My Photo

MANTRA


  • broadcasting live
    from the highest hill
    smack dab in the middle
    of the
    African American
    political center,
    even if only I say so
    my dadgum self

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Newsfeeds

    • Breitbart

    Google Search

    • Google

      WWW
      rattlergator.typepad.com

    ***BOTTOM***

    Blog powered by TypePad
    Member since 08/2004

    May 14, 2008

    Wubete

    Last night, completely by chance, I happened upon the beginning of a show on PBS titled "A Walk to Beautiful." I thought it looked interesting and the titled grabbed me so I decided to stay put and watch it until the end. I'm glad I did. The program discussed the problem of women having a problematic child birth, often ending in a still-birth, and developing an obstetric fistula. As a result, they become incontinent. Thus unable to control their discharge of urine or feces (or sometimes both), they (the program was an examination of the problem of poor women in Ethiopia) become outcasts because of the unsanitary problem that is with them always.

    All the featured women captured me but one tiny youngster particular grabbed my heart -- Wubete:

    Wubete_ethiopia

    I hate to see a female cry; it does something really weird to me. Wubete told her story, or the narrator did -- I can't really recall, but the upshot was she was on her third trip to the hospital and had not been cured of the problem. She cried and was resolute that she would not return to her village. She had no one there, she said.

    I was now fully invested in the show and hooked. I was going to be supremely angry if they didn't help this girl even though I know that not everyone with an obstetric fistula can be completely "cured." The girl said she would beg on the streets before going back to that village.

    "No, no, no, no, no," I was now thinking, "don't let the girl have to beg for a living."

    They couldn't completely cure her, they did provide her with a tube of some sort that allowed her to control the time and place of her urinary discharge and that seemed to be good enough to Wubete so it was good enough for me. Eventually, she was placed in a home caring for children orphaned when their mothers died from AIDS. Wubete now had a place, a purpose, and some children to care for.

    Well done, Dr. Catherine Hamlin. Well done. Associated with a Santa Clara, California-based organization, here is how


    Having a baby can be one of the most joyous events in a woman's life. Yet for the millions of young women in the developing world who develop severe injuries called fistulas from obstructed labor, it's the beginning of a living nightmare, one that can last the rest of their lives. Since 1974, when she and her late husband Reginald established the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia, Dr. Catherine Hamlin has given her all to curing fistulas and restoring life to these women, many of whom are just teenagers. In this interview, conducted at the fistula hospital by "A Walk to Beautiful" codirectors Mary Olive Smith and Amy Bucher, Hamlin talks about just how heartbreaking this tragedy can be for poor women—and how miraculous the cure.

    Note: To learn more about the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital and the U.S.-based Fistula Foundation, see www.fistulafoundation.org.


    For an interesting additional bit of information on Dr. Hamlin, read this citation she received from her alma mater, the University of Sydney.

    May 13, 2008

    Lou Frey Predicts Obama-Clinton Ticket But I'm Not Buying It

    At the beginning of this election cycle I predicted a Clinton-Obama ticket for the Democrats. To me, it seemed clear they would put Barack Obama out there for name recognition and to fire up the African American base of their party. For instance, here is what I wrote on October 26, 2006 on LaShawn Barber's blog in response to this incredible October 2006 cover of Time Magazine (calling him the next President) and the accompanying article extolling the virtues of the fresh face of Barack Obama:

    Obama2


    I’m amazed it took this long to bring up Hillary because my bias says this is all a very carefully planned orchestration by the Clinton machine.

    Hillary isn’t upset by any of this [RattlerGator: the fawning over Obama] — she is one of the primary planners of this whole charade. They clearly want him as the “dream” V.P. candidate. Regarding the earlier comment about him not supporting a local Democrat who bucked the machine, he has obviously worked with the Illinois machine because that is an essential component of the national Democrat machine and they are zeroed in on 2008.

    What’s the script? You plant a series of stories now, ginned up by the party machine which is flying him around the country, just before the midterm elections, to try and excite a loyal black base of voters in an attempt to turn out this year *AND* allow them to fantasize about a black president in 2008 (as we all know, mediocre black turnout is bad news for Democrats).

    Next, Barack Obama’s obvious inexperience allows you to place him on the 2008 ticket [doesn’t have to be Hillary; any Democrat will do] as a V.P. candidate and you push his Ivy League credentials as well as his fast-learning “brilliance” (y’all do remember the fawning over Hillary’s “brilliance” during the Clinton administration, don’t you?) to argue that on-the-job training combined with his well-documented intellect will obviously be sufficient to carry him through.

    This is all quite obviously orchestrated; only time will tell whether it works.


    I still believe that. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama caught lightning in a bottle my recognizing the gift that is proportional representation, manipulating the delegate process in something of an Ali-like Rope-a-Dope, and playing chess far, far better than the Clintons who didn't even realize they were in a real fight. He accomplished this by brilliantly targeting Caucus states where Democrats will likely not carry the vote in November. Hillary's team made the mistake of presuming they were the nominee . . . and the rest is history. Barack is now the Uppity Negro and Hillary is now representative of the White Female Victim of the presumed havoc wrought by Affirmative Action.

    Except, of course, she's a great beneficiary not only of affirmative action but identity politics as well. But that's ultimately neither here nor there, is it?

    The resulting fast rise of Obama led me on February 12, 2008 to openly wonder if the Democrats are screwed in the November 2008 election no matter what they try and do. My opinion at the time was to answer that with a "yes, indeedy."

    I still believe that, too.

    I'm also certain that Hillary's team genuinely sees a disaster for the Democrats if Barack Obama heads the ticket. Additionally, the vitriol between the Obama and Clinton camps has been breathtaking. If you doubt this, take a look at what Marie Cocco has to say:


    I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

    Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play?

    There are many reasons why Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for "change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture.


    Wow. That's quite an indictment and she makes some damn good points. But hold up, Marie: the hatred of women that is part of our culture? A culture that insists a Yale grad, Harvard MBA, and qualified fighter pilot (George W. Bush) is stupid? The same one that routinely calls Dubya a monkey, and worse?

    That culture, Marie? Woman, please!

    That said, Hillary has been savaged. She has been treated unfairly in comparison to Barack Obama. Whenever I talk with African Americans about the Obama campaign it is quite clear they only see the upside, by and large. They never consider a Barack Obama who is a complete failure as President and what that might mean. They never seem to have contemplated, honestly contemplated, their readiness to have Obama, as President, called a monkey . . . and worse. You can tell they aren't truly prepared for this with just how brazen they have been with Hillary, as noted by Marie Cocco. Because of this phenomenal back and forth between the two camps, I see zero percent chance of an Obama-Clinton ticket.

    She would never accept that and his folks would never trust her. Black people, I'm pretty confident, will not be in a mood to let bygones be bygones after this campaign is over. No matter what they publicly say. I suspect the same holds true for a significant amount of Hillary's white female supporters who still can't seem to stomach the fact of race trumping gender in this situation.

    They aren't happy that Hillary has been dissed, they aren't sure about Barack but they sure as hell don't like Michelle, and many of them will never vote for Barack as President.

    Nevertheless, Florida insider Lou Frey, a former Republican congressman representing Central Florida, still believes the ticket will be Obama-Clinton:


    For some time I have believed that the Democratic ticket will be Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama. It appears clear that Hillary is not about to give up even though her nomination is a long shot. Lightning must strike and Obama must do something terribly stupid to give her a chance. Obama has to be like Mohammad Ali who would keep dancing away from his opponent until his opponent was exhausted, then Ali would step in and knock him out. Clinton is exhausting her friends, her family and her money, yet her staying in and fighting makes her withdrawal from the race even more dramatic.

    Sen. Clinton has nowhere to go. If she returns to the Senate she will find a great many people still there who said they were going to support her and didn't. Privately people will smile over the fact that this experienced political leader dissipated a double digit lead and lost to a young Senator who is the most liberal in the Senate and never passed any meaningful legislation. Her chances of getting the presidential nomination next time, if Obama doesn't win, are slim.

    There will be tremendous pressure from the Democratic leaders for her to take the Vice Presidential nomination with all sorts of promises about how important she will be. I have kept reminding people over and over again that in 1960 Lyndon Johnson was the most powerful political leader in Washington. He didn't like John Kennedy, nor did he have much respect for Kennedy. However it became clear to him that a Kennedy/Johnson ticket would win, especially as Johnson would carry Texas. Johnson held his nose, accepted the Vice Presidential nomination, and the rest is history. I believe the same pattern will be followed, and an Obama/Clinton ticket will start out with a 10% point lead over McCain.


    I suspect Lou Frey is still a bit too mired in the past, much as Hillary Clinton was. Alluding to JFK gives it away. There are new rules at play, all premised on the old foundations but the modifications are substantive. Which means the evident hatred between the two camps has been amplified all over the nation via the 24/7 media, including the blogosphere. That will not be patched up and if, by some miracle, it was patched up -- the duo would not constitute a dream team. Not in the slightest. If you think Bill Clinton has made some occasional missteps in the primaries, what the heck do you think he will do during the general election?

    That's not going to happen. Obama-Clinton or not, the Democrats are screwed.

    May 12, 2008

    Sunday at The Players Championship

    Yesterday, I attended my first professional golf tournament -- The Players Championship. For a good, comprehensive recap you would do well to review the material from The PGA Tour. The hometown paper covered it nicely, too. The grounds were beautiful, the winds were incredible, the threat of rain never really materialized, and the Sun finally splashed all over creation and it was Florida hot, baby bubba! Sergio Garcia was a very deserving champion.

    A write-up in the Orlando Sentinel seemed quite accurate to me:


    With scary-fast winds that reached 40 mph or higher, Garcia's win came on a par-72 TPC Sawgrass Stadium Course that played at the caliber of a major.

    Garcia confronted the weather and anyone in his way, finally crumbling to emotion and tears after he left the 17th green on his way to pick up his crystal.


    Sergio!

    Sergio_wins_the_players_championshi

    Garcia_recap_lyons

    The personal story of this tournament for me, however, will be the frustration of not being able to experience the event how I would like to have been able to experience it. My wife secured the tickets through an acquaintance. She wasn't sure she wanted to attend but saw how excited I was at the prospect and that clinched it for her. We invited another couple. And . . . the two wives entered the Benefactor Pavilion overlooking the 17th tee and never left it.

    Not once.

    They saw nothing of the course except what could be observed from the pavilion. We two men did get around a bit and watched some of the action, up close and personal. At the 18th green sometime in the afternoon, a young female excitedly announced that Tim Tebow had arrived (that guy is an absolute rock star in Jacksonville!) and sure enough, there he was being escorted by some Sheriff's deputies through the crowd.

    I began the day desiring to follow Anthony Kim, but then was advised that he had crashed on Saturday and was not in contention. I quickly switched my intended focus to Sergio Garcia. I saw none of him, however. Once it became clear the women weren't overly impressed with the prospect of walking around in the Sun and would not leave the pavilion under any circumstances, it became crystal clear I would also need to leave before the tournament concluded just to avoid the crowds and the wrath of a non-sports fan who couldn't easily and quickly get back on the road home to Tallahassee.

    The upshot? Yes, I missed all of the concluding drama at the 17th!

    And we had an absolutely perfect spot to view all of the action, too. If you're supposing I'm very frustrated over this outcome you're right. Somehow I knew that would happen, though, so I can't complain. I also won't complain over the fact that I have no pictures. They (the PGA Tour folks) disallowed all cell phones from the grounds and cameras as well. So it goes, I guess. I am convinced, however, that I'll have to return sometime during the year to TPC Sawgrass and have a meal along with the tour they offer of the 16th, 17th, and 18th holes. The clubhouse looked magnificent from afar and I'd like to see how they present their tour material.

    It was great to be back in Jacksonville and interesting to see all of the growth around the University of North Florida.

    May 10, 2008

    Does Hillary Hold All the Cards, Not Barack Obama?

    Is it just me, or are the East and West Coast Democrats, the Ted Kennedy Democrats, and the Chicago machine Democrats, and even the African American Democrats, all of them, failing to realize one big fact: Hillary Clinton still has options. Serious options. Since she is being kicked to the curb all over the Democrat landscape, she can (and may) tell each and every one of these groups to go straight to hell if they keep dissin' her with such great relish. Me thinks they had better shut the hell up and start properly kissing up to her or risk the serious wrath of a woman scorned. A woman who is consistently winning the white vote in her party.

    I think Barack Obama understands this, based on his speech after winning in North Carolina, but I'm not sure his supporters do.

    If she finally gets fed up and decides to show them just what Big Mama HRIC (Head Rodham In Charge) can do when sufficiently angered, if she decides to run as an Independent, well guess what? The odds are mighty good she will get more votes nationally than Barack Obama will or, at the very least, run even with him. Then what the hell are the Democrats going to do?

    I think all of these left-wing activists are rather stupidly underestimating the hell out of Hillary. I remember people seriously speculating over the prospect of Ross Perot setting up another national political party -- but Bill and Hillary can actually go beyond threatening to do it. They can accomplish the fact.

    May 05, 2008

    The Inevitable Gaze Begins to Turn Toward Michelle Obama

    It had to happen, and in fact has been happening below the radar. Here is what is now generating open discussion: is Michelle Obama the reason Barack Obama has inexplicably remained bound to Reverend Jeremiah Wright all these years?

    Short answer: hell yes.

    Today, Christopher Hitchens asks the obvious:


    What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come? I think we can exclude any covert sympathy on Obama's part for Wright's views or style—he has proved time and again that he is not like that, and even his own little nods to "Minister" Farrakhan can probably be excused as a silly form of Chicago South Side political etiquette. All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?

    This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it. (One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, "Keep my wife out of it," or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse's influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.


    He goes on to disparage her Master's thesis at Princeton, Stokeley Carmichael and Louis Farrakhan. None of this is surprising in the least. I long ago recognized Michelle would not wear well on the American public.

    Barack Obama now has a double problem. The wife and the pastor. How can you hope to win the Presidency with that kind of problem?

    His friends in our traditional media are desperately trying to protect him but it likely is not going to do any good. Indirectly, you can tell some folks are very worried and know his numbers may be cratering. How do I know this? Because a tried and true propaganda tool has been trotted out: the poll produced for the sole purpose of spin, spin, spin. Mickey Kaus has a good take on this phenomenon in Slate recently (scroll down to the Friday, May 2nd entry):


    A staple of cocooning journalism is the quickie poll showing that "Voters Say They Aren't Troubled by X," with X being an issue the polltakers don't want voters to be troubled by. Typically, these stories 1) ignore the tendency of voters to lie to pollsters, especially when it comes to admitting they might be influenced by thoughts of the sort that they suspect polltakers don't approve of; and 2) even if everyone's telling the truth, if only 10% of voters say they will vote against a candidate because of X--while fully 90% of the voters say they are untroubled--that means the candidate has been badly damaged by X. In most races a candidate can't afford to lose 10% of the vote on a single issue. ... In today's story, of course, the [New York] Times strikes a blow for transparency and cost-efficiency, dispensing with the expensive, scientific-sounding claptrap of polling and cutting right to the soothing BS, interviewing a handful of upscale Indianapolis shoppers who duly deny they would be influenced by the Wright flap (but who knows what those "less cosmopolitan" Hoosiers down South will do)


    Bingo. I love how so many articles are unthinkingly zeroing in on less-educated, blue collar whites not voting for Barack Obama and presuming the reasons are racial yet ignoring the fact that less-educated, blue collar African Americans are doing precisely that -- and so are other African Americans across the economic spectrum and there is no discussion those racial reasons. It feels weird bringing up this factoid that you know would likely be parroted by the White Citizens Council or the KKK but right is right.

    I made a point to a friend last night regarding the sad truth that we, as African Americans, presume white people have so much work to do vis-a-vis race relations but the fact of the matter is that black people have just as much work to do, if not more.

    May 02, 2008

    Confusion Over Tuskeegee Experiment Deliberate?

    When I made the decision to leave the Democrats and join up with the Republicans I also decided that I would certainly give them, my new political party, the benefit of the doubt. And I have. One byproduct has been to critically reexamine some presumed facts. That led to the exposure, I seem to recall (and this may be a convenient recollection, I admit), of a troubling pattern: common presumptions, taken as gospel in the black community, appeared to have been purposefully overstated. For blatantly left-wing purposes. Today, Jonah Goldberg adds to that troubling list:


    The infamous Tuskegee experiment is the Medusa’s head of black left-wing paranoia. Whenever someone laments the fact that anywhere from 10 percent to 33 percent of African-Americans believe the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill blacks, someone will say, “That’s not so crazy when you consider what happened at Tuskegee.”

    But it is crazy. And it’s dishonest.

    * * *

    So what did happen? In 1932, public health researchers set out to study syphilis, particularly among African-Americans, who had higher infection rates than whites. They recruited 399 black men who already had syphilis. The doctors infected no one. In fact, the patients were selected in the first place because they were tertiary-stage syphilitics who were no longer contagious.

    The researchers studied the progress of the disease, without treating it, for 40 years. 


    As Johah readily admits, that's certainly bad. But they didn't inject anyone with the disease and that's certainly the way I've always heard the story and it makes a huge difference in my mind.

    Did someone confront this reality years ago and decide to juice the story in order to get the desired effect? Did they decide to purposefully leave out crucial information, such as:


    [T]he idea that the Tuskegee experiment somehow validates the deranged, paranoid view that the U.S. government created AIDS to murder African-Americans — in one of the most hideously painful, drawn-out and expensive manners imaginable — is a riot of ridiculousness and a maelstrom of mendacity. And yet, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard guilt-ridden white liberals say exactly that. “Considering what we did at Tuskegee,” they opine, “who can blame them for being distrustful of government?”

    * * *

    [I]t’s worth noting that the Tuskegee study, launched under the New Deal, was symptomatic of arrogant liberal government. The study “emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and well-being of the African-American population,” writes University of Chicago professor Richard Schweder. He adds: “The study was done with the full knowledge, endorsement and participation of African-American medical professionals, hospitals and research institutes.”

    Liberals like to invoke Tuskegee as if it’s solely an indictment of what other people did, proof that we need more progressive government. But Tuskegee was in fact the poisoned fruit of progressive government.


    Well, damn. The experiments were done with the full knowledge of black medical professionals? Is that really true? If so, it would explain why they were conducted at Tuskeegee -- but were they performed without protest from Tuskeegee officials? And were similar tests conducted at other locales around the country on poor whites similarly situated, and in a similar fashion?

    I don't know the answer to those questions but I'm certainly full of a new skepticism of what I had previously learned or presumed. I also know that far too many black people are ignorant that many test have been conducted on white Americans that raise very troubling questions viewed from the presumptive moral high ground of today. Bad things happen, and times change. Race, ethnicity, creed or color often has far less to do with it than first assumed.

    May 01, 2008

    An Open Letter to Barack Obama: Get Out Now, 2012 Beckons


    From Within The Veil


    W.E.B. DuBois said the problem of the 20th Century would be the problem of the color line; solidly within the color line in the culture of the United States stands African Americans, obscured from view by something similar to a veil -- those within are visible behind that veil, but precisely how clearly? Those within obviously see beyond that veil, but again . . . exactly how clearly? I believe the challenge of the 21st Century will prove to be the same as the challenge of the 20th Century (the color line) but with this distinct difference: the "special" burden presented by the challenge and that burden which must be shouldered will no longer be on those from without the veil. No, the special burden in the 21st Century will be on those of us within the veil. As it should be.

    This is an open letter to Barack Obama and here is my central point: if you are serious about your faith, Barack, get out of this presidential election right now and get your house in order. Your only true path forward toward the Presidency is to walk away from Trinity United Church of Christ and it is a wonder you have not realized this fact, spiritually, at some point prior to announcing your desire to be President of the United States.

    No man or woman who wants to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces can be a member of such a church.

    Not one.

    I think I've had something of an out-of-body experience while first watching and then contemplating different pieces of the Jeremiah Wright media tour. I bet you have, too. My response? Less is more, less is more, less is more. I've had to remind myself of this fact while trying to reason through the internal anger and bewilderment associated with my quite visceral response to the situation he has created. I have no intention of voting for you, Barack, but I want to see you do well. Genuinely. I also know that it will be difficult to walk into that voting booth in November if you still have a viable shot at the presidency and not vote for you.

    However, under present circumstances you make it supremely easy to not vote for you regardless of whether you have a viable shot at winning or not.

    The fact of the matter on a glorious first day of May is this: baldilocks spoke rather well for me on this subject and, by and large, I've not been able to improve on her words. If you haven't read her piece, you should.

    That said, the real problem for you with respect to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the May 2008 problem (obviously, there is the potential for further bizarre developments), is that you consciously attached YOURSELF to Jeremiah Wright some 20-plus years ago . . . all because you (or Michelle, perhaps) was captured -- apparently -- by our love of spectacle. And the sight of a prancing Jeremiah Wright -- in the pulpit, no less -- had to be quite a sight to behold. Now, the entirely predictable has occurred: that spectacle is crashing in on you. And the sight of you with your wife these days? Quite a spectacle, too. Trying to maintain, and move forward, as though this is just some kind of bimbo eruption. This is no simple bimbo eruption! The American voting public has quite a bit of experience in their personal lives (or that of friends and extended family) with that sort of problematic event.

    The voting public has absolutely no experience with this kind of foolishness.

    Regarding baldilocks' blog post, I do take issue with one major point she made. She indicated support, if I recall correctly, for the proposition that there is no "black church." I strongly disagree.

    Barack, remember this central fact: when you failed to step away from your first choice of church in Chicago and, as a quite viable alternative, failed to involve yourself with any of the literally hundreds of mainstream A.M.E. or Missionary Baptist or Church of God in Christ congregations (these are the big denominations most African Americans attend, along with some Roman Catholic and United Methodist Church congregations) all over Chicagoland and, instead, remained attached to Rev. Wright's cause, his fortunes, his solutions, and his grievances -- it communicated a central truth about you. However, choosing to remain in Trinity United Church of Christ for all these years communicates THE central truth about you and it implicates an unseriousness about your Christian faith relative to your more devout adherence to the politics of liberation theology.

    Think about that, Barack.

    If you win the Democrat Party nomination this year, every voter in the upcoming Presidential election will have to decide precisely what is the calculation between your Christian faith and the murky tenets of liberation theology, and this will not be good for you. I suspect Republicans are more than willing to sit on this particular fact, saving the more explicit and explosive discussion that must be had for the general election. Still, it is a devastating weakness for you that cannot and will not be finessed away by some talented political handler.

    I was raised in an old-school, tiny Primitive Baptist Church, Barack, and I confess I'm a troubled sinner who has not had a born-again experience. I don't write as a Christian authority and the material that follows was cobbled together from websites I can't now itemize. Take that for what it's worth. I do, however, contend that I have a fairly good understanding of the black mainstream (religious, political and otherwise) in our great nation. As such, I am not unfamiliar with the black church.

    In that black church there is wide variation across many denominations with quite diverse traditions of tolerance, or the lack thereof, for ostentatious emoting -- the kind exhibited by Jeremiah Wright. However, there is also wide agreement in those churches that Christianity's basis is dual, with a related guiding instruction that serves as a third component. What is that basis?

    [1] Mosaic law (the Ten Commandments, first five books of the Old Testament, etc.) and, from the New Testament,

    [2] the fact that the “victim” (Jesus Christ) already sacrificed himself. Of paramount importance is the teaching found in John 3:16 -- for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    The rest of us are supposed to live up to that undeserved sacrifice, and the price of redemption is forgiveness of everyone else. African Americans are a very forgiving people. Properly understood, this forgiveness is a kind of a one-shot cure for the politics of victimology and is administered through the utilization of standard Christian theology, which Liberation Theology obviously isn't.

    Liberation theology, including the derivative black liberation theology, ignores the instruction from Christ that:

    [3] we are to render unto Caesar that which is his and we are to render unto God that which is His. Although Christians the world-over certainly argue about this point, it is fundamentally true that Christ came to preach the gospel to those who are poor in spirit, to heal those who are brokenhearted over sin, to proclaim liberty from the bondage of sin and Satan, to recover spiritual eyesight, to set at liberty those who are oppressed by Satan, and to proclaim the dawn of the new order where grace is offered to all now.

    The human soul, in other words, is the focus and salvation is the key.

    Liberation theology hopelessly confuses all of this, perhaps purposefully, and seems to be quite indifferent to any commonly accepted understanding of the ultimate mission of Jesus Christ. Work in the here and now for a just world? Yes. But making the be-all and end-all of Christianity the elimination of earthly poverty and the imposition of earthly justice? No.

    Liberation theology is “this world” in focus and devoid of “other world” emphasis. Christians are taught God’s primary concern, however, is not with this world and our deliverance from earthly oppression but, rather, God’s primary concern is with eternity and your salvation from sin, Satan, and death. The genius of America, of course, is that it allows for many cultures to exist side by side. "E pluribus unum" (out of many, one) is the guiding principle.

    Barack, many Americans are rightly wary of identity politics because they know the freedom to engage in such an orientation leads inevitably to a Jeremiah Wright arriving on the scene. That, however, is the simultaneous strength and weakness of the republican form of our democratic government and is, ultimately, our heritage as a nation. That heritage (that genius!), however, requires an understanding from its citizenry that is threatened by black liberation theology.

    Barack, I'll close with reference to a man I do not know. Stephen Marmer, in a phenomenally good response at American Digest to a great post from Gerard van der Leun on the attempted mainstreaming of race hustling by Jeremiah Wright, wrote this:


    Wright basically asserted that there is inborn biological difference between those of European stock and those of African stock that culture and education cannot overcome.

    I believe that biology is important. I believe that culture -- deep culture -- is important. I believe that education is important. The balance among these elements is even more important. But the consequences of the view that there are innate biological differences that trump culture and education is very dangerous.

    I do not believe a civil society democratically constituted can withstand such a view. Democracy as we know it in America, that goes beyond mere plebiscite and extends to freedom of speech, of association, to reliable contracts, fair courts, rule of law, and the notion that no one should, on the basis of biological characteristics alone, be excluded from full citizenship rights, cannot withstand the notion that there are innate biological differences between races that trump our common culture and our universal standards of education.


    I, too, commented in that thread and my focus was to (1) compliment Marmer, (2) note that a little bit of knowledge is still a very dangerous thing, and I'm fully aware I may have exhibited the problem in this open letter. I also (3) proclaimed the growing embarrassment that was Jeremiah Wright, and (4) acknowledged that I keep wondering what manner of preacher is this Jeremiah Wright? It was clear to me that he obviously doesn't understand boundaries or his own self-evident limitations. What about you, Barack?

    Reverend Wright's attempt to make the negative reaction to his situation out to be an attack on the black church is absurd, and I suspect you know that. Much discussion has been generated during this primary of a possible Clintonian strategy looking toward the election cycle of 2012. I happen to think that strategy works much better for you than it does for Hillary Clinton.

    Take a step back, think about the entirety of your life, the centrality of your faith, and do the right thing: 2012, not 2008. Standard Christian theology, not black liberation theology. That is the path forward. I pray that you see it, and once seen, take it.

    There's An Open Letter Coming . . .

    . . . and my open letter will be addressed to you, Senator Barack Obama.

    Perhaps destined to be read only by me, that -- so to speak -- makes me no nevermind. I'll likely post it tonight.

    April 30, 2008

    Look Out New York, Here Comes The Kid

    I'm trying to finish up a From Within The Veil post on Senator Obama and Reverend Wright; I hope to have it finished tonight but I wanted to mention that it looks as though I will be traipsing around New York City next week. One of my wife's former students, Anika Noni Rose (check out her MySpace page here, or a Broadway page or Movie page for more info), is one of the female leads in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof and we will be attending that show, among others. However, this will not be a weekend trip but a mid-week one instead.

    What a crazy last few days it has been politically, huh?

    I wasn't pleased with the address Reverend Wright gave at the NAACP dinner in Detroit (did anyone else notice the possible coordination of theme with the Obama campaign -- change?) but the outrageous egging on of the even more outrageous National Press Club Q&A -- truly a minstrel performance by speaker and audience -- was absolutely beyond belief. I'm still trying to figure out what it means to me and what I want to say about it but I doubt very much if my words will come close to conveying what I contemporaneously thought, and still think, about that singularly ridiculous moment.

    April 27, 2008

    Al Freakin' Horford! Clearly Rookie of the Year

    Did you see the Hawks vs. Celtics game last night!?! Oh my goodness, what a good game. Typical of the superficiality that surrounds all sporting events, the story last night appears to be Josh Smith (27 points, 9 rebounds, 6 assists). In truth, however, Al Horford was the story as he was truly a force on the inside -- where Atlanta had to have a presence. He had 17 points, 14 rebounds, six assists and showed he certainly wasn’t afraid of the Boston Celtics. He led fast breaks, made defensive stops, and gave his team a defensive personality. And he talked some smack to Paul Pierce after making a great play. Apparently, some fans think Horford's demonstration at the end of the game was classless.

    Classless????

    I just shake my head in amazement when I read this kind of stuff. There was nothing odd about what he did, or inappropriate. Have these folks ever seen a heated basketball game? On the playground? In college? In the pros??????? I'll tell you this -- many of you sure as heck would not have wanted to hear what I said when Al Horford hit his crucial shot.

    They have been successfully punking Atlanta in the two prior games and Al (playing out of position as Center when he ideally would fill the power forward slot) has the burden of policing the paint (something no Gator could seem to accomplish this year) while letting his hometown fans know that he intends to help them build a winner. He accepted the personal responsibility of turning things around.

    Mission accomplished last night.

    He delivered a message for the whole nation to see, and he delivered it with emphasis. This was his first home playoff game as a pro (and a rookie, at that) and guess what -- it was a great performance. In my personal opinion the Hawks don't have an awful coach, they have a losing culture. That's very hard to change but you could tell from listening to the crowd in a town famous for worshipping celebrity over the hometown folks, something is clicking with this team.

    I think that something is Al Horford.

    He's a winner and they know it. I hope like heck they keep Larry Brown away and continue building on the nucleus they now have. That was a very exciting game last night and Atlanta will probably not match that performance again this series. But if Horford is inside Pierce's head (as it appears), and gets another good start in the next game . . . look out! Bring it, Big Al, bring it. Gator Power!!!

    For affirmation, here's Mark Bradley this morning in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:


    Desperate for anything that would pass as inspiration, the Hawks, a team never confused with the NBA’s greatest, turned to The Greatest. The rookie Al Horford called Florida for help, and the Gators’ video man sent a DVD via overnight mail.

    Ali-Foreman. The Rumble in the Jungle. The birth of the rope-a-dope. The utter culmination of the Ali Legend.

    He screened the famous fight — actually, an abridged version of the documentary “When We Were Kings” — for teammates after Saturday’s shootaround. And 11 hours later, the Hawks an improbably emphatic Game 3 winner, the master motivator spoke of his ploy.

    “I felt I’d be cheating my team if I didn’t do it,” Horford said. “If you watch that film and don’t get pumped up, there’s something wrong with you.”

    For one giddy evening, there was nothing at all wrong with the Atlanta Hawks. They didn’t just beat the snooty Celtics; they handled them. They led by six points after the first quarter, by 10 after the third, by 15 with seven minutes left, by nine at the end. There will be no sweep. There will be a Game 5 back in Boston. This presumed rout might just turn into a series after all.


    Yes sir, buddy. This comment from a fan up in Atlanta says it all:


    Very good and impressive win for the hawks. Even when everyone knew that Boston would try and make a run, which they tried to, the hawks kept grinding it out and closed the deal. I stil think that Woodson should be using Salim and Richardson more, and now more than ever b/c M.Williams is not giving us anything. Concerning Horford…..this guy is exactly what the Hawks need…a fearless player, who doesn’t back down from anyone. The Hawks have been basically the running joke of the NBA, but Horford is actually making this team relevant b/c of his play and passion. So Stephen A.Smith and some others are criticizing Horford for being pumped up and getting in Pierce’s face after basically hitting the basket that sealed the deal for the hawks last night? Didn’t espn continually show Dwight Horward barking at Chris Bosh also yesterday when he blocked his shot, but he received nothing but praise…. and as someone else pointed out doesn’t Kevin Garnett go off on a nightly tirade by m-f’ing this and that, pounds his chest, tugs and pulls his shirt to the side and is lauded by the broadcast booth for his gamesmanship? What do these guys’ want? A hawks team to humbly accept their fate by letting the Celtics slap them around and just lose this series without a fight??? Or a Hawks team that plays like they belong here and is willing to fight, scrap, grind and even trash talk their way to a win? If anything the NBA should send Horford a thank you note and definately award him the ROY now, b/c he single handely has just made this playoff series a lot more interesting than it was before.


    Roger that. Go Hawks!

    April 26, 2008

    Basketball Jones: Down Go The Suns!

    Yesterday, as a passive fan of the Phoenix Suns, I was not worried at all. It's a great pro basketball season and I'm just basking in the enjoyment of it all. For instance, here is an opinion I posted elsewhere online in response to an assertion that Deron Williams should be taken over Chris Paul on an All-NBA first team roster:


    At first, I thought Deron Williams over Chris Paul was absurd on its face. After checking the numbers, I still think its absurd but realize that an objective case can be made. Utah was 3 up, 1 down against them this year. The two February games (1-1) are the most representative:

    110-88, Jazz win at home
    http://www.nba.com/games/20080204/NOHUTA/boxscore.html

    110-98, Hornets win at home
    http://www.nba.com/games/20080229/UTANOH/boxscore.html

    And the season stats were pretty close too:

    Chris Paul:
    2007-08 Statistics
    PPG 21.1
    RPG 4.0 
    APG 11.6
    SPG 2.7
    BPG 0.1
    FG% 0.488
    FT% 0.851
    3P% 0.369
    MPG 37.6

    Deron Williams
    2007-08 Statistics
    PPG 18.8
    RPG 3.0 
    APG 10.5
    SPG 1.1
    BPG 0.3
    FG% 0.507
    FT% 0.803
    3P% 0.395
    MPG 37.3

    It's a great playoff season for the NBA. The Magic show promise, Horford looks great in Atlanta, LeBron is the best player in all of basketball right now -- bar none -- but Cleveland just doesn't have it (except to shut up Gilbert), and Boston is finally back. I'd love to see Boston vs. Detroit in the East finals. [RattlerGator: it appears Philly will have something to say about that]

    And the West? The best 1-8 seeds I've ever seen. I happen to like the Suns (how the heck did Duncan hit that shot!?!) and think their Shaq experiment is working (to me, it was always primed for next year moreso than this year) but my goodness, Amare Stoudemire doesn't seem to have the best basketball sense in the world. Very frustrating! But once he (and the rest of the Suns) learns how to play with Shaq, I think they'll be better able to cover some of their defensive deficiencies. I know, I know, that's wishful thinking but . . . .

    It looks as though the Lakers will make the conference finals and that's cool with me. I like whoever wins the NewOrleans/SanAntone/Phoenix death matches to win the West.

    I would absolutely love, love, love seeing Boston vs. Phoenix in the finals but I'd settle for Boston vs. Anybody. In that final series, I'll revert back to my older days and take whoever is playing the Celtics because Boston must go down. Although, in all honesty, I kinda like that team. It was much more fun when you had JoJo White to hate. Or Kevin McHale. Or that #%*&#@ Dennis Johnson!

    It's great to have pro basketball back, and relevant.


    Now, it certainly is great to have pro basketball back and vibrant in so many locales. But part of that means getting invested at this time of year and being disappointed.

    I'm invested with the Phoenix Suns. And quite disappointed.

    I thought I was one of the few who appreciated just how good San Antonio is but apparently not. What a team. What a damn good basketball team. Of course, they may simply match up well with the new-look Suns who still havent' quite figured out the Shaquille O'Neal thing. Or, they may be no figuring out to be done in Phoenix. Either D'Antoni isn't the man or Shaquille isn't the player -- something! There's some serious frustration in Phoenix today:


    Redemption? The idea almost seems laughable now.

    At this point, the Suns will settle for a little dignity, and even that may be hard to come by. "I wish I had some answers for you," Suns coach Mike D'Antoni said. "I don't have them."

    Thanks for the reassurance.

    After all the conflict and drama that has marked this rivalry, it's hard to believe this series is almost over. Yet after Friday's 115-99 thumping at the hands of the Spurs, a mercy killing doesn't seem like a bad idea.

    Look at the body language. The Suns seem to have lost faith in themselves and their head coach. Fans resorted to booing on numerous occasions in Game 3, and by the time they filtered out of the building, dreams of a championship banner had all but evaporated.

    Meanwhile, D'Antoni's future is getting murkier with every postseason disappointment, and once again, he's getting roasted for his choice of words.


    So true. Although I always thought the focus should be on next year, this performance in game three was very disappointing. Last year, Phoenix had the series stolen from them by an anal allegiance to rules. Okay, call it fate. This year? All you can do is admit the obvious. They apparently needed Shawn Marion out on the wings more than they needed to beef up the middle. I know that may be an overly broad assessment in the wake of a disappointing loss. I know that. All you can do is sigh at this point. That was a beautiful looking basketball team but they are already becoming a distant memory in what has been the best pro basketball season in years and years.

    Can they hold it together and work things out next year? I'm not sure about that. My man Shaquille may be on the serious downslide -- may be -- but I think Phoenix has to get some help on the wings or have someone step us who has not as of yet.

    April 25, 2008

    Reverend Wright Is Not the Primary Problem Confronting Barack Obama, But He's Enough

    One of the recent folks I've added to my list as proxies for Democrats (individuals that, from my perspective, are representative of conventional thinking in Democrat Party circles) is Dave Winer. What does Dave make of the Reverend Wright situation? Here is his unsurprising position:


    Rev Wright was interviewed by Bill Moyers, an interview that will air tomorrow and will certainly restart the pundit-mania over all things Wright and what it supposedly means. Permalink to this paragraph

    I've watched some of the sermons that are excerpted, in their entirety, and in every case the soundbites do not express his meaning. In every case I found the Wright sermons not only fair and American but compelling. As much as any Christian sermon I've heard, more so than most.


    Fair and compelling? This, from a man who admittedly doesn't go to church and proclaims them to be "totally foreign experiences" to him? Dave's solution, if you read his piece, is to make it a legal issue and let a commission decide what people should believe on the matter.

    That's quite telling, isn't it? State control, of a sort. Rather like his question in another post ("But why should we tolerate the news organizations giving free air time to the campaigns? Aren't they making an illegal campaign contribution when they run a Republican attack ad without giving equal time to Democratic attack ads?") which clearly implicates yet another central authority control. However, this one morphs from what you should believe on a completely personal matter (the impact Reverend Wright has on your vote either for party nominee or for President) to what you should be forced to hear vis-a-vis campaign coverage.

    Democrats, black and white, are desperately trying to convince themselves that this Reverend Wright situation is manageable. It is not. Last night, I happened upon a bit of Hardball with Chris Matthews (rarely watch the show) and it was clear to me that he is finally starting to see the obvious on this Reverend Wright situation. Which leads to the obvious question: what are Democrats going to do about it?

    I'll tell you what they're going to do, they are going to try and fake the funk (as Dave unsuccessfully tried to do) but it is simply not going to work . . . unless John McCain is goaded into making a series of colossal political mistakes.

    I don't think that's going to happen.

    It won't happen, primarily, because of at least two unique and nonracial problems facing Barack Obama:

    [1] The Reverend Wright problem is not, per se, about race nor even black liberation theology. What is the unique and nonracial problem with the good Rev? It is religious. I've been in many black churches, and (believe it or not) am African American myself. In none of those mainstream churches -- NONE -- could you say "God Damn _________" from the pulpit. None of them. On any subject. And anyone who tells you otherwise is lying (for partisan purposes, no doubt), be they black, white, Christian, Atheist or otherwise. Multiply that out among the vast majority of other churches, white churches, in this country. That's a humongous nonracial problem that is being glossed over on television but not in American homes. Many white Democrats are making excuses on this point, I seriously doubt if Reagan Democrats are buying it -- or ever will. Republicans surely won't.

    [2] Here's the primary unique and nonracial Barack Obama problem: when he has to match-up with John McCain in the general election, and Obama's "uniter" theme is put to the test by itemizing how he will reach across the political aisle, what will be the deal? Especially when McCain is able to do so by legitimately listing areas where he has already been publicly willing -- in the Senate, on the record -- to defy the leadership of his own party and enable himself to reach across the political aisle? Areas such as (1) immigration, (2) campaign finance, (3) tax cuts, and (4) the so-called "torture" that caused so many to wail in anguish. Well, guess what? The nation is going to turn to Barack and wait for him to list . . . what, exactly?

    Where has he done any of that across-the-aisle, "unite us" activity in any meaningful way?

    Democrats are thus presented with this nagging query: are you so partisan that you can't see how the Barack Obama campaign theme, change we can believe in, is going to collapse in on him? Are you!?! If so, then you add on Reverend Wright, Dohrn-Ayers, Tony Rezko -- and that's just the local Chicago angle!

    Finally, I think many Democrats haven't figured out (yet) that Barack Obama is running to be Commander-in-Chief. And that is every bit as important as leader of the Executive branch of government to the swing voters -- the Reagan Democrats, so to speak, and the all-over-the-place independents  -- who are going to elect the next President.

    Had they not chased Joe Lieberman out of the party, if they had a manly understanding of national defense, maybe they'd have a chance. As it is, I'm stuck with that unforgettable image of Barack Obama attempting to roll his bowling ball down the lane and failing to do so. Most troubling for me from that scene wasn't him rolling the gutter ball. No. It was the image of him striding down the lane, skinny as hell and flicking that wrist . . . just . . . so.

    Good night, Mr. Obama. Thanks for applying.

    April 23, 2008

    Obama: Hopeless Romanticist?

    I have a memory seared into my consciousness of watching some movie in the 1990s that was set somewhere in New Zealand or Australia and being amused at the styling utilized by the Hollywood producers. Imagine the setting: late 1800s perhaps, and here was the star, or one of the stars, traipsing from a boat and through the woods and all over creation in the finest of clothing. Always just so, perfect, in place, not ruffled or wrinkled, etc. And I derisively commented on this curiosity with a friend who was working on her doctorate in Education at the time. She was not pleased and insisted it was an accurate portrayal. To me, she was irrationally invested in the mythology of it all, the beauty of it all (the impracticality of it all?).

    This is what I'm reminded of today while (yet again) thinking of Barack Obama after his defeat in the Pennsylvania primary. I'm prompted by a Julie Ponzi post at No Left Turns, Flower Child Obama. She asks:


    He is the real flower child of the 60s generation. Better still, he is their Frankenstein. What will they do to him when it becomes clear that his bride won’t have him for her bridegroom?    


    They are going to lionize him -- as long as he doesn't disavow them. He's already the victim and they have clearly fallen into a line of thinking where the only legitimate outcome is if he wins the Presidency and Michelle gets to be the First Lady. So, lets just get on with it and play this thing out. I suspect things are only going to get worse for Barack Obama from here on out, even if he wins his party's nomination. He hasn't fully realized it yet but he soon will. I said in my response to Julie's post:


    I'm beginning to think he's not simply a Flower Child, Julie, nor is he simply their offspring / their Frankenstein.

    Here's who I think he is: he's a romanticist akin to these folks who watch flicks and honestly believe white folks walked around the pre-World War II Chinese countryside with perfectly coiffed hair, beautifully tailored clothing, and all that Hollywood foolishness [yes, I just watched "The Painted Veil" on HBO].

    It seems to me only that level of faith in a mythological recent past allows a man who aspires to be President to keep the close friends this man has obviously kept. I have a friend who, deep down inside, just wants to be cool. That's Barack, too, apparently. Too much a product of a segment of America that supposedly hates celebrity but secretly loves it, worships it.

    As a result, he appears obviously unelectable to me. We shall see.


    Unelectable, in part, because African Americans are viewing him though a different lens, one most of the remainder of the nation does not feel obliged to utilize. Most of the nation is going to see him through the same lens Julie Ponzi uses, one that wonders why "God Damn America" doesn't mean God Damn America?

    Obama has romanticized away the very real problems of his pastor and the politicos who handpicked him to serve as their proxy. I doubt if America is going to do the same. When you lose the Jewish vote in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (at a time when Democrats desperately want the primaries to be over) and the Reagan Democrats by an even larger margin -- sorry, but you're dead meat. Whether or not you win the nomination.

    All because he believed in the superficial mythology of certain leftwing radicals talking black liberation theology or violent overthrow of the American government.

    April 19, 2008

    Thomas Jefferson's Famous Single Sentence: Storied Past or Tabloid Present?

    Scott Johnson, on the three gentlemen posting at PowerLine, deserves great credit for bringing a fine speech to our attention and prefacing it quite nicely with this paragraph:


    In his third debate with Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln quoted a resolution from 1850 in which the principles of the Ordinance of 1787 received "the sanction of Thomas Jefferson, who is acknowledged by all to be the great oracle and expounder of our faith." Jefferson's authority derived from the fact that, as Lincoln observed in his 1859 letter to Pierce, he was "the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times."


    Johnson then goes on to call attention to Wilfred McClay, a distinguished professor at UT-Chattanooga, who gave a speech last night honoring the 265th birthday of Thomas Jefferson, which was last Monday. "Perhaps, in the past," Johnson quoted Professor McClay as conceding, "we have been too prone to place our forebears on a pedestal [RattlerGator: I don't think so]. But it is far worse, to feel compelled always to cut the storied past down to the size of the tabloid present." Personally, I can't begin to tell you how much I agree with this sentiment.

    Johnson also believes McClay's speech deserves the widest possible dissemination and I, quite naturally, agree. For the record, here are the remarks as posted at PowerLine:


    Thank you, Mr. President and Mrs. Bush, for your warm welcome, and for the great honor of taking part in this celebration of Thomas Jefferson’s life.

    Usually, when a greatly revered figure turns a year older, we feel older too, and the world feels a little colder and more fragile. But it’s a little different when a man turns 265. Remembering Thomas Jefferson makes us feel young. And not just by comparison. It’s because Thomas Jefferson embodies so much of the promise of American life. It’s because there is so much about him that is still vibrantly alive.

    And living not only in America. Thomas Jefferson deserves to be remembered and revered as a man of worldwide influence, whose name is known and loved and invoked by men and women from Beijing to Lhasa to Kiev to Prague. His belief in the dignity and unrealized potential in the minds and hearts of ordinary people is at the core of what is greatest in the American experiment. It is in this sense that James Parton, his early biographer, was right in making the following proclamation: "If Jefferson is wrong, America is wrong. If America is right, Jefferson was right.” But the cause of Jefferson was always more than just that of America. It is the cause of all humankind.

    *****

    Of course, we all know Jefferson’s words, or some of them. But we want to know more than that. We want to feel that we know the man himself.

    But that is exceptionally hard with Jefferson. He eludes our grasp. He may well have been the shyest man ever to occupy the office of President, awkward and taciturn except in small, convivial settings, such as dinner parties, where he felt at ease, and shed his reserve.

    In other words, he was not what people these days call “a political animal.” He loathed public speaking, giving only two major addresses while President, and none on the campaign trail. Of course, they didn’t campaign for office those days, the way we do now. If they had, he wouldn’t ever have run. He often felt that the work of politics ran against his nature, and complained that the Presidency was an office of “splendid misery,” which brought him “nothing but increasing drudgery & daily loss of friends.''

    Twice he withdrew entirely from public life, first in the 1780s, after a disappointing term as governor of Virginia, then the second time at the conclusion of his presidency, when he left Washington disgusted and exhausted, anxious to be rid of the place. As he wrote a friend at the time, ''Never did a prisoner, released from his chains, feel such relief as I shall on shaking off the shackles of power.'' Never was he happier than when ensconced in his Monticello retreat, his “portico facing the wilderness,” the place that he loved, the place where he found renewal. His example reminds us of how many of life’s common comforts our leaders have to sacrifice, in serving us.

    I contend that Jefferson is best known through his letters. He wrote almost 20,000 of them in his lifetime, and in them he seems to have felt freest and most fully himself. Although he complained to John Adams that he suffered "under the persecution of letters," the opposite was true. He needed the buffer of letters, interposed between himself and his acquaintances, and the world. With that buffer in place, Jefferson was at his ease, poised and open, and elegantly expressive. He used his correspondence to clarify his emotions and organize his thinking, and it is there that we see his full humanity most fully on display.

    ********

    But I may be in danger here of overstressing Jefferson’s reticence and reclusiveness, and that would be a grave error. The man was too many-faceted ever to be pinned down. Here is how James Parton described the Jefferson of 1775—just one year before he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson, he said, was “a gentleman of thirty-two, who could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin.” And consider—at that point in his life, he was just getting warmed up.

    In other words, Jefferson was a virtuoso and a prodigy, a jack of many trades, who mastered most of them.

    Consider his political accomplishments alone—over four decades of public service, ranging from his entry into the Virginia House of Burgesses to his retirement from public life after two terms as the third President of the United States.

    Or his keen interest in natural science, evidenced by eighteen years as president of the American Philosophical Society, an office he continued to hold through his tenure as President.

    Or his love of architecture, as embodied in the graceful neoclassical Monticello, which he designed and built for himself near his Virginia birthplace; or the serenely beautiful central grounds of the University of Virginia in nearby Charlottesville.

    Not to mention his overwhelming passion for gadgetry, which impresses visitors to Monticello, who nearly always remember the revolving bookstand, the dumbwaiter, the copying machine, the automatic double doors, the Great Clock, the triple-sash window, and countless other gizmos that the ever-inventive Jefferson himself either designed or adapted. If Jefferson was part Aristotle, he also was part Rube Goldberg.

    You all probably know that Jefferson, that inveterate designer, even designed his own tombstone, and specified the three things that it was to say about his life: that he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and Virginia’s Statute of Religious Freedom, and that he was Father of the University of Virginia.

    What did these three things have in common? Well, they go to the very heart of what he was about. They reflect his belief in the intrinsic dignity of the human person, and the unlimited capacity of the free human mind. Coercion, whether of the mind or of the conscience, was the enemy both of truth and of true religion. Only the free mind, he believed, can freely discover the truth, and freely choose to embrace it.

    *******

    Some will object that all this praise fails to acknowledge the serious flaws in our subject. And that is true enough. I didn’t want to begin, as is overwhelmingly the fashion today, by emphasizing Jefferson’s contradictions and shortcomings. But there are negative aspects to Jefferson’s life and career that simply cannot be denied.

    No one can deny that although Jefferson opposed slavery in theory, he consistently failed to oppose it in practice, including notably in the conduct of his own life at Monticello.

    No one can deny that Jefferson’s racial views, particularly as expressed in his book Notes on the State of Virginia, are appalling by today’s standards.

    These are not small flaws, nor are they the only ones. We are not wrong to insist on their being remembered, even today. Still, I think it’s clear that the compulsion to criticize Jefferson has gone too far. Our era is possessed by a small-minded rage against the very idea that imperfect men can still be heroes. But we badly need such heroes. In fact, we can’t live without them.

    Perhaps, in the past, we have been too prone to place our forebears on a pedestal. But it is far worse, to feel compelled always to cut the storied past down to the size of the tabloid present. Perhaps the time has come for that to change. Perhaps we are wise enough now, to know that imperfect heroes are the only kind there ever are, or can be.

    So let it be for his ideas that we honor Jefferson, above all else. And for the cause of human freedom and human dignity that he so eloquently championed. His failings may weigh against the man, but not against the cause for which he labored so heroically. That should be a lesson to us today. Like Jefferson, we all are carriers of purposes far larger than we know. Purposes whose full realization cannot be achieved in our lifetime, or even be fully understood by us, but which we are called to carry forward as faithfully as we can—as charges to keep.

    But unlike Jefferson, we have the benefit of his words to inspire us, and his shoulders to stand on. Consider these words of the civil-rights leader, Representative John Lewis: “We knew” about Jefferson’s faults, Lewis said. "But we didn't put the emphasis there. We put the emphasis on what he wrote in the Declaration…..His words were so powerful. His words became the blueprint, the guideline for us to follow. From those words,” said Lewis, “you have the fountain.”

    It is the same fountain that today, 265 years after Jefferson’s birth, still nourishes our lives, and shows no sign of running dry. Today is a good day to drink from it anew. And to say, “We are all Jeffersonians.” Because in one way or another, we all are.


    Somehow, we are supposed to revere Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnett, Booker T. Washington [sometimes, according some of our more pea-brained folks], W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and others. But, incredibly, we are not to give full credit to the genius of our founders?

    Ridiculous.

    We do drink from that fountain. So does the entire world. I have no need, or time, for fools who prefer to bitch and moan about everything under the sun and denigrate the genuine advancements in human history. Give me the storied past, to hell with those wallowing in their need for a tabloid present.

    The President's official ceremony honoring Jefferson's 265th can be found here. To close, how about that eternally famous sentence of Jefferson:


    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


    Amen.

    April 17, 2008

    Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: Say What?

    One of the basketball greats of all time, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, blogs for the L.A. Times and his "Horton Hears A Racist" post left me shaking my head in sad disbelief. It has a beautiful photograph of Barack Obama and family, but it's about the "Horton Hears A Who!" flick.I haven't seen the film but this was a very familiar bitch-and-moan piece. For instance, check this:


    This isn’t a review of the movie, it’s a review of how Hollywood sometimes contributes to the divisiveness within the country. Ironically, Horton Hears a Who has done more damage to our society than the recent slate of politically motivated movies about the war in Iraq (Rendition, Stop-Loss, Lambs for Lions, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah, etc.) has done good [RattlerGator: apparently, Kareem can't even contemplate the possibility those might have been awful, one-sided films and the equally plausible possibility the public quite rightly rejected being preached to]. For one thing, more people saw Horton than saw all the other movies combined.


    I responded to the post with this comment:


    Kareem, I initially said you couldn't possibly be serious about this post but clearly you are. So, on to your substance: you disapprove of the executives who greenlighted this project but you really, really disapprove of all us rubes who haven't righteously protested this gross injustice? Does that sum it up?

    If so, damn! Get out of that zero-sum, totalitarian mindset, man.

    "Maybe after eight years of Barak Obama’s presidency, our society will have evolved to a place where the filmmakers and the audiences won’t tolerate even the subtlest forms of discrimination."

    Evolved!?!

    Won't tolerate even the subtlest forms of discrimination?

    Are you completely blind to the complete thought-control nature of what you propose? After all, you presumably wouldn't want the government mandating all of this -- would you? But, for shame, for shame, the filmmakers and audiences have already been adjudged by you as sexist. Do you really think Barack affects any of that? Barack??? Oh, that's right. He's going to outlaw it -- right Ajax? So perhaps you do want the government mandating it.

    Personally, it seems to me you're trying to run down a utopian path that history proves is best left alone.

    But if you want to insist on tossing out the idea of evolving, how about your "evolution" my friend? Since when is voting for your political party's candidate -- because he's a Republican and not a Democrat -- worse than voting for him because he's a Republican and the other guy is black?


    Is it just me or was the reasoning bizarre -- especially the whole Republicans won't vote for Barack because he's a Democrat, which is worse than not voting for him because he's black?

    I mean, damn! But check out his blog and his post. More good comments have been posted, and too many others cheering him on. Kudos to Kareem for giving a damn but ease up, man, ease up.

    April 16, 2008

    U.S.-Africa Policy and Florida

    Presented below, in full, is a speech delivered by Gregory L. Garland, Public Affairs Chief, Bureau of African Affairs in the State Department and delivered to the Tallahassee Kiwanis Club (and no, I was not present; I had no idea it was being given and I'm not sure I was in town) on March 18th:
    ************************************************

    Good afternoon. It is an honor to be here today in Tallahassee.

    I am especially please to follow a speaker from the Florida League of Cities. You are music to my ears. Cities, countries, and states all play a role in international affairs. I worked at one point with one of your member cities, Jacksonville, where I handled international affairs. I have served in six countries overseas and have witnessed the other side. I know what community involvement can mean. Multiply that by hundred and thousands across the country, and you have a dynamic message of positive citizen-to-citizen foreign policy. My hat is off to the Florida League of Cities, and I want you to know that you have a friend in the U.S. Department of State.

    In fact, I came to Tallahassee principally to help celebrate the establishment of a new Sister City relationship with Assanti District North, Ghana. I spoke yesterday at the Tallahassee Sister Cities Committee Africa Awareness Month Conference at Florida A&M. The audience was very different, of course, and mostly young. I addressed Florida-Africa relations, looking at our state's 440 year history of links between our state and Africa. I won't burden you with that today, but I do want to leave with the fact that there were Africans in Florida at least as early as 1565. They were very much a part of the oldest city, St. Augustine, and the oldest continuous European settlement in the United States, Northeast Florida.

    U.S.-AFRICA POLICY IN CONTEXT

    Last month, President Bush traveled to Africa for second time. In 2004, he visited Nigeria and South Africa. This time, he went to five countries not often in the news back here: Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana, and Liberia. In fact, that was the point. Much of the continent is doing well, economically, socially, and politically. Yet to read the papers and watch CNN, you would think that Darfur was all of Africa.

    There is a quiet revolution going on in Africa. It is one of democratic rule of law, growing economic, a rising middle class, and end of conflict. The president chose to take the opportunity to show the quiet and prosperous side of Africa.

    He took along with him, as is always the case, the White House press corps. Now, this is a cynical bunch who have witnessed a lot. Coverage before the trip was oriented more toward the question of why the President would not travel to any country in a crisis, notably Kenya or Sudan. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that these reporters had seen little of Africa, and their preconceptions were rooted pretty much in what they read in their own papers. By the time the trip got to Tanzania, attitudes started to change. This Africa was an interesting place, even when there was a war going on. They witnessed the extraordinary welcome all these countries laid out for the President, one greater than he would receive back in the U.S. They witnessed an Africa that is a wonderful host, human, tolerant, and alive with life in all its permutations. Finally, the coverage started to reflect that maybe the President was on to something.

    For the United States, Africa for too long was on the margins of U.S. foreign policy interests. In World War II, Africa was a strategic stepping stone to the places that mattered in Europe. In the Cold War, Africa was a sideshow to the struggle that mattered -- in Europe and East Asia. Even as we Americans set in place well-intentioned economic development policies, it was too often with the idea of doing good for Africa, rather than with Africa.

    All that has changed. In 2001, the U.S. changed its foreign policy strategy, a move long overdue with the close of the Cold War. We decided not to rank U.S. interests according to the traditional hierarchy of regions. In that ranking, Europe was considered a vital national security interest, Asia and the Middle East important, and Latin America and Africa mainly of humanitarian interest. We no longer operate according to this hierarchy.

    Instead, the U.S. has implemented a strategy to operate more effectively in a world where non-state actors, and illegal trans-border activity, can pose essential threats to even the most powerful of countries.

    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has applied this vision to her strategy of transformational diplomacy. The goal is to develop a network of well-governed states capable through responsible sovereignty of protecting themselves and contributing to regional security. By so doing, they also protect the international system.

    She has described her approach as "doing things with people, not for them." Note the key prepositions: with, not for. In a word, this means partnership. This vision supports African leadership as strategic partners and seeks to build up Africa's institutional capacity. In other words, doing things with Africans, not for them.

    ECONOMIC SUCCESS

    Contrary to impressions that many have, let me say that Africa is doing well now by traditional economic criteria. In 2006, the economy of all sub-Saharan Africa grew by 5.5 percent -- the same rate the world economy grew. Put differently, twenty-three African nations grew at a rate faster than 5 percent. Only one – Zimbabwe – failed to grow at all.

    U.S. policy seeks to support and sustain that growth over the long term. It has become a truism that trade is the best aid. Creating the basis for a healthy, open trading relationship with Africa is a key objective.

    AGOA

    The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has brought increased trade flows and new industry to Africa. Thanks in part to AGOA, two-way trade between the U.S and Africa has risen from $29 billion in 2000 to over $71 billion last year. In just one year, 2005-6, U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa rose by 17 percent (to $12 billion). Imports from Africa also rose by 17 percent (to $59.2 billion).

    These figures didn't happen by chance. AGOA has helped jump-start the rise in bilateral trade. AGOA has become the cornerstone of our trade and investment policy in Africa. It was and is a great idea that has worked.

    MCC

    I said that it is crucial to support Africa's quest for building accountable democratic institutions. To succeed in the global economy, nations need fair and transparent legal systems; free markets that unleash the creativity of their citizens; banking systems that serve people at all income levels; and a business climate that welcomes foreign investment and supports local entrepreneurs.

    We're doing this through a new program, the Millennium Challenge Account. This program works in countries that have already demonstrated commitment to fight corruption, implement democratic reforms, invest in health and education, and promote economic freedom. African governments -- not Americans -- must come up with ideas, a change in our way of doing development. Once again, we seek a partnership of equals, Americans and African, where Africans take ownership and responsibility.

    INVESTING IN PEOPLE

    True commitment means dealing with health: notably, the terrible killing machines of AIDS and malaria. And the place to start is partnership with ministries of health, working with African leaders in their effort to battle disease.

    PEPFAR

    We have taken on Africa's most daunting health challenges. President Bush's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) was launched in 2003 as a five-year, 15 billion dollar program to combat HIV/AIDS in 15 countries, 12 of them in sub-Saharan Africa. A few months ago, President Bush doubled this commitment to $30 billion over ten years.

    PMI -- MALARIA

    For too long the West has turned a blind eye to malaria, which no longer exists in the developed world but is the #1 killer of Africans. We have begun to right that wrong.

    The President's Malaria Initiative, a 1.5 billion dollar initiative to fight this disease in fifteen African countries. This includes insecticide treated bed nets, indoor spraying, and life-saving anti-malaria medications.

    To take one case, Zanzibar: This year -- the second year – Malaria has nearly been wiped out on the historical island of Zanzibar in East Africa. That show what commitment, resources, and existing knowledge can accomplish.

    THE GRASSROOTS ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

    Churches

    I have said little about the role of churches. It was American missions who built and operated many of the first school that educated Africans – black Africans. Generations of African leaders got their learning in these American schools, and some went on to study in HBCUs and other American colleges and universities. That is a powerful and positive legacy, one that happened in spite of official U.S. policy.

    Today, that tradition continues and is growing. Churches of all denominations have expanded their missions in Africa. I have seen Africans come to speak to congregations that only a generation ago would have kept them out because of the color of their skin, I have seen Americans of all backgrounds from very corner of our society work in Africa as teachers, doctors, nurses, and ministers, beloved by those communities they have dedicated their loves to. And I have seen, as you have, too, Africans make this flow a two-way street, coming to America not just to study, but to minister, teach, and serve, all under the aegis of a church, not Uncle Sam.

    Peace Corps

    When the Peace Corps started up in the Kennedy Administration, few anticipated one of its greatest impacts: The impact of a community of tens of thousands of former volunteers in Africa. Many of these fell in love with Africa, sometimes with Africans literally, and have dedicated their lives to the continent.

    Immigration

    I see it in Immigration of Africans to America. Just as the Civil Rights revolution opened many doors to African Americans, it made possible the immigration reform of 1965, which ended race-based favoritism as immigration policy and opened the doors to people of color. Today, large and growing communities of Ethiopian-Americans, Somali-Americans, Nigerian-Americans, and others have spread across America, following the pattern of previous immigrants. One of those patterns is maintaining an interest in their roots, and trying to influence foreign. Just as Cuban, Polish, and Chinese immigrants have done for many decades, African immigrants are learning, and learning well how to press the buttons of power in Washington. Pay attention, I say to my colleagues, this is something new, and you'd better understand it.

    And I see it in the private sector. We hear so much about oil, and that is part of the American story in Africa, at least in Nigeria and Angola. And there's bauxite in Guinea and Ghana, iron ore and rubber in Liberia, and so on. Now, however, we are witnessing the broadening of that trading relationship, fueled in many cases by AGOA, but driven by middle and small business. Just to cite one example – shrimp from Mozambique, shipped to Miami for packaging. (Mozambique, I can say, has the best shrimp on earth.)

    Presidents come and go. Secretaries of State come and go. Congresses come and go, all something that an elections year reminds us of.

    What will not and cannot change is this fundamental shift, a societal shift, of attention towards Africa. It is here for good, at this the grassroots level.

    Thank you.

    **********************************

    Greg Garland, sorry I missed you.

    My Initial Grooveshark Profile

    Today I posted my initial profile on grooveshark.com and thought I would post it here since this blog really boils down to an open conversation with myself. The basic profile:


    Black to the bone in my own kind of way, raised in northeast Florida, living in Tallahassee, married, no kids, too curious for my own vocational well-being, big sports fan, probably too old to be messing around with grooveshark but I'm intrigued by the concept


    As for my favorite music:


    R&B mostly but I genuinely like all kinds of music, including Hip-Hop and Country.

    I often use classical music as my elevator music; I couldn't tell you who composed what but . . . it can be very good to listen to.


    As we used to say in the U.S. Army Signal Corps, with an appropriate nod to the Austrailians: roger that, mate!

    The Unending Contemplation On Race

    Race, race, race. Three posts, three takes, interesting comments in the threads:

    [1] Volokh Conspiracy

    [2] Belmont Clu