. Here was Obama's posture not but two years ago.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, contemplating a run for president, met privately Wednesday with rapper Ludacris to talk about young people.
'
'We talked about empowering the youth,'' said the artist, whose real name is Chris Bridges.Bridges was in town to launch the YouthAIDS ''Kick Me'' campaign to raise HIV/AIDS awareness during a stop at Northwestern University in the Chicago suburb of Evanston.

The gathering at Obama's downtown Chicago office was a meeting of two star powers: Obama, who enjoys rock star-like status on the political scene, and Ludacris, who has garnered acclaim for his music and acting.

By meeting with Ludacris (real name Chris Bridges) right before announcing his run at the Presidency, he legitimized him and the music that he performed. To proclaim now that he has always been against rap music is just flat out not correct.

That said, while I am no fan of Barack Obama making a speech in order to quell controversies, I do believe this gives him an opportunity for a great speech that would give him his Sister Soulijah moment. Right now, he can give the speech about all that ills the African American community including the pernicious lyrics of rap music, out of wedlock births, and absentee fathers. That would be a speech of supreme political courage and one that would be applauded on both sides.

It would also be an opportunity for him to show leadership that the African American community has lacked ever since the death of Martin Luther King. If Barack Obama can lead the way in condemning the mysoginy of rap music, out of wedlock births, and absentee fathers among a host of other social ills. If he can make the case that lifting oneself from poverty takes personal responsibility and move the message from victimization that would go a long way toward making a difference in the community. The African American community is in dire need of a true leader that preaches self reliance and personal responsibility over victimization. Barack Obama has an opportunity to take that message to the masses. I, for one, hope he does.

McCain's Sudden Reversal on Affirmative Action

In a wide ranging interview with George Stephanopolous, here is what John McCain said about an affirmative action initiative in his home state of Arizona.

During a "This Week" interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos John McCain reversed himself on affirmative action and endorsed for the first time a proposed state ballot measure which would end race and gender-based affirmative action in his home state of Arizona.

"I support it," McCain declared when asked about the referendum. "I do not believe in quotas... I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I’ve always opposed quotas."

McCain has long opposed quotas but his new support for ending affirmative action programs which stop short of quotas puts him at odds not only with Democratic rival Barack Obama but also with the Arizona senator's own views in 1998.

Back then, when the legislature in McCain's home state of Arizona considered sending the voters a measure to end affirmative action, McCain spoke out against it calling it "divisive."

As the piece indicates, McCain's position is in direct conflict with a strong position he took in 1998. Furthermore, his office had no good explanation for the reversal.

I do not have a firm enough grasp on the historical and relevant context of McCain's remark in 1998 to give you the pushback that this question deserves," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds told ABC News.

So, as it stands, this reversal appears to be the product of naked political opportunism by John McCain. The Obama campaign wasted no time in attacking this flip flop.

“Obama told attendees to the Unity conference that he was “disappointed… that John McCain flipped and changed his position. I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of… initiatives as divisive. And I think he’s right.”

Civil rights leader Al Sharpton, a prominent Obama supporter, issued a statement accusing McCain of having made “a stunning reversal on his respectable record on affirmative action.”

McCain's problem appears partially to be the "nuance" in his previous position. While he appeared to be against quotas, he was against making such quotas illegal. While I can't support McCain's naked political opportunism, I do agree with his current position. Affirmative action is the sort of politically correct policy that makes for a good sound bite but makes absolutely no sense. The best counter to the concept of affirmative action is the case of Jayson Blair. Blair was the recipient of unofficial affirmative action at the New York Times. His editors were convinced that the newsroom needed more balance in their races and so Blair was promoted into positions he never would have received had he been white. As a result, he was thrown into positions he was never ready for. He folded under the pressure and began plagiarizing stories.

Affirmative action produces a student body and workforce that is inferior. Furthermore, it winds up hurting those it is supposed to help.

For instance, researchers Stephen Cole and Elinor Barber found that racial preferences at Ivy League colleges had a large and negative effect on the academic aspirations of black students.

The mechanism worked like this: Blacks admitted to elite schools with large preferences had more trouble competing with their classmates, and tended to get lower grades. Low grades, in turn, sapped the confidence of students, persuading them that they would not be able to compete effectively in Ph.D. programs. As a result, blacks at Ivy League schools were only half as likely as blacks at state universities to stick with plans for an academic career.

Dartmouth psychologist Rogers Elliot and three co-authors found that the same problem was keeping blacks out of the sciences.

Black students who received preferential admissions were at such a strong academic disadvantage compared with their classmates that fully half of those interested in the sciences tended to switch to majors with easier grading and less competition. Again, the net effect of preferential policies was to "mismatch" blacks with their academic environments.

Racism is racism and that's all affirmative action or any quota system is. When someone is chosen over another based on their race that is RACISM. Just because the racism is reversed to help minorities that were the subjects of previous forms of racism doesn't make it any less racist.

My Thoughts on Racism in America II

After the revelation earlier this week that Jesse Jackson used the N word as part of his rant against Barack Obama that was infamously caught by a so called "hot mic", new racial firestorm was unleashed. It lead to this infamous and very emotional exchange on The View.


In the aftermath of this exchange I was rather shocked to hear many (not all or even a majority even) educated African Americans defend the position of Whoopi Goldberg that while it is never all right for a non African American to use that word, it can be all right for an African Americans to use it among themselves.

Dr. Mark Lamont Hill said that language is too nuanced for the black and white view that a word is either strictly acceptable or unacceptable. Furthermore, others still, made the point that a white person like myself has no place to judge since I haven't gone through their experience. While I personally find that point to be just as fallacious as Whoopi's original point about the word's sometimes dual meaning, I will cede all African Americans their point that I haven't shared their experience.

Instead, I will only argue about things I know. I am of Jewish decsent and born in the Soviet Union, and for that, I have experienced bigotry nealy all my life. I don't know any Jew or Soviet ex pat that has ever used a derogatory term toward either race as a term of endearment. Furthermore, if I did, it would NOT be acceptable. I don't find it empowering to turn those terms around and make them mean something besides the hateful meaning of their intended purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I am no angel. I have used derogatory terms though very rarely. I know that the only times I have used them it was a result of hubris or frustration.

I found it interesting and revealing that Dr. Hill and every other African American defender of their dual usage pointed out that they themselves have never used as a term of endearment. I think this culture of victimhood that makes some classes feel as though they can turn around derogatory terms and use them as a term of endearment is nonsense. This is not a contest about which group has been victimized most. Very few groups have faced a longer and more vicious history of hate than Jewish folks. I don't know any Jew that thinks turning around derogatory terms has any empowering effect. I doubt very much you would get any Jewish leader defending such action.

Members of the same race that struggled for freedom in America and then to vote and eat in the same diners go to the same bathrooms and drink from the same fountains, now want to divide the world based on race when using a derogatory term. To me this sort of blatant hypocrisy is nothing more than excuse making for crude terms that have no business anywhere in our society.

We live in a world of gray that needs more black and white. Here is an opportunity for black and white where there is gray. A derogatory term is just that no matter who uses it or how they intended to use it. The best way to empower yourself is to move beyond derogatory terms not by turning them around for some other usage. Personally, I think anyone that uses a derogatory term as an empowering term is just plain ignorant. Everyone has their own experience and I won't pretend to know what sorts of racism African Americans have experienced. That said, I certainly know a derogatory term when I hear one, and it doesn't matter who is using it or why.

As I pointed out in my earlier piece, the only time I used a derogatory term to make a point was during a speech in my fraternity. I had experienced nearly four years of bigotry because of my religion. I wanted to make a point. (Arnold was an African American that brought us our meals and Macias was a Hispanic member of the fraternity) Here is what I said,

One last thing, when I first arrived here, many of you made comments about me being Jewish. At first, I figured it wasn't that big a deal because you weren't that mature, but since its been four years and you still haven't gotten over it. The only thing I can see is that to you I'm just another K%^E, just like Macias is just another S^&C, and Arnold's just another Ni$$er.

The reason that I did this was to throw the derogatory terms back in the fraternity mate's faces. I wanted them to experience being the recipient of such terms. It worked and for a little while they were genuinely affected. There are few absolutes in this world, and while abhor the use of racial slurs I also feel I used them properly in that context. That said, the idea that one group can use a term as an endearment while it would be viewed as derogatory when used by other groups is, to me at least, a pathetic excuse of crude language that has no business being used by anyone.

The Emerging Racist Narrative?

Are white people that vote against Barack Obama racists? That appears to be an emerging narrative coming from the MSM. It first started with this piece by Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun Times.

Looks like Clinton has gotten a lift from the fear-mongering, and is now slightly ahead of Obama in Indiana, and has narrowed his double-digit lead in North Carolina.

Polls in Indiana show Clinton now leads Obama there by four points among likely Democratic voters, 48 percent to 44 percent. Eight percent of voters there remain undecided, according to an analysis by a CNN poll.

...

Meanwhile, Obama continues to put his money on his belief that the majority of Americans won't cast their ballots on race, but for a candidate who they believe will best represent their interests in Washington.

Despite the racially polarizing events, Obama has not wavered from this belief and recently reiterated his belief that if he loses his bid for the Democratic primary, it won't be because of his race.

I'm still not so sure.

Then, there was this piece by Alan Abramowitz two days later.

Racial attitudes have changed dramatically in the United States over the past several decades, of course, and overtly racist beliefs are much less prevalent among white Americans of all classes today. But a more subtle form of prejudice, which social scientists sometimes call symbolic racism, is still out there -- especially among working-class whites.

Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular, according to the 2004 American National Election Study, the best data available on this topic

Almost 60 percent of white voters agreed with the statement that "blacks should try harder to succeed." A startling 43 percent of white college graduates nodded at this one, along with 71 percent of whites with no college education.

..

Fully 49 percent of white voters disagreed with the statement that "history makes it more difficult for blacks to succeed." Forty percent of white college graduates disagreed with it, along with 58 percent of whites with no college education.

...

Of course, these results don't mean that Obama won't win over white working-class voters. ... Democrats must hope that disapproval of Bush could lead working-class voters to begrudgingly approve of a black presidential candidate.

Finally, there was this analysis of Hillary Clinton from the Las Vegas Journal.

The Clinton racism strategy first became apparent in Nevada, when her struggling campaign began to publicly talk about her "Hispanic firewall" against Obama among the rank-and-file in the Culinary union. It hit the national consciousness soon thereafter when former President Bill Clinton, after Hillary lost the South Carolina primary, dismissed Obama's big win as a race-inspired victory akin to Jesse Jackson's success in that state years ago.

The record clearly shows that Hillary's campaign was the first to use Obama's race against him. The strategy gained an unexpected boost when Sen. Obama's former pastor, the egomaniacal Rev. Jeremiah Wright, cribbed the Obama spotlight only to show the world that racism could be a black thing, too. The opportunistic Clinton campaign shamelessly took full advantage of the tension. They not only raised questions about what the Wright debacle meant for an Obama presidency, they slyly positioned Hillary, like a latter-day George Wallace (the Alabama governor, not the very funny Las Vegas comedian), as the "working-class" candidate.

...

That fear of the different guy, combined with Obama's pastor disaster, paid off. Not only did it give them late wins in important states, it gave them cover to make a thinly veiled racial appeal to the ruling class of the Democratic Party -- the "superdelegates."

The "superdelegate" whisper campaign goes something like this: Hillary is better built to win in November. Obama is soft and elitist. He's a dangerous unknown quantity. But most importantly, Mr. and Mrs. Democratic Insider Superdelegate, look at the voter numbers in key states. Forget about pledged delegates, wins and losses and overall popular vote. Look deep into the numbers of the key states Democrats must win in November.

Do you see those "working-class" numbers? Those are Hillary people. Those are the people who will win the White House for Democrats this fall. Those are the people who count because, faced with a choice between Obama and Sen. John McCain, "working-class" Democrats will vote for McCain.

This sort of pseudo sociological analysis is startling. Abramowitz apparently thinks that because a large number of white see African American problems with poverts as rooted in laziness that must make them racist. Apparently assigning a flaw of their own human condition rather than others racism must make them racist. Mitchell sees Obama as so infallable that the only reason anyone would vote against him is because they are racist. Finally, the LVR claims that when Hillary Clinton mentions that "working voters" go heavily for her, what she really means is that white people aren't going to vote for Obama.

What is even more startling is that while these columnists bemoan the terrible "racist" disadvantage that Obama will have, none of them seems to mention the overwhelming number of African Americans that are voting for him. Apparently, they see nothing racist in Obama sweeping north of 90% of the African American vote. The only racist analysis they see is white racism on an African American candidate.

Now, we all know that the MSM has been in the tank for Obama since the beginning, but now they have begun a new campaign. It appears they will try and guilt white folks into voting for Obama. They will create a plethora of pseudo sociological commentaries bemoaning the racism that has been unearthed as a result of this campaign. They will "analyze" about how difficult it will be for Obama to overcome this institutional racism. Furthermore, they might even create the perception that any mention of Reverend Wright will only be done to "stoke racist fears".

Now, I won't pretend that there is no racism in this country. I won't pretend that there aren't plenty of whites that won't vote for Obama because of his skin color. I am also not naive enough to think that 90% of African Americans aren't simply voting for Obama based on qualifications either. That said, Obama's electoral problems have a lot more to do with real political issues rather than race. He has struggled with "white working voters" for many reasons not the least of which were his comments in San Francisco. It is absurd and faulty to blame his emerging demographic problems simply on race.

Here's the rub, as Shakespeare might say. The MSM is likely not necessarily looking to make good sound analyses. Instead, they are actively trying to put Obama in the White House. If that means that they will need to guilt whites into voting for him so be it. If making blanket racist charges is the way to go, then it appears that is where they will go.