DragonFlight

In the wake of the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic primaries, it becomes quite apparent that barring any totally unforeseen circumstances, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee. I see no way Hillary Clinton can get the nomination unless the super delegates decide to totally ignore the will of the people in the primary states, which is quite unlikely.

Finally the time rapidly approaches to address the real question, namely, is America ready, willing, and able to vote for a Black male as President of the United States? An election process beginning as the search to pick the most qualified candidate for president must inevitably end by testing the climate of racism in America. Ironically, the Democratic theme during the primaries as well as the upcoming national elections will be the necessity of change, an obvious approach after seven long and seriously flawed years of the Bush Administration and an enabling Congress. Any Democratic candidate would be running on a platform of change. Ironically, Barack Obama represents a whole lot more than mere political change. He is a Black man in a nation that historically and presently continues to be a hot bed of racism and discrimination. America, ready or not, has reached a critical nexus point in its history, and racism can no longer remain on the back burner.

Continue reading "Can America Vote Black?" »

Posted by Stephen at 03:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I suppose it’s not “patriotic” to mention or even think about it, but I’m sad to admit I’m not quite as proud of America as I used to be, and I don't think I'm alone.

For everything about America that is great, as we enter the 21st century it is a nation still divided by prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and discrimination, all triggered by a mindset which allows people to deny their own insecurities and fear in order to justify a need to find someone to feel better than.

Though greed and the thirst for power (so often driven by that same insecurity) have always been part of the equation, it’s disturbing that a philosophy such as, “it’s okay to screw others as long as there is a good chance you can get away with it,” basically an acceptance of corruption, has become so prevalent in present day society. The corporate mentality of bottom line profit economics and people be damned has certainly played a huge role in encouraging such thinking. Greatness must be earned on a continual basis; it's not just a label to stick on a lapel, like a flag pin.

Continue reading "Is America Great Beyond A Reasonable Doubt?" »

Posted by Stephen at 03:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The March 29 Post “editor for a day” by Professor Gregory Ghica, entitled “How can we have a color blind society in today’s age?” was in my opinion rather one-sided and incomplete. He basically insinuated that the black community in America has pretty much failed to take advantage of all the wonderful advantages offered to them by white society since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “brought the issue of race discrimination in America 50 years ago in his famous speech.” There’s the implication that the black community would be as educated, job secure, motivated, accepted and successful as anyone in America if they had only taken advantage of all that was offered. If only things were so simple and uncomplicated.

Notably, there was no mention of the white communities’ resistance to such change in many places. Professor Ghica states, “We all remember the “School busing;” What a failure that was with the black community adamant against its implementation.” What’s missing is the fact that in many cities across the nation, it was quite often the white community that protested school busing.

Continue reading "Some Wounds Take a Long Time to Heal" »

Posted by Stephen at 04:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0)

The editorial board of the Post recently made a comparison between Senator Barack Obama’s mention of his white grandmother’s racial fears, and the rhetoric of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s friend and pastor of twenty years. They stated: “But to have placed those fears of an old woman as somehow parallel and equal to the rantings of Obama’s chief spiritual advisor just won’t wash.” Most of the nation clearly interpreted Obama’s statement as an attempt to confirm that racism does, and has existed in American culture for quite some time, often hits close to home, and exists in both blacks and whites.

It’s mainly been the right wing media attempting to turn his statements into something else – ranting in anger before a congregation, or crossing to the other side of a street out of fear, are only different faces of the same coin. Perhaps the Post agrees with remarks by conservative pundit, Pat Buchanan who referred to Obama’s statement while on MSNBC on March 21, by saying, “it ghettoizes him, takes him back to his base.” For all the Post’s admirable attempts to print opinions from all sides of the political spectrum, it still remains far to the right itself, often employing right wing spin to make its case, one often molded to fit its own bias.

Did we honestly expect to get through an election cycle that has an African-American male running for President without the issue of race surfacing sooner or later? And is it not better to have it come out now, while we are still eight months out from the national election? That many are shocked, or say they are, both by some of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s statements, and Obama’s post-Wright speech are either not really paying attention to life on the planet and in their nation, or they are simply disingenuous.

Continue reading "Wow!!! There’s Racism in America!?!" »

Posted by Stephen at 08:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)

Is it time for a woman President? Sure! It could be good for the nation, and good for the world. And though I would back a woman candidate, it would have to be the right woman, a person in whom I could trust and believe, and of course, a person I’m convinced could win in the national election. I saw that person a couple of months ago, but I don’t see her now.

Just as I was beginning to suppress the gag reflex at the sight and sound of George Bush, along comes a new aggressive, insulting, “fighter,” Hillary Clinton, someone I had always liked, who is now making me cringe while doing her best Karl Rove impersonation. Any phone call she might answer at 3:00 AM in the morning, brings up the image of “bait and switch” used car salesman – not a fighter, but a slick-meister, or political doppelganger.

It’s been a shocking decade or so of politics. Just as the sun is hopefully setting on the absolutely worse Administration in American history, and when hope is high that an era of Republican leadership, with all its despicable political games, corruption, and ineptitude might finally come to an end, and that finally the Democrats will have a chance to change things for the better, along comes a person who employs the same dirty politics, and seems equally focused on gaining power by any means possible.

Continue reading "Hillary Clinton – The Fall of the Great Female Hope?" »

Posted by Stephen at 06:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lately, and more than usual, I’ve heard the word hero being tossed about quite a lot. It most often seems to be associated with people who make war. Undoubtably it is at times of war, whether large or small, that we see this connection made more often. My father was in the Army Air Corp during World War II, and flew 50 combat missions over Europe as the Navigator in a B-17 named Pandora's Box, and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Air Medal with six clusters, and two Presidential Citations. Do I consider him a hero? You betcha! So though I can understand why we would consider such warriors heroes, I still have to wonder if war is the highest standard we wish to set when we presently think of that word?

As I look back at the very short history of so-called “civilized” mankind, I observe that history and mythology are replete with archetypical heroes, many or most whom were warriors, and again, most often in the military sense of the word – soldiers, battlefield commanders, and leaders. This was often back in the days when such leaders actually stood at the head of their armies and navies, and didn’t just sit in an office thousands of miles away and send others to do their fighting for them.

Continue reading "Tired of Hearing the Word Hero Equated with Militarism? " »

Posted by Stephen at 04:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Listening to John McCain, and previously Mitt Romney, as well as various other Republicans of all shapes and sizes, go on and on with “I’m more conservative than you are” is enough to make one nauseous, or worse. I myself haven’t known what a “real” conservative is for almost a decade. It used to be somewhat easy to define one, using a few trusty key concepts like small government, fiscal responsibility and states rights. And then, we were suddenly informed that there was something called a “compassionate conservative,” but that didn’t last very long, most likely because nobody could find many anywhere. What makes this even more confusing is that recently, Republican politicians seem to be dancing to the drum of some form of conservatism that only they can hear.

One must take it on trust that many religious extremists are conservative, only because they say they are. I don’t agree it’s a given that someone who is very religious is by nature conservative. It’s not my opinion that traditional values of any sort automatically qualify as being conservative. Yet even so, those on the religious right don’t seem to require anything from their politicians other than that they talk about religion a lot, as if that in itself means much of anything in general, nonetheless confirms their conservatism.

Continue reading "What Exactly Is A Conservative Nowadays?" »

Posted by Stephen at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

Most people get the importance of present global warming concerns, and to most of us this is old news. However, there are still many who really don’t understand its nature, what it is about, and what the ultimate consequences are, or might be. Instead of really attempting to grasp the reality of this phenomenon, many of these individuals, for some strange reason, talk themselves into believing it’s a political issue. There will no doubt always be some who will turn any controversy, whether it concerns climate, religion, war, economics, defining what life is, or “whatever,” into a political issue. But that is another story.

The only real issue is that humankind can only exist on this planet in a very narrow range of conditions, and the planet is quite capable of altering those conditions in a relatively short time when stressed!

The consequences of not getting this potential crisis, in the event it is real, are too irrevocably horrible to contemplate, and that is why everyone should be paying close attention! If global warming turns out not to be a threat (and most reputable scientists agree it is), the worst we might do is clean up the planet. If it is real, we as a species are toast! One doesn’t have to be a scientist to grasp the ramifications.

There are those who believe gradual warming won’t be so bad (great for that sun tan, and summer vacations in northern latitudes), and others have noticed that some places are actually cooler than normal. Getting sidetracked by local anomalies, instead of focusing on the true long-term trend, is simply a form of denial concerning the eventual consequences.

Continue reading "Living Or Dying On Planet Earth!" »

Posted by Stephen at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I need to thank a fellow Post blogger for setting me straight on a lot of misconceptions I’ve held about what really threatens us as a nation. One of his latest, entitled, “Death by degrees,” has truly opened my eyes and helped me see the error of my concerns. He speaks about the “death of liberty” brought about by a culture of “liberal thinking” which is “eroding away our little freedoms.”

I had missed the “liberal thinking” threat, instead mistakenly concerning myself with the new “conservative” thinking, or is it more accurately described as neo-conservative or Republican thinking? It’s hard to know. Namely, I’m referring to the thinking and policies brought to us by the present Administration and largely enabled by the Republicans in Congress; call it what you will.

I was focused on what I now realize were small things -- illegal government wire tapping, the suspension of habeas corpus, torture and compromise of the Geneva Conventions, the coercion of the phone companies to allow government access to private conversations, political interference by the Attorney General, desire to alter the Constitution to define marriage, and attempts to control what a woman might do with her own body. I was also needlessly worried about tax cuts for the top one percent not needing them, and, coinciding with an illicit war (costing 1.5-2 billion dollars per week), war profiteering, the misuse of billions of dollars, and the loss of billions in cash and large number of missing arms – all resulting in cries to spend less by cutting funds for unnecessary social entitlements like healthcare and education. I was also stupidly focusing on the inability or absence of motivation for our government to safeguard US consumers from toxic products coming in from China, the outsourcing of too many jobs, the sub prime lending fiasco, and rapidly rising credit card debt which has many in serious trouble.

Continue reading "I Almost Missed The Real Threat: “liberal thinking!”" »

Posted by Stephen at 03:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I heard a news pundit just today characterize the way the media took some recent remarks by Bill Clinton about Barack Obama, and out of context, as simply being “what the media does.” This woman appeared quite young, and in her defense perhaps it can be said she doesn’t know any better, and doesn’t have a memory reaching back to a time when reporters actually reported facts instead of misreporting and twisting people’s words to sensationalize rather than inform -- a time before media was controlled by a government owned by corporations.

The latest fiasco is NBC’s decision to renege on their invitation to Dennis Kucinich to appear in the Las Vegas Democratic primary debate. I find this rather outrageous. It should not be up to the media to determine the voter’s access to all candidates, and, Kucinich had already met their criteria (being the fourth contender), been invited, and then informed they had decided to change their mind about allowing a four candidate debate. I say @#*$@& to NBC! I wrote to them, as did several others I know, and spoke of my outrage, telling them Kucinich should be re-invited. Good luck!

Continue reading "Democracy Or Media-ocracy?" »

Posted by Stephen at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)