The site uses cookies that you may not want. Continued use means acceptance. For more information see our privacy policy.

Racism in a Post 11/4 World

Just my musing about the racism and the state of the nation in the wake of electing an American as President.

From Election spurs ‘hundreds’ of race threats, crimes

To paraphrase a line from Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (written April 16, 1963): ‘Daddy, why do people treat people so mean?”

There’s some white folks right now scared shitless and their lack of rationality leaves them no choice but to lash out. It is a testament to the dry rot of the anglo culture that predominates in some echelons of our society that they have such utter lack of self-respect as to take out their frustrations in this banal and despicable fashion.

On the other hand, many people from the same exact towns and cities are exemplars of the truly peaceful human seeking out love and understanding. What separates the two? I can only call it faith, but not in some deity for surely the racist numbskulls would claim that lickity split. It is faith in their common man and in the institutions we have wrought for over two centuries, some older than that.

It is faith in the essential promise of life itself: that given time and air and food and light, a tree will bring shade to the weary. Given a nudge from its mother’s beak the nestling will take flight.  And given the opportunity, with rights in hand, the individual will prevail in achieving happiness.

There are those that see the election of a black man, an African-American.  There are those who see the election of a liberal, of a lefty.  And there are those who see the election of an American.

And the first group, on both sides, seem to hold race as a prominent factor in their self-identities.  They are not men or women, but they are a white man or a black woman.

And the second group, on both sides, hold a particular ideology.  They see the benefits of low taxes and deficits be damned or they see the benefits of government regulation and market forces (ie, economic blowback) be damned.  They are committed just as much as the first two groups.  They have invested in their world view and in some cases are past the point they are willing to pull back and rekindle their spiritual savings account to put it toward a more modest appraisal.

And then the third group, of which I consider myself a member, and I am hopeful that we have elected not a black man, not a liberal, but an American to the highest office of our government.  I see the benefit of lowering taxes, but only if we can do the honest thing and pay for our government.  I see the benefit to some measure of regulation, but not to the point that economics dictates will do more harm than good.  I may have white skin and a Y chromosome, but I consider myself a human foremost.

And above all I strive to pride myself in a rational understanding of the world.  That the path of regulation should more often than not be informational regulation (ie, ensuring transparency in markets) that allow for the economic system to self-regulate in the same way that the awareness of a predator in the wild invokes a response in the potential prey.

That the path of taxation should seek a balance between the needs and rights of the individual to provide and to reinforce hard work and the needs and duties of a social organization to fulfill its contractual obligations to its citizenry.

We have some problems in this country, but let’s be sure we focus on the real problems and not on imagined ones.

Obama’s Friends

The preachers are the ones to be questioned. Obama’s attendance or affiliation with them isn’t controversial.

Welcome to the MSM‘s latest revelation: black people go to church! All of the recent controversy about Senator Obama‘s church and the inflammatory remarks of black preachers he has affiliated with has led to the new discovery that African Americans have a spiritual life.

And get this: their preachers say ludicrous crap from time to time just like other priests, preachers, rabbis, and imams. Amazing.

The controversy is manufactured. Anyone who didn’t already know that this kind of rhetoric is used by preachers in black churches all over America is obviously so out of touch their commentary should be discounted.

Senator, were you aware that Dr. Wilburn was a mad scientist?

Well, over the 14 odd years I’ve known him he’s often talked about amateur rocketry and shown me his research papers published in Journal of Laser Applications, but honestly this is the first I’ve heard of his plans to build a space laser.

The problem is, Dr. Wilburn, like these preachers who are being used to attack Senator Obama, are often incoherent. Their emotions outpace their brains and they say some stuff that, really, doesn’t make sense. But the impetus behind their words are realities that have existed for hundreds of years. Their overall point is lucid.

And that’s exactly what Barack Obama said in his notable speech on race in America. It’s clear that there are issues with race in this country and that we have much work to do in that arena. It’s also clear that many black preachers take liberties when directing a sermon to what they believe is a specifically targeted audience. That includes some pretty heavy-handed, ultimately irrational, blanket statements about this country.

Should it be toned down? Yes. Should the people who say these things be reminded that as they have taken it upon themselves to be shepherds in the absence of their Lord and Savior, Jesus of Nazarus, the Christ, the Lamb of God, et al. they have a duty to uphold his teachings and take pains to understand them clearly and relay that lucid understanding to their patrons? Duh.

But should a member of such a congregation be held accountable or be viewed as having endorsed those tirades? No. If any member of any church wholly subscribes to every word from the pastor’s mouth let him be cast upon by the first stone. And the zeroeth stone to the man who casteth the firsteth.

In the modern vernacular, some people go to church to do the work of their God, not because the preacher is particularly correct. Especially in the case of a politician, the opportunity to meet with community members and seek out lasting progress for their community, state, and nation, can start in a church. This is nowhere more true than in a black church where it is often less formal and more communal than in white churches.

Most of the time a sermon will tread heavily on positive aspects of life and serve as a weekly reminder to live spiritedly and hold forgiveness close to the heart, and the like. And that’s as uncontroversial as it can get. I challenge the MSM to pull up some of those recorded sermons from these preachers and find controversy in them. And when that’s the sermon, there’s no problem. Only when the preacher has a thorn in his side and feels like he should pull it out before his patrons, it is foremost not in the spirit of the Christ. But more than that, his motivations must be questioned.

And you’ll notice that most of my discussion here keeps focusing on the preachers, not on Obama. Why is that? Because Obama didn’t say these things, didn’t endorse these things. Those preachers said them. They, and their words, are what it is appropriate to address. The only questions to Obama should be, “Do you agree with them?” And he’s already answered that one. Time to move on.



Even in the past Bill hurts Senator Clinton’s campaign. Who’da thunk it?

Ah, the inevitable follow-up on my previous post It’s 3am….

Thanks to a youtuber and digg we now have this 2004 speech where Bill Clinton was campaigning with John Kerry:

Turns out, even in the past Bill hurts Senator Clinton’s campaign.

For those without flash or too lazy to watch yet paradoxically not lazy enough to not read:

Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this:

If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think;
if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes,
you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope, that’s the best.

Now, no offense to Obama supporters, but I’m shakily supporting him at this point. I think he does say some good things and has had a better record than most. But I’m still a bit skeptical. That said, I’m willing to give him a shot, and unless I see some good reasons he’ll be getting my vote in November.

Good reasons do not include not putting his hand over his heart, his middle name, dressing in native garb, etc.

Good reasons would include another candidate throwing his or her support behind mainstream public transportation in the USA, actually proposing a good universal healthcare plan (for the record I think both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama got this wrong), proposing a space-race to energy independence that doesn’t involve subsidizing idiotic, non-green (I’m looking at you Ethanol) solutions. Also, supporting broadband development across the country.

Good reasons are basically the giant mountain of opportunity and economy that is sitting on our front door while the politicians ignore it. This nation and this planet still have so much untapped potential and yet we’re stuck in this stupor of fear and lethargy. Obama’s the closest candidate to anti-Lotus pills at this point, and given that he’s the only mainstream candidate that fits that bill, I’ll probably be sticking with him.