DragonFlight

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.

There is and has been at least two Americas (as well as many others) for a long time, white and one black. There are no doubt preachers in both black and white churches influenced by this, especially if they grew up during the era of segregation. This is not shocking. What is shocking is that it has taken so long to become an issue in a national election.

Might some of Reverend Wright’s statements appear disturbing to some people? Sure. Does it cause anxiety for some that Senator Obama is a member of the reverend’s church, has known him for twenty years, and refers to him as a friend and mentor? It might. Does it make Obama a racist? Not really. Might he feel some resentment on some level, having grown up in an America that doesn’t exactly treat half of his DNA make-up with respect? Yes. I’d think he was untrustworthy if he didn’t. I don’t want a man running for president who is in complete denial regarding the prejudice aimed at the community of which he has been a part for the last few hundred years. Does it mean he won’t be fair with all people? No. In a man with real integrity and honesty it is very possible this experience and empathy might make him even more sensitive to the needs of everyone.

I find racism disturbing period, but, it is part of our culture. Any kind of prejudice demonstrates limited thinking, and yet our society is a repository for all kinds of prejudice-based bigotry. Our nation is replete with people who have in some way been directly or indirectly discriminated against. Do I have to mention every ethnic, religious and “fill in the blank__________” group of people, including “women,” that fall into this category? Do I have to remind every individual who for whatever reasons has felt himself/herself discriminated against in any fashion, if not only economically or socially? I think not. Most of us have been on the short end of the stick for some reason or other in our lifetimes. It’s a good lesson in empathy and compassion, albeit one not always learned.

I’m not sure which is more surprising, that Reverend Wright said the things he did, or that so many Americans are so bent out of shape because they finally found out. How many “white churches” have preachers who in their own rhetorical styles incite some racial or bigoted responses of their own? Overall styles may differ between most white and black churches, but this is a natural result of varying cultures. So what?

Reverend John Hagee recently endorsed Senator McCain’s campaign, which McCain accepted, and then repudiated after some of Hagee’s remarks were made public. Then Hagee turned around and stated that it was McCain who had sought his endorsement, and not he who volunteered it. The media hasn’t given this news anywhere near the coverage they gave to the Obama/Wright story. Where’s the outrage?

Reverend Hagee is the one who called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore,” and just happened to mention that the Anti-Christ will be Jewish, and that Muslims will be in the Devil’s army at the time of Armageddon. You think he might ever make inflammatory remarks in his church?

John McCain has claimed that Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.” There is an interesting article about Parsley’s endorsement of McCain, as well as some of his rather extreme views regarding those he considers the enemies of Christianity at motherjones.com. Parsley is the leader of a 12,000 member congregation in Columbus Ohio, and quite politically influential in that state. According to Mother Jones:

Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam. In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues: “I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”

I had not been aware that part of the United States’ “divine purpose” was defeating Islam, or that it was even part of an “historical conflict.” I don’t recall the Founding Fathers mentioning it.

I realize many Americans are now convinced, in no small part by the ceaseless rhetoric of the Bush Administration, that America is at war with Islam. We have been repeatedly told they hate everything we stand for. Is it that, or do they resent our many decades of interfering in Middle Eastern governments, based on what we want, not what they need? Whatever the case, Reverend Parsley appears to represent that which he claims to fear, namely religious bigotry and exclusivity. What are the chances that Reverend Parsley makes inflammatory remarks against other races, ethnic groups and those he judges unworthy by disagreement, in his own church?

I don’t necessarily disagree with many of Reverend Wright’s statements. Is there, and has there been, anti-black sentiment in the United States? Have whites and blacks been competing on an equal playing field? Is there cause for resentment on all sides of this? I know slavery was real. How does this compare with Hagee and Parsley’s shameless opinionated bigotry against other lifestyles, and religions? Where’s the outrage against them, and Senator McCain?

The point is not that such rhetoric in churches is outrageous, but that perhaps it is not uncommon. We are all in some way exposed to extreme viewpoints by some of those we associate with. And, I can’t imagine many organizations more susceptible to strong and extreme opinions, than those based in religion. When you believe in absolutes, it’s easy, and almost mandatory, to dismiss others who don’t share those beliefs. In fact, many religions claim it is dangerous to associate with those who disagree. After all, what could be more corrupting, or threatening than to associate with those who don’t adhere to “the word of God” as one sees it?

The time has finally come for an open dialogue on racism in America. We are all affected by it in one way or another, and now is as good a time as any, and better than most. In fact, the present political climate demands it! The United States of America cannot hope any longer to successfully deal with the rest of the world, politically, economically or socially, as long as it continues to be a nation divided by its own denial, fears and prejudices. There should no longer be two Americas based on color, a reality based in ignorance and fear, not the religious morality we hear about constantly, and see demonstrated much less often.

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.

After being on the sorry end of smear politics for a very long time, one would think that Hillary Clinton would have gained a degree of empathy and understanding about how truly reprehensible and inexcusable such behavior is. Yet here she is, employing the same hypocrisy, nastiness and mean spirited “Me! Me! Me!” politics as those employed against herself and her husband. The terms bitch and monster have been used during the present campaign to describe her, and though saddened by such distasteful rhetoric, I’m starting to hope the shoe isn’t beginning to fit.

First, let’s get one thing straight. I am not a Republican. Once an Independent, I registered as a Democrat a long time ago, when I saw the GOP platform taken over by the religious right wing nutcases, and realized that the political battlefield had become quite polarized. There is almost nothing about the GOP that I like or respect. I believe the Republican Party has come to represent corruption, hypocrisy and slime, and everything I abhor in bad government. The present Bush/Cheney Administration is the worst example of this putridness imaginable. In my idealistic youth, I would never have imagined this beloved nation could so tragically have been taken over by a bunch of thugs in the White House who make the Al Capone mob seem like Cub Scouts by comparison. You couldn’t pay me enough to vote Republican at the present time. I wouldn’t be able to cleanse myself of the stench.

I was a big Bill Clinton fan. Though I learned he was flawed, who isn’t? I believe that all in all he did a decent job as President. We’ve had much worse.

I was brought up to be a liberal thinker, and have no objections to a woman being president. It’s a concept whose time has come. After all, the testosterone driven world of men, as demonstrated throughout history, is replete with a sort of insanity, as demonstrated by the continual predilection toward violence and war. Until recently, I had no qualms about Hillary Clinton becoming the first woman in that office. I think she is a smart, caring, and capable individual.

All that having been said, I am absolutely appalled by the quality and content of the current Hillary Clinton campaign, as are many others. I’ve spoken with other staunch Democrats who claim they wouldn’t vote for her in the national election because of her present behavior. I’m on the fence at the moment, but sorely tempted to agree.

I draw the line at sleaze and hypocrisy, the same reasons I’ve begun to truly dislike anything Republican. It’s a type of behavior that is no more appealing to me when coming from the left.

Recently, Hillary Clinton has accused Barack Obama of saying one thing in public and something else to a foreign government behind closed doors, an allegation which is, to the best of my knowledge, both unproven and unsubstantiated. Is she projecting? Her own opinions seem to vary with every change in direction of the political wind, and according to which audience in which state she may to talking to on any given day. This is not unusual for a politician, but the degree to which the nastiness has been cranked up against the other candidate in her own party is unacceptable.

Obama has vowed to not give in to the temptation to wage a dirty campaign, for which I respect him. However, this is something Clinton has obviously decided to ruthlessly take advantage of. She appears to suddenly believe that dirty politics is what the nation desires and needs, even though she has spoken out against it for almost two decades. And, no doubt if Obama rises up in any way to challenge her with a tit for tat performance, she will yell, “See, I told you! He is just another politician.”

Sorry Senator Clinton, you aren’t running in the Republican Party where the sheep follow the shepherd, and that type of behavior is encouraged. You are in the party of mostly independent, intelligent, and educated voters, and this sort of crap will not serve you, or the Democratic Party, in the long run. If you are really “about the country,” you would not be exhibiting behavior that is bound to hurt your own party. Don’t get too excited by winning small victories in politically challenged states like Texas and Ohio. Now that you are succumbing to the temptation to be nasty and insulting, you may find yourself in an uphill battle you will not survive.

Two years ago I didn’t even know who Barack Obama was. When later asked by people what I thought of him as a presidential candidate, I had to admit I didn’t know much about him, and could not answer the question. I’ve been learning a lot about the man just by observing him in the public forum and during the debates. This is how I “read” people, and get a feel for who they might be. I knew right from the start that the self-proclaimed cowboy from Texas was a loser, just by watching and listening to him. I’m still surprised more did not. Presently, I feel Barack Obama might be a winner, based on how he presents himself, how he thinks, and who he appears to be. I’ll learn even more by observing how he responds to the present Clinton onslaught against him. Unlike what some would have us believe, though experience is important, who a person is is even more important!

Using the same criteria, I am growing increasingly disenchanted with Hillary Clinton’s behavior, and wondering who she might really be. The politics of personal ambition are not nearly as attractive as straight talking, honesty and integrity. Viciously attacking a same party opponent, while praising an opposite party opponent, and to the detriment of your own party, is not a wise move. It’s the “I come first, and everyone else comes last” type of mentality. It’s what we’ve seen in the White House for seven long years now, and something which needs to end!

I see no need to list all the attacks Senator Clinton has been making against Senator Obama; most readers here are smart enough and informed enough to know what is being said. We’ve heard the Obama/Canada/NAFTA allegations, the infamous and quite juvenile 3:00 AM phone call ad, the Obama is a Christian if he says so comment, and the McCain and I have the qualifications to be the Commander-in-Chief while Obama has “only a speech” blather, as well as quite a few other derogatory anti-Obama remarks. Most people know in their own minds, and in their guts, what is real and what isn’t. They recognize self-aggrandizing rhetoric when they hear it, and “what ‘is’ is.” I’m simply stating my opinion so that others who are having similar feelings of unease about Hillary Clinton will know they are not alone.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are campaigning on the need for change. Thus far, aside from speeches, rhetoric, and promises, I see very little change in the tactics Hillary Clinton is employing. A few months ago I would have supported just about any one of the Democratic primary candidates, including the two who have survived the fray. A few months ago I was excited by the prospect of Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but now I think, not at any price.

Senator Clinton claims she is more electable against Senator McCain. I don’t see it, unless something changes. At this critical juncture, when the GOP might self-destruct after seven years of Bush et al, and is split over its own Presidential candidate, and at a time when it has appeared quite plausible that the Democrats could re-take the White House; the Democrats are in dire need of a candidate who will unite, not divide the party. The Republicans have believed for almost two years now that they can mobilize their base against Hillary Clinton in a national election. This may or may not be true, but what is true is that the present conflict in the Democratic Party could be the catalyst to make it a reality. Clinton attacking Obama’s qualifications, while praising McCain’s, and insisting that the Florida and Michigan delegates be assigned based on unofficial balloting, and vying for super delegates to interfere in the process, along with the negative campaigning, may just be the straw that breaks the Democratic back in the Democratic National Convention and 2008 election.

I can already visualize the GOP commercials that will be running during the national election – the actual videos of a Democrat demeaning another Democrat, a Democratic front-runner praising the qualifications of the Republican candidate, and the party eating itself alive.

Senator Clinton, please wake up to the reality of what you are doing, and make some changes while there is still time to turn things around. I'm hoping this is not the real you, but rather, that you are following some very bad advice.

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.

There were also those from various empires, civilizations, and tribes who were called warriors in the sense of having fought the personal battle of soul and spirit over lower mind and emotions. Among these are those who went on vision quests, long journeys into the wilderness, and fasted or completed various rituals in order to experience personal and spiritual transformation. Some even became teachers, shamans, saints, messiahs -- individuals who sometimes inspired others to create religions. Quite often these religions were flawed and very poor reflections of the actual experiences that inspired these heroes, but mankind seemed content to bask in the reflection of such achievement without having to actually emulate it. Many such religions have even been named after the heroes who inspired them. Most often these were the peacemakers, those inspiring others to rise above the lower impulses of anger, hatred, violence and control, but not always.

Who are the unsung heroes -- perhaps good parents, teachers, community leaders, friends and everyday people who have lived decent lives and made the world a better place for having done so? We’ve all at one time or other come across someone in our lives who made a difference, and became a hero to us. We have also been heroes to ourselves and others, but it may not be certain that we have recognized it, or taken the time to acknowledge ourselves in any way.

Recently, noted feminist Gloria Steinem, speaking before a Hillary Clinton rally in Austin, Texas, was making the case, according to the New York Observer, “that the media and political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.” She spoke of John McCain’s captivity during Vietnam, saying, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.” She stated to the Observer that, “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”

No doubt Steinem has been and will be attacked by all those believing this was an insult to John McCain and his service to the nation. I don’t believe it was her intent too belittle McCain, or to infer that he hadn't acted heroically. It’s my impression that, like myself, she was simply tired of hearing the words hero and military constantly linked in attempts to automatically qualify anyone for a position of high leadership. Can it help to have such service? Undoubtably. Is it necessary, or always preferable? Undoubtably not.

We presently live in a world which, viewed from afar, might appear perfectly insane. Here we are entering the 21st Century, and after 7000 or more years of fighting bitterly amongst ourselves, we are still at it. Homo sapiens faces various crises, including dwindling natural and energy resources, over population, hunger, disease, homelessness, toxic contamination of the air, water and earth, and the ultimate threats of nuclear holocaust and climate change triggered by global warming. And instead of rationally and definitively focusing on creatively and positively solving these problems, we are still waging and threatening to wage war all across the globe. Insane indeed, to say nothing of totally unproductive and self-destructive!

Perhaps it’s time for a new kind of hero. Perhaps it’s time for individuals more concerned about the welfare of the planet and other people than trying to accumulate the most power and “stuff” before they have to die and leave it all behind anyway. Perhaps it’s time to abandon the weary mantra that “every person has the opportunity to make it on their own,” and pay more attention to helping those who don’t seem able, for whatever reasons, to do just that. Maybe the time has come for each and every individual on this tiny, and very vulnerable planet, rushing headlong though the lonely, frigid vastness of space to realize we are all in the same boat, and basically wanting the same things --security, comfort, respect and love, and start becoming the type of heroes that can manifest those things instead of war, pestilence, conquest and death.

Is it time to replace the old myths and superstitions with new and better ones, and if so, will we do it in time to save ourselves?

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