Say it with me. President Obama.

We're not much better.

2009-08-15T21:58:00.002-05:00

I heard a horrible story when I was in Yemen last week. A couple visited a typical Yemeni hospital, filled with bacteria cultures and lack of basic hygiene. They told how, if you have an emergency and need surgery immediately, such as an artery spilling blood out, the hospital won't even treat you, until your family pays up, in cash, ahead of time. Then, as they're doing the surgery, the family waits next to the table, for very time you need something, like anesthesia, the family must run off to the hospital pharmacy to purchase it.

The callousness towards the human condition turns my stomach. How can people be treated that way? How can we see a fellow human suffering, and not respond? How can we not heal, especially if we are doctors, regardless of the cost to ourselves or the hospital?

And yet, I can see what they might argue. There are limited resources, in this, the poorest of the Arab countries. If they were to treat everyone without demanding payment first, they would quickly run out of the resources. And if they did not demand the payment up front, in this culture, most families would never pay, for things can be put off, and most families are frankly far too poor to pay.

No, I find none of these arguments convincing either. But I was then struck, as I listened to the story from this couple, how similar our situation in America is, and how similar my own situation is.

No, we wouldn't allow someone to bleed to death on the operating table for non-payment- not here in America. But we would allow, and do allow, someone to go without if they refuse to sign a statement to pay. If it is not immediately life-threatening, and the person is in great pain, we require them to sign a statement saying they will pay before we treat them. I experienced this myself when I had kidney stones, and I lay writhing on the floor in pain while they insisted I sign a document. Trust me, to get rid of that pain, you'll sign anything.

And if the emergency is immediate, we will work to heal the person- and then bill them for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (depending on how severe the treatment and how long the hospital stay). Many like myself know this, so we don't go into the doctor, for we don't want to go deeper into debt. We can't afford insurance, and we can't afford costly hospital bills, so we weigh out how much pain we can tolerate before absolutely going in.

And this is where it gets worse. Because we wait, it does get worse. And our country is like the Yemen in this respect too: we refuse to treat the uninsured for preventive care, unless they pay up in full. Yet I am not insured, and I can not pay up, and so I do not go in for treatment. And when you don't work on preventive care, not only does the cost for the nation increase, but the danger increases that one's illness will be irreversible.

And so these were my thoughts when I listened to the couple describe their horrible experience in the Yemeni hospital. I've been to the doctor a couple times, and gotten tests, in the last six months. This resulted in bills of about $900. Thankfully the hospital reduced it out of compassion to half, and my church assisted in covering a quarter, the last doctor's visit. But unfortunately, my pains still continue, and the doctor didn't discover how to fix them, or what completely is wrong. I suspect things might be very wrong, but can't afford to go to the doctor yet again. I can't afford more tests. I can't afford surgery to alleviate the pain. And things might get worse, or already be too far gone to fix.

Are we all that different from Yemen? We allow the poor to suffer and die because they can't afford preventive care, insurance, or costly hospitalizations and surgery. While I was in Yemen, evidently a huge national argument, more a riot, blew up in the States over universal health care. And I am convinced, from what I read in various comments online, that I have a number of conservative friends who would rather that I die, then for them to give up their resistance to universal health care, or give an inch to what they perceive as creeping socialism. Oh, I'm sure that each of them would be happy to pay my medical bills, could they afford them. But that's not possible for any one individual, unless they were fabulously wealthy. It's only something an insurance company or a central government could afford.

It's time to look at ourselves honestly, and to no longer perceive ourselves in some colonialist way as better than the teeming masses. Yemen and 2/3rds World countries like it is just more honest in their rejection of care for the ill. We can either decide that we are better than this, and change our ways radically, and begin caring for all of our ill, no matter their poverty and ability to pay and the cost it might have in higher taxes; or we can forgo for all time the claim that we are somehow better than other countries in our righteousness and compassion and care for the least of these. We can not have it both ways.

Why we need a wise Latina.

2009-07-15T14:25:00.003-05:00

The most the Republicans have been able to say against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a phrase she used in a few speeches over a decade ago, in which she stated that a wise Latina woman might have more to offer in terms of justice that a white man. As a white man, I think she's got it just about right.

The Republicans have responded that she is using "reverse racism", and this indicates she can't be fair and impartial on the bench. Let us move beyond the part that, while anyone can have prejudice, racism can only be expressed by the group in power. I'm interested in looking at what the Gospel says.

Jesus' mission statement was that he had come to bring good news to the poor and freedom for the oppressed. Some of why he was killed was certainly because of this mission. Everywhere he went, he looked for those who were outcast from society, as Luke especially convincingly shows us. He was there for the blind, the lepers, the women, the tax-collectors, and the Samaritans. His Gospel is decidedly not good news for those in power. It was good news for those who were not in power, who were being held down by the Man, whoever that might be. At that time and place, it was the ruling Jewish authorities and the Romans. Jesus didn't look for men and women of power in his society, but consistently searched for those without, so that their power would so obviously come from God. He came for the sick, not the healthy; for the blind, not the sighted. And by this he was clear- we are all in need of the Doctor, but only if we recognize where and how we are sick, blind, and oppressed; only if we give up our power. The Gospel was never for those in power, and can never be. Jesus came to bring Jubilee, an Upside-down Kingdom, a complete change to the way life is done, where those who were oppressed don't become the oppressor, but rather grab hold of justice and teach the oppressor how to love.

Now we return to Justice Sotomayor's comment on the wise Latina. It goes without saying that we need diversity in all aspects of life, and certainly a few more people of colour in the highest court in the land. But multiculturalism and affirmative action were always of value not simply because of this. They were and are of value because of the unique contribution that other cultures can bring. And as a Christian I am mandated to go further. Those who come from groups who have not been in power, who have historically experienced the brunt of racism and oppression, are precisely those we can learn the most from. They are those that Christ came for. They are the foundations of leadership in the coming Kingdom.

We need those dispensing justice to be intimately familiar with the miscarriage of justice. We need them to be acting in the person of Christ, to be his ambassadors, looking out for those who are oppressed and bringing in justice. And so, yes, a Latina justice- a woman of colour- can offer something unique, and is better in this position that a white man. She is better able, on average, to represent who Christ is.

But only on average. There are plenty of Latinas who would make poorer justices than plenty of white men. And that's why we need a wise Latina- someone who knows how to dispense justice with that gentle rain from Heaven, the quality of mercy not strained.

On Nudity and Culture

2009-05-14T11:25:00.003-05:00

There has been a big brouhaha of late over Obama's course decision about no releasing hundreds of new photographs of the atrocities committed by the US military at Abu Ghraib. During the campaign, Obama stated unequivocally that they should be released. Now he's not releasing them because he doesn't want US servicemen to be attacked because of what's on the photos. Many are suggesting that the photos aren't being released because they would show the extent of the atrocities- that it wasn't just a few bad apples, but in fact a covert policy of the US military to demean and torture. And if that's true, higher heads would roll. But there's a completely different reason why these photos shouldn't be released.

They shouldn't be released because of the reason that the original photos should never have been released. Yes, the photos should be investigated, and every individual who was responsible for these actions should be fully prosecuted. But the photos should be viewed only by those who need to seem them directly- defense and prosecuting attorneys, and judges and juries.

It was quite clear that the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib knew what they were doing. They were making use of Arab cultural norms and fears to intimidate and demean their prisoners. They used Arab dislike of homosexuality to put Arab men in compromising positions. But more to the point, they used the Arab conventions against nudity to attack their prisoners.

This isn't only true in Arab culture. It's a widely held Middle Eastern belief, found even with Noah at the time that the Genesis stories were being told and written. Nudity is inappropriate- to a far greater degree than we find in Western culture. In early hadith in Islam, one is told that even a husband and wife should never be completely naked in front of each other. (It is unknown, naturally, how much these particularly hadith are followed. But even today, there are imams calling for this to be followed.) In the wider Arab and Middle Eastern culture, the shame of nudity never transfers to the person viewing, but rather to the person viewed; to the one who is naked. That person is exposed in front of others, in a culture where what others view is paramount above all else. These are shame cultures, not guilt cultures.

Thus, when the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib took pictures of nude Arab men, they were knowingly attempting to shame them. When we allowed those pictures to be reproduced in newspapers and the American nightly news, ostensibly in order to reveal America's crimes to the world, we were unknowingly assisting the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib in their crimes. We were increasing the shame of the Arab victims a thousand fold, beyond the wildest dreams of the evildoers of Abu Ghraib.

Now we hear that there are more pictures, hundreds more. This can only mean more shame, for more people. Haven't they suffered enough at our hands? Is there any reason to assist the perpetrators of Abu Ghraib? Prosecute them, certainly. But let us end the suffering of our victims. Don't publish these photos.

Arlen Specter's Secret Plan

2009-05-07T17:00:00.004-05:00

I've finally realized how very devious Arlen Specter is.

He has always been a moderate maverick Republican- well, since he switched from being a Democrat 30 years ago. Recently, as we all know, he switched parties, back to the Democrats. He did this very honestly and openly- he couldn't win the election as a Republican. His party has gone so very right-wing, that Pennsylvanians won't vote for a moderate in the primary. That, and 200,000 Pennsylvanians have switched to Democrat, following the general trend of the country, which now has only some 20% willing to admit to being a Republican. (There may, of course, be more Republicans than this- again, it's the number willing to admit to it.) Considering that there are few moderates in the party left, and those remaining are ultra-right-wing, that 20% is actually rather scary, but I'll save that topic for another post...

In the process of switching parties, Arlen managed to tick off nearly every Democrat. That's not easy to do. He already had his erstwhile party angry with him for leaving and getting the Democrats closer to Magic 60. But he publicly stated that he would maintain his seniority, pushing some Democrats off their position in committees. He stated he wouldn't be a "loyal Democrat", and immediately proved it by voting against a couple Obama proposals that the rest of the Democrats voted for. And then he came out and said that he hoped the Republican Coleman would defeat the Democrat Franken in the Minnesota Senate Race, even calling, oddly, for Franken to "do the right thing". (He corrected this later by saying he briefly forgot which team he was on. I really hate it when an NBA player is traded and on the court does the same thing.)

Now, no one likes Specter. The Democratic caucus in the Senate stripped him of all his committee positions (though later they returned a subcommittee position to him), stripping him also of a strong electoral argument he was hoping to make in 2010- "I can bring home the bacon." The idea of him not being a loyal Democrat is sure to get a lot of press in his now Democratic primary. A few Democrats are considering running against him.

And I suddenly realized...what if this was all part of his plan? He couldn't win as a Republican, because he is too moderate. He could probably win the general if he made it that far, but another Republican in Pennsylvania would not. There was only one way out.

Specter would switch parties and run as a Democrat, but then do everything possible to turn off Democratic voters. Specter would still win the primary on name recognition, as he's represented Pennsylvania for 30+ years, and he has Obama's commitment of support. The Republicans would elect a conservative Republican in the primary, who would then run against Specter in the general. Now we come to the general election, where more of the electorate might be on the side of a moderate Democrat/Republican than a conservative Republican, but since Specter has proved to be such a wishy-washy Democrat, the population isn't just that interested in him. Lacking a Presidential race, they have less incentive to be excited about a guy who they aren't sure is really on board with the Democrat thing. The Democrat voters stay home in droves, and, by the skin of his teeth, the conservative Republican wins the Pennsylvania Senate seat.

Arlen Specter- loyal Republican to the end?

Is it time for the Year of Jubilee?

2009-03-04T14:10:00.008-06:00

I don't pretend to understand the economy. But about a month ago, John Stewart of The Daily Show had what I believe is a rather brilliant idea- a Trickle Up Theory. Rather than giving all this money to the banks, why not give it to those who owe money? The money could only be used to pay off their debts to the credit card companies and banks. The banks are happy because they have the money. The people are happy because they have less debt, or no debt.

Strangely, there's been very little discussion of this proposal- even to refute it as outlandish and stupid. Gwen didn't really respond. A segment on Gwen Ifill's show, Washington Week, repeated Stewart's suggestion, but without comment. A search of the web for "John Stewart" and "Trickle Up Theory" provides only 31 hits, and most of those are simply blogs like this one. For some reason the talking heads aren't discussing this. If it was a bad idea, you'd think they'd at least point out why it's a bad idea. Of course, if it's a bad idea for those in power, they wouldn't be talking about it.

We have here a unique opportunity. We have a president currently who is one of the most devout Presidents in recent memory, squarely grounding his beliefs and policies in the politics of Jesus, namely social justice. He is perhaps the first President to not be raised in a Christian home, but to have had a conversion experience as an adult, and he came to that place through his commitment to social justice while a community organizer. So this proposal is right up his alley.

There was this idea among the ancient Hebrews. It was installed to keep those in power from taking too much power, to stop the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, to give rest for the people, to give them hope that they would not all their lives be in slavery or debt. It was a recognition that economics and justice are intimately connected, and was to take place every 49 or 50 years, depending on how you read the instructions. It was called the Year of Jubilee. And from the best of our records, it was never actually put into practice, save perhaps once, under King Josiah.

There were a number of aspects to this year. For our interest, you were not to permanently sell the land, for it belonged to the Lord. Every 50 years, if land had been sold since the last Jubilee, it reverted to the previous owner, if he'd been unable to buy it in the interim. On the Year of Jubilee, all slaves were to be released, for slavery at the time often occurred because a man had lost all his money, and had no other way to sustain himself. It is in this context that the Hebrews were counseled not to take advantage of their countrymen by charging interest on loans. Later, Deuteronomy expands on the Jubilee notion, suggesting that every seven years, all debts are to be released and forgiven! Most scholars believe this was what was referenced in the central notion of Jesus' ministry here on Earth, when he gave out his great mission statement, that he had come to bring release to the captives, good news to the poor, and, using the code words, "the acceptable year of the Lord's favor".

Now, obviously, our culture is significantly different from that of the ancient Hebrews. But is it truly too much of a stretch to suggest a resetting of the clock? In a land where we have never had a Year of Jubilee, is it too much to suggest that we now have a modified form of this, but in a capitalist manner in which everyone gains? The banks want their money, and they need it to remain viable, that we can continue to have any economy at all. We get that. But the people need not only money, but spending money, that they can continue to put that money into the economy and invest it. Without the people, the economy collapses as well. Let us then apply this rather central Biblical concept, and give the money to the banks, by eliminating the people's debt. Let us truly now do something new. Let us be the change we have been looking for.

Yes, we can.

Racism in the US Senate

2009-03-03T13:22:00.005-06:00

We all know of Blogojevich, and how he appointed Burris to Senator Obama's former seat. The Senate swore up and down that they would not accept him, but just as with Senator Lieberman, Reid caved and showed he had no backbone, accepting Burris as a Senator. They had only one condition- be open in testifying to your relationship with Blogojevich when testifying before the Illinois Senate. They caved in large part because Burris was a black man, and when Blogojevich announced his appointment, they had another black congressional leader from Illinois, standing there saying anyone who resisted Burris' appointment was a lynching racist.

Now we know that, unlike his testimony, Burris actually did have conversations with Governor Blogojevich, with his brother in particular, but there was no conversation about fund raising or the senate seat. I mean, he did express that he wanted to be senator, but only in mentioning it, and no one talked about fundraising. I mean, they did ask him to do so, but he refused. I mean, at the same time he mentioned he wanted to be senator, he tried to raise funds, but found out nobody would support Blogojevich. It wasn't that Burris was against quid pro quo- it was that he was really bad at it.

And now there are calls by many for Burris to resign, and indications that the Senate will not expel him if he does not resign. Why? Because he's black, and the only black member of the Senate.

The Senate allowed him in because they were worried about the appearance of racism, not to avoid racism. They have cared more about how things look politically than about actively fighting the pernicious evil of racism. They are likely to continue to allow him to be a senator for the same reasons.

This is the worst kind of affirmative action. Affirmative action is a good and laudable policy, but not when it keeps people in place regardless of their actions, because of their race. The message we are receiving is that African-Americans are to be held to a lower standard simply because of the colour of their skin. It has now become quite clear that Senator Burris lied under oath- what is called perjury. I recall recently a President was impeached over this issue. But Burris is likely to receive no justice, because the US Senate, run by Democrats who can't afford to lose the black vote, are not wanting to expel a black member. (On a side note, speaking purely politically, do we really think this is possible, with a black President?)

There are many, many black politicians in Illinois who would make great US Senators and who are ethically and legally clean. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a name initially considered inappropriate because he had been discussed on the Blogojevich tapes but who was never asked for money, comes to mind. But what our elected representatives, and therefore we as a nation, are now doing is saying that an African-American man can do whatever he wants, regardless of the law, because of his skin colour, or more to the point, because we want the votes for our party. This also is racism. This is saying that African-Americans don't have to follow morality or ethics. It is implying that there aren't enough African-Americans out there who do follow morality and ethics. And by extension, it is saying that in someway African-Americans are morally inferior to the rest of society.

Senator Reid, it is time to step up. It is time to say, forgetting all the possible political consequences, you will not tolerate racism, even in the chambers of the senate. Expel this man who has no tolerance for truth and law, and show your tolerance and equality for people of all races.

King George II

2009-01-30T16:14:00.003-06:00

When I lived in Morocco, I used to joke that I preferred my current king (Mohammed VI) to my former one in the US. As with all humor, it has the grain of truth- in this case a healthy boulder of it. George Bush repeatedly asserted his authority under the Unitary Presidential Theory that Cheney invented, which stated basically that a President can do whatever he wants, because his oath of office to defend the country outweighs the constitution. (If you recognize this idea from the Frost/Nixon movie, congratulate yourself on pulling together current affairs and film. Cheney came up with this idea back when he was working for Nixon.) After the 2000 elections, and everything George II did after that, many of us were unsure if he would go quietly into that good night; if he wouldn't find some sneaky way of claiming he had a right to stay in office. We were overjoyed when it actually worked, and he stepped down from power.

Overjoyed too soon, it would seem.

For it now turns out that Bush had another card up his sleeve. Although he asserted signing statements to reinterpret congressional laws (and incidentally the meaning of "executive" and "legislative") and executive privilege to a ridiculous degree, a hundred-fold any previous President, no one expected him to continue to do so after he stepped down. But indeed, he now has. For before he was ousted, he told Karl Rove to ignore any subpoenas from Congress. This is unheard of. Evidently, Bush feels he is still royalty, and can continue to issue decrees for anything that might happen in the future!

Keep in mind, asserting executive privilege does not have the force of law. It isn't as if Bush created a law that must be followed or overturned by congress. Nor is his assertion of privilege without controversy. Indeed, the vast majority of constitutional lawyers (with the significant exception of those who worked for Bush) think he overasserted himself in his continual decree that his supporters did not have to be interviewed by congress.

How we would love to move on. How we would love to stop pointing out the acts of injustice by the Bush administration, and focus on changing this country and the world under Obama. But Bush refuses to allow us to do so. One wonders what would happen if Obama directs Rove to honor the subpoena. Would Rove argue that his commitment was to the former President, regardless, and he must obey him? Or would Rove actually give the sitting President Presidential authority? After all, that was what Bush/Cheney argued for continuously- the President has absolute authority. Or when they said that, did they just mean Bush/Cheney?

CNN, Get Over It!!!

2009-01-22T16:19:00.003-06:00

If you haven't heard, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (yes, the one put in place by Bush II though he really didn't have the pedigree of the other justices) flubbed the Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Not seriously- he basically misplaced the word "faithfully", and said "you" when he should have said "I". But the Obama administration was well aware of the tendency of the conservative blogosphere to come up with outrageous conspiracies- like, "He's not really President because the adjective by the conservative justice was in the wrong place." So, just to be safe and preclude that kind of thing, they had a second swearing in today.

But no, the press, and principally CNN, wouldn't let it lie. They stated that the President has done a second swearing in three times in the past. Actually, according to CNN itself, those previous two cases were something different. Upon the death of the President, his replacement was sworn in by someone who wasn't the Supreme Court Justice, so the swearing in was redone- though it wasn't deemed to be legally necessary. At no time in the past has swearing in been redone because of a mistake in the oath- even when Chief Justice Taft messed up Hoover's swearing in. But Obama, knowing how wacko many of the extreme right can get, figured better to be safe than sorry. He wasn't counting on CNN to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

CNN is now loudly stating, ad nausea, that it was wrong for the press not to be invited to the second meaningless swearing in, as this was a moment in history that the public had a right to observe (according to Wolf Blitzer). But there was press there- it's just they were the lowly print press, and there was only a photo taken, supplied by the white house. Evidently, CNN wanted video there.

However, this was not a meaningful event, and much of the public really doesn't give a rip about it, unlike CNN. One has to wonder if CNN would only be happy if they had 24/7 security video cams in the Oval Office, to catch every irrelevant moment of the Presidency? But someone should remind Blitzer that the Presidency is not The Truman Show.

How do I know that this second swearing in was meaningless? As stated above, history clearly indicates that a misplaced word (or even, in the case of Hoover, an added word) does not require a redo. CNN seems to be caught up in extreme conservative legalism, thinking that every word matters in this video age. They need to go back and consider that, in the last 200+ years, most of the time that swearing in hasn't been recorded. What are the odds that there were other small mistakes from time to time, that people didn't care about because there was no video camera? But the primary reason why I know the second swearing in was meaningless- the President becomes President at 12:00 on the 20th. He is required constitutionally to be sworn in, but the 20th Ammendment superscedes that and makes him President at the stroke of noon. How do I know this? Because I was told this on Inauguration Day- by CNN.

Obama's Speech

2009-01-22T11:42:00.005-06:00

As I predicted, a great speech, and imo, one of the best inauguration speeches ever. Not quite as good as Lincoln II, but better by a long shot than Lincoln I (where he came out in favor of continuing slavery).

But as I reflect on it, all of the focus, before and after, was on if it would be a great speech, or only a mediocre speech. Would it be as good as Lincoln's Second Inaugural, or only as good as his First?

Where was the discussion of the speech itself- of how it impacted us individually, and how it changed us? After all, that is the point of a speech. Not to get up there and win an award, but to persuade and change people. Was his only goal to get up there and live up to expectations? Or was it to lay out something new, and begin to move the ball forward? That was his goal, but I think so many pundits were focused on the pure rhetoric, that they missed the purity.

I challenge you now, if you haven't done so before, to go back and listen to the short 18 minute speech, and truly listen to it, and allow yourself to be impacted.

This was what I was most moved by, and most impressed by:

"We reject as false, the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to ensure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedient's sake. And so, to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village in which my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman, & child who seeks a future of peace & dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

Say it with me. President Obama.

2009-01-20T12:00:00.002-06:00

This article posted on election day, but few read it, and it seems appropriate to repost now.

George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Harrison
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
James Garfield
Chester Arthur
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
John Kennedy
Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George Herbert Bush
Bill Clinton
George Walker Bush
Barack Obama

Praise God, that I now live in a country with a black man as President. Who would have thought it possible, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago? I had thought I'd be old and gray before I'd live to see this day. I'd have thought we'd have to wait till we are a minority-white nation in 2055. Instead, we may be the first majority-white nation in modern history to elect a person of colour.

Truly now, all things are made new. We will now speak of President Obama, a President with an African and Arab name. We will now look to our leader as a person of colour, one with connections for the first time with the 2/3rds World. Children of colour across this country will now look up and see that they can do anything. Other nations will look on us and realize this is a nation they can relate to. They will realize that, now, we truly are the land of the free, the home of the brave.

Oh brave new world, that has such people in it.

Obama, I'm disappointed in you.

2009-01-15T18:27:00.005-06:00

I've been waiting. I've been thinking, "There's still some time for him to say something. He's biding his time." I've been believing him when he says there can only be one President at a time. Then he spoke out on the economy during the transition, and I believed him when he said, "Especially on foreign affairs, there can only be one President at a time." That makes sense. Sure, he spoke out against the terrorists in Mumbai, but that was more of an expression of sadness for those who lost their lives, as the terrorist action was relatively short. I could justify that. And there were so many others who were already speaking out against the atrocity better than I could.

Then Obama, while still President Elect, began speaking on foreign policy, letting it be known he'd negotiate with Hamas, and would be closing the Guantanamo Prison. Yet, still, nothing. Nothing from the man who ran on the principle that he's for justice, because his Lord is for justice. Nothing on the man who spoke of equality, and bringing righteousness back to American foreign policy.

So President Obama, I ask you, if you do not speak out when 1,000 people are murdered by a foreign power in only three weeks, when at least 50% and probably 70% of them are civilians, when the population of the area is 50% below the age of 15 and 75% of the population is below the age of 25, leading to a high percentage of those killed being children, when that population is refused the right to leave the small, concentrated area that's being bombed, so that we can not refer to this in any other way than to say it is localized ethnic cleansing- if you do not speak out now, Obama, then when? We now know you actually do speak out on foreign policy issues, even when you are still only the President-Designate. Where is your voice? What are you waiting for?

For if you wait too long you face the same situation that Martin Neimoller experienced:

In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

How long will you wait, President Obama? For we are starting to get the sinking impression, that you are not actually waiting, but instead, will not bring the change we hope for- you will do the same as nearly every President before you, and support the actions of Israel, no matter what they do.

Or is there actually something Israel could do that you would disapprove of? Or will you surprise us all in your inauguration speech, and finally speak out against the apartheid and ethnic cleansing of Ghaza? Give me hope again, Obama.

A Horrible Dream

2008-11-19T11:09:00.002-06:00

Last night I dreamt I was on a road trip with Obama. He was still about to be President, but he was ten years younger- my age. Obama, another friend, and I were driving in a small car over a great distance, when we came to a very mountainous coastal area, similar to what you find in Northern California, but on the East Coast. Our friend was driving, and Obama was instructing him on how to shift, for evidently this particular manual was rather complicated.

Too complicated for our friend. As we came to a particularly sharp curve, above a particularly tall cliff overlooking the ocean, he shifted wrong, and didn't pull the right lever. Instead of going around the curve, we went over the cliff, falling 1,000 feet to the sea below. All three of us fell out of the car. I knew enough to angle my body to surf the wind, so that I would not land on the rocks below. I continued to catch the updrafts, looking for deep ocean to catch me, but aware I might not succeed. At the last moment a rocky islet appeared, and I almost hit it, until I kicked my feet up at the last moment, and splashed in the ocean beyond. (In a dream, falling 1,000 feet into water doesn't kill you.) I was relieved to have landed safely, but had a foreboding feeling of dread, that Obama and out other friend had not managed to land in the water.

Shortly thereafter a massive rescue operation commenced, looking for Obama and our friend. They were never found. We knew that they had both died, and I wept. I knew Obama would be the first black President Elect, but never the first black President. All around me people cried, for the end of a dream.

He makes me laugh.

2008-11-16T19:31:00.005-06:00

Did you see Senator McCain at the Al Smith Dinner? And then later on SNL? The dude is funny!

I'm sorry, but this is what he should have been doing for the last year. McCain could have gone with the whole "laughter is the best medicine" bit to bring hope. He tried to match Obama on hope and change, and, well, no one can. It's a losing proposition. But comedy? Obama has kind of fallen flat on that bit.

Until tonight. Did you catch 60 Minutes? I smiled at the McCain bits above. I laughed out loud at the natural, at-ease humor of Obama. Watch it, and know some joy.

No, We Didn't.

2008-11-11T11:17:00.003-06:00

Moveon.org recently came out with a free bumper sticker, "Yes, we did." It's a riff off of Obama's famous slogan, "Yes, we can."

I totally relate to the feeling. Yes, Obama is going to be President- we got him elected! Yes, for the first time in my life, the guy I voted for won. I am so very excited, and millions of us did our part.

But when Obama said, "Yes, we can," he was quite explicitly not talking about getting him elected President. He was talking about something far larger. About changing the way politics is done in Washington. About learning to hope again. About restoring America's reputation throughout the world. About ending war, and bringing in peace. About restoring equitability between the classes in America, and removing the horrible stain where the wealthiest make 400x the salary of the poorest. About bringing in universal health care, so that the poor in America don't go without care, and end up dying. About ending the culture wars, and learning to find common agreement, and that of God in our enemies, whomever they may be. This was what "Yes, we can" was all about.

No, we didn't. But Obama was elected. "Yes, we have begun." That's not as sexy a slogan as "Yes, we did." But it has the benefit of being the truth, and also reminding us all: we still have a very long way to go.

Happy Armistice Day!

2008-11-11T11:00:00.004-06:00

Today is a day when, all over the world, people celebrate Armistice Day, the end of World War I and all war, and the beginning of peace. Under President Wilson, we joined the global bandwagon, to celebrate today as "a day dedicated to the cause of world peace." In 1954 ex-General President Eisenhower changed it to Veterans Day, and ever since then in America we honor ex-soldiers on this day, and focus on those who have fought and killed, and the value of war in our lives.

The rest of the world continues to celebrate a day devoted to world peace. Happy Veterans Day.

Around the world, there is often two minutes of silence at 11 AM, remembering all of those, friend and foe, soldier and civilian, who have died in war. Please join me in two minutes of silence, remembering U.S. soldiers and civilians, enemy soldiers and civilians, and civilians caught in the cross-fire, remembering the horror of war, and how we can work with all we are to say, as they did at the end of World War I, "Never again."

Peace is not the product of terror or fear.
Peace is not the silence of cemeteries.
Peace is not the silent result of violent repression.
Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution
of all to the good of all.
Peace is dynamism. Peace is generosity.
It is right and it is duty.

-Archbishop Oscar Romero

Obama's First Great Mistake

2008-11-06T15:14:00.007-06:00

It is with such great sadness that I write this. Obama has inspired such hope, and we are so excited to actually see him elected. But I must speak for justice. And with the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, Obama has made his first great mistake.

Congressman Emanuel's father was a member of the terrorist Irgun Gang in the 1940s. I realize that some right-wing groups don't consider Irgun as terrorists, but the British Mandate considered the wanton killings and bombings of civilians to be terrorist acts, and so designated the Irgun Gang a terrorist organization. I affirm that a son should not be judged by the acts of his father, but Rahm Emanuel has not only not condemned his father's actions, but Rahm's subsequent actions continue a disturbing trend.

Congressman Emanuel was a member of a foreign military, the IDF, and has come out strongly against the Palestinian leaders. While rightly speaking against the violence of Palestinians, he has been unwilling to equally condemn Israeli violence. While speaking against Palestinian terrorism, he has been unwilling to even mention Israeli state-sponsored terrorism. His support for Israel is unequivocal.

I ask you, how can Obama hope to engage in dialogue with the Arab people and the Palestinians, who can he appear to be balanced and in pursuit of justice, if his very Chief of Staff so strongly supports one side? The hope of Obama is that he would dialogue with enemies. Now he has taken as co-counsel someone who utterly rejects common ground with his enemies. No American President can achieve a successful resolution to Israel-Palestine, unless they are willing to see that both sides have made grievous errors, and both sides have engaged in terrorism and violence. The Palestinians won't come to the table and be willing to come to resolution on the Right of Return and Jerusalem, if those at the table don't see the current apartheid regime they suffer under.

I fear with this step, Obama has now sabotaged his hope of enduring Mid-East peace, the greatest foreign policy issue we face today.

Homeland Security and Other Reminders of Nazi Germany

2008-11-06T08:30:00.001-06:00

I am excited that, for the first time in my life, my guy won. I liked Carter, and was a district campaign manager for Dukakis and dressed up as him for Halloween. But I couldn't vote until Clinton, and he was far too conservative for me, so I went Nader both times. (Not in 2000. I'm not that guy.) I loved Gore's environmental stance, and voted for Kerry because, well, he wasn't Bush. So this is the first time in my life that I voted for someone who actually won, and frankly, I'm a bit unsure of myself. I'm used to being the persecuted minority, able to blame the other guy. What do you do when you're now part of the group in power?

But in truth, no matter how much I love Obama, as a Christian, I have an obligation to be prophetic. For us, it is never Country First, but always Kingdom First. Patriotism is the antithesis of Christianity. We can never put one country above all others, for in that way lies madness, and war, and death. Rather, we are called to continuously be a voice for the voiceless, to speak for the outcast and disenfranchised. This is our calling, even if we like the guy in office, even if we voted for him. So I will speak for justice when Obama works for justice, and speak for justice when he strays from the path. My allegiance isn't to America or Obama, but to Jesus Christ, and ushering in the Kingdom.

So this is the first action I call Obama to. It is a small matter, and easily fixed. It's called Homeland Security. I am not saying you should abolish it, or change the structure. It's a small matter of the name. "Homeland Security" has the connotation of Fatherland or Motherland, from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. It suggests that your home is separate from others, and you have allegiance It has the idea that you put one ethnic group above another. It has a connotation of Facism; that one must give allegiance to the central security agencies, not that one freely gives authority to them.

Thus it was with horror that I first learned of the name proposed by George II. Make no mistake, name's matter. Many have had troubles with Homeland Security since it began, because they have overreached their authority, limiting our freedom in the name of security. I suggest one small solution, that will partially help, is rennaming the agency, to something like "Domestic Security". How we perceive the agency, and more importantly how the agency perceives itself, begins with its name.

Now that the great Babylonian Captivity is coming to an end, we can begin to correct the many mistakes of the last eight years. Let us begin small. A little name change, switching some letterhead and website urls. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Palin's Concession Speech

2008-11-06T06:59:00.003-06:00

It's a long tradition in American politics that you trash your opponent to the depths of hell, and then, as soon as you lose, you say, "Just kidding!", and encourage everyone to work together and support the winner. Thankfully, Obama didn't fall for the trashing this time. But McCain gave a very kind and well-crafted concession speech, speaking well of Obama and speaking well for himself. He is to be congratulated for being magnanimous in defeat.

Lost in this is Palin's speech- which in this last campaign is rather important. She was the pit bull of the McCain campaign, in the traditional role of a Vice-Presidential candidate. But she was a different kind of pit bull, repeatedly raising lies and false allegations, unrepentantly allowing a climate of hate and terrorism to develop at her rallies. She had a loyal following, devoted to her, and not McCain. To Palin's credit, she wanted to speak on concession night, but was denied the opportunity by the McCain campaign.

Yet, it is now two days since the election. She isn't on the McCain campaign leash any longer. She can say what she wants. She has shown a sudden willingness to have impromptu press conferences. What is she waiting for? When are we going to hear from Governor Palin about how the country should come together, that we should support Obama, and she didn't mean all that stuff she said about him, and he's not actually a terrorist or friend of terrorists?

Shame on you, Governor Palin, that we have to call you to do what you should have done without naturally.

A Positive Campaign

2008-11-05T13:16:00.006-06:00

I and others have already pointed out what a milestone this election was, and how excited we are that our guy actually won. But there was another victory in this election. It was an extraordinarily positive campaign. Though Hillary Clinton went very strongly negative against Obama, he held out as long as possible, and then only went negative on policy, not with wild false allegations. His response to disagreeing with Clinton's policies could barely be called negative.

Then McCain attacked him in the general election. In case you've forgotten, Cindy McCain launched a barrage of false attacks on Michelle Obama's patriotism, John McCain attacked Obama while Obama was overseas, McCain made up attacks on Obama for being elitist and a celebrity, he pretended that Obama called Palin a pig, he accused Obama of socialism when Obama a decade ago suggested compensation for slavery, he pretended Obama was in bed with the PLO and terrorists, and falsly accused Obama of being a socialist.

To top it all off, after McCain said he was going to take the high road that Hillary never did, and said the Reverend Wright was off the table, McCain started to talk about bringing Wright up again. Three days before the campagin, a 527 felt they had the go-ahead and launched despicable racist ads, focused on Jeremiah Wright and Obama, in a multi-state ad buy worth millions, that eventually went national. Without exagerrating, if you were watching CNN in the few days before the election, you saw this ad three times an hour, every hour. McCain's response? A tepid rebuke and pulling of the ad in South Carolina, and then not a single response afterward. He let it go forward.

And Obama's response to all of this? Not a single negative ad, for months and months. Only immediate press releases showing why the McCain campaign's allegations were false. And then, after repeated barrages of negative ads by McCain, Obama began to go negative in some commercials, but always on policy, and not on false allegations or allusions. At one point, Obama had more negative commercials (on policy) than anyone else in history, because he was spending more money in ads than anyone else in history- but only a third of his ads were negative. At the same time, 100% of McCain's ads were negative. Obama consistently refused to get into the gutter with his opponents.

Much finger-pointing will now occur, as to why McCain lost the race. There are many reasons, including Palin, not truly being a maverick and following his heart, letting bad advisors run a campaign, the economy, and Iraq. But top up there is that McCain insisted on not only a negative campaign, but one filled with lies. And as amazing as it is, unlike Kerry, Obama defended himself, and yet didn't respond back with despicable allegations, lies, and innuendo. And he still won the Presidency. Now that's a man I want as President.

Say it with me. President Obama.

2008-11-04T20:33:00.002-06:00

Praise God, that I now live in a country that has elected a black man as President. Who would have thought it possible, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 5 years ago? Truly now, all things are made new. We will now speak of President Obama, a President with an African and Arab name. We will now look to our leader as a person of colour, one with connections for the first time with the 2/3rds World. Children of colour across this country will now look up and see that they can do anything. Other nations will look on us and realize this is a nation they can relate to. They will realize that, now, we truly are the land of the free, the home of the brave.

Oh brave new world, that has such people in it.

I've never done this before.

2008-11-04T14:52:00.006-06:00

Vote for someone who actually wins the Presidency. Will this be the first time ever? Oh, glorious day!

You should all totally move to the country. Waiting in line to vote is a lot more fun here.
This is an Obama Papa.

I asked for more than one, but they would only give me the one ballot.

For only the second time, I got to vote for a man to be President who will be the first person of colour in the Oval Office. (Well, if you count the VP, the second person of colour in the Oval Office.) Last time was a caucus- this was the first time I was able to put a mark next to his name. Let it be known, for all time, I got to vote for the first black man for President.

And a bit anti-climatic, but still a joy- there was actually a ballot initiative, in our supposedly initiativeless state, but at the county level. Thankfully it was a gimmie, similar to Obama's plans- universal health care, at the state level, mandated to be the same as what those in state office get.

My Prediction

2008-11-04T00:39:00.006-06:00

Here it is. Electoral Vote is a website I've long followed, having the most accurate polls. It's the poll to the left of this article. The site uses only non-partisan polls (so not groups like PPP), and polls state-by-state, showing the latest predicted electoral votes. It uses the most recent poll, as well as the average of any within a week. Based on all of this, Electoral Vote, along with most internet sites, have been predicting an Obama blowout for the last couple months, long before the traditional news media like CNN, who want to extend their ratings and viewers for as long as possible.

Electoral Vote also shows each state by if it's Barely, Weak, or Strong Republican or Democrat, based on 1-4%, 5-9%, and greater than 10% respectively. (There's also a category for an absolute tie.) Four years ago, four days before the election, Kerry was predicted to win. But what was more important was the Strong States, which Bush was winning over Kerry 2:1 four days out. The day before, Bush was ahead of Kerry on all counts.

Obama is currently not only way ahead of McCain by a large margin, 353:185, far ahead of the needed 270, but in the Strong States he leads 238:118. True, a week ago he was above 270 in the Strong States. But keep in mind that many have already voted at this point, around a third of the electorate. And those 238 are electoral votes that Obama has by over 10%- nearly impossible for him to lose. He needs only 32 more from his Weak or Barely States.

So, based on my calculations of poll closing times at Swing State Project, I'm predicting that we'll be able to know who the next President is (Obama), by the closing of polls in New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Colorado, and New Mexico, at 8 PM, Central Standard Time. At that time, of the predicted blue states, only Iowa will be needed to get to 270, and Iowa's seven will be there in another hour- but if Missouri, Indiana, or Georgia end up going to Obama, he won't need Iowa. That means, if you're one of my Pacific Coast readers- vote before 6 PM, if you want your vote to matter!

The National Republican Trust and the Politics of Hate

2008-11-03T17:28:00.001-06:00

Depending on where you live, you're spared this. For this election cycle, and most, I've been on the West Coast. Washington and California are solidly blue, so we don't get a lot of election ads. In Washington, we were excited and surprised to even get visits from the Democratic candidates in the primaries, as usually our caucus is too late. But now I've moved to Wisconsin, and evidently everything has changed.

Wisconsin isn't really a swing state anymore either, but it was recently. That allows us to get the occasional campaign ad, and a lot of the 527 ads. And recently, about three times an hour, we get treated to a particular ad from the National Republican Trust.

Don't get me wrong. I might disagree with a political ad, but of course, I support the right to post them. It is when they lie, and get vicious, and attack other people's culture and race. And make no mistake, this is what the National Republican Trust has done.

The ad is a direct attack on the Reverend Wright, and Senator Obama. It is vicious and underhanded. As I've pointed out in the past, Wright is enmeshed deeply in the black tradition. His remarks weren't at all racist, but were deep in the prophetic tradition of Judaism and Christianity, as expressed in the Old Testament. Sure, he went overboard in claiming that the US government gave AIDS to blacks, but considering our history with syphilis, it wasn't that far off the mark. But in general, what the Reverend Wright said, and the way he said it, is no different from what you find in black churches across this nation.

Perhaps one of the funniest parts of the ad is when the Republican Trust bleeps out the word "damn". They want to make us thing the Rev. Wright said "fuck" instead. Or maybe they are unaware that the word "damn", when used in this way, is not cussing, but a legitimate use of the word within Christian theology? Are they perhaps that clueless about the basics of the Christian faith?

Thus, at the very least, the continued recent attacks by the Republican Trust reveal that they know nothing of the Black Preaching Tradition. In truth, they reveal an attack on another culture, a "foreign" culture to the whites at Republican Trust. This attack is as despicable as overt racist attacks, and indeed, is difficult to distinguish from them. Blacks are okay, as long as they don't think differently from "us", or don't make us have to see their differences. They certainly have nothing to offer us in their manner of thinking, their preaching, or their style of Chrsitianity. Or so is the underlying thinking of these commercials from Republican Trust.

Well, I agree. I don't like being forced to listen to something I disagree with, that I find morally repugnant and racist. I don't expect the Republican Trust to be forced to sit in the church while Jeremiah Wright preaches. So why am I forced to watch these commercials every time they come on the air, three times an hour?

So this is what I've begun to do. Every time the commercial comes on, I contact National Republican Trust, at nationalrepublicantrust.com/contactus.html, and tell them just what I think of them. I tell them they are racist, and I want nothing to do with them. I suggest that they go somewhere else to peddle their racism, because it has no place in my home or my country, and is not something that real Americans believe.

And I invite you to do the same. Let's put a stop to this. I'm not speaking of positive commercials, or even negative ones. But the ones that are over the top, that are viscious slander or racist- start responding. Every time one of these comes on the air, contact the 527, and demand that they pull their commercial off the air. Maybe we'll begin to get through to them. At least we'll strike a blow for truth and justice, and maybe, one day, make that the American way.

Madelyn Dunham, allayrahemha

2008-11-03T15:37:00.002-06:00

Madelyn Dunham, grandmother of Barack Obama, who raised him, and formed much of who he is, has just now passed on, promoted to glory. As they say in Morroco, allayrahemha- may God have mercy upon her. Obama met his father only once, and his mother was often gone when he was younger. His father, mother, and grandfather both passed away earlier, leaving only his grandmother remaining. For her efforts in raising Obama, she changed history, but did not live to see the fulfilment of it. Allayrahemik, Madelyn Dunham.

He doesn't even know what he's saying anymore.

2008-11-03T09:24:00.003-06:00

In a rally this morning, broadcast on CNN, McCain proposed something new for Florida. They will take the oil proceeds, and give them to Florida, so that the oil wealth can be "shared" among all Floridians. McCain stated that this was because a state knows what to do with its money better than the national government.

Really? Does he actually not realize what he just said? He just advocated sharing the wealth! Or does he somehow think socialism is bad if Obama says it, but not McCain? Or that socialism is bad nationally, but just fine on the state level?

And to put the cherry on top, he then quoted Obama, saying that Obama had advocated "spreading the wealth". Does McCain think that "spreading the wealth" is different from "sharing the wealth"?

I suppose McCain is right. Sharing the wealth sounds slightly more socialist.

McCain: Off the Rails

2008-10-30T09:42:00.005-05:00

In an amazing rally today, the McCain campaign showed that it was running off the rails completely. At one point he began to tell his audience something, and then decided, "Never mind." At a pivotal moment, he called for Michael - I mean "Joe the Plumber", to come on stage, and then learned that Joe wasn't actually at the rally. And then, in the middle of his speech, he said something that sounds a bit like, "abrgjik". I kid you not. Listen to the speech. I replayed it a few times, because it sounded so very odd. It sounded like suddenly, he was speaking the language of an outer space alien. Which frankly, raises far too many truly frightening scenarios for me to contemplate.

And yet, for all of these rhetorical errors, that was not the most glaring nor revolting mistake of the speech. In McCain's bid to try to make American tax law, McCain's past policies, and Obama all sound socialist, McCain is now bringing up an old radio interview of Obama's, where Obama also used the R-word- redistribution. But here's where McCain has entered truly dangerous waters.

In this interview, Obama very clearly is speaking of the legacy of slavery. He speaks of how the civil rights movement lead to freedom for blacks, and the right to vote, but didn't redistribute income- and this still remains to be done. He speaks of mistakes the founding fathers made- as everyone acknowledges who has any understanding of the ammendment process in the US constitution. This is of course particularly true with ammendments like the 14th.

I recognize that some conservatives feel that everything is now right with the world, between races, and in regards to civil rights. I suspect- I hope- that those conservatives are a minority even among conservatives. Most recognize that one of the horrible legacies of slavery has been lingering racism and a continued relegation of the majority of blacks to the lower economic classes. Beyond that, there is the slightly more controversial proposal of compensation for slavery. After all, not only was there the broken promise of "40 acers and a mule", but all the wealth in terms of human productivity that was stolen from African lands, and stolen from the Africans themselves, made into slaves. To date there has been no true payment to those defrauded by the American government and American people. But the proposal is not so controversial that is has not been considered by the American Congress at times.

Some combination of these issues is what Obama was obviously referring to in his radio interview. From the context, I suspect that it was more of the former- establishing economic parity between the races in America, to remove the blemish and stain of slavery that shackles us all- rather than the more touchy issue of compensation. He was trying to seek a more just society, and make up for the wrongs that America has perpetrated on her citizens of colour.

And this...this is what McCain was referring to today in his speech, when he said that Obama was being socialist.

Before McCain denigrates calls for racial equality, it might be helpful for him to remember the immortal words of Frederick Douglass.

No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.

Palin/McCain Anti-Semitism

2008-10-29T18:16:00.008-05:00

Have you heard? Yes- they went even further. A blatant, public display of the anti-Semitism of the Palin/McCain campaign.

Today, they started speaking of Obama's close association with Professor Rashid Khalidi. Now, in this case, unlike with William Ayers, he actually has a relationship- Rashid and Barack are friends. Rashid's not an advisor for Barack, but rather a fellow parent at Obama's school. And Dr. Khalidi is not only a professor of Arab studies, but has the prestigious Edward Said chair at Columbia. (Dr. Said was perhaps the world's foremost historian of Middle Eastern studies.)

Now Palin is accusing Dr. Khalidi of being a spokesman for the PLO, which she calls a terrorist organization. Therefore, according to Palin and McCain, Obama is, they think, again fraternizing with terrorists. So let's go over the facts, shall we?

The PLO is not a terrorist organization. It is an organization fighting to liberate the Palestinian people. It has at times turned to violence, and in the distant past, was terrorist. It has renounced those activities. I know that hard-line Zionists will disagree with this, but this blog post isn't written for them. The PLO now runs the Palestinian government, and Israel deals with them. The PLO was also dealt with directly by Presidents Clinton and Bush I. Governor Palin, do you also accuse President Clinton, President Bush, and Israel of fraternizing with terrorists? (Yes, I know you salivate for the first, but do you honestly go all the way?) And surely the governor knows that the designation of the PLO as a terrorist organization by George II is very controversial, and many, many foreign policy experts consider the designation incorrect? Well, actually, perhaps she's not aware of that.

But, some will say, the PLO was once a terrorist organization, and once terrorist, always terrorist. Have you ever heard of the Irgun Gang? It was an extreme Zionist organization, which used exceptionally violent means to form the State of Israel back in the 40's, including bombings and murder of civilians. The terrorist designation was done by Britain, which at time controlled the Palestinian Mandate. Nearly every Prime Minister and President of Israel was at one time associated with this gang. But perhaps Palin still considers them all terrorists as well? Or perhaps she feels that sometimes governments make mistakes in designating freedom fighting groups as terrorists?

Oh, and lest I forget- Dr. Khalidi has never been a spokesman for the PLO, or the Palestinian government. He does speak of the right for Palestinians to be free, and that attacks by Israel on Palestinian civilians are a violation of international law. He has said that Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories. He has spoken against Zionist groups who seek to silence free speech and debate on these issues. All positions that most of the world accepts- accept for some in Israel and America. All legitimate viewpoints, that reasonable people can disagree on, including Barack Obama.

I understand that Sarah Palin and her running mate might not agree with Dr. Khalidi. But they seem to have taken a page from George II, where, if anyone doesn't agree with them, they are a terrorist. This is nothing short of academic oppression. Palin and McCain don't want anyone speaking out against the practices of Israel. But more than that, they seek to silence them, just like the Zionist groups that Dr. Khalidi speaks against. They not only don't agree, they not only don't want to hear the opposing viewpoints- they seek to label the opposing viewpoints as "terrorist", so that the worst appellation in modern America is applied, and the other no longer has a voice. And since President Carter has also pointed out flaws in the Israeli government, even to the point of calling their system apartheid, because, as Carter says, you tell a friend when they are going wrong, one would have to assume that Palin would also consider President Carter a terrorist.

Let us be clear. Palin and McCain again seek to go negative and attack Obama. This time they seek to attack Obama by saying he is a friend of someone who has supported Palestinian state and human rights. They seek to call this man a terrorist and falsely claim he spoke for the PLO, and then they seek to claim the PLO is terrorist. They do this because they believe that anyone who speaks against injustice in Israel and Palestine, anyone who speaks for the Palestinians, is wrong, is colluding with terrorists, and should be silenced. It is not just that you must support the rights of Jews and Israelis (certainly something should all support), but for Palin and McCain, the rights of the Palestinians should be limited.

My friends, there is a name for this. It is anti-Palestinian. It is anti-Arab. And since Palestinians are Arab, and Arabs are Semites, it is also Anti-Semitic. Probably not any worse than being racist, but it's good to call a spade a spade.

Vote Palin-McCain. The Anti-Semitic Ticket.

McCain's Pro-War Stance

2008-10-22T12:19:00.003-05:00

I've noticed something at McCain and Palin's rallies. They almost always not only thank the veterans, but ask all veterans to stand up so they can be applauded. McCain and Palin repeatedly speak of the "real" Americans- those who've sacrificed and fought in wars for their country. Their motto is "Country First".

And something disturbing has emerged. Obama at one point was much more anti-war than he is now. Now he seems to be more against only the Iraq War. But he is on record of repeatedly rejecting war, and coming out against it, advocating it only when necessary. Most previous American generals and military leaders have a similar viewpoint. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. Most military leaders might believe that war is necessary, but it should always, always be avoided, because "war is hell".

Yet, I have not heard a similar viewpoint from McCain. I could be wrong. But I can't recall him at any time speaking against the horrors of war, and how we should avoid it at all costs, because it is so evil. He and Palin speak so glowingly of the veterans at his their respective rallies, I begin to wonder what place pacifists like myself would have in a McCain America. Though Obama believes war is necessary, I definitely get the feeling that he respects the values of pacifists and is willing to listen to them. With McCain, I get the feeling that he would consider me un-American and a traitor, and his America would be better off without me in it. Is there a time that he has come out in support of nonviolent action? Is there a time when he has spoken out against war itself?

I think it might go back to McCain's experiences in the war. Most of that experience was as a POW, being tortured. And understandably, and laudably, he was against the US torture policy (until recently). But he was fighting in that war for only a few months. He was not leading people in wartime, nor fighting face to face. His experience in war was dropping bombs on faceless targets, crashing planes, and being imprisoned. It may be that, unlike other great military men, he has not had the first-hand experience to recognize how awful war is, and how often we must work to avoid it at all costs.

The McCain/Palin motto is "Country First". It never seemed so shocking until I saw it on a Christian friend's car. As Christians, we are called to place Kingdom First, far before the country. I know it's the McCain motto, and this friend is for McCain, but there is still something deeply disconcerting about seeing this espoused by someone following Christ. When we put Country First, we fight wars, because there are times when we have to kill to defend the country's land, honor, freedom, or wealth. When we put Kingdom First, we resist not evil, but turn the other cheek, saying that I will love my enemies, even to the point of giving up my right to be right and my right to property, so that I might pursue real shalom and peace. Certainly neither candidate fully understands this. But the impression is undeniable that McCain's reluctance to speak about his commitment to Christ is paralleled by his reluctance to speak against strife and war itself.

How Low Can McCain Go?

2008-10-20T15:32:00.003-05:00

Let us review. McCain and Palin create a climate conducive to fear and hate-mongering, suggesting that Obama is tied to terrorists, and receive a groundswell of hate speech and shouts from their supporters in reference to Obama, including, "Terrorist!", "Kill him!", and "Off with his head!" A veteran and sufferer of the Civil Rights Movement, John Lewis, points out that this is very similar to his experiences with George Wallace's campaign, where a climate of racism and hatred were encouraged. McCain's campaign then complains, not about the racism of their supporters, but about Wallace's comments. Wallace states that he went too far, and does not think Palin and McCain are racist, but rather that their action or inaction have encouraged a very frightening climate of racism at their rallies. Obama agrees, saying he felt Wallace went too far. Later, McCain finally says something briefly at an Obama rally, saying he is not Arab, but rather a "good, family man", which evidently is mutually exclusive with being Arab. McCain then calls on Obama to denounce Congressman Lewis', though Obama already said he thought Lewis went too far, and McCain was saying racism was being brought in the campaign by those pointing out the racism in McCain's supporters.

It can't get any worse, right? You can't expect the McCain campaign to go further into the mud and vile filth of the gutter, right? Never fear, the McCain campaign will not fail to disappoint.

Today, we find out that, because a supporter of Obama has pointed out the racism of some McCain supporters and the climate of fear encouraged by the McCain campaign rhetoric, the McCain campaign now feels that they are now justified in bringing up Reverend Jeremiah Wright again. Yes, that Wright- the one McCain said he'd never bring up. Until he was way down in the polls, and realized the only way he could win was to continue his anti-maverick streak of embracing racism and all the dirty politics that Karl Rove and George Bush previously used against him. Yes, that Wright, who Hillary Clinton had previously brought up in her own racist attacks, pointing out his errors because he was deep in the black preaching tradition.

Do not doubt. Reverend Wright preached nothing new, nothing different from what you find in black churches throughout America, and have heard for 150 years. Awareness of the black preaching tradition would make that clear, but sadly, few whites have the benefits of this experience. So Hillary just had to bring up some quotes out of context, to use them to attack Obama. And now, McCain, smacking his lips in the uncomfortablness of deceit and the joy of denigration, has apparently decided that, because his racism encouragement was called out, he is now justifed in turning to further racist attacks.

So again I ask, Mr. McCain, how low can you go?

Preying Prayers

2008-10-13T16:15:00.003-05:00

I don't use this word lightly. This pastor really was stupid. But he's not someone to make fun of, because the hate-mongering he used to prep the crowd for McCain is terrifying indeed.

Earlier today, before McCain arrived at the rally, a pastor gave an opening prayer, astounding in it's mixture of religion and politics, lack of basic understanding of other faiths, lack of basic understanding of Christian theology, and level of hate.

The pastor, Arnold Conrad, "prayed":

There are millions of people around this world praying to their god — whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah — that his [McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons

Well, actually, Hindu is a person who follows Hinduism. It's not the name of a god. Buddha is not a god, except in folk Buddhism practices where he's elevated to that level. Allah is the Arabic word for "God". Arab Christians use this word when they pray. You know, something like our use of the word "god" which we took from the head of the Germanic pagan pantheon so we'd have a word in English.

Don't get me wrong. I believe there is a place for saying, "My god is different from your god." If I'm looking to nuances in theology, I can say at some point that my God as a Quaker is different from the God of a Baptist. He's still the same God, of course, but because we perceive him in different ways, in very nuanced different ways, he is different. While acknowledging this difference, I in no way question the salvation of the other, and I affirm that our two Gods are, in truth, the same entity. But a Christian who focuses more on the wrath of God will have a slightly different God than I do, for we all create God in our own image.

As to "they" praying that Obama wins- well, there are some good reasons they are praying that Obama wins. Part of that would be that they don't want to be bombed anymore. There's also good reasons that they are praying to different gods than the Muslim-Judeo-Christian God- namely, because they don't believe in that god, so it would be difficult for them to knowingly pray to him.

And what if the non-Christians do pray for "the other guy"? Since when did that mean God wouldn't listen to them? If they are more in line with the values of the Kingdom than the so-called followers of Jesus, why wouldn't Jesus listen to their prayers instead? Or do we have a God so foolish that he says, "I know you guys aren't praying for what I want to happen. But since you claim my name, I'm going to subvert my entire process and the future of the planet, just because you signed up on a dotted line."? God hears all prayers. He cares about the Kingdom, and not just the Church. And he offers the Grace to extend a listening ear and answering hand, even while we were yet sinners.

Then Pastor Congrad goes on to pray:

And Lord, I pray that you would guard your own reputation because they’re going to think that their god is bigger than you if that happens. So I pray that you will step forward and honor your own name in all that happens between now and Election Day.

Talk about your shock and awe. Now this pastor is trying to create a dichotomy between peoples. He's a divider, not a uniter. That's not the Spirit of Jesus Christ. He's preying on the fears of The Other that have risen in America since 9/11. If the rest of the world likes Obama, well, he must be bad, just as John McCain said. This will certainly not enhance America's reputation in the world.

I'm not a big fan of pretending to pray when you're actually preaching. Contrary to his written comments to CNN, this was in no way a heart-felt prayer. This was preaching (to the converted). This was pretending that you're having a conversation with the Almighty, when really you're trying to sway other humans in the room. It is an insult to God to do this, to pretend, to act in one way. It is hypocrisy. Which makes me wonder, where were the people listening to this prayer and willing to stand up and yell out, "Blasphemy!"? The Age of Martyrs it appears is long past. We no longer have Christians in the U.S. willing to stand up for Christ and speak Truth.

For what kind of God is it that needs us to defend his honor? Rest assured, his reputation will in no way be besmiched if Obama wins, or even if McCain wins. God's reputation will be intact. Pastor Conrad's God seems to be the one of Star Trek V: Search for God. It is arguably the worst Star Trek movie ever made, but it has its moments. Principle among these is the end, wherein they find God, and he is happy, for he can use their starship to finally return to his children throughout the galaxy. In one of the most memorable lines ever uttered in Trek lore, Captain Kirk says, "Excuse me. Excuse me. I have a question. What does God need with a starship? Really. I want to know. What does God need with a starship?"

The answer, of course, is that God, if he truly is God, doesn't need a starship in the slightest. His plans will go forward, with or without us. The theologically correct answer is that he allows us to participate in his plans, for he knows we will experience greater delight by doing so, and that is what we were created for- to experience Joy in him.

Pastor Conrad, God's reputation won't be hurt by who wins the Presidency. Do you know what will hurt God's reputation? Prayers like this. And only because people will get confused, thinking that God and his followers happen to be on the same page. Pastor Conrad, I think you may be right. My God is not the same as your god.

President Palin? (No, the other one.)

2008-10-09T09:43:00.005-05:00

Today, in the ongoing Troopergate investigation, it was revealed that Governor Palin's husband, Todd, repeatedly tried to get government officials to fire his former brother-in-law. The problem is, Governor Palin didn't know a thing about this.

I'm fine with a spouse being involved in governing with the governing spouse. I thought it was very cool that Hillary was so involved in President Clinton's government. But there was no doubt who was in charge- the one elected President. I'm glad if Todd is involved with Palin's work. But it raises other rather disturbing issues.

The Religious Right is far more comfortable with Todd being involved with Sarah than they were with Hillary being involved with Bill. This is just blatant sexism. There is this belief that it's just fine if the man who wasn't elected is involved with government, but not if the woman who wasn't elected. Remember all the screams of rage that the Religious Right had at the thought of a woman (Hillary) having actually work to do when Bill was President.

This also raises the question of how well Sarah Palin governs. Todd is involved- great. But Todd is involved, and Sarah doesn't know what Todd is doing?!? That is the clear testimony he gave today. (I'm assuming he's not lying.) That means that her husband is going around doing things in government, and the Governor has no knowledge of it! Let us leave aside the question of what kind of marriage this is. What kind of Governor is this? How can we trust her to be Vice-President if she has that weak of understanding and control as Governor?

But it gets far worse than this. For, if McCain were elected, we all know there is a great chance that he would die in office, of old age. If we elected McCain, we are also almost assuredly electing a President Palin. And many are disturbed with this notion, because we have no idea who the real Palin is- we've known her for five weeks, with few interviews or opportunities to get to know her. But now, it would appear that precedent would suggest that a Vice-President or President Sarah Palin would also involve substantial work by a First Gentleman Todd. And his behind-the-scenes work would evidently be rather unknown by a President Sarah Palin.

If she's going to be elected, and if she might be President, and he will be working in government without the knowledge of the sitting President, we, the public, have a right to know about this guy we wouldn't be electing but would be running the nation. Which brings us to a rather urgent question. Who is Todd Palin? And when do we start vetting him?

'Eid al Fitur?

2008-10-01T10:30:00.001-05:00

Today is one of the high holy days of Islam, 'Eid al Fitur. After thirty days of fasting from food and drink, Muslims around the world celebrate with three days of feasting. But you wouldn't know it if you were in the U.S. government.

I have no problem with Congress taking the day off for Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year. Well, that's not true. I have a great deal of difficulty with Congress stopping what it's doing in the middle of an economic crisis, just to celebrate a holiday. I don't care if it's Christmas or Easter- if it's an emergency, you keep on working.

But let's bypass all that. Let's say that Congress is doing its job when it doesn't do what we sent it to do, but takes extra vacations. Why, pray tell, was there no mention of the rather major holiday that a minority of Congress celebrates? Today was 'Eid al Fitur, the second most important holiday in the Islamic calendar, the equivalent of Easter if you're Western, or Christmas if you're of the Orthodox Church. Sure, only two congressmen are Muslim, as opposed to over thirty who are Jewish. But since we're obviously not looking at percentage of members in the holidays that Congress chooses to honor, why in the world did they ignore a major holiday celebrated by over a billion people around the world? Perhaps because they only pay attention to the percentages of their constituents. Understood. The most recent demographics for the U.S. put the number of Muslims as the second largest religion in the U.S., ahead of the Mormons and the Jews. Some disagree with these figures, and say that the number of Muslims is only the same as the number of Jews. Which leads me back to the question.

What prevented Congress from stating that they were taking a holiday to honor not only Rosh Hashana, but also 'Eid al Fitur, which happened this time to fall on the same two days? What message were they hoping to send by this glaring omission?

777

2008-09-29T18:36:00.000-05:00

Today, the market had it's largest point drop ever. 777 points. As many Christians know, that's a significant number- the most holy number throughout the Bible, a triple of sevens. (This is the real reason why 666 is considered the number of evil- it's one less than seven, and Evil in the Bible is considered not the opposite of Good, but almost at the level of Good. This is why it's so insiduous and deceptive- it looks like the real thing. Also, of course, in ancient Hebrew numerology, 666 fits the alphabetical rendering of Nero's name.)

And, as every Christian Fundamentalist knows, the number 777 is still as significant in real life as the number 666. This can only mean that the point drop was an Act of God. He is judging this nation for its pursuit of wealth and mammon, for its lack of care for the poor and outcast, for its not pursuing justice. Can you say, "Chickens coming home to roost?"

I knew you could.

Let's put a stop to the Republican insults.

2008-09-11T01:50:00.000-05:00

There's been a lot of talk the last couple days, especially on the residence of satan, Fox News. Obama talked about McCain, and then used a common phrase that McCain has used in the past, stating that, "If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."

Now, the context is very clear that Obama was not referring to Palin- unlike the eight times that McCain used that phrase in reference to Hillary Clinton. But evidently Fox News believes so adamantly that we all spend our time listening to McCain-Palin, that they can't believe someone could use a tangentially similar phrase that wasn't similar to something Palin said.

She did say in her speech that the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. And since Obama was referring to McCain's policies when he used the line, it is perhaps a rather clever riff of the line that Palin gave at the Republican Convention. (Let us leave off to what extent comparing your gender to dogs is truly embracing of feminism.)

But here's the part that I most strenuously object to, and am indeed insulted by. The Republican machine and Fox News have evidently no problem with Palin being compared to an animal, or a dog- she did it herself on the convention floor. What they have a problem with is her allegedly being compared to a pig. And though Obama did nothing of the sort- where do they get off attacking pigs that way?!? Pigs are incredibly clean animals, poddy-trained from birth, and seeking to continuously be in water to keep heat off and stay clean, regardless of how farmers treat them. They have some of the finest curves in the animal kingdom. They are probably the third most intelligent animals, after primates and whales, and certainly far smarter than dogs. Had Obama compared Palin to a pig, it would have been an upgrade from her own comparison of herself to a dog. He of course did not, and so we are left with the Republicans attacking pigs. To call them anything of the sort would be an insult not to them, but to the wondrous pig.

Alaska is Small

2008-08-29T12:37:00.000-05:00

Of course it's a big state. But when we talk about leadership experience, about executive experience, we are talking about people, not land. How do you lead people? How do you manage competing interests of the population? Certainly, a small-town mayor has to deal with competing interests, but we generally believe that you need to know how to manage something bigger than a small town- like a state.

But Alaska, let us remember, is about 680,000 people. Riordan, mayor of Los Angeles, city of over 3,800,000, would have been a better pick- a city more than four times larger than Alaska. Certainly, George II won with Cheney, from a state with fewer people than Alaska. But let us remember that not only did Cheney have ample experience leading on the national level, but also that he was not being touted as bringing executive experience to the ticket, as George II had already been governor of Texas.

Truly, people vote the top of the ticket, not the bottom. But the argument that she brings executive experience is baseless. We now have a candidate who has more international experience than any other Presidential candidate in history. Obama has grown up overseas and in the multiethnic state of Hawaii. He is the son of Kenyans. He uniquely understands the needs of the rest of the world, and we have seen that he can uniquely restore America's positive perception in the world. It's about international Hawaii, and not Alaska. Obama: the voice of leadership and experience.

What a Hero is.

2008-08-27T15:35:00.000-05:00

I must confess that I am somewhat in a moral quandary. I am adamantly against engaging in war in any form. Thus, a candidate who has been to war and bombed others does not appeal to me, on this basis if no other. Yet, McCain is considered a hero not for his bombing but for his steadfastness. And yet, this steadfastness is supposed to have made him able to effectively wage war, and engage in battle, and lead troops.

I totally get how impressive it is that McCain stood up under torture for those many years. I don't support his lying to his captors, but I think it totally laudable and inspiring that he persevered. Suffering, after all, is a central tenant of Christianity- it builds endurance, character, and finally hope- as long as we approach our tormentors with love.

Somehow, though, this has been transferred into McCain being more ready to lead, and more ready to lead the military. Don't get me wrong. I'd totally love a guy who wasn't capable of leading the military, except for leading them to withdraw, except for leading them to disband. (Wishful thinking, but I'm an Idealist.) But McCain's approach towards the military was to bomb civilians and soldiers from afar, and to be shot down, and be caught. As far as the whole being-a-good-soldier thing, he failed. And rather magnificently. He lead while in the camp, as Obama has lead as a community organizer and in running a campaign, as both have lead as Senators- none of that being the kind of leadership necessary to win battles or win a war, per se. This says nothing about McCain's abilities as a human being, for often times excelling as a human is diametrically opposed to excelling as a soldier.

So he was a bad soldier, and bad at warfare, and limited in his ability to lead. What of the results of his time in internment under torture?

Suffering builds endurance, endurance character, and character hope- but it's not guaranteed. That happens only depending on how we approach the suffering and torture. Is McCain a hopeful man? Is he more filled with love and hope because of his time under torture?

I fear the opposite. I do not know if he went into therapy after his time of torture. I know that he should have, as should anyone in those circumstances. I fear greatly if he did not, and seeks to be President. And, if I assume he did go into therapy, I am still given pause. Years of imprisonment and torture can have a great toll on a man. Nelson Mandela and Ghandi came out ahead on that score, because of the way they approached their captors. They were men seeking justice, reconciliation, and peace. Is McCain such a man?

I think we can all say, shouting from the mountain tops, a resounding, "No!" We saw this in the Rick Warren Ambush, where McCain galvanized the troops at Saddleback Church in his calls to war and to totally defeat the enemy. This is not a longsuffering man, who has learned the value of patience and love and turning the other cheek. (This is not to say he does not forgive at times, or has not forgived his captors in Vietnam.) I have this deep and growing fear that this is a man who has taken all of the wrong lessons from his captivity. McCain has learned that violence works. He has learned the value of torture.

Walter Wink speaks of the Principle of Violent Mimicry: that we become that which we hate. Thus the Israelis return the same actions upon the Palestinians that were perpetrated on the Jews by the Nazis. Thus America engages in the civilian bombings it once condemned under those same Nazis. Thus a man who once heroically stood up under torture in Vietnam learns to approve the same principles to torture others, but no longer calling it torture.

A hero is not one who kills in war. A hero is not one who bombs civilians in the air. A hero is not even one who stands up under torture. A hero is the one who stands up under torture, learns to forgive and love, and learns the value of never again resisting those who do evil, but rather learning to find the common ground in all, and that of God in all.

What we need is a hero.

What Happened to Carter?

2008-08-25T21:11:00.000-05:00

I was sitting watching the Democratic Convention on MSNBC, the place for politics, and suddenly discovered that they were doing an extended interview with Nancy Pelosi, rather than showing President Carter's speech. How irritating! I had heard he was actually going to speak, and was so looking forward to hearing him. I immediately started doing a web video search for the speech.

And could find nothing. I started searching for text, and then finally discovered that there had been no speech. Because of Carter's call for justice in Palestine, he was deemed politically inconvenient, and there was no speech. There was a video tribute, a brief wave on stage, and the former President of the United States was whisked off the stage.

How could they?! He is the finest President I've had in my brief tenure on this Earth. He was an early supporter of Obama in the primaries, albeit with a wink and a nod. Carter came out for Obama long before it was definitive. Carter's commitment to human rights and social justice make his values far closer to those of Obama than the other former Democratic President who will be speaking tomorrow.

The Hidden Carter was an insult, and a mistake.

Where Your Money Comes From Matters

2008-08-24T19:35:00.000-05:00

I'm not a teetotaler. I'm not into beer, but I love a good glass of red wine. I can't stand grape juice for communion; give me the warmth of Christ going down the gullet any day. But I stand strongly against alcoholism, drunk driving, or even drinking to excess. I think most people stand with me on that.

What your wife does for a living matters, and where the money that funds your life, and your campaign, comes from matters. Cindy McCain is worth 100s of millions, and by extension so is John McCain. That money comes from her inheriting the wealth of her father, invested in Hensley & Co., one of the largest distributors of Anheuser-Bush. She remains the owner of that company.

There is nothing wrong in selling alcohol, or being a large distributor of it. It is technically drug dealing, but only technically, because alcohol is a drug, but nothing like marijuana or cocaine. But would I want to have that as my job?

I can say, yes, I would be okay in selling alcohol, as long as I could control who drank it, and how much. I've heard of a guy who bought a tavern in a state that allowed only one bar per county, a long time ago. He cut everyone off before they could be drunk. He'd sell two or three beers per person, and then stop.

We have a moral obligation for every single act in our lifetimes. I have a responsibility for everything I do, and everything I produce. And I could not in good conscience sell something that I know a substantial proportion of my customers would become addicted to, and an even larger number would abuse. Those who are controlled by alcohol lead a life of hopelessness, going from one binge to the next, with damaged relationships and a bottle as king. Prohibition was a failure, but it was based on a sincere desire by progressives to defend women from the attacks of abusive husbands. There are too many ways that alcoholic abuse hurts not only the abuser, but their entire family, their friends, and the rest of society.

Thus there is something troubling about McCain building his campaign and livelihood on the back of wealth created through alcohol sales, and alcohol consumption. If there were some way for a distributor to end abuse, or even severely curtail it, this would be a different matter. But there is not. McCain seeks to be the leader of our country. Regardless of our last Democratic President, we desire a man who will have high personal ethics as much as high corporate ethics. McCain's campaign and livelihood have been built on the sale of alcohol, and therefore upon the misery of others. This I cannot countenance.

Obama Ambush

2008-08-17T21:30:00.000-05:00

"That was an ambush," my father said, after watching Rick Warren's interviews of the two Presidential candidates. I am forced to agree.

Rick Warren said he was good friends with both candidates. Yet it is our actions that speak truth, more than our words. He asked the same questions of both candidates, yet those questions were quite definitely biased towards one candidate over another.

For many, many years, Christians and particularly Evangelicals have been defined by a few pivotal issues, most notably homosexuality and abortion. But of late we have seen a definite shift, especially among younger Evangelicals, towards accepting that, while abortion and both homosexuality are wrong, there are a number of other pivotal issues. Of late, we have begun to recognize that Christians as a whole have long cared about other issues, in addition to the traditional defining values.

As Christians, we also care about a number of other Life issues. We care about the environment, and the death of other organisms, and the probability of human lives lost as the environment degrades. We care about the death of those charged with crimes, justly or unjustly. We care about the plight of the poor, the oppressed, and minorities, because our Lord did. And we affirm that war and peace are Life issues as well. When people are killed in a war, this not only violates the most basic precepts of Jesus Christ, but it affirms the Pro-Choice values over the Pro-Life- that we have a right to choose to go to war, rather than the belief that no war is just, and no murder can be countenanced.

So imagine my chagrin to hear the questions that were asked of both candidates- asked equally. Both were asked about homosexuality and both were asked about abortion. Neither was asked about the poor or the oppressed (with the exception of Warren's desire to assist orphans). There was a question about who the wealthy are, but not about assisting the poor. Neither candidate was asked about the death penalty. Neither candidate was asked about the environment. Neither candidate was asked how they would stop war, because war is against the will of God.

And so, yes, McCain had a much better night than Obama. He seemed much more sure of himself, much more relaxed. Not because he is more comfortable with the Christian worldview- far from it. Rather, he is more comfortable with that narrow Christian worldview held by a minority, that of traditional evangelicalism. Obama tried very hard to remind us of the Christian values of caring for the poor and the oppressed, but Pastor Warren seemed to have forgotten to ask about these central issues. Thus a born-again candidate who finds Jesus central to his life (Obama) seems to be missing on the Christian issues, while the candidate who finds the whole notion of faith uncomfortable (McCain) had a shining night.

McCain's lack of understanding of the basics of Christianity took some rather sinister turns at times. He sat in a church, devoted to a man who died rather than lift a finger to attack his enemies, and spoke glowingly of how we would defeat evil. Lacking the nuance of Obama's speaking of the need to confront evil, and recognize the evil within our own society, McCain followed his master Bush II in seeing evil as wholly the other, in other countries. True, neither candidate spoke of Jesus' words "resist not evil"- that we should not fight against evil people, but rather look for that of God in the other person, seeking to love them at all times. But McCain's approach was decidedly sinister, in which he saw a Christian approach as defeating the enemy at all costs. He sat in a church and boldly called for us to go to war and smite all our enemies, utterly.

McCain's deeply sick understanding of Christianity goes further. He told the story, again, of his standing with one of the prison guards who drew a cross in the dirt. Whether or not this story actually occurred or if rather McCain stole the story from another, his approach remains disturbing. Not because there was no humanity in the prison guard, or that there was not that of God in the guard, but rather, because McCain spoke of him as a Christian. For McCain, a man who runs a concentration camp and actively participates in an institution that tortures, this man represents Christian values. For McCain, this is the kind of thing that a Christian does, and should do. A Christian might engage torture, and might boldly pursue war.

In truth, many have believed the latter. The significant new, frightening step, is that McCain evidently believes that Christianity as an ethic is in accord with war. It is not merely, as many have said, that Christians can go to to war, and fall short of Christ's ethics. The bold statement that McCain made, by preaching for war in a church, is that Christianity is completely compatible with warfare.

And, if the applause from the audience is any indication, many of the Evangelicals agreed with him. (Tickets were supposed to be available to the public, but long before the day that they were to be made available, the church website was stating that all tickets were sold-out, leading me to conclude that the audience was selected from those who attend Saddleback Church.)

Thus, I do believe McCain had a better night than Obama. But the big loser last night was not Obama, but Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, Evangelicals, and Christianity as a whole. What we saw last night was not any religion I recognize, or follow. It was a religion devoted to the god of the Roman Eagle, the standard raised when the Roman Empire went to war, at a time when Christians universally rejected an ethic allowing them to participate in battle or killing. No man can serve two masters. Last night, McCain, and Saddleback Church, showed us which master they follow.

How Dare He?!?

2008-08-07T15:09:00.000-05:00

Now I'm angry. I get that McCain doesn't do email, doesn't know what the internet is, probably thinks computers are still made out of vacuum tubes. But how dare he walk all over this institution, basically taking a dump on it and everyone who actually uses the world wide web and enjoys the opportunity to use it?

New policy from the McCain campaign: Spam the internet. He is paying his supporters with rewards points if they go on to websites, Democrat or Republican or neutral, and post McCain talking points. They don't identify themselves as with the campaign; they just post it under their own names. They don't put in their own views per se; they cut and paste from the campaign talking points. They don't post something germane to the article they are commenting on; they just post whatever they want. In all cases these are unethical practices, or rather, violations of netiquette. Yes, such a thing exists. It has existed from when the internet was first formed, back in the 1960s, long before there was a web. It has been built up over the years, but the basics have not changed. You do not spam. You do not troll. You do not pretend that you are an individual when you actually represent a corporation.

Why do we have these guidelines? After all, the beauty of the internet and it's subsidiary web is that there is no enforcement, so the guidelines aren't enforced. The internet is the purest form of anarchy ever invented, and inherently anti-corporation. It is individuals, not big government, or big business. We do this because we are a community, here on the world wide web, centered around one issue. We disagree on everything. Except that we like to use the web, and want to keep on using it. Anything that infringes with the free use of the web (like Google helping the Chinese censor the web) is frowned on, is considered the worst of violations. Spam hinders the web. Yes, people do it. Every society has its gutter scum, its riff-raff, its lowest of the low. And every time they do it, it makes it harder to use the internet. It slows down processing speed, but more than that, people don't like spam. They don't like hearing random expressions that have nothing to do with what they are looking at. They don't like to be taken advantage of. They don't like a company- or a campaign- coming along to pretend it is one thing when it is another. And since people don't have to be online, when they run into more and more of what they don't like, they come online less and less. And since the internet is anti-corporation but the epitome of cooperation, fewer people means far less enjoyment for us all.

The Straight Talk Express is now anything but. It is the equivalent of the Truth Division in 1984. It is encouraging people to pretend that their ideas came from themselves, instead of a campaign.

I welcome any Republican or Fascist to post here. Just two guidelines. Keep it civil. And make sure it's your own thoughts, and not a "ctrl c ctrl v" from a campaign. I get that McCain is more comfortable with telegraphs than with the internet. But don't you dare come and infringe on my right to enjoy the internet.

Do you remember when the environment was a going concern?

2008-08-06T19:01:00.000-05:00

Ah, halcyon days. When we cared about the environment. When we were concerned about Global Warming. When we didn't want another Hurricane Katrina, and we cared about New Orleans.

Now it would seem that the majority of Americans are in favor of off-shore oil drilling. We are in favor of it, evidently, so that we can fix the energy crisis by becoming energy independent. These are the buzz words these days.

Evidently, it is a good thing to be energy independent- to not rely on other countries for energy. This way, we will become more isolated from the rest of the world. We can become more elitist, more parochial, more isolationist. This will likely help the rest of the world like us more. It will also keep more of our money in our hands, and continue the unfavorable trade imbalance begun in the early 1800s, where the wealthiest countries take from the poorest countries of the world. For Venezuela and Yemen should be put to shame for hoping that their oil reserves might help the general populace.

We need to drill because we need oil. We need the psychological support of pretending that oil reserves are going to last forever. We need to be able to pretend that the reserves that are present on America's coasts are more than a drop in the bucket. We need to be able to pretend that that oil is a renewable resource. (Of course, it is. Just over the course of 100s of millions of years, when a lot more animals and plants die and decompose and become oil. And our current environmental policy is actually well structured to increase oil supplies dramatically in 300 million years, at the rate that we are killing off other species.)

We need a way out of this mess. We need to pretend that new oil drilling will produce a drop in prices now, or at least ten years from now. We need to pretend that that future drop in prices will be more than a few cents, more than offset by the increase in inflation. We need to pretend that oil companies aren't using all of their allotted prospecting areas, and need another bailout from the federal government.

But the greatest make-believe that we require is that there is no environmental crisis. That there is no Global Warming. That Katrina never happened. All we have to do is say it three times and click our hands, and the world is black and liquid again, without giant killer storms, intense heat and permanent dust bowls, rising sea levels and countries disappearing, and 100s of millions of people made refugees.

In all the talk about how Americans want oil drilling, no one- not the press, not McCain, not Obama- is talking about how dangerous it is to continue oil drilling at all. Yes, we need oil to run cars and make plastics. But our goal should be the removal of any need for it at all. Practically, we will be forced into this in about twenty years, as oil reserves dwindle completely. Environmentally, we can't wait that long, because Global Warming's tipping point is now. This isn't some left-wing-environmental-freak thing. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) It's the issue that people are dying, and will die, in dramatic, horrifying numbers, if we do not stop Global Warming now.

That's incorrect. They will die, in horrifying numbers, no matter what we do. We have a choice, however, of stopping a logarithmic escalation of those numbers. Good on you, Obama, for rejecting the failed policies of oil drilling, and offering a $7,000 rebate to new hybrid purchasers. But let us remind the voters, America, and the world that this is this is a matter of stopping the failed policies of the last 100 years, destroying our home. This is a matter of life and death, without hyperbole.

What Happened to Africa?

2008-08-06T18:18:00.000-05:00

Obama is very cool. I support him because of his experience. For the first time, he has the experience of growing up overseas. For the first time since the days of Thomas Jefferson, he has a parent from another country. For the first time, that country is Africa. No one can match that.

So, what happened to Africa? In this election cycle, about that continent, I have heard . . . nothing. I've heard a lot about Europe, and the Middle East, and a bit about South America. And that's as it should be. But Africa is a country in great need, and usually ignored by this nation. I kind of thought that we would hear more about it with a President who is half-African. Not half African-American; rather, half-African.

I don't think Obama needs to worry about white voters or the electorate in general turning on him if he discusses Africa. Maybe if that was all he focused on, or if he focused on it too much. But the occasional mention would not injure, and would greatly help us in remembering the Forgotten Continent, where there is today so much misery. Barack Obama, where is your Africa Policy Statement?

Why We Don't Want an Old Guy

2008-08-06T17:55:00.000-05:00

Paris Hilton's ad brought this to mind. There has been this stigma against bringing up McCain's age in this campaign, as if the issue was the same as racism, or sexism. It's not. Someone who's white can do just as good of a job at being President as someone who's black. A man can be just as good at leading the nation as a woman. The same does not apply for someone who's elderly.

Potentially, they can be just as good. But let us consider the last rather youth-challenged President that we had. Many people loved Reagan. (This is a liberal blog. Do not be surprised that I was not one of them.) But Reagan had a regular ploy with the press. He would pretend not to remember things. Not to remember nearly everything. That allowed him to get away with the Iran-Contra affair, where, in the early Clinton years, we learned that the Reagan-Bush administration was actually culpable.

Now, it is possible that he actually didn't remember. For tragically, as we all know, Reagan was afflicted with Alzheimer's Disease shortly after he left office. Looking back, most experts feel that it was actually setting in in the final years of Reagan's second administration. Perhaps it was some sort of judgment of God, where if you lie enough about forgetting, God allows you to be in the state of forgetting; perhaps in truth he wasn't forgetting, but was afflicted by a disease.

This is not to say, of course, that McCain will lie to us, or will get Alzheimer's Disease, or simply forget a lot. But it is to say what doctors and scientist's well know- with age, the chances of getting a debilitating illness dramatically increase, and the older you are, the more those odds increase. And with extreme age, the odds of getting Alzheimer's are much higher than with someone who is younger. Unfortunately, as with Reagan, we will not necessarily know that the disease has set in, and there is no constitutional provision for removing someone from office with the beginnings of dementia. And already, we see signs of McCain stumbling over his words. Maybe he's just a bad speaker. Maybe not. Do we want to risk it?

McCain. He's old. Is he worth the risk?

The Finest Political Ad Ever

2008-08-06T00:38:00.001-05:00

We must begin with one of the worst ads of this year. I have to say one of the worst, because McCain has had a string of outright lies recently, most egregiously claiming that Obama did not support US troops, lying that Obama had not visited injured troops because he couldn't bring cameras, when in fact Obama didn't visit them because he didn't want them to use them for political gain. (We now know that, if Obama had visited the troops in Germany, McCain was prepared to launch an ad stating that Obama had used them for political gain.) That commercial claimed that Obama instead went to the gym, and it uses footage of Obama playing basketball with US troops, but conveniently blurs out the troops themselves- a rare hat trick of taking advantage of US troops and Obama at the same time.

One of the other worst ads of the year is one suggesting that Obama isn't ready to lead because he is too popular. I've previously dealt with the blatant racism in this ad, but now want to focus on the use of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. The McCain campaign wants to pretend that there is no racist element to combining two young beautiful white women with a black man- as if they are completely ignorant of the history of the South and African-Americans.

It is of course rather ridiculous to suggest that, if someone is popular, we shouldn't elect them. McCain must think you become President by being selected by an elite cabal, rather than a popular vote. He must think that people all over the world are so stupid that they like someone for no reason, and not because they think he would make a good leader. Obama has responded with his own remarks. But I believe Paris Hilton has come up with by far, the finest response, and the finest ad of this political season.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

The Racism of John McCain

2008-08-01T22:30:00.000-05:00

I believe racism is not always against people of colour. I believe it is possible to be racist against someone who is white. I further believe it is possible to be racist against someone who is the same skin colour as yourself, as long as you are attacking a different group, a different ethnicity.

Let us witness the racism of John McCain:

This is not playing the race card because Obama is black. This is racism, because John McCain hates Europeans.

It is clear from McCain's ad that we are supposed to disapprove of Obama because he is loved by 100s of 1000s of Europeans. Sure, McCain could be saying how wonderful it is that Obama is "the biggest celebrity in the world". Somehow, I don't think McCain is saying that. We are treated to an image of 100s of 1000s of Germans, chanting Obama's name, and that is supposed to send a chill down our spine. We are supposed to consider that it is dangerous to elect someone if the whole of Europe is really into him. After all, if the Europeans like him, there must be something wrong with him, right? We can't trust those Europeans to act justly, or make wise decisions. That's why we kicked their asses in that war. (No, not that one- the first one McCain probably remembers, the Revolutionary War.)

Evidently, McCain doesn't see a problem with the world's perception of America at present. He thinks that it's okay that the world generally detests what America is now doing overseas. McCain evidently doesn't feel a need to rehabilitate America's image. That's all that I can conclude, when the subliminal message of a campaign ad is that it is bad to elect someone that the rest of the world loves.

Perhaps you disagree with me that this ad is profoundly disturbing, profoundly racist. Consider if Obama had visited Africa, as he could easily have done, and been greeted by 100s of 1000s of cheering fans, as he would undoubtedly been greeted- albeit probably more than 200,000. Now consider the exact same McCain ad, but with 500,000 Africans. McCain's reasoning is the same in both cases. Only the colour of the faces change. Racism is racism, whether or not the people are a people of colour. Racism is when we insinuate something negative about an entire people group that is not our own, or claim that there is something wrong with them because they are not us.

John McCain, when you say you approve this message, just which message were you approving?

Why the Surge Can't Work

2008-07-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

This is not to argue that "the surge" won't work in the future, or wouldn't have worked in the past. It is not to say that the surge doesn't work based on what the results have been so far. It is to say that it fundamentally can't work.

Of course, it hasn't work based on the results so far. It has reduced the number of deaths of US troops, but not the numbers of Iraqi civilians. Iraqis are still fleeing the country, and still dying in great numbers. In areas with high US troop presence like the Green Zone there is safety and reduced deaths. Where there are no troops, where troops have left, the death continues, as does the recruitment drive for al Qai'da. (And the presence of US troops provides the impetus for recruitment.)

But the results to date can never justify the increase in US troops. For we should never have been over there to begin with. And not just because this war was wrong. War always means one side loses. Obama seems to have forgotten this, in his support for a surge in Afghanistan. Obama would say that we should not have been there, but we must make the best of it. But the point is that the use of the ways of war is flawed at its core.

Obama seems to have bought into the idea that the use of soldiers, and their increase, is at times justified. He states that things are better, in part because of the increase in US troops, and in part because of agreements with other Iraqi factions. This is admittedly better than the consensus view in America, that the Surge has worked. But it still dramatically misses the main point. Many of us have supported Obama because he was right on the war. He rejected going to war, and he rejected abrogating Congressional rights and duties to declare war. But now he seems to buy into the idea that war itself can work.

For a Christian such as Obama, his Lord has made it clear that war is never an option; we should not resist an evil doer, but should rather love our enemies, and do good to those who hurt us. We do this because we recognize that of God in others, recognizing that all humans are created i the image of God, and therefore are the seat of his Spirit. We can not therefore attack our brother, he who can hold the ever-living God. I recognize that no US President will ever truly follow the guidelines of Jesus Christ. That requires a leader like Ghandi- and Ghandi would never get elected in this country. Yet it remains that it is not just that war is morally bankrupt, but that war does not practically work.

War results in one side losing. It results in vanquishing your enemy. This leads to bitterness, and promises of revenge, and future reprisals by that vanquished enemy. Thus America funds the Shah, the Shah represses his people, and the Ayotollah rises up in revolution. Thus America defends the Afghani people from the Soviet invasion, funding and training Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in the art of war, allowing Osama to rise up against America, requiring America to attack his host country, creating a breeding ground for al Qai'da recruitment, and embittered Taliban to rise up against America.

If some war is immoral, and if some war is impractical for reducing violence, then it remains that more war is also immoral, and impractical. Thus the so-called surge can not, in the long run, succeed. It is wrong to send people overseas to kill others people; it is more wrong to send more people. Violence begets violence, and sending more people to kill more people will lead to more anger and bitterness. Sure, it may not be revealed now. The terrorists may come out of the woodwork after we leave. It may even take a generation. But the more we send more troops over, the greater will be our future problems. This is not unique to Iraq. As goes Iraq, shall go Afghanistan, and any other place a great power sends in occupying forces.

Obama, you have some great ideas about being willing to talk with your enemies, in rejecting gunboat diplomacy and working with the rest of the world in peaceful ways. I call on you to remember these high-minded ideals, and return to a higher way. Do not believe the hopeless mantra of Bush and McCain, that violence works, and the surge has worked. Do not begin your own surge in that quagmire of Afghanistan. Stick to your guns in withdrawing troops in Iraq, as you are, and begin to let the Taliban know of your sincere desire to find common ground with them, to talk to them, to see how we can all get to yes. Your recent prayer at the Wailing Wall demonstrates your deep and abiding humility. Negotiations, as you know, don't require that either side lose, as war always does. Rather, it only requires that one side be willing to be humble enough to talk. Let our nation be great for a new reason. Let us release a new type of shock and awe. Let the world marvel at the humility of the United States of America.

The Hypocrisy of John McCain

2008-07-22T16:39:00.001-05:00

When McCain was on his tour of South America, he made a great point of how he would not criticize Obama while McCain was abroad. McCain said that was inappropriate. He felt one should not criticize a President or someone running for President while you are overseas in "time of war", or in a war with metaphor. For McCain, a united front without criticism is true patriotism. It is inappropriate to act the role of maverick while overseas. Therefore, McCain went negative on Obama only while he was on the plane flying down to South America. Evidently that was some sort of difference from being on the ground in South America.

That was McCain when he was overseas. But, though McCain feels agreement is important if he is overseas, evidently this does not apply if the person you are criticizing is overseas. So while Obama is overseas, McCain has been non-stop criticizing Obama, most recently coming close to questioning Obama's patriotism, stating Obama is willing to lose a war to win an election.

I admit I'm no professional politician. Maybe I just don't get it. I know, it seems to me that, if it's important not to criticize another American running for President, it is more important to do so when the person criticizing is abroad, then when the criticizer are abroad. Typically that's been the tradition, when the President is abroad, to withhold criticism to some extent. But McCain must know something about the nature of the politics of patriotism that I don't.

But maybe it's just that McCain has flip-flopped on his values since he was in South America a month ago. Or maybe going negative is the only way he's found to remind us that he is still in the race.

There is No "War on Terrorism"

2008-07-22T00:20:00.000-05:00

Are our memories truly this short? Have we forgotten how much we laughed at George Bush for mixing his metaphors? A primitive laugh in agony, to be sure, for we recognized the danger in his falsehood. He sought to use the language of the War on Drugs (now largely forgotten), and apply it to terrorism. The problem was, everyone recognized that the War on Drugs was a metaphor. One could only use it in reference to terrorism in the same way. Terrorism is an idea. It is a noun, but not a proper one. It is neither person, nor country, nor organization. It is a concept. One can no more have a war on terrorism than one can have a war on an idea. That is to say, one can do so to the extent that one remembers it is a metaphor.

But the danger remains- if it is truly believed to be an actual war, then George Bush gains great power, for he is a war-time leader. And this is indeed what happened. Though we weren't at war, he was granted the liberty of movement as if we were at war. This liberty given up by the US congress lead directly to the carte blanche ability to invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq. Then we were truly at war- with Afghanistan, and with Iraq. And because of these wars, many 100s of 1000s are dead, and millions made refugees. All because we allowed our leader to mix his metaphors.

Imagine then, my deep and abiding chagrin, to hear my beloved candidate now using the same hated Bushian language, referring to the "War on Terrorism", as he states that Afghanistan is where the front is. No, Obama, and again I say "No!" There is no war on terrorism. There is a war in Iraq, there is a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not on terrorism.

Just semantics? No. For witness what the appropriation of Bush-speak is leading Obama into. He is now speaking of the need to Surge in Afghanistan, in order to deal with the Taliban there. He will reduce troops significantly, withdraw completely in 16 months, give or take, in Iraq. But he will increase troops in Afghanistan- for this is the head-point of the War on Terror.

Have we forgotten so easily why we were against Bush's actions in Afghanistan originally? He too quickly was happy to engage in war, without regard to the consequences, in the heat and fury after 9/11. Because he saw 9/11 as an attack on America, rather than the world, as witnessed by the attack on the World Trade Center, Bush ignored the possible cost to human lives, in complete contravening of any semblance of Just War Theory.

We invaded Afghanistan because we were not willing to give negotiations a chance- as many pointed out at the time. (But of course, that's just Saturday Morning Quarterbacking.) We ignored the culture of the peoples because that was inconvenient. Yes, they had Osama bin Laden, and yes, they could have given him up. But in their culture, a person in the country is a guest, and one does not disown their guests. This is a deep and abiding belief in the Middle East- some thing that we should at the very least be familiar with, as it is central to the scriptures of the dominant religion that Western civilization is based upon.

Without this recognition, the story of Lot with his guests makes no sense. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked, and demanded that Lot send out his guests so that the men could rape them. Lot comes out, and tells them this is evil. So far we understand. But then he makes the strangest statement- he offers his own daughters in the place of his guests!

Now we find such a response to Sophie's Choice exceedingly repugnant, and rightfully so. If one had to decide, God forbid, how can one choose against one's own daughters? But one must remember that not all cultures have the same ethics that we do. Indeed, most theologians agree that the sin which Sodom and Gomorrah were published for was not homosexuality, but rather a lack of hospitality, a cardinal sin in the ancient world.

While I wouldn't suggest that most Middle Eastern fathers would make the same choice today, the commitment to hospitality remains just as strong. Despite many statements from cultural experts at the time, Bush ignored their expertise, and pressed ahead. He went to bomb Afghanistan, rather than to have the slow negotiations which would have recognized and honored the Taliban and Afghani's commitment to ethics of hospitality, while moving forward to get them to finally give up Osama bin Laden. Instead of negotiations, Bush went for ultimatums, the only form of talk he appears to understand. He was too eager to grab Osama bin Laden, and so like the proverbial monkey grabbing too strongly, Osama slipped through his fingers.

One can not argue our military approach lead to success, for we still search for him. What it did lead to was countless deaths- American, Afghani, and Afghani civilians. Sure, the repressive regime of the Taliban was removed, but that was never our motivation- and now the Taliban has long returned to their own Surge, reaching levels of control close to what they had before we invaded Afghanistan. Do we want to find Osama, and stop the Taliban today? Or do we want to find a way to change the hearts of Arabs and Muslims, the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgent, so they realize that they should end the killing, that they should fight no more forever? The old failed policy focused on immediate results, and achieved them. It left the long term legacy of failure to us.

The Troop Increase in Iraq has not worked. Sure, American deaths are reduced- as we would expect, when we send more people with guns over there. And Iraqi civilian deaths are up- as we would expect when we send more people with guns over there. So why is Obama proposing that we send more troops to Afghanistan, when such a policy has so abysmally failed in Iraq? This is a candidate who has campaigned as something new, and spoke of talking with world leaders, even our enemies.

So I challenge you, Senator Obama: Do as you said you would. Do something new. Do what we should have done originally in Afghanistan. Go to the Taliban, and begin to talk with them. Negotiate with them. Recognize where they are coming from, and what their needs are. Be bold on our utter rejection of their human rights violations. Be bold on our demand for their help to capture Osama. But do this in negotiation. Sure, it's slower. Sure, it's not sexy Shock and Awe. But it is far more just. It is far more kind. And it is far more likely to achieve our goals.

Why Obama Should Really be Overseas

2008-07-19T19:07:00.000-05:00

While it hasn't been done before this election cycle, there are many reasons to travel abroad while you're running for President. McCain went over to Iraq to show people what an expert he was, how he knew about foreign affairs because he'd been a prisoner and had killed people overseas. Unfortunately, he struggled with the difference between Sunni and Shi'i as much as he struggles to remember that Czechoslovakia no longer exists. Now after months of McCain calling Obama to go overseas to learn a thing or two, Obama has also gone to Afghanistan, and soon Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, England, France, and Germany.

When you're running for President, the last thing you want to do is respond to your opponent's criticisms, or even appear like you are doing so. It makes your opponent seem to be in charge of the conversation. This is an especially important point if you are actually a greater expert in the particular field than your opponent.

One of the primary reasons I'm voting for Obama is his vast international experience. Sure, there are plenty of other past nominees who knew about the rest of the world. Obama's the first candidate who's actually lived it. He's the son of Kenyans and grew up overseas in Indonesia and Hawaii- which is part of the US, but the most international of all the states, and only became a state two years before Obama was born. Obama experienced horrific poverty and disease in those around him, growing up in a 2/3rds World country. There's a reason the non-voting rest of the world loves him- they know that, as a Third Culture Kid, he can relate to them. He can relate to them not just as an oppressor or occupying force, but as one who has lived with them, walked with them, eaten their food and lived in their homes.

Obama has absolutely nothing to prove internationally. McCain has everything to prove. Obama has no need to show himself aware of the world and the nuances of foreign affairs, nor answer to the likes of McCain. This is the purpose of his trip: to go out and establish further relationships with the leaders of other countries, and more importantly the peoples, to begin the business of conducting government and reestablishing America's relationships with those overseas. He can begin to model servant leadership by listening to other countries and respecting their point of view and the wisdom they can bring to the table. For we as America don't know everything, and we can't do it on our own.

Or at least, that should be the purpose of his trip. President Obama, it's time to start governing.

I like McCain.

2008-06-29T23:20:00.000-05:00

Okay, I know this post is two years old. Sorry I haven't gotten around to it sooner. But there are a lot of reasons why I thought, two years ago, I could stomach McCain. Before Obama came around, I thought, of all the Republicans out there, I, a life-time Socialist-Democrat, could perhaps vote for McCain. He was more against the war than Bush. His stance on immigration and the environment were palatable. (It's hard to remember how much higher the standards have risen with the rise of Obama.) But most of all, because of his background, his stance on torture was actually right, and not in pursuit of crimes against humanity as the Bush regime desires.

Which is why I get exceptionally angry at the recent rise in accusations of flip-flopping directed towards Obama. Many of us remember how we once (relatively) liked McCain, if there were no other options. Many of us have been astonished at how very much he has reversed his positions, and, I say this with no political gloss, truly become a clone of George Bush. I today see really no difference between the two- except that McCain hasn't actually done the sins of Bush. Which I suppose is marginally better- that you only want to commit the sins, but haven't yet done so.

For the alternative, we have Obama, who has begun to move towards the center, as you do in any general election, but it is more glaringly obvious because of this super-long primary season this year. Yes, my left-wing bleeding-heart self is disappointed at these moves toward the center, but in truth, they are quite minor. Fox and other Republican establishments are all over the airwaves now, declaring that Obama is now calling for a responsible and gradual withdrawal, instead of an immediate one. They seem to have forgotten all of Obama's debates, where he said he would immediately begin withdrawing, but we should be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. I remember. I remember thinking, I wish he would just withdraw everyone immediately, but I understand how that isn't possible to say, if you want to be elected President. I understand that I could never be elected.

Saddest of all, the Republicans may be able to sway the American consciousness, stricken as it is with Short-Term Memory Syndrome. They woke up and realized their candidate was flip-flopping all over the place, and decided in Rovian style that they had to immediately accuse their opponent, en masse, of the sins of their candidate. But truth has never been an impediment to these ideologues. They fear the light, for they do not understand it, but they are intimately familiar with the ways of darkness.

Beholden to No One

2008-06-20T18:10:00.000-05:00

Everywhere today people are talking about Obama withdrawing from the public financing system. Let's just put the cards on the table right off the bat. Yes, he broke his word, and yes, that's disappointing. He should just admit that. He did say that he would accept public financing, and rigorously pursue this with the Republican candidate.

But it would have been political suicide to accept public financing. Whereas he has raised vast amount more than McCain, and Obama and Clinton together more than double McCain, the RNC has a war chest about 10 times larger than that of the DNC. And the National Committees have no limits on what they can raise and put into the national campaigns. And yes, so far, the only outside groups who have supported candidates have been Democratic ones, most notably MoveOn.org. Does anyone beyond poddy training seriously believe the Republican outside groups aren't far behind?

We seem to be in such great pursuit of the letter of the law that we have forgotten the spirit. Why do we support public financing? For finance reform. And why do we support finance reform? Because we want everything given in Presidential campaigns to be completely honest and ethical. Obama is the only candidate who has refused all money from PACs and lobbyists, insisting on small donations only. Through that method, he has raised more money than any candidate in history. This means he is beholden to no one, and no special interests will control him when he is President- unlike McCain. Which after all was the original purpose behind campaign finance reform. Yes, Obama went back on his word- because he found a better way to be ethical about financial support.

Oh, and thank you Obama, for insisting on only money from those supporting your campaign, rather than from taxpayers in general. I wish the Republicans would get on board with reducing unfair tax burdens, but then, that's why I'm a Democrat.

Why should I be proud of this country?

2008-06-19T16:21:00.000-05:00

Cindy McCain has recently started a smack-down on Michelle Obama, over Michelle's words, months earlier:

...for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And
not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry
for change.”

I am so tired of the same old politics. Why can't the media look at the meat of the issues? Since they won't, let's break it down.

Michelle at no time said she was proud of her country for the first time. Let's just get it out there- Cindy and others are lying, and knowingly. Michelle said for the first time, she was really proud. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of English understands that this implies that the speaker has been proud in the past, but is now extra proud.

Why was she proud? Not for a self-serving reason, but because, for the first time in her adult life, there is a move to change the status quo, to shift our paradigms, to do something new. I echo this. For the first time in my life, since I didn't live in the 60s, I'm seeing this too. And this is really what the media should be focusing on- that Michelle was pointing out a sea change in the way we do politics. Instead, sadly they chose to focus on the lowest common denominator, and rallied around the Fox flag.

Let us go deeper. I think it is great that our country is ready for change. But what is the problem with pointing out that there are reasons to lack pride in one's country? When did that become an evil? How can we grow unless we recognize our faults? Though Michelle didn't say this, she would not have been at fault to say, "For the first time, I'm proud of my country." There is nothing wrong with saying you are not proud of your country; that your country makes mistakes. Just as with individuals, it is a sign of maturity if you can recognize errors, and work to change them.

Deeper still. How is it even okay to be proud of your country? Here I go beyond what Michelle is capable of, for I recognize that the candidate and his family have to be patriotic, if they're to be elected. But for the rest of us, has everyone forgotten how often patriotism leads to war? Patriotism inherently entails putting my country first, saying my country is better than others just because it's my country. And this always leads to forcing other countries to see it your way. And for those who are Christians, patriotism is idolatry.

And this brings us to the deepest level. Why Michelle was wrong in her statement. This mass forgetfulness in our nation, where we no longer remember that pride is a bad thing. Sure, being proud in another is something different. But pride is one of the seven deadly sins, if the most overlooked one. It does come before the fall. Pride is where I focus on myself, or my group, rather than God, or others. I start to think I am great, and too great, when I am proud. To extend that to my group is precisely that- extending the boundaries of my own ego. And to Michelle's credit, the rest of her statement indicates that she's not supporting her own ego- rather, she's proud of what others are doing, and bolstering them up. Which leaves me with only one thing wrong with Michelle's statement- a grammatical error in the use of the word "pride". Which surely isn't the biggest issue of this campaign?

Have you chosen your VP yet? I have.

2008-06-05T13:26:00.000-05:00

Now you can participate! New site, along the lines of March Madness but more fun, lets you pick from groups of two your pick for VP, and then advances on preselected dates based on popularity of participants. Totally unscientific, but interesting. Visit VP Madness. A corollary to my polls on the Left.

Why, Obama? Why?

2008-06-04T21:36:00.000-05:00

Why didn't you listen to me, Barack? I said there was a reason I soured on Hillary. I liked her initially. I was hoping she'd be President. But then she went and heavily courted the Israeli vote in order to win the New York Senate seat. She even apologized for greeting Arafat's wife in the traditional manner. I was disgusted by such racism, and so decided at that point long ago to not support her. She could have advocated a neutral position on Israel and Palestine, continuing to be an honest broker, and able to argue that both sides need to be defended and supported. There are plenty of Arabs and Muslims in New York City as well. But she didn't do this. She went way over to the extreme, like nearly every other American politician.

Now, today, Obama, you started down the same slippery slope. I didn't even fully have a chance to get excited about you're winning the nomination. These weren't the words you expressed in Audacity of Hope. There you expressed something more equitable, at least, more equitable than we commonly see in American politicians. But today you spoke of an unending Jewish nation of Israel, and an undivided Israeli Jerusalem forever. You actually supported a racist state. I'm not here saying Israel is inherently racist. But rather, you supported the idea that Israel should be made of one race or religion only.

Yes, you are to be commended for speaking of the need for a contiguous and viable Palestinian state. But you missed an opportunity to speak of one state, uniting different factions, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, where the rights of everyone are guaranteed and protected. Isn't that what you talk about constantly here in the US? Why not speak of that in Palestine and Israel as well? Why not speak of the need for both sides to act justly, to speak against terrorism and also against Israeli apartheid?

I know you need to get elected, and so you need to speak in moderated terms. I don't expect miracles from you; I know you probably aren't going to be as equitable on this issue as most people are outside the U.S. But you could have taken that opportunity to strive for justice, and speak of being a good friend to Israel by calling Israel to act justly. Today I was disappointed.

Let every vote count.

2008-06-03T04:50:00.000-05:00

Lately, Hillary has been stating, many times, that she has won the popular vote. She makes this assertion by including Florida (where she campaigned against party rules but Obama didn't), including Michigan (where she was on the ballot but Obama wasn't), and not including four caucus states, where the popular vote was estimated but never officially reported. Hillary has even run ads in South Dakota making the specious claim that she won the popular vote- and from the most recent polls, has managed to fool the voters there as well.

That a candidate can win a caucus state with no official popular vote reported highlights the difficulty in trying to argue that the popular vote is important. Rather, in agreement with Hillary Clinton (of October, 2007), the popular vote doesn't matter- it's the delegates. When you have a caucus state, there's a range of individuals voting for delegates at the precinct level, and then a range of delegates at every level representing the next level up. It's the system we run by- a system not guaranteed in any way constitutionally. The Supreme Court has regularly upheld that primary and caucus votes are private party votes, and so there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, on that level.

There is a certain irony that, if Michigan and Florida had waited, considering the extended primary season, their vote would have mattered a good deal more, even ignoring being seated as full delegations. For that matter, Puerto Rico could have been more of a deciding factor if they had stuck with their original June 7th date, rounding off the primaries, in a cheaper caucus. There has been regularly a fear that states won't get their dues, so they act on that fear, and lose out on the reward they would otherwise have gained.

But still, I want my vote to count. If I'm in a state that followed the rules of the private party, that didn't try to jump ahead and steal the thunder of another state, I feel my vote ought to count.

But I'm in one of those four caucus states that Hillary would exclude in order to maintain that she won the primary vote. I'm in Washington. So I ask. How dare you, Ms. Clinton, try to strip me of my voting rights within the party? How dare you suggest that my vote doesn't matter? You tell the superdelegates that you have won the popular vote, only on the back of my disenfrachisement. My state didn't jump the gun. We obeyed party rules. And yet you have the audacity to suggest that how we voted, and the vast numbers of us who voted, don't matter? What makes you think we would even consider voting for you in 2016?

Obama: The Child of Promise

2008-05-16T10:54:00.000-05:00

Story re-orders, sifts through experience, and allows others, young children and adults alike, to hear what we think truly matters. We are constituted by the stories we tell ourselves and others. Thus stories serve an ontological purpose. Story connects us with that which lies beyond ourselves and this process makes us ask questions about the meanings of our lives. It is, in fact, a way we can begin to define what we mean when we use the term "spirituality."

Barbara Kimes Myers
Young Children and Spirituality

I've been reading Dreams of My Father, Obama's first book. It's a book about the stories he pursued, the stories of his life, and the stories of his family. But there's one story that stretches back much further, echoing the dawn of our memories.

Towards the end of the book Obama's grandmother tells the story of their family. It begins with a genealogy, of who begat whom. Then we come to Opuyo, who traveled from a faraway land in Kenya to a land he didn't know. Opuyo sired Obama (first name), who was not the eldest brother, and therefore didn't have land or wealth. He ended up working for another, wealthier family. He worked so hard that the family became very impressed by him, and gave Obama their daughter in marriage.

Obama married others, and built up his lands, so that his son, Onyango, came from a family of means. But at this time the white man was entering the land that would be Kenya. Onyango alone of his village saw the potential of this new world, and left the land of his people to work for the whites in other areas of Kenya, and in other African countries. Though he was often ostracised by his family, Onyango learned the white's ways, and was therefore the first of his village to understand modern life and technology, and used that to his advantage, gaining more wealth and lands. He took many wives, and one son was born Barack Hussein Obama, who had a son by the same name, who later went on to run for President of the United States.

Do these stories sound at all familiar? Consider. Barack Obama's grandma began her story with begats. She then told of Abraham, going to a land that was not his own. Abraham's grandson Jacob was not the eldest son, so he worked for his uncle Laban for many years, and eventually won the right to marry Laban's daughters. Jacob's son Joseph was often ostracised by his family, and went to the foreign land of the Egyptians to learn their ways, becoming a man of great wealth. The similarities are rather eerie.

Sometimes I sit and imagine how God might have appeared to Ipuyo, telling him to go to a new land. He would say that he would bless Ipuyo, if he is willing to take this risk and trust in the Lord, and one day his descendant, a descendant he would never meet, this descendant would become great in a faraway land that Ipuyo had never heard of. Or God might come to Obama (first name) when Obama had no work and no hope. God calls Obama to trust in him, and one day a descendant with his name, his great grandson, would rise to become the most powerful man in the world.

And this descendant would be a child of promise, who would obtain this position as long as he walked in humility and followed the ways of God, using his power to serve others. For in this scenario our candidate becomes not Jesus, but the leader of promise, a King David.

Of course, these conversations with God are solely in my imagination. But Obama's family history shows the power of hope so gloriously, that it is easy to imagine God's hand throughout. It shows how a family can rise from the humblest of beginnings, and how God can work through them in miraculous ways- ways we could never suspect. And it offers us all the lesson, and the hope, that when things are at their most dire, God is still working. We may not see his plan, or even see it work out fully in our lifetime, yet God is still doing something so wondrous we could never imagine it.

On why we want educated voters.

2008-05-14T17:27:00.001-05:00

We've all heard the infamous lines from Hillary Clinton. Obama can't win support from "hard-working Americans, white Americans". I've already previously pointed out that Hillary's cries of "elitest" refer to Obama's education, and not his economic background, as he came from a vastly poorer background than nearly every other viable Presidential candidate. Hillary seemed to agree with me, saying, "the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me". So, the issue is actually education. Let's explore that for a moment.

Don't get me wrong. We should all be equal in America. We should all equally have a vote, regardless of education and intelligence (two very different items). But, don't we think there is some positive aspect to education? Isn't that why we strive for good schools and good teachers? Isn't that why we try to get women educated around the world- that educating women is the best proven method to raise societies and families out of poverty, and provide emancipation for women? I understand that there is a striving in post-modern society to say that any old belief is fine, and therefore education is looked down upon, but one can only go so far before you start denying antibiotic resistance from viral evolution and global warming and have killed every person on the planet in a mass extinction event.

For some mysterious reason, many voters who are uneducated are not voting for Obama. Both he and Hillary are equally educated, the only difference being that Obama has spent more time being poor, being with the poor and uneducated, than Hillary has. (Read his biography.) I don't know why they don't get that- other than Hillary has repeatedly claimed what is opposite of the truth in this matter, and if you say something enough times, no matter how false it is, it becomes truth.

But for some reason, those without college degrees are not voting for him. Okay. But why- why does Hillary seem actually proud of this fact? As if this is a good thing? If you have to choose, wouldn't you want the support of the educated voters? Yes, everyone has the right to vote- but that doesn't mean everyone has an equal ability to understand politics and life around them. This, after all, is why we educate our children- so they can better understand life and be prepared for it. If it's not, then we are lying to them, and ourselves. To claim that someone has the right to vote if they are uneducated, and therefore also has an equal ability to a graduate student to comprehend political issues, is as ridiculous as saying we have a right to believe any religious belief we want, therefore evolution and intelligent design should both be taught equally in the classroom.

Equal right does not mean equal abilities. And it seems our society has come to a point where we can no longer distinguish the two. If more uneducated people are voting for you than your opponent, the answer is not to crow in that fact. The answer is to help them get educated.

How Can She Fool Everyone?

2008-05-05T23:57:00.000-05:00

Hillary has managed to convince, it seems, the entire nation. Again and again, working class whites are voting for her, because she's one of them. She speaks of not accepting money from large donors. And she has convinced the nation that Obama is an "elitist".

But this is a woman who regularly accepts money from lobbyists, unlike Obama, who everyone acknowledges is the first viable candidate in American history to accept money only from small donors, and never from lobbyists (except as individual contributions).

This is a woman who, with her husband, is worth 100 million. This is not to say Obama is poor- but being worth millions is different from being worth tens of millions. Indeed, Obama is the poorest of all the top Democrat and Republican candidates in the race to date, and got his millions only in the last few years. I'm not saying Obama is poor, or even close to it. But how does a woman who has 100 times the money get off saying the less wealthy guy is less in touch with the working class?

Perhaps it's their histories. Perhaps one of them grew up poorer, and that's how Hillary is able to say this.

From Wikipedia:

She was raised in a United Methodist family, first in Chicago, and then, from the age of three, in suburban Park Ridge, Illinois.[1] Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a child of Welsh and English immigrants who managed a successful small business in the textile industry.

Not a wealthy lifestyle, to be sure. Not poor either. More...middle class.

How about Obama?

Obama wrote his first book, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, before he was in politics. Lest you get confused, the inheritance he gets has nothing to do with wealth.

He states:

A few months after my twenty-first birthday...the apartment was small, with slanting floors and irregular heat and a buzzer downstairs that didn't work, so that visitors had to call ahead from a pay phone at the corner gas station, where a black Doberman the size of a wolf paced through the night in vigilant patrol, its jaws clamped around an empty beer bottle.

Later Obama shares of growing up in Indonesia, where the family was not the poorest of the poor, for they had their own house- but certainly would be considered poor by American standards. He describes the people around him:

I didn't tell [Grandma] and Grandpa about the face of the man who had come to our door one day with a gaping hole where his nose should have been: the whistling sound he made as he asked my mother for food. Nor did I mention the time that one of my friends told me in the middle of recess that his baby brother had died the night before of an evil spirit brought in by the wind -- the terror that danced in my friend's eyes for the briefest of moments before he let out a strange laugh and punched my arm and broke off into a breathless run. There was the empty look on the faces of farmers the year the rains never came, the stoop in their shoulders as they wandered barefoot through their barren, cracked fields, bending over every so often to crumble earth between their fingers; and their desperation the following year when the rains lasted for over a month, swelling the river and fields until the streets gushed with water and swept as high as my waist and families scrambled to rescue their goats and their hens even as chunks of their huts washed away.

Obama's experiences are not that of a typical American, middle class or even working class. Perhaps some in New Orleans can relate, but for most of us, what he's experienced, what he's seen, is a level of poverty far lower than the poor of America. Obama may be out of touch, not because he is too elite, but because most Americans have experienced and seen less extreme poverty than he has!

And not to take delight in his relative poverty, but if Clinton is going to take out the measuring stick, does she have some sort of comparable experience in poverty when she was also nine years old? Or at any time growing up in suburban Illinois, is there something that would help her more greatly identify with the plight of the poor and working class?

I have no disagreement with the concept that Hillary did not grow up in the upper class. I affirm that she's solidly middle class in upbringing. And Obama is working class, in upbringing. Sadly, in this election, as in all others, we again and again hear about the needs of the middle class, and the working class, who do not vote in as large numbers, get ignored. And so Hillary can get off with saying she is in touch with voters and not elitist, because she grew up middle class.

What about his experiences makes Obama elitist? What could Hillary possibly be referring to?

One gets a sneaky, very disturbing feeling that it's because of where Obama went to school - Harvard (like Hillary's Yale). That's a fairly elitist school. But if so, then what she objects to is when those of the working class pull themselves out of their situation through hard work and education.

Long before this controversy came up, I liked Obama for many reasons. One was that, for the first time in a long time, I felt like here was a candidate who could identify with the situation of the lower class. I'm lower class, and proud to be so. I want a candidate who can understand it. I want a President who understands what it's like to try to make ends meet. I want a President who has a heart for the poor and the disenfranchised. I do not want a candidate who tries to put one over on the lower class, thinking we are all rubes, and will believe her when she says she's in touch with us because she grew up with more money than we're likely to have, and now has tens of millions more money than we'll ever have. I do not want a candidate who will call me elitist because, though I grew up in poverty, I went to a good school. Hillary Clinton, start speaking Truth.

Wright, not White

2008-04-30T09:51:00.001-05:00

I previously shared on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. How impressed I am by him, as he applies the truth of the Gospel to American life, how he's a true prophet, and how I wish Obama had supported him, but I understand that Obama can't, as he's running for office to be a leader, not a prophet.

Since that post, Hillary and the Republican Machine have come out to condemn Wright, and through him Obama. Hillary has reminded us all that she's not part of a church by stating she would have left that church after not agreeing with her pastor. (Obama had it right when he compared Wright to a family member- everyone in a church is. We don't just leave our churches like cherry pickers when there's something we don't agree with. You remember that last time you disagreed with something your pastor said? I do- three times in the last sermon.) Wright has finally come out to begin to defend himself. And Obama has adamantly, irrevocably, and completely distanced himself from Wright. He misinterpreted Wright's use of the word "politician" as negative, when Wright was just using it as a description of Obama's occupation. I wish Obama hadn't distanced himself, but I understand he has to, to win this election- for many of his supporters will also hear the word "politician" in the same manner. Ultimately, Wright had a poor choice of words- for he is not a politician.

But let us turn to Wright's defense. It was beautiful. For again and again, Wright pointed out that he wasn't defending himself. He was speaking on behalf of God - true apologetics. He was speaking what the Bible say on justice. He was patient, and waited a long time before responding to his critics. Now he does, in a few interviews and speeches, and is accused of trying to make a name for himself by media pandering. Everyone seems to forget the incredible weight of attacks by the media, Republicans, and Hillary a month ago, as those parties sought to make a name for themselves on the back of Jeremiah Wright.

As Wright defended the politics of Jesus, he also demonstrated that his remarks were deep in the black preaching tradition. But he isn't the first to point this out. And this is what is saddest from this entire controversy.

There wasn't much I disagreed with in Wright's remarks- and I refer to the out-of-context snippets on YouTube. But though I'm white, I didn't grow up in American culture. Most American whites were shocked at what Wright said. They couldn't believe that a loyal American would say such things. Most American blacks were scratching their heads and wondering what the big deal is.

What the Wright controversy has revealed is a deeper kind of racism. It is the not merely the discrimination that occurs every day, but the lack of knowledge and awareness of the other in our midst. We (white America) are fine with blacks as long as they stay like us and act like us. When they're by themselves, they can do their own thing. But we've reached the point where, at least in general, we'll treat them with respect and equality as long as they act white.

Imagine the shock to find out that they don't always act the same way. Anyone who's had the opportunity to visit or be part of a black church already knows this. There is a strong tradition of the prophetic in the black church- and by prophetic, I of course mean in the Biblical sense of the word - calling people to justice. What Wright said was no different from what you hear in thousands of black churches- and also from the Reverend King, as he contemplated his last sermon "Why America May Go to Hell" because of the lack of concern for poverty- a sermon he never gave because an assassin's bullet got in the way.

But we in white America don't want to hear that. We in rich America don't want to hear that. We want to be happy in our privilege and wealth, and if the underprivileged and underclass want to go off somewhere to make themselves feel good, so much the better- just don't let us hear about it. And God forbid that we should be called to account for our actions. I fear we desire the metaphorical assassin's bullet to silence the prophetic Biblical calls to justice and change.

And now, we ask that, even in the black churches, these voices be silenced. Sure, this is wrong, because it steals from people the place where they can freely express themselves, and witness to the injustices of their oppressors. But more than that. More than that, it steals from us the prophetic witness that we need as a nation, as a people. Without the black prophetic witness, our nation is very poor indeed. Without that call for justice, our Christianity becomes a weak, snivelling thing, withered on the vine, suitable only for the rubbish heap and gehenna fire. What has grown in the pyre of years of torture and slavery is a phoenix truth of what it means to follow justice and hope- what it means to be a Christian.

Hope. There's that word again. Make no mistake, the same hope that inspired Obama after listening to a Rev. Wright sermon to write The Audacity of Hope, that same hope was born in the fiery calls to justice in the misery of oppression.

Obama has to lead all of America, as Wright said, and therefore he has to speak to lower class whites like myself, to those of us who don't even begin to understand the black prophetic voice, and are repelled by it. But here there be dragons. Obama too strongly distanced himself from the truth of the Rev. Wright's words. Wright's words were racially tinged because he was pointing out the racism in American society. And if Obama goes too far in rejecting what the Rev. Wright says, Obama risks losing that very foundation of hope that has galvanized a nation.

For let us not forget. This hope did not begin with Obama. This call for justice did not begin with him. It did not begin with Jeremiah Wright. It did not begin with the Reverend Martin Luther King. For the beginnings, we need to go a little earlier. In the following quote, only the racial words have been updated to reflect modern class distinctions.

Come now, you whites, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages of the migrant laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the blacks have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

James 5.1-5

I don't get it.

2008-04-15T14:56:00.000-05:00

I was away from the internet and the news for the last few days, so I missed all of the hub-bub about Obama's remarks on the bitterness of the disenfranchised. I agree with the candidate- not the best choice of words, but fairly accurate for how the poor masses feel- he seems to have his finger on our collective pulse, so to speak.

So I was shocked and confused by Hillary's response- that Obama was "out of touch" with small-town America. Granted, it doesn't appear that most of the public is believing her on this one. But how could she even imagine that we would believe her? Obama grew up in poverty and overseas. He is the most committed Christian candidate we've had for this office since Carter. Or does Hillary think small-town America is the same as wealthy America, and therefore Obama is out of touch with the wealthy?

Let us compare this with a candidate who has little open display of her Christian beliefs- so much so that she said that if she'd heard what the Rev. Wright said from the pulpit, she would have long ago left that church, telling all of us who do attend churches that she's very unfamiliar with actually being part of a church, rather than just attending. For all of us have heard items from the pulpit that we strongly disagree with from time to time- its part of being part of a church, as opposed to a cult, where everyone agrees.

Let us compare this with a candidate who with her husband made 109 Million since leaving the White House. This is not to say Obama's hurting economically- he's made a couple million in book sales. But they aren't even in the same league. If we're asking who's more out of touch with the poor, the small-town resident, the average voter- is this even a contest? How could she not see she's shooting herself in the foot?

Perhaps this is why Obama appeared to be more angry than I've ever seen him before, in his response to Hillary's attacks. Oh, he wasn't frothing at the mouth, like some sort of John McCain. His anger is certainly understated, but also fully present. You can say a lot of things about Obama. But to accuse him of being "out of touch" with the poor and downtrodden is simply too ludicrous a proposition.

Feeling Useless for Obama

2008-04-05T23:56:00.000-05:00

Today was the Legislative District Caucuses, the caucuses after the Precinct Caucuses, before the Congressional District Caucuses, before the State Caucus, before the National Caucus. I was an Alternate Delegate, which means basically if any true Delegate gets sick or dies (or doesn't show up), I'm on. It's like being the backup in a duel.

Our district was one of the top two in delegate count in the city, and the 2,500 delegates and alternates filled up Ballard High School Gymnasium. We were asked to show up as early as possible, since there were so many to credential, and the line wrapped around the block like an opportunity for Dead tickets. Then we finally entered the school, and the line ran into the cafeteria, and wrapped around the cafeteria. Then we finally left the cafeteria, and the line ran up the stairs, down the hall, a right turn, and down another hall.

Credentialing was a quick process, and after we went to sit on the hard benches designed for kids who's backs still work. We were given red stickers or green stickers. Green meant that we were an Alternate- lower caste. Red meant we were an actual Delegate, one of the cool kids that everyone liked.

At the beginning was a standing for the pledge of allegiance, and I stood out of respect, without pledging, as has been the practice throughout my life. Disbursed throughout the long proceedings were a number of speeches- including an introduction by Mayor Nichols, who I previously saw endorse Obama at the Rally of 20,000. We were also treated to a speech by Congressman McDermott, the Very Liberal congressman who is one of twenty who supports equal rights in the Middle East and justice for Arabs, and who I had the pleasure of thanking in person at the Precinct Caucuses.

Honestly, this wasn't nearly as fun as the Precinct Caucuses. I think in large part because it was less intimate, less relaxed, less democratic. The chair of the session had a hard task in front of her, dealing with 2,500 people, but she seemed focused on playing everything by the book and getting through the events one after the other with a minimum of fuss. Yes, it was hard to hear anything in that auditorium if people had other conversations, but she was a bit militant in insisting on her way.

There were a number of times of seating of delegates. As an alternate, we were told we could vote on issues, but that turned out to be untrue. As an alternate, we could do nothing- but sit and wait and hope that delegates from our precinct didn't show up. If there weren't enough delegates or alternates from a precinct, then that candidate, Obama or Clinton, would lose delegates. That's why we were important. And so we would wait.

A few times in the session they would call out names, and I sat there on tenterhooks, hoping and hoping to hear my name, like I was back at a high school debate tournament hoping to hear I'd won the tournament. I had the same trepidation and pounding heart. If picked, we would go into the adjoining room, and change out stickers and move up the ranks.

My precinct delegates sucked. They all showed up, and I wasn't needed. It was like not being chosen for dodgeball. A friend from church got to move up, but I did not. I just sat there while all the cool kids made fun of us. (Not really, but the thought came to mind.)

There were three speeches each for the two primary candidates, the first by Samwise Gamgee. I'm not lying. Sean Astin was there to share about how much he supported Clinton, though he spent the beginning of his speech talking about how much he'd support Obama if Obama's the nominee.

Here's a bit of his speech. This part was interesting.
The cynic might say that Astin's use of Obama's middle name, done by other Clinton supporters, was a way of reminding people that Obama has Arabic and Muslim names like the presumed enemy of America. The way he said it, he might however have been celebrating the international nature of Obama's name. It would be easier for me to believe this if other Clinton supporters hadn't played the game of using Obama's middle name. But you be the judge.

After all those speeches and credentialing, or somewhere in between, we had the voting of the issues. Alternates could participate in the voice vote, but if a voice vote was unclear, they switched to vote by blue cards, given only to Delegates. I voted against the overall charter of beliefs, for it supported the troops, abortion, and a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. Indeed, as they read the charter, there was this odd little bit of stopping in the middle to stand up and applaud uproariously all veterans and families of soldiers present.

Mostly, I felt useless. But there was one bit where I got to participate. Anyone could give one of the three pro or anti speeches for the six different resolutions. I found the resolution against suspending the writ of habeas corpus enticing, but wasn't able to get in the line quick enough. After that I learned to stand in the line early, and so was first in line for the similar resolution against the usurpation of congressional authority by President.

I had a minute to speak, so I shared about how since his time under Nixon Cheney had been working with others on the Unitary Presidential Theory, a strange idea that the President can basically do whatever he wants. I spoke of how signing statements (in which a President does not veto but rather signs a bill, but with a statement stating how it should be interpreted, often to the point of completely denying the point of the bill) were signed by previous Presidents, but George Bush has signed more than all previous Presidents combined. I mentioned that I'd lived in Morocco, and often told people there I appreciated the king, Hassan Tainy, more than the king from my own country. For George Bush operates as a king, and I am ashamed of this country, where I now see little difference between us and the worst dictatorships, where one man makes any decision he wants. I suggested that, to return this country to what the constitution intended, we should support this resolution.

I am not comfortable with unscripted speeches, and it was stressful to speak with 2,500 people staring down at you from the bleachers. By the end of my minute I quickly completed as my heart was thumping and my leg shaking. But I did get some roars of approval.

The final resolution was the most boring one. Do we support publicly funded elections in Seattle or not? We voted, and the chairman felt it was a tie, and therefore the resolution was declined. But some objected, so we voted with the blue cards. The chairman felt it was declined again. But some objected, requesting a line vote. This meant a thirty minute process in which every blue card was individually counted. It was about this time that the final delegates were seated, and I decided to leave. We ended up with 52 delegates to 15 Clinton delegates. With movement from the one Edwards delegate and the one Kucinich delegate and the 15 undecided delegates at the precinct level, we went from 1016 to 1038 Precinct Delegates, or from 51 to 52 Legislative Delegates. Due to some no-shows in certain precincts, Clinton lost some delegates in the 36th Legislative District (going from 319 to 286 Precinct Delegates). At the Congressional District Caucuses they'll determine how the nine delegates of the 9th Congressional District will be allotted to the State and National Conventions.

Praise God for Obama's Pastor

2008-03-15T10:41:00.000-05:00

Obama's pastor has gotten in the news recently. If you haven't heard, some sermons the Reverend Jeremiah Wright gave in 2001 and 2003 are causing some problems for Obama. Relevant passages include:

We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have
supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and
now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now bought right
back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

That was the Sunday after 9/11, the day I was searching for a non-patriotic church to attend and came upon Friends Memorial Quaker Church. A couple years later The Reverend Wright said:

The government gave [the blacks] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a
three-strikes law, and then wants us to sing "God Bless America". No, no, no.
God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn
America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as
long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.

Finally, someone willing to speak truth about America's actions- and what the rest of the world has long known. As horrific and evil as the 9/11 attacks were, they didn't take place in a vacuum. There were things we did that encouraged them. But I don't want to talk about that.

I find it interesting that people who (rightly) decry the invasion of religion into politics by the Religious Right now want to force the Rev. Wright to not speak from the pulpit certain ideas, for they are politically appropriate. But I don't want to talk about that.

And I want to say that, as much as I admire the Reverend for what he said, in some places he went overboard. He should not have said "God damn America", but rather the past tense, that God has damned America, for we are called to bless, and not curse. And rather then say damn, he should have said "God judged America", for no man can know the soul of another, and certainly not that of a nation. I think Reverend Wright was looking for the rhetorical flourish, but some words should be very carefully used. Had he said, "God has judged America and found us wanting," he would have been on very solid Biblical ground.

That's what I want to talk about. The Reverend Wright was simply fulfilling the role of the prophet- a role we find throughout the Bible. If there is one most repeated theme in the Old Testament, it is God and his prophets calling the people back to justice and kind treatment of the outcast- and retribution if they do not return to righteousness.

Lest we think though that this is only an Old Testament deal, Jesus stated his mission as

to preach good news to the poor...
to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind
to proclaim an acceptable Year of the Lord.

This is very clearly a reference to the Jubilee Year, a year commanded by God every 70 years (but probably never actually practiced by Israel), a very socialist event where all property is redistributed, loans canceled, and slaves freed. Its so clear that this is an Old Testament reference, that Jesus is actually quoting III Isaiah 61.1,2- that's why its in verse form.

Of course, there's another theme to the prophets. They are all rejected, and many of them killed, which ended up happening to Jesus too. Prophets by their very nature are not acceptable to the establishment. Prophets and kings rarely got along in the Old Testament. Come to think of it, Herod and Jesus didn't get along too well either.

Now, Obama has come out and said that he supports a lot of what the reverend Wright says about justice and hope (and even wrote a book based on one of Wright's sermons), but he utterly rejects and denounces what the Reverend said in these two sermons, for which Obama wasn't present.

I wish Obama hadn't done that. I want a candidate who will stand up and reject the evil that America has done. Who will be so adamant in the pursuit of justice that they will even admit when America has not been just to others, as we have not been so many times in our history. I want a prophet. But Obama is running to be our equivalent of king.

This is why it is impossible to fully follow Christ and be Caesar. The kind of power a political leader has was antithetical to the way of Jesus. Christianity is inherently a minority suffering community, and has no truck with the ways of power and oppression.

But I also know that, had Obama supported his pastor, he wouldn't get elected. You have to rally around the flag to be elected President. Even if the people are called to hard work, as Kennedy did and Obama is doing, they don't want to be told that what they have done is evil, no matter how true. Americans don't want prophets. They want to be told that all is well, or will be well, and profit will return.

I want someone to be President who will call us to justice, no matter what. I want someone elected who is inherently unelectable.

Obama wins Texas!

2008-03-12T22:59:00.000-05:00

Yes, they've finally called Texas. Because of the complicated Texas Two-Step, there's both a primary and a caucus, and in Texas, you truly follow the maxim, "Vote early, vote often." So you get to vote twice. (Just like in Washington if you're a Republican, but in Texas its all on the same day.) That means that its possible to win the popular vote (Clinton) but lose the delegates, if your supporters aren't as committed to go to a two-hour caucus right after voting, in some cases waiting in line for hours until after midnight. Obama's supporters are a whole bunch more committed. So Clinton wins the primary, 77:71 delegates. Obama wins the caucus, 38:29. Making a sum total of 106 delegates for Clinton, and 109 delegates for Obama.

Best of all, Clinton can't cry foul. (Okay, she does, but she shouldn't.) Not only did she agree to the Texas Two-Step long ago, but in the beginning of this race when she was ahead in delegates but behind in the popular vote, she repeatedly stated that what mattered was the delegates. Now that she's behind in delegates (and the popular vote, btw) she really doesn't have a logical leg to stand on in claiming delegates don't matter. Course, that's never stopped her before...

Why Obama Shouldn't be Vice-President

2008-03-11T23:56:00.000-05:00

It's made some headlines recently that Billary have been floating the idea of Obama as VP. Many others have pointed out the problems with this idea, most notably the candidate himself, asking why, if Hillary doesn't think he's got the experience to be President, she would think he would make a good Vice-President. Others have said this is indeed a momentous point in history, when the second place candidate offers the number two position to the first place candidate. I want to point out one more reason why this is a bad idea.

Both candidates have repeatedly and rightfully stressed that this is a momentous election in American history. We will have either the first female or the first minority President. Indeed, this is cool. This is one part, not the most significant, but one part of the reason why many of us are voting for these candidates- we want to make history. We want to show that we have moved beyond the sexism and racism of the past, and enjoy the fruits of a different perspective in the leadership of this nation.

The candidates are right- this would be the first time, and therefore something to strive for. Not the only reason, but part of the reason. But not if Obama's the VP. Why? Because we already had a person of colour in the VP position.

What, you say? When? Well, I was surprised to discover this too. But it turns out, the Vice-President of our only truly Quaker President (I'm sorry, Nixon doesn't count) was half Native American! Vice-President Charles Curtis was technically 3/8ths Native American, of three separate tribes, and made a good deal of that in the 1930s. And though not an exceptional Vice-President, he was well known as an personable and outstanding politican and Senate Majority Leader, instrumental in getting women the right to vote and a strong advocate of the ERA.

So, it would be a special thing if Hillary was the first female President, or Obama was the first President of colour, or if Hillary was the first female Vice-President. But it wouldn't be anything new if Obama were the first Vice-President of Colour. Sure, it would be neat to see that we've moved beyond the sin of our past and can elect a Black Vice-President. But, as far as milestones go, considering Mr. Curtis, it just wouldn't carry the same panache. It wouldn't be a complete first.

If we want Obama for the milestone, elect him to President. Vice-Presidency means nothing, for so many reasons.

The Dark Night of the Political Soul

2008-03-11T22:33:00.000-05:00

And so it begins: the long dark night. Six bloody weeks until the next primary. How fitting that the first half of the season should end with such an ironic twist: Mississippi.

Ironic, you say? Didn't Mississippi vote for Obama, just like most Southern states? Didn't he just win another Southern primary? Yes. But consider the far more interesting polls from Mississippi:

More Obama supporters said they would be happy with Clinton than Clinton supporters happy with Obama.
Independents and Republicans lean more towards Clinton than towards Obama.
Obama's lead among women is greater than his lead among men.

I kept on thinking someone had accidently transposed the candidates. In nearly every case in Mississippi, polling and exit-polling bucked the national and state-by-state trends in preference polls on these two candidates. What's going on in Mississippi?

That's what I'll be contemplating during this dry spell, as I go to nurse my sorrow over the lack of significant sporting events for the next six weeks...

Post your Pics here

2008-03-09T10:07:00.000-05:00

If you're like me, you try to get a recording of every time you vote. Now we have the opportunity to let everyone know about our recordings- at least the pictoral form. The New York Times has made some great strides in moving to the web format, with updated pages like the list of Democratic Primaries. Now they have a new feature where you can leave your photos from your experience caucusing or voting in a primary. See the ones from my caucus, or leave your own. Let everyone else participate in your electoral experience.

President Cody James Palosaari

2008-03-01T01:08:00.001-06:00

_
I want my brother to be President.

A little bit of interesting in the Presidential race right now. Some enterprising individuals have pointed out that McCain might not legally be allowed to be President. See, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, on a military base. Unlike Puerto Rico or the Philippines, Panama was never a territory of the US; we never had sovereignty over it. Although this issue has come up before, like in Goldwater's Presidential campaign, Goldwater was born in Arizona Territory.

Why the fuss? It's this small section of the US constitution, which says someone can only be elected President if they are a natural-born citizen. There's no question that you're a citizen if you're born to one parent who's a US citizen. The issue is if you're "natural born". The problem is no one knows what that means. It never came up in all those Federalist Papers when the Founding Fathers were discussing their thoughts on the constitution. Briefly they later defined the term as meaning you were born of US parents, but that definition was then withdrawn, back in the 1700s. They clearly were wanting to make sure someone without allegiance to the U.S. didn't sneak in, become President, and take over the country. So they set up the phrase "natural born", to differentiate that not any citizen could be President, but only one natural born.

The phrase has at the very least long been taken to mean you had to be born a citizen. It's why Governor Schwarzenegger can never follow in Regan's steps and become President- he was born Austrian and later became a US citizen, without a constitutional amendment. The Governator has reached the most powerful position in the land he'll ever likely be able to have- controlling the 7th largest economy in the world.

But what about those who were born to US parents, but overseas? No one knows, but there's always been the feeling that they couldn't be President- it's the one bit of citizenship rights they lack. I've had many conversations with friends over the years where this was assumed as a given. And unfortunately our court system works such that a case must be brought to the Supreme Court for them to rule- they can't just share their legal opinions for no reason. And for the case to be brought, it must be brought by someone who has a vested interest and feels wronged by the law. Its hard to know who that would be in cases like this. But it is well known that it takes years for cases to make their way to the Supreme Court.

This is in no way an attack on McCain. It is rather an interesting political conundrum, for those who enjoy constitutional law. Frankly, for a Democrat, we couldn't hope for a better candidate to go against than McCain. And there is even now a solution.

Contrary to the beliefs of our current President, it is the Legislative Branch which makes the laws. Again, to be clear for the President's sake, the Legislative Branch is Congress. So, to make it easy on everyone, Senator McCaskill is introducing a bill to define "natural born" as anyone born to someone in the US military, no matter where they are. (McCaskill's probably just supporting a fellow Mc.) And Senator Obama is going to jump on this to cosponsor the bill. This is an easy way to avoid a knotty legal issue, at least until it comes before the Supreme Court, which interprets the law. Additionally it's a rather brilliant move on Obama's part. There's no good reason to oppose McCain's right to run for President, ethically or politically. Polls show Obama with a slim lead over McCain in a 1:1 match-up. But now, again, Obama is seen taking the high-road, and in an odd bit of political irony, his probable competitor in the General now "owes him one".

But here's my issue with it. The two senators are saying that anyone who "serves and sacrifices" for their nation should have the full right to be President, and so should their children. In other words, if you were in the US military. This is inappropriate, and far too limited.

In the first place we're giving extra rights to those who have been trained to kill and murder, and in many cases have actually done so. We're saying that they in particular should be always called "natural-born" citizens. I see no reason to give them additional rights for this heinous act and participation in the military-industrial complex.

But more importantly, its far too limited. The bill's supporters are explicitly defining those who serve the American people, those who have sacrificed for them, as those who were in the military. My parents worked in Canada and Europe, sacrificing and serving for the American people and other peoples. It is in appropriate to imply that only the military serves and sacrifices for the American people.

But even if that were true, so what? Why should the right to be declared natural-born when born overseas apply only to those who's parents sacrificed? Are we now implying that children inherit for the positives or negatives of their parents? Wasn't such an idea part of the reason why we seceded from Britain? If my parents sacrificed for another people, but were American citizens, and I was born overseas, shouldn't I have the right to be considered natural-born too? If they were complete vagabonds and never sacrificed a day in their life, if I'm a citizen born overseas to US citizens, shouldn't I still be considered natural-born? After all, what matters are my values, and my support for the country, if I'm running for President. Provided that I was born a US citizen, of course- making it likely that I am supporting the United States, and not trying to gain control of it for a third country.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way trying to imply that patriotism is a good thing. God knows I would never run for President nor could I be remotely electable. But if we're now going to extend the Presidential Candidate franchise to those born overseas, I see no logical reason to limit it to the US military.

Here's the crux of the matter. Both my brothers were born overseas. My only living brother, Cody, was born in Canada. Canada isn't a state. (They turned us down when we invited them to join our rebellion against Britain.) Cody has the right to be President too, and I reject the implication that just because my parents devoted themselves to pacifism and love, and then had a child outside the border of the US, that child can never grow up to control this country.

President Palosaari. Has a certain ring to it. If you're not planning to vote for Obama, I call on you now, write in "Cody James Palosaari". Yes, you can.

Obama, the First Female President

2008-02-28T23:45:00.000-06:00

I've been considering this after conversation with a friend at his blog. There was a great deal made 15 years ago about how Bill Clinton was the First Black President. He just seemed to fit in so well with African-Americans, they were by and large happy to claim him as one of their own. Bill Clinton did a great deal for the African-American community, and he is still remembered by them fondly. Indeed, until Bill introduced race into the Presidential race in S. Carolina, it was widely considered a dangerous situation for Obama, for it was feared that he wouldn't be able for him to get a significant portion of the African-American vote.

Now, here's a thought. Part of the attraction of having a woman in the highest office in the land, for me and others, is that a woman bring something to the office that a man doesn't. This isn't to say that all women think one way, and all men another. But we can say salvo reverentia, without outraging reverence, that there are some general trends. This is perhaps principally so in the approach towards conflict, and resolving conflict. It would seem that men tend to like conflict more, to want the adrenaline of the big fight, and women tend to value the relationship more, trying to find a way to work together. And after so many years of having men ruling the roost and doing conflict their way, some of us think that maybe it would be helpful to have a woman's approach this next time around.

Then along comes Hillary, the exception that proofs the rule. For time and time again in this campaign, she has gone for the jugular against Obama. She has insisted on being contentious, using the politics of fear in the Red Phone Ad, and now repeatedly comparing herself positively to McCain, so as to show Obama negatively. Sadly, this is nothing new. Eight years in the Whitehouse showed us the experience of both Clintons to be one of the most contentious periods in American politics. Certainly this isn't all do to Hillary. The Republicans have the lion's share of the blame during that time, and Bill has a healthy does of it too. But Hillary's experience in the Senate seems to have continued this trend, where she seems either unwilling or unable to resolve the divide between her and the Republicans. To be fair to her, she may perhaps not know how. So let us be honest. Obviously there's no denying that she's biologically feminine, but what is there about her approach to politics that makes me feel that I am electing a female President by voting for her? Other then breaking the ultimate glass ceiling, I see little in her that makes me feel the value in having a woman as President.

And yet, Obama seems to be the one who actually can fulfill George II's old promises, never kept. Obama's record in Illinois and the US Senate have been very clear that he is a uniter, and not a divider. He is so eager to negotiate and work with others, that some like Hillary accuse him of being unable to lead and deal with foreign governments because he's not antagonistic enough. Obama has repeatedly passed on possible openings for attack on Clinton, and instead rebuked members of his team who degrade Clinton. For Obama, its always about the high road and relationship.

And then it dawned on me- why we like Obama. His approach to conflict is decidedly classically feminine. He cares about the relationships, and he wants to resolve conflicts through mutual dialogue.

First Black President's already taken. Vote for Obama: Our First Female President.

How to be Racist and Run for President

2008-02-26T21:38:00.000-06:00

Hillary and Obama had another debate tonight. There was a moment that was shocking. One of the moderators brought up Farrakhan's recent support of Obama, and asked for Obama's response. Obama didn't give the best response in the world, but he said that he doesn't deny anyone the right to support him, while clearly repudiating Farrakhan's anti-Semitic anti-Jewish beliefs. Then he unfortunately went on to mention how much he continues to support Israel.

I've said before, I was okay on Hillary, until she went Islamophobic and anti-Semitic in her first New York Senatorial campaign. I liked Obama a lot more, until he also went biased towards Israel- though not as much as others. Which still makes him more attractive than Hillary to me.

But I was shocked at Hillary's response. It was not only a repetition of her basic Islamophobic bias, but she acted like she was proud of it! She used it as a reason to actually vote for her! God preserve us if she ever gained some real power.

She reminded us how she had rejected a pro-Arab groups' support in New York, as if that were a good thing. I remember this moment in the NY campaign well. It was the moment when I decided I'd never support her for President. It wasn't an anti-Jewish group; it was an Arab group saying America should not support Israel; it was anti-Israeli. Hillary responded by apologizing for previously greeting the former Palestinian first lady in the traditional Arab manner. It was blatant anti-Semitic Islamophobia. But now she pretends that she was standing up against anti-Jewishness, and criticized Obama for not doing so. Yet she didn't even have the chutzpa to admit she was criticizing Obama.

Yes, Obama should reject Farrakhan's anti-Semitic anti-Jewish beliefs. But Obama needs to walk the tight-rope of also affirming Muslims, and continue to affirm that he will no longer practice the historic isolationist American bias for Israel only, but be an honest broker, treating Arabs and Israelis equally, and pursuing justice to end the Palestinian apartheid. His support in America comes in part because of his strong international support, particularly in the Arab world- and that will continue only as long as he is perceived to be an honest and just broker.

Being anti-Israeli is not the same as being anti-Jewish; being Muslim is not the same as being anti-Jewish; and we need to remember, that for all of Farrakhan's mistakes and anti-Semitism, he also has positive aspects too. For those reasons, his support shouldn't be rejected anymore than a pro-Zionist group's support should be rejected. The answer and even the question frankly smacked too much of the feeling that anything associated with Islam (particularly those dastardly Black Muslims) is inherently suspicious.

Let us move beyond the historic Islamophobic attitude of American culture and press. Why can't we say, "I want to be your President, and I reject some things this guy Farrakhan says, and I affirm other things he stands for. I reject Zionism, but support those who want a place for Israel to exist safely. And I affirm that not only are Christianity and Judaism reasonable religions, but so is Islam, and there is no reason at all that we should flee from even the image of it, just because of our own racism because of the actions of a minority of terrorists." (Most terrorists in US history were white males, not Arabs. I am a member of a very dangerous minority that should be profiled every time I enter the airport.)

Both candidates screwed up this question. Hillary did it worse, because she repeated her historic racism, and tried to spin that as a positive. At least we can count on Obama's past family history with Muslims to indicate that he will be more equitable and just than other candidates, and past Presidents.

Baracking the Caucus

2008-02-10T00:44:00.000-06:00

The day is here! Oh Glorious Day! The Caucus!

Today was my first ever experience in caucusing, and I must say, it felt more like a full immersion in democracy than anything else I've experienced before. And it was really great to be around a bunch of people who enjoyed discussing politics, and didn't get miffed at you for talking about it.

We met at the local school, and the gymnasium quickly flooded to overflowing. They weren't expecting so many people, so we began late, and even as we began people were still in line signing in. I'm told we doubled the record for participation in a Washington caucus. (And incidentally, we more than doubled the numbers in the Republican caucus.)

There were some 12 precincts present in the auditorium, and our precinct was by far the largest, with four tables, and a crowd standing around with no seating. We began by talking about who we supported, Obama or Clinton. (Strangely, no one was a supporter of Gravel. I feel sorry for him. He's still in the race, and no one's talking about him.) Then a woman made some announcements up on the stage that no one could hear since the mike wasn't working, and finally the mike worked, and she instructed us on the steps. The first bit was that we wouldn't have a discussion between all precincts, but each precinct would be an entity unto itself. We were all in one place for organizational benefit, with all the materials in one place, but because of the exceptionally large crowds in extremely small spaces, it all felt rather unorganized. We got conflicting information, and were having to shout over each other. But this, also, felt like real democracy in action, as if we were back in the first Constitutional Congress as they tried to figure out how to get their Blackberries to count the votes.

For most of us, this was our first caucus. One man had experience in leading caucuses, and we elected him the chair. He explained how the event worked.

We were told initially that we should break up into our support groups (Obama, Clinton, and Undecided), and count the number of supporters. We finally figured out a method of counting off like in kindergarten, as we lowered our hands, for any other method in such a large crowd would have resulted in an inaccurate result. We went to report our result, only to find out he had sat down at his table (he was a Clinton supporter), and recorded the support from the sheets we filled in when we signed in to the caucus. This was a good method, except that many of us hadn't written who we support, as we didn't know about that part. So I and others were initially recorded as Undecided, until we clarified the numbers.

All three groups got an opportunity for a one minute speech in support of their candidate. The Obama crowd was obviously significantly larger, but I was in the midst of it, so I didn't record our representative. Here's the Clinton guy:
He was representative of the Clinton crowd. They supported their candidate, but they weren't as die-hard about it. It was more, "Well, she's the best one for the job, and I think we should support her." Whereas the Obama people were saying, "I will bleed blood before I support Clinton." (Okay, I was the one who said that, but still, it was indicative of the general mood.)

Our precinct was assigned seven delegates, based on a complicated formula of the number of registered voters and how Democratic we'd voted in past elections. It couldn't be more than seven. Based on that, we had 15 people for every one delegate (making about 105 people gathered around these four tables). Incidentally, this is why caucus numbers reported by the press look so much lower than primary numbers- they are the number of delegates. These delegates will go to the Legislative District Caucuses, who in turn will elect delegates to the County Convention, and then the Congressional District Caucus, the State Convention, and finally the National Convention in Denver. Because Democrats really have that much time on their hands. Our seven delegates would go on to the District Caucus, and they will send some number like "one" delegate to the next level.

After the counts, we had the opportunity to try to convince the Dark Side to come to the Light, or the Undecideds to join our team. I don't think any Clinton or Obama supporters ended up switching. The numbers to begin with were enough for 4 Obama delegates, 2 Clinton delegates, and 1 undecided delegate. (There was one guy who supported Kucinich unwaveringly, but since he was 14 people short of a delegate, his vote went uncounted.) But through some hard work, we won over the majority of the Undecideds, so that we gained a fifth delegate. And, to toot my own horn a bit, I was told that my arguments were rather convincing for the Undecideds. My main points were that:

After South Carolina and Florida, many Democrats won't support Clinton. After her campaign falsely claimed that Obama had brought race into the race, when in truth it was Bill Clinton who was doing it, and after Hillary promised not to campaign in Florida but did anyway- after all this, many Democrats like myself feel we can no longer trust her. McCain says most of the stuff we don't want to hear, and Clinton says most of the stuff we want to hear, but we suspect that Clinton won't keep her word, and will do all the stuff we don't want. Therefore, many like myself are probably not going to vote at all in the General if Clinton is elected. Since polls are showing this is a widespread, if minority feeling in the party, better to vote for Obama if you want a Democrat in office. (This clearly demonstrates why Obama is winning the caucuses. Clinton puts the lies out there, like accusing Obama of being in bed with a slum lord, and people believe it. The undecided woman I spoke with was shocked to find out that the guy had also supported the Clintons, and learning this helped sway her to Obama.)
I'm voting for Obama because I want the candidate with experience. Obama has far more elected experience than Hillary- he's been doing the job on the ground.
More importantly, Obama has the international experience. Because of his skin colour, his cultural upbringing, his father, and living in Indonesian and Hawaii, the rest of the world sees him as someone they can trust. He's someone they can negotiate with. Many in the Arab world in particular are saying this. (And by the way, amazing the hush that fills a crowd when you mentioned that you used to live in the Middle East.) And now, in this time, that is exactly what we need- someone who can be trusted by the rest of the world so that we are no longer the pariah that we've become. Only Obama can do that. He can do that not just because of perception, but because growing up overseas gives him a worldly perspective, and not myopic to America. This last argument in particular was persuasive. Some Clinton supporters poo-pooed it, suggesting that an international experience was irrelevant. A man of colour with a foreign accent in the crowd put paid to that idea, and the feeling of the crowd became that, indeed, this was a serious benefit to Obama.

This convincing and cajoling all took place standing in these crowds, as people rushed in and politely elbowed each other for space and speaking time. We had enough for 5 & 1/3 delegates, giving us six total. For a moment. We were told that, with enough for 1 & 2/3 delegates, the Clinton people would get one delegate, and we'd get our five plus the left over delegate. But then a clarification of the rules went out, that numbers were to be rounded, and so Clinton got two delegates, to our five.

After three hours, almost done. We were there longer than any other precinct, due to our size. The only thing that remained was to select the delegates and alternates to the Legislative District Caucus. We'd have one alternate for every delegate, and I was selected as an alternate! And I can still go to the District Convention as an Alternate, and may be seated if a rep from another district doesn't show up. If not seated, I can participate without voting.

We gave speeches before the selection. This is where I gave my speech that I will bleed before I will vote for Clinton. We had 11 candidates, and 10 spots. It was a very hard fight. We made speeches, and chose from a hat. Democracy in action.

Then, just as the caucus was ending, standing in the corner, was our Congressman, Jim McDermott! When we broke up, I ran over to him and shook his hand, thanking him for all the work he does in Congress supporting Arab rights. I know he is a minority there (about 20 Congressman are not Israel supporters), and I told him that I know it's often difficult, so his work is doubly appreciated.

20,000 in Obamaland

2008-02-08T22:41:00.000-06:00

Obama came to Seattle again today, a day before the caucuses. Things were a little different from the last time he was here. We met this time in the Key Arena, the smallest arena of the NBA, at only 18,000 capacity. (Which, incidentally, is why the NBA is leaving Seattle.) Doors to open at 11, Obama to speak at some time after that.

I planned to take a bus to arrive by 1030, but discovered the bus at 10 was already so full it couldn't stop. I figured buses would only get fuller as we got closer to the time of the rally, so I walked across Queen Anne Hill to the arena, arriving at 1040. The doors had already opened a half hour early. This was soon to prove significant.

Inside the stadium quickly began to fill, and I could only find seating in the nosebleeds. There were two giant tiers empty, but they were dedicated to the union, which didn't end up filling all the seats. It was about this time that I heard my friend Adrian couldn't make it, as he couldn't find parking near the Seattle Center. At 1115 my friend Shari called to say she couldn't get in, as they had closed the doors. Sadly she missed entry by only four minutes. Though I had two seats saved, they weren't allowing us to go to the door to let friends in. We were already over-capacity. Mayor Nichols later mentioned that it was a good thing he'd let the Fire Marshal go home early for the day. The crowd was overwhelmingly white (as it's Seattle), except for those directly behind the candidate, where the cameras would pick them up. There it was diverse, with a higher percentage of Asians, Blacks, and Muslims. It was also overwhelmingly young. As we waited some entrepreneurial supporters realized that there were box seats right behind them, and started climbing into them.

It was actually the most exciting part, as we waited for two hours for the candidate to show up. We watched as security would come in and escort one box seat out, while at the other end supporters were still climbing into the next. It was rather humorous, to realize that they were irrevocably losing their seats down below, for shortly security would come to escort every box seat claim jumper out.

Finally people began to come out to speak. Like in the last Seattle Obama rally, there was a very bad presenter to clearly differentiate what came after. This time it wasn't a guitarist, but rather a pianist, who might have been very good at the piano, but was very bad when he was reading from a piece of paper.

Then it was Mayor Nickels, a longtime Obama supporter, out to rally the troops,

followed by a surprise- Governor Gregoire! She said today, for the first time ever, that she was endorsing Obama. Honestly I wasn't expecting this. Our other two primary female leaders in this state, the senators, had already endorsed Clinton, and Gregoire was playing coy, so I honestly expected her to make it a triumvirate. But she shared that she had spent a lot of time contemplating, and finally decided for Obama.

Then, to the roar of a record-breaking crowd for the Key Arena, with 20,000 inside, and 3,000 waiting outside in the cold, with countless others like Shari leaving early because they couldn't get in, the man arrived. (For comparison purposes, the Clinton campaign was surprised the night before that they actually had 7,000 people.) If you look closely at the picture on the right, you can actually see Obama's halo. Gives whole new meaning to the name "Barack"- Blessed.

Obama covered mostly topics from previous speeches and debates. Strangely the news media, like King 5 and Komo 4, got a number of aspects of Obama's visit wrong. They claimed no one minded waiting two hours. Many did, though we didn't blame the candidate. The media claimed that there was no empty seats. There was, for some union and handicapped seats weren't taken. And most significantly, the media claimed that Obama never mentioned Clinton in his speech. Obama did, though briefly and only once- in the recording below.

I wanted to post the entire speech, but it turns out that the 1.6 Gig file is going to take just too long to upload. This is the last few minutes of Obama's speech.

And wouldn't you know it, but my Flip Video claimed I had a whole hour available, when it reality it was only about 52 minutes. So the best part of the speech wasn't caught. To paraphrase, Obama went Biblical on his detractors, speaking straight out of the New Testament, about what Hope really is. Hope isn't some mealy-mouthed thing. Hope is what inspired a movement which gave women the right vote. Hope is what ended slavery. Hope is what began child labor laws. Hope is what changes the world.

Clinton's Dirty Tricks Campaign

2008-01-26T18:11:00.001-06:00

Let's recap. Hillary accuses Obama of being in bed with a slumlord, and it turns out that he contributed to the Clintons as well. Bill falsely accuses Obama's unending non-support of the Iraq War as a fairy tale. Worst, he falsly claims that Obama brought race into the race (Presidential), something Obama would be incredibly stupid to do since the majority of Americans are white, and something Obama didn't do. But in a brilliant political move, the Clintons made the allegation, and it stuck (at least in the public), so immediately and forcefully Obama started rising in polls of African-Americans and dropping among Whites. This despite Obama's strong determination to run as the Democratic candidate, and not as the Black Candidate. By making the accusation of bringing race in, Clinton was actually able to bring race in. They probably realized that this would help Obama win South Carolina, but lose most states in the primaries. Then, today and yesterday, Hillary steps back and says we've gone too far, and lets start being more civil to each other.

There were a couple states recently who got no delegates, for they disobeyed DNC rules, which after all is the head of the Democratic organization. Hillary won Michigan because she was the only one on the ballot (but only by 55%)- a state with a large number of African-Americans, if we're going to bring race into it. A state that would have been great for Obama, next door to his home of Illinois, a place (Michigan) where some have heard of Obama even before he entered fame a couple years ago. But he and everyone else didn't campaign there, or in Florida, because the two states violated their party's rules, and the DNC, which all candidates need, asked the candidates not to campaign there.

Should Iowa and New Hampshire always get to go first? No. Should other states begin to go first too? Yes. Should Michigan and Florida's DNCs follow the national DNC? Yes. Should they suffer for not obeying HQ? Yes. Should the DNC have done something more like the RNC in stripping only half the delegates, and been more balanced in the punishment? Yes. But once the decision is made, it's made.

But, now, four days before the Florida primary, Hillary is stating that Florida's delegates get seated at the convention. Again, brilliant politically; disgusting ethically. She has violated her pledge to not campaign in Florida. She is clearly doing campaigning there. Stating that she is not physically in Florida when she makes this statement is a lie not worthy of the Internet Age. Now, with no time to campaign in Florida, Obama's campaign suffers, for Floridians will be enraptured by Hillary's commitment. Obama can't campaign there even if he had the time, because he also made a pledge, and he's an ethical candidate. And he is hamstrung in pointing all of this out because Clinton just seemingly extended an olive branch between the campaigns. Allegations on Obama's part makes him look the bad guy.

Consistently, polls show Clinton over everyone else in Michigan and Florida, and almost every state, because she gets name recognition. Where Obama actually campaigns, he starts to win or come in a close second. By DNC rules, the candidate with the most delegates gets to decide who's seated. Doesn't matter if they have the magic number of 2025 delegates- if they have the majority, they get to decide who's seated. Of course, on name recognition and being the only one on the ballot (in Michigan), Clinton will get the lion's share of Florida and Michigan.

The DNC won't punish it's standard bearer (Bill) for his statements, or the possible nominee for her statements. So Obama loses delegates for Michigan and Florida, Hillary gets the bump from a symbolic win in both states, and then comes into the convention without the 2025 delegates but close to it- and insists on seating the delegates of both states, based on how they voted. Ironically, the citizens of both states are disenfranchised, for they didn't get to really know the candidates because there was no campaign there, and so only know Hillary from name recognition.

If Hillary wins this way, she loses my vote in the General.

----------------------------------------------------------

Jan 27th Update:

Hillary is now campaigning openly in Florida, visiting the state two days before the primary to do "private" fund raisers, and getting off the plane with palm trees in the background to tell the press that it's "great to be in Florida". At least she's now being honest in her lack of integrity.

With Great Sadness

2008-01-09T00:31:00.000-06:00

Well, this has not been a good day for our team. Obama didn't win the New Hampshire Bowl. But only by the slimmest of margins.

Sadly, no one's noticing that this is actually a big win for Obama. Hillary won by only less than 3%, resulting in a tie in delegate counts. This is a smaller difference delegate-wise and percentage-wise than Iowa, giving Obama more (non-super) delegates than Hillary currently. Plus, minus post-Iowa predictions, Obama did great, and came in where he was expected.

Pundits will be discussing for days how it is that the polls diverged from what happened. And truthfully, this is the reason for the great disappointment we now feel, for we had all of our expectations placed so high by those polls.

As for why, I think it was a variety of reasons. It's sexist, but I think that we, men and women, don't like to see a woman cry. Especially if there's something we can do about it. As one commentator said, we don't want to fire her (from a possible Presidency). When she expressed emotion the day before the primary (and I don't think that was false- I think it was genuine emotion, though perhaps a calculation to express it), voters realized she had emotions, and they didn't want her to cry. It seems a number connected with Clinton at that moment as a real human being, and as a woman. (Ironically, the woman who prompted the tears with her question- she ended up voting for Obama.)

Consider the opposite. (It's great when we have a control for a hypothesis!) Allegations were made against Presidential candidate Edmund Muskie and his wife, and he gave a speech defending her just before the New Hampshire primary in 1972. (It turned out after the election that the allegations were part of Nixon's "Dirty Tricks" campaign.) During the speech it appeared as if Muskie was crying, though he claimed it was snow melting on his face. Because of that event, he won New Hampshire, but by a smaller margin than originally predicted. Previously he was leading in the polls; after that, he fell behind and McGovern gained the momentum and eventually the nomination.

A man crying is bad (to voters), and they won't vote for him. A woman crying is a bad thing, and we (voters believe) have to step in to help her stop.

I think a second big reason New Hampshirans supported Hillary, from interviews with voters after the fact, is that some, especially women, liked all the candidates equally. When it came down to it, they thought, "Well, I should then vote for a woman."

Note that, though I think the wrong candidate won, I think both of these reasons are very legitimate reasons for voting.

Lastly, I believe that because all of the press indicated a big win for Obama, Independents thought, "Well, I don't need to vote for Obama then, and I like McCain too," and they went over for McCain.

A hard thing is Obama's increase in polls in S Carolina was from the Iowa bump, and the culinary union in Nevada was going to support him based on his winning New Hampshire. At least in the last few minutes the union has come out in support of him anyway- and they're the largest union and most organized Democratic organization in the state. Nevada's been overlooked, but it's key to showing that a candidate has strength in the West, particularly all-important California. Florida's an Exhibition Game, and let's face it, Hillary's kind of got New York locked. Nevada and S. Carolina, I'd imagine, as a mix will indicate strength in Texas, the last of the four big states.

So, tonight is a sad night for Obama fans. But there is still hope. After all, we've got Obama, and he has a whole lot of baraka.

Yeah, that's right. My man. He won.

2008-01-05T23:59:00.000-06:00

Faithful readers of this blog- let's be honest, the few friends who read this- know that I'm not really into sports. Sure, I'll get fired up about the occasional real football game (soccer), or the Olympics every couple years, but generally, I'm not really into sports. But once ever four years, my favorite sporting event occurs, the most exciting of them all- the race for President of the United States.

It really is basically a sporting event. We have a number of teams, with regular games (read: polls), and 50 bowl games. And so far, there's been one bowl game for both leagues. (I used to say that these quaternary elections were also about as relevant to our lives as sports, considering the minimal differences between the two parties, but the past seven years have really put paid to that idea.)

Contrary to multiple polls indicating Edwards' strong 2nd choice showing (in which voters of candidates who get less than 15% shift their support to their 2nd choice), it was my man Obama who won the day, and that by a solid margin! Indeed, polls are now indicating a substantial lead for him in New Hampshire from the Iowa Bump. (Usually the Iowa Bump fades by the time New Hampshire comes along, but for the first time ever, the New Hampshire Bowl is only five days after the Corn Bowl.)

There are many reasons why I'm hot for Obama. He's the first candidate I've seen since Carter who not only has a strong faith in Jesus, but lets that faith really influence him in his decisions to care for the poor, the needy, and the outcasts. He's African-American, and that would just be way cool to achieve that milestone in American politics. He's worldly, in the sense that he's lived a large portion of his youth abroad, and indeed is the son of a non-US citizen, an African. I relate to that living in multiple cultures, and I think it gives Obama a great perspective that we need in these trying times, where he can see with an international perspective and not the merely myopic American look. And he went to my alma mater, so I kind of have an obligation there. (Yes, a friend has pointed out that that was no reason to vote for Jack Kemp, and she has a fine point.)

But most of all, he is the candidate of Hope. And that's key. Hope is expectant joy, in the Greek. It is the foundation of everything I believe as a Christian. It is the idea that things can change, and is the ability to inspire us to move beyond where we are now, to put our beliefs in something greater than who we are. I don't need specifics as much as someone who's approach to life is one I trust. I see that in his book. And after reading The Second Civil War, discussing the antagonism between the two parties over the past century, I want someone who can work with others who he disagrees with, who can build consensus and practice love of his enemies- even the ones in congress. I want someone who can actually get things done because he knows how to find compromise and agreements. Obama is that man.

Obama made a couple pronouncements in kindergarten. He also deserved the award "Works Well With Others". Or however you say that in Indonesian at the madrasa he supposedly went to.

12/9/07

2007-10-18T18:30:00.000-05:00

I think it's important to speak truth. To do it parabolically, and provocatively, as Jesus did, so that people are willing to think new thoughts.

I used to have a beautiful green Hyundai, covered with bumper stickers. I had to give it up when I went to Morocco. But through the wonder of photos, I was able to retrieve all of my old bumper stickers, and then some. (Minus the one that said, "Reelect Gore in 2004.") And I was worried there wouldn't be room on the back of an American car- but I've even got space for two more!

A silver T-Bird just doesn't scream Abdul Muhib. But this back does. Now my baby's got back.

Some bumper stickers I just couldn't find, like one saying President Obama. But that's the magic of Makestickers.com. (Thank you Anne!)

Since you can't see some of them, I'll translate with hovertext:

Hard to get ΙΧΘΥΣ with feet. Unless you write it in with white-out.

I got inspired from some of the posters I've been putting up for my church, and created a couple others at Make Stickers.com. I could choose between a picture of Bush or Ossama. I went with this- I think we have a greater need to see an Arab Muslim terrorist as in the image of God.

I do believe that we should be willing to speak the truth of love, even if there is danger involved. And that, far too often in America, we stop in speaking the truth because we are concerned with fitting in with the culture. Yes, we should do that- but in form alone. Our content should be that of the Kingdom. And there is, I firmly believe, less persecution in America because we have been less of the Church. If the blood of the martyrs is truly the seed of the church, then woe to that church that no longer is willing to pick up its cross.

This isn't about being killed. It's about following Christ- which must involve the willingness to potentially face the ultimate sacrifice, and the ultimate reward.

So, I've been having a contest, to find out which of these will get me killed first on the freeways. Also, what the date will be. You can't take Dec 9th- I've already got money on that one. Winner gets my life insurance policy.

Say it with me. President Obama.

2007-06-02T00:15:00.000-05:00

Yes, today I saw the man himself, the next President of the United States, Barack Obama. Very exciting. Last time I saw a presidential candidate was Dukakis. That didn't turn out so well.

But the last time I cared about a presidential candidate was when Carter was running for reelection. This is the first time I do when I can vote. Indeed, it's the first time I contributed to a campaign, however paltry the amount. He's the first candidate I've seen since Carter who takes his faith seriously, and lets it influence how he acts. Obama's different.

The evening began with some righteous West African dancing, to some seriously intense drums. Very impressive. Wish I could say the same for the act that followed. I think Obama was caught in Seattle traffic, and they needed someone to fill in, so they decided on the only guy who could play guitar backstage. Seriously, I wouldn't be dissing him like this if it had been one, or even two songs. We sat through five songs of a guy who couldn't hit a single note on key, singing five romantic songs about how he couldn't get the girl. Seriously. It was a total let down from the wonderful dancing.

Then Congressman Adam Smith- yes the same one who attempted to help me out with Homeland earlier this year- introduced Obama, sharing how he was a long-time supporter. I like Mr. Smith more and more.

I was maneuvering myself into the stage dive area, where most of us were standing, foregoing the seats in the back of the WaMu Theatre of Qwest (hashek) Field. Finally after a couple of false starts the main man came out to work the crowd on stage, specially chosen to represent all of Seattle. (Though I think we're actually more diverse than what was represented on stage.

It was truly a thrill to hear Obama share. That's how it was- more sharing than Clinton's listening, Gore's lecturing, or Jesse Jackson's preaching. It felt somehow intimate, and very honest, very genuine. There were moments of fire, but most of it was a man speaking to inspire quiet hope, and give a concrete plan of action. Sure, there weren't all the details, but it wasn't the venue for that. It was enough that there were plans.

Obama got the most wild applause when he spoke out against the current administration, or when he spoke about the war- against it, and his long term actions in support of peace. And there was even a heckler in the audience, only three people from me. Obama's hecklers are evidently people who call for the impeachment of Cheney, and sing while doing it.

In person, Obama lived up to his first name- that of power-blessing. And he holds a promise to be that for our nation.

When what's in a name doesn't sound as sweet.

2007-01-31T17:16:00.000-06:00

My man Obama's been making the news lately, but not in a good way. It comes on the heals of claims that Obama is a closet Muslim; or that we can't elect someone with a Muslim-sounding name like Barack Obama ("Barak" means powerful blessing- no one objected when President Barak of Israel was in power, indicating it's common Semitic root); or even that his middle name is Hussein and therefore he is somehow tied to our arch-enemy-dictator. (Again, no one is bringing up the similarities between the first name of our current President and that of the evil King who wouldn't let the Colonies be free. In English and Arabic-influenced languages, both names are equally common.) It's mostly been the ultra-right-wing, but they are managing to plant doubts in people's minds, questioning "Did Obama truly give up Islam? Hsss." (He never was Muslim, but is actually an exceptionally devout Christian.) It's a subtle campaign, and a not-so-subtle campaign, to link Obama with terrorism, and therefore fear.

And now this. This past week a conservative online magazine, Insight Magazine, picked up the news that Obama had attended a madrasa when he was younger in Indonesia. They also suggested that this story was leaked to them by the Clinton campaign, who denies any involvement. Fox has of course found this to be a delightful story, and started running with it as fact- that Obama had been indoctrinated into fundamentalist Islam in his early years in a madrasa. While a VP at Fox has rebuked them for airing something online just because it's online (my former students, take note- Mr. Lee was not pregnant), evidently the Obama campaign is no longer giving Fox News first dibs at interviews.

I want to point out what is underlying all of this. While the school has made it clear that, no, it is not a training ground for Islamic radicals, Barack Obama did indeed attend a madrasa in his youth. For the Arabic word for school is "madrasa".

We've reached a point in our society where anything remotely related to Arabic culture, language, or the predominant religion there is suspect. There's a word for that, when we take common words in other languages and make them into something evil just because they're a foreign word; when we try to cast aspertions on someone because of their ethnic heritage or the ethnicity of their name. It's racism. It's Islamophobia. It's anti-Semitism. And it's evil.

The Far Right has taken this story and are repeating it, and repeating it, until moderate conservatives and the undecideds just might start to believe it. So that Americans will think of fear when they hear Obama's name, rather than hope. But fear is the mind killer. Some have learned FDR's words "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," and decided the descriptive should become prescriptive. If the people aren't afraid, make sure they learn to be afraid.

In the meantime, for the last three years I taught biology at a school in North Africa, where Arabic was the dominant language. I therefore daily worked at a madrasa, and I loved it. I guess that makes me a terrorist as well.