A Lesson in Necessary and Sufficient Conditions, Compliments of Mr. Sowell

Every now and then I like to find the most ridiculous thing written by a conservative columnist, and hold it up to the light for a moment. I don't do this very often, probably because the process of finding said ridiculous bit of bloviating is, frankly, more than a little annoying, and from time to time inspires violence against my computer (I can't read this stuff on my laptop, lest it launch itself across the room!)

I generally pick on Cal Thomas, because if anyone knows ridiculous, it is Cal Thomas (though I am on the record agreeing with him once - I won't make a habit of it, I promise). Today, however, I'm going to diversify a little, bringing just a hint of light to a particularly flagrant bit of ridiculous from Thomas Sowell. In a recent op-ed piece in the Washington Times, Mr. Sowell takes up the subject of the kinds of judges a president Barack Obama might appoint. (And he gets extra credit for his use of scare-quotes around the word "change" in the first paragraph - I could see John McCain's sarcastic shrug jumping off my computer monitor!)

He writes:

Mr. Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants - those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things Mr. Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think - and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are rather than on the facts and the law? If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex? The kind of criteria Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime neither they nor anybody else committed.

I don't know whether or not Mr. Sowell is accurately quoting Sen. Obama - you don't need to offer citations for an op-ed piece, and your readers wouldn't thank you if you did. Since I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this quote, I'll take Thomas Sowell at his word when he writes that Obama said this. However, I seriously doubt that this is the only thing that Barack Obama, a lawyer who taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago - one of the world's finest academic institutions - has ever said on the subject. Yet that's what Mr. Sowell would have you believe. It is, in fact, the premise on which his entire argument depends.

Barack Obama says that judges should be able to empathize with the experience of the marginalized, therefore the defining characteristic for a judge, according to Barack Obama, is empathy with the experience of the marginalized. Knowledge of the law? Bah! All you really need to be able to do, to be a good judge, is to side with the minority against the majority, every time. A case between a woman and a man? You don't need to know the facts of the, or the relevant legal principles and precedents. Just side with the woman! A case between a black man and a white man? The black man should win every time! Gay v. straight, poor v. rich? These are easy decisions!

Now, it gets tricky when you have to choose between a black man and a white woman. Which is the trump, race or gender? I guess you could just flip a coin.

Does Sowell really believe that a lawyer and a scholar of Constitutional law would use this, and this alone, as his criterion for entry to the federal bench? I certainly hope not. Sowell has, frankly, written some whack-out shit in his time, but this would take the cake, calling not only his intelligence but his very sanity into question.

The most reasonable take on the quote from Sen. Obama that Mr. Sowell offers us is that Obama believes (rightly, I think), that the ability to empathize - and especially to empathize with those who so often stand powerless before the court - is a judicial asset. The strongest reasonable reading is that such ability is a necessary condition for being a good federal judge. That is, that empathy for the experience of the marginalized in our society is a quality that would be present in any good federal judge.

But is this the only quality? Heavens no! And no serious person would suggest otherwise. It should go without saying that any lawyer - much less someone who has taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago (have I mentioned that enough?!?) - would value some knowledge of *gasp* the law and the Constitution! Yet clearly Mr. Sowell needs this spelled out for him.

So, Thomas Sowell, let me be (hopefully not) the first person to tell you that you have committed a flagrant violation of logic, and should be chastised accordingly. You have made the elementary mistake of confusing a necessary condition with sufficient conditions.

For those of you keeping score at home, a necessary condition is a condition that must be met. A baseball, for instance, must be round. It is not sufficient, in that there are a great many round objects that are not baseballs; but it is necessary, in that there are no baseballs that are not round.

Similarly, if we are to read the statement of Barack Obama's that Mr. Sowell devotes an entire ill-conceived column to in the strongest reasonable way, it is necessary for a good federal judge to show empathy. That is, per Sen. Obama, there are no good federal judges who are unable to empathize with the experience of the oppressed. (This may well mean that, by this standard, a good many federal judges are not good, and that is a problem that I certainly hope an Obama administration would address!) So, it is necessary that a good federal judge be able to experience and express empathy, allowing that empathy to factor into judicial rulings. However, it does not follow from this that empathy is sufficient, that it is the only quality of a good federal judge.

I really shouldn't have had to type that.

Did I mention that Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of F-ing Chicago?!? They don't just let ANYBODY do that! (that's as close to shouting as I get)

But I'll give Mr. Sowell some credit. As ridiculous as his assertion is, it is by no means the most ridiculous assertion made at the page on which I found his column. For a real taste of true wingnettery, check out the comments, which include claims that Barack Obama - because he once clumsily used the phrase "spread the wealth" (as though that weren't the point of all taxes!) - would outlaw private property! However, the lunatic claiming that didn't get paid for his/her contribution.

Thomas Sowell: Thanks for trying. Better luck next time.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reader survey:

Should we indict Thomas Sowell for crimes against logic?

If so, and if he is convicted, what should his sentence be?

Bigotry is Not Just a Republican Sin

The Republican Party has long been rightly mocked for staging political events to portray a diversity by and large lacking in the party as a whole. The Obama campaign, alas, has just gone the other way.

It was with great sorrow and more than a little bit of disappointment that I read this article by Politico's Ben Smith, about two Muslim women who "were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate."

Sen. Obama neither made nor supported this decision, and his campaign has apologized for it. Anyone who has followed this campaign understands that it happened in a particular context in which he - cast in many corners as the suspect "other" because of his race, must constantly fend off unsupported, far fetched, and often crazy rumors. Rumors such as that he is a "sleeper Muslim," a rumor ridiculously at odds with that other attempt to paint him as religiously suspect.

However, this is simply not acceptable. Being victimized by racism, by our xenophobic fear of the "other," should create empathy for those who - for reasons of race, gender, class, religion, or any other reason - are discriminated against, feared and hated, in American society. That was not the case here.

Despite some transparent attempts by conservatives to claim that this incident sheds some light onto some long dark region of Sen. Obama's character and judgment - a tired trick employed at every "gaff," real or manufactured - I'm not sure we learned anything about Barack Obama here. But we did learn that Republicans do not own a monopoly on bigotry. They never have, and they never will. Bigotry knows no political allegiance. It is an equal opportunity sin.

My hope is that Barack Obama will personally reach out to these women, and - though he was not directly involved in the sin against them - take responsibility for the actions of his volunteers. This would, of course, mean that he's holding himself to a higher standard than any other presidential candidate, past or present. But isn't that what the politics of hope are about? An attempt to change the climate and conduct of politics. In reaching out to these women, in talking to them directly, apologizing to their face, and offering them the chance to appear with him in public, he would be explicitly communicating that the politics of preying on fear - especially the fear of difference - has no place in his campaign, and would have no place in his administration.

But in American politics, such a move may be too audacious to hope for.

__________________________________________________________________________

Update: 6-19-08, 2:18pm

Brian Francis at POLITICALINACTION.COM has a slightly different take on this story:

Volunteers for Obama's campaign prevented 2 Muslim women wearing headscarves from sitting behind him and Gore the other night. First, Obama has had women in headscarves sitting behind him before. Secondly, take off your damn headscarves. If the candidate you support, and will bring a differently level of respect for your faith than Bush/McCain, swallow your damn pride and take that nonsense off. 13% of the country believe Obama is some secret Muslim terrorist. When he fist bumps, they call it a 'terrorist fist jab'. Obama has an image problem, and all I'm saying is that people shouldn't wearing attire that would further that problem. It's not like black people show up with 'black power' t-shirts on or something. All Obama supporters now need to think of 'old white set in their ways narrow minded male swing voters' if they want change. These were 2 volunteers working in Detroit. I don't think it will happen ever again.

I don't entirely disagree with his take, but I am incensed at his line, "take off your damn headscraves," which is blatantly anti-Islamic. Such a suggestion, coupled with his connecting the decision of these women to wear overtly religious clothing to their "damn pride" smacks of the kind of bigotry that informed the young campaign volunteers who turned these women away in the first place. It fails to respect these women's faith, or how that faith functions in their decision to wear headscarves that overtly identify them as Muslims.

I understand that the Obama campaign is under fire from the right, who - because of his race, his name, his background, and a politics of fear and bigotry - wish to tie Sen. Obama to jihadist expressions of Islam, and, of course, radical Muslim terrorism. But - and maybe I'm naive here - let me suggest that anyone who would fall for that bullshit wouldn't vote for a black man named Barack Obama, anyway.

Headscarves on the Muslim women who choose to wear them are not fashion accessories that can be taken on and off at will. They are expressions of identity, and expressions of devotion to their God. While I do not share their religion, as a religious person in a pluralistic society, I do feel the need to respect their religion, and not to use the fear and bigotry of others as cover for prohibiting the free exercise of religion in a country whose Constitution expressly grants such a freedom as an inalienable right.

____________________________________________________________________________

Last update: 6-20-08, 9:53 am

Politico's Ben Smith: Obama apologizes to Muslim women; apology accepted.

______________________________________________________________________________

Once again, no AP news articles were harmed in the making of this blog post.

Political Links

I've been knocked out for a while with the flu-bug-from-hell, and am still a little wobbly. So, absent any coherent thoughts of my own after spending the better part of the last six days feverish, weak, and coughing my lungs out (whatever you do, don't come near me - you want no part of this) I'm posting links to a few political posts that my addled brain has found either interesting or encouraging:

Here Mark Nicholas, formerly of BluegrassReport.org (which is now once again all-but-defunct) now with Political Base, explains why Hillary Clinton has lost his vote. While Mr. Nicholas - who still considers himself a supporter and fan of former president Bill Clinton - tosses a little vitriol Hillary Clinton's way, this piece is also a somewhat belated love letter to Barack Obama. Most interestingly, he argues, "Barack Obama is the natural continuation of that Clinton legacy, not Hillary Clinton."

Evidently, while I was either unconscious or totally incoherent Tuesday night, Texas state Senator Kirk Watson appeared on CNN in support of Barack Obama. Well intentioned, no doubt, but... Let's just say, with friends like these...

Sen. Watson's performance was a disaster, as many have noted. When asked to produce a single one of Obama's legislative accomplishments, he could not. This reinforced the myth (here I mean, more strongly, the colloquial lie) that Obama is all style, no substance. In response, Michael Westmoreland-White at Kentucky Fried Politics offers this partial list of Obama's accomplishments.

On the same subject, Jack Turner of Jack and Jill Politics has an even more comprehensive message on Barack Obama's experience. Included is a two-part strategy for how to be helpful when responding to the criticism that Barack Obama has no substance:

1. Demonstrate that he does have substance (both Turner and Westmoreland-White's posts do this), and

2. Flip the question.

Turner notes that appearing on behalf of Sen. Clinton, Stephanie Tubbs Jones did no better outlining legislative accomplishments than Kirk Watson did for Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, unless you've been trapped in a cave like me, you've probably seen that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain is getting some questions about his relationship with a blonde lobbyist. Sorry. No link, and no comment. God knows there are enough reasons not to vote for McCain, who recently reversed his courageous stand against torture, without a sex scandal. Having sold his once maverick soul to win the GOP bid that had always eluded him, I don't care what he did or didn't do with this or any woman (or man). In my moral calculus, sex has nothing on supporting the perpetuation of an unjust war, and removing limitations on conduct within that already unjust war.

So long, Straight Talk Express.

(For more on the once-noble McCain and torture, see here.)

Reaction to Kentucky Primary

My blog is once again in a suspended state. However, I wanted to shoot off an initial, poorly researched, emotional reaction to Kentucky's recent presidential primary.

Much has been noted in national discourse about the racist nature of Sen. Hillary Clinton's support in the Kentucky primary. As a lifelong resident of the Bluegrass state, I can say - at least anecdotally - that it is highly probable that racism was a large factor in Sen. Clinton's landslide victory here.

The exit polls show that Sen. Clinton took 72% of the white vote, with whites making up 89% of the voters, while Sen. Barack Obama took 90% of the black vote, with blacks making up 9% of the voters. 21% of Kentucky voters said that race was an important factor in their vote. 7% even said that race was the most important factor. 18% of white voters listed race as an important factor in the election. Of those 88% cast their vote for Sen. Clinton, while only 9% voted for Sen. Obama.

These numbers have been used to say various things. Among them, that Sen. Obama has "work to do" to "reach out" to "blue collar whites." Sen. Clinton even uses numbers like these - which are the foundation of her success in Appalachia - to argue that she can build a "broader base."

It has also been widely noted that Kentucky's Democrat voters are considerably more conservative than their national counterparts. I couldn't flip the channel to MSNBC or CNN yesterday without hearing some talking head note that, without, of course defining what is meant here by "conservative" or providing any context for Kentucky politics.

All of this amounted to a painful evening for me last night. Painful because my state's primary provided yet another pretense for the continuation of Sen. Clinton's impossible and divisive quest for the Democratic nomination. Painful because my state is being held up (perhaps rightly) as an example of the triumph of racism in American politics, a narrative that adds yet another hurdle for the Obama campaign to jump over. And painful because so much of this narrative is misleading.

Kentucky's voters in the Democratic primary - especially those outside Lexington and Louisville (Obama took 55% of the urban vote), who voted almost unanimously for Sen. Clinton - are called "conservative Democrats," or Blue Dogs. But perhaps many of them could be more accurately labeled "Democrats locally, Republicans nationally." This is because the state Democratic party has operated here as a machine - in many districts, even and especially rural, conservative districts, you can't crack into local politics without registering as a Democrat. Many local races are determined in the Democratic primary.

While this has changed some in the last decade or so, the lingering effects of the political machine are that the sympathies of many voters registered in the state of Kentucky as Democrats lean far more toward the Republican party. Sen. Clinton may rightly claim this as Clinton country (her husband carried Kentucky twice), but this is also Bush country. In fact, president George W. Bush enjoyed far more success here than President Clinton. And, no matter how she wants to spin it, Sen. Clinton - though she won the Democratic primary here by more than 200,000 (almost 250,000) votes - would have no hope of carrying my home state in the general election, even if she were able to somehow steal the Democratic nomination in what Jack and Jill Politics has dubbed her "deathmarch to Denver."

The exit polls indicated that a full 32% of voters in the Democratic primary plan to vote for Sen. John McCain in the general election. Of those voters, 85% backed Sen. Clinton in the primary. In other words, her "broad base of support" rests on voters who - while registered as Democrats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky - plan to support the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

Unlike polls in other states, in which the phenomenon of Clinton supports threatening to vote for McCain to spite Obama after a long, difficult primary, I suspect this is a real number. Given the climate of politics in Kentucky, I suspect more than seeing Clinton supporters lashing out at Obama, we have here McCain supporters voting for Clinton because - for local reasons - they are registered as Democrats, and thus must vote in the Democratic primary.

So Sen. Clinton's campaign was propped up here not just by the racist vote, but also - though we in Kentucky have a closed primary - by the Republican vote. This, then, hardly counts as a reason to either doubt Sen. Obama's viability as a candidate, or to believe that Sen. Clinton would be a stronger candidate in the general election. We didn't learn anything here that we didn't already know: Neither of these candidates will carry Kentucky in the fall.

A New Journalistic Low

I've been meaning to ask this for a while now:

What's so scary about Barack Obama?

Really, I've got to know. What is it about him - other, of course, than his race - that has a small but significant minority of Americans absolutely losing their minds?

The most credible non-racist answer I've heard is that his tax policies amount to a quasi-socialist redistribution of wealth. For some people, as a matter of principle, income tax levels should never be raised. I have no interest in having that debate at the moment, though I will say that a certain amount of taxation is the price we all pay for living in a civil society that helps protect our interests. Exactly who should pay how much of the taxes that provide our social and yes fiscal security is a fair and open question.

However, I fail to see exactly what's so scary about raising to income taxes of the wealthiest 1% of Americans to the pre-Bush levels. What that amounts to is an increase in the tax rate for highest tax bracket from 36% to 39%. Of course for those people (including, I might add, most likely my parents, though they've never told me exactly how much they make from year to year) this amounts to a pretty good chunk of change. But it doesn't exactly leave them penniless.

Brian Beech - our regular conservative commenter, and all-around-good-guy - has argued passionately that such increases place a disincentive on work, writing here that president-elect Obama's tax policy stems from a "Robin Hood" mentality that, carried to its logical conclusion, would "reward people for not working" (Brian, please do let me know if my selective edit of your comment somehow misrepresents your point).

This, I think, is a pretty clear articulation of the point that many conservatives are trying to make, that the accumulation of wealth should be rewarded, not penalized, in a capitalist society, and that the system of progressive taxation that has long been the staple of the modern American tax code penalizes that which should be rewarded. Of course I strongly disagree with this point. It overlooks the extent to which the social fabric bought by the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans actually secures their wealth by providing for them a stable society in which that wealth may be preserved. Thus the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans is not so much a punishment as it is an investment. And that investment is, in any democracy, not altogether involuntary.

I could also make a fair number of ethical points. I, after all, don't have a great deal of sympathy for the person who can't buy an extra yacht because their taxes got raised, when people all around have little idea where there next meal is coming from. But independent of those considerations, the fact remains, whatever one thinks of Barack Obama's tax plan, that progressive taxation has long been the way we do things in America. Notwithstanding the occasional lead balloon that is some right-wing plan for a flat-tax, the fight over progressive taxation was won or lost a long, long time ago.

Barack Obama's tax plan does not do something new or unprecedented. It simply bumps the highest tax bracket up a little, to where it was before the Bush tax cuts. If this is the best that those who are deathly afraid of Obama's upcoming presidency can come up with, I don't know what to say.

But that's not why I'm writing today. I'm writing because, once again, I'm simply in shock. I've noted here before that nut-jobs like Hal Lindesy, famous author of The Late, Great Planet Earth, (for those of you unfamiliar with contemporary evangelical eschatology, think Tim LaHaye before there was a Tim LaHaye) have declared that Barack Obama is a precursor to the anti-Christ.

Well now Newsweek has an article asking if Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. Yes, that Newsweek!

I don't know what to say. I really don't.

I could start with how the whole anti-Christ thing is misunderstood. Despite thousands upon thousands of assertions through history that the biblical book of Revelation (not Revelations!) forecasts such a figure, the word "anti-Christ" does not appear in it even once. Either it or its plural are found in the Bible only in 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, and 2 John 7. There the anti-Christ is not some apocalyptic future being, but rather persons present at the time of the writing (probably sometime in the early 2nd century CE). See, for example, 1 John 2:18b: "So now many antichrists have come," (NRSV, italics mine). This and the other references to antichrists in the epistles of John refer to a group present within the church at that time, who in John's view had a bad ("deceitful") Christology.

Thus anyone using the Bible as some sort of prophetic code telling when some supernatural enemy called the anti-Christ is coming should probably go back and read their Bible - especially those parts of it that actually mention antichrists!

But, of course, there has been a long tradition of Christians speculating about the anti-Christ. That doesn't begin with Hal Lindsey or Tim LaHaye. And while that word is not used in the Bible the way that those who profit (literally! These people make millions of dollars selling books, making movies and giving lectures!) from it use it, there are still Biblical images that give rise to this mad speculation about the anti-Christ. But since when is Newsweek in the contemporary evangelical eschatology business?!?

And, since when is it OK for Newsweek to give space to speculations that our president elect may be this anti-Christ?!?

I'm not advocating censorship of the press. Newsweek is of course legally free to print just about whatever the hell it wants. But whatever happened to journalistic standards? Anyone seen those around?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Since posting, I've seen posts on this at Political Base and Daily Kos. And, Political Base notes that CNN has been down this road, too.

The Politics of Drinking Beer?

I like beer as much as anyone should. Possibly a great deal more than anyone should. So much that, I've noticed recently, in the last two months or so I've written four posts on beer for the new Beer of the Week series (and I might have written a great deal more, if I weren't afraid of running out of beers by Christmas!) and only two on theology.

I've even got a philosophy of beer, which is gradually being unveiled here. I've thought seriously about the ethics of beer. I'm pretty sure I could even come up with a theology of beer - with so many monastic beers available, that shouldn't be too hard, right? But even I think that introducing discussions of beer into American politics is more than a little inane.

It wasn't the footage of Sen. Hillary Clinton washing a shot of whiskey down with a mug of beer that got me, though I could have done without that image. When I'm looking for the qualities of a good president, somehow "beer-drinking-buddy" doesn't make the list.

No, what really got me was this. Evidently, in the first interview that Barack Obama and Joe Biden gave in their transition to the general election, Sen. Obama actually had to defend his beer drinking. And not against attacks of drinking too much, which would, of course, be a trait we'd definitely not want in a president.

Rather, it seems CBS interviewer Steve Croft, working for their flagship 60 Minutes program, set a new standard in journalistic excellence, saying, according to Mark Silva:

But you tried really hard to reach these people [blue collar workers - CB]. You went and sipped beer, which I know you don't particularly like - I mean you even...

At this point, Sen. Obama cut him off. As Silva relays the story:

"Steve, I had a beer last night,'' Obama interjected. "I mean, where do these stories come from, man?"

"I'm the one... [that] doesn't drink," Biden added.

"Where does the story come from that...I don't like beer? '' Obama asked. "C'mon, man."

Don't you think the American public deserves better than having our election coverage devolve into a discussion of whether or not a presidential candidate drinks beer? As Barack Obama put it, C'mon, man. Is this really the best we can do?

What Liberal Media?

That's the title of an excellent book by media critic Eric Alterman, who systematically debunked the myth that mainstream media has a liberal bias. Full of witty observations such as, in the case of the title of chapter 2, "You're Only As Liberal As the Man Who Owns You," Alterman noted that if the mainstream media has any agenda, it is a capitalist one. Simply put, mainstream media outlets are about one thing, and one thing only: making money. As with any other corporation, everything else is secondary.

Yet the myth of the liberal media persists in many circles. This is no doubt in part due to very successful conservative efforts to "work the refs." Constantly complaining of mistreatment at the hands of the "liberal" media is a great way to lower expectations in the public, to create a false mainstream, and even to get media outlets to break out their kid-gloves for you. Thus someone like John McCain can - despite once arguing that the media is his "base" - with a straight face complain that the media is biased against him.

Well, as an article by James Rainey in yesterday's LA Times notes, there has most certainly been biased coverage in this year's election. It just isn't the bias that casual observers and those still clinging to the myth of a liberal media might have expected:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

This is not news to those of us who do not depend on the mainstream media for, well, our news. Critiques of the mainstream media's coverage of this election are rampant in the blogosphere, and most of the one's I've read note that Sen. John McCain (and, to a lesser extent, Sen. Hillary Clinton) has been the primary beneficiary of false media narratives.

Political Base's Mark Nickolas has perhaps been best at exposing false media narratives, especially the narrative that this election is really quite close, perhaps a toss up. He's even noted the distance between Karl Rove's and CNN's respective electoral maps. (For the record, as of July 25, the date of Mr. Nickolas' post, Rove's map had Obama leading McCain by 89 electoral votes, 272 to 183 while CNN's map had Obama leading by only 32, 221 to 189; spend some time at Political Base and you'll see a recurring theme, mainstream media outlets reporting the race as much closer than either objective analysts, pollsters, or political operatives.)

Other blogs have similarly noticed that the media seems to have different standards for Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. These differences are almost always more charitable for Sen. McCain. Whatever the reason for this, it is very clear that far from wanting Obama to win, they either want to keep this race artificially close, or, God forbid, are actually openly rooting for McCain.

That brings us back to the study in question, again as reported by James Rainey of the LA Times. It focused not on cable news, which is often overtly and intentionally biased (pitting, for example, Keith Olbermann against Bill O'Reily) but on the major networks, ABC, NBC, and CBS. I've already noted on this blog that CBS edited an interview with John McCain, removing a factually inaccurate answer and replacing it with an answer he gave to a different question. While that was an egregious violation of journalistic standards and ethics, it is by no means the only example of media bias that benefits the McCain campaign: just the worst.

Rainey writes:

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

Adding this observation to the anecdotal pieces of evidence spread throughout the blogosphere, and a picture emerges: Whatever else may be said of the mainstream media, let no one say that it is liberal. Let us please finally put that myth to rest.

And This is From the Liberal Media!

This presidential election is bringing out the best in us Americans, and the worst in us, too.

I'd love to wax poetic on voter turnout, political giving, activist and grassroots involvement, politics of hope, young people engaged in the political process, and the very real possibility that - despite the persistence of institutional and even often virulent racism - a "black" (actually biracial - the need to label Sen. Barack Obama, whose mother was white, monolithically black is another evidence of the persistence of racism, a conscious or unconscious adoption of the "one drop rule") person could actually be elected president. I really would. Honestly I'm a "glass-half-full" kind of guy, who would love to accentuate the positive. Who would love to spend all my time talking up everything that it going right.

But...

As I often say, there's always a "but."

But, right now I'm simply too pissed. That's because I just caught a glimpse of the cover of the newest edition of The New Yorker at kos:



Like most of the early commenters on the post at kos, I thought this had to be a joke. Some kind of Internet prank. The blogospere pulling my leg.

Well it turns out to be a joke, alright. Just not the funny kind. The New Yorker's idea of a joke. An attempt to satirize paranoid right-wing caricatures of the Obamas. But in aping the worst sort of racist attacks, this may only lend some credence to them.

At best this is in poor taste. At worst, it will only feed into the racism that has thus far been all too common this election cycle

_________________________________________________________________________________________________-

Update: 7-14-08, 9:11 am

I'm coming to this party a little late. Here's what rikyrah has to say at Jack and Jill Politics:

It’s unreal to me that nearly all the BS coming against Obama during this campaign season….HAS COME FROM SO-CALLED FRIENDLY SOURCES.

This isn’t the NATIONAL REVIEW.

This is THE NEW YORKER.

What bothers me?

I dunno. Take your pic.

Bin Laden above the fireplace
The American Flag in the fireplace.
Obama in ‘Muslim’ Garb.
Michelle - with an Angela Davis Afro, and a Black Panther Machine gun.

Good lord, how many goddamn Obama smears can be placed in one picture frame?

I can hear the clicks now(copying and pasting of the picture), being sent in emails, all across the country.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

And here's what Renee has to say at Womanist Musings:

Who does Blitt think that he will convince with this little cartoon? Those that already believe that Barack Huesein Obama is a terrorist are not going to be swayed by seeing him dressed up in Middle Eastern style clothing ...Nope, they are going to say ah ha told ya, the New Yorker even agrees with me. It does not matter what commentary goes around the image, it is the image that will resonate in the mind of others. Look he's different, he's not white, he can't be a real American, and to make sure that is what people take away from this image the flag is burning in the fireplace. Blacks are American enough to be over represented in the military, but certainly not American enough to hold any real power in society.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here's the comment I left at Womanist Musings, which I think is better than anything I wrote on this for my own blog:

For satire to work, it has to be an over-the-top caricature of the position it is lampooning. In the case of racist attacks on the Obamas, there can simply be no "over-the-top." Satire here is impossible, because of the extreme depth of the irrational fear-fueled racist hatred slung at them daily.

There's simply no comic material here, so any joke is bound not only to fail, not only, in fact, to backfire, but even to further fan the flames of fear and hatred. And Lord knows they don't need any fanning.

Obama on Faith, Edwards on Poverty

My entire adult life I've been waiting for a decent presidential candidate. A candidate that I'd want to vote for. A candidate I could embrace, instead of just holding my nose and punching in the lesser of the electoral evils. In my first presidential election I voted for Al Gore, but I didn't feel anything for him. He'd spent his whole campaign running away from a sure win by ducking Bill Clinton (wanted to prove he could do it on his own, I suppose) while at the same time looking more calculated than sincere. Leaving politics has been the best thing for him. Free from the constraints of winner-take-all elections, he is finally able to work passionately for the best for our country.

I didn't turn 18 until after Bill Clinton was elected to his second term as president, but I doubt I'd have had much passion for him in the voting booth either. Charismatic as any politician in recent memory, he is an interesting (and tragically flawed) person whose memoirs (derided by some for being so long) kept me up nights, entranced. But I can't think of very much that he and I agree on. That he is considered a "liberal" by so many is only proof of how much our country has changed in the last few decades. In moving the left to the center, he helped move the center to the right, making true liberals almost unelectable.

But now, in these dark days in the dregs of the failed Bush administration, I am finally finding politicians that I can truly embrace. Two of them, in fact. And that is the shame of it. Both Barack Obama and John Edwards are saying what I've been waiting my whole life to hear, rousing the ghost of the Kennedy brothers. Better than that, neither of them (unlike so many who try to appeal to the "secular left") are afraid of their faith. Instead they are willing to challenge the Gospel of the neocons with something that looks a great deal more like the Gospel I read. But, of course, I can only vote for one of them...

As conservative evangelicals have discovered recently, it is a mistake for Christians to invest Messianic hope in politicians simply because they speak the language of faith. While salvation may have a political component, it is not for politicians to give out. That said, check out this thoughtful piece on the faith of Barack Obama, from the Christian Science Monitor.

Meanwhile, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, John Edwards is following in the footsteps of RFK, touring Appalachia talking about poverty.

What I wouldn't give for an Edwards-Obama ticket, so I don't have to choose between the two of them...

Oprah on Obama

Looks like my blog is turning into Obama Central...

I just saw this video at Jack and Jill Politics. There are a number of juicy sound-bites, but my favorite is this:

I would never vote for anyone based on gender or race. I'm not voting for Barack Obama because he's black; I'm voting for Barack Obama because he's brilliant!

Obama's Ant Traps

As you should know by now, I've been reading Barack Obama's new book, The Audacity of Hope. While most critically minded people rightly point out that we don't know very much about Obama, I must candidly admit that I am an unabashed fan, and have been ever since his famous speech at the Democratic National Convention. I know that thus far the media has over-hyped him, ignoring any potential flaws and proclaiming him somewhere between a "rising star" and a "rock star." He has a personal magnetism that has so far kept too many reporters from digging too deep and uncovering whatever bones he doesn't want us to find.

We don't yet know how he will respond when he is eventually tested, as he undoubtedly will be. We don't know what he will do when the bright inquisitive lights of a press corp that loves to tear down what they have built up turn their critical gaze on him.

But I like him. I like him a great deal. Listening to his speeches, watching his interviews, and especially reading his books have filled him with a hope that I haven't had in a long time. Perhaps restored my faith in the potential of the American political process, even. If this man, who caters to our best instincts instead of our worst, who encourages us to rise up rather than tear others down, who uses the language of faith and values while espousing a faith that I can believe in and a set of values that I can abide by, can be a serious presidential or vice-presidential candidate...

I have to stop myself there. Can't get too carried away, can I? After all, he hasn't been tested yet. He has never really been on the national stage. He's only won one statewide election, and that wasn't in my state, and it was barely opposed. The Illinois Republicans ran a carpet-bagging, fear-mongering radical against him after their original candidate was brought down in a sex scandal.

But so far I've seen so much that I like. And, while I'd love to focus on policy matters or political philosophy or even human decency, what I want most to point out today is basic humanity. Barack Obama can't help but make politicians seem just a little bit human, just a little bit ordinary. I know, I know. I'm saying that the media-proclaimed rock star of the Democratic Party, a man thus far known more for style than substance, is a humble and humanizing figure. I'm saying that this media darling, this charismatic, luminescent figure actually takes the shine off politicians. That seems ridiculous to say.

But the stories that he tells about himself so often focus on the normal, the prosaic. And I like that. Whenever he is tempted to take himself, his hype, and the power of his political position too seriously, something happens to drag him back to earth. And he shares it. For whatever reason that makes me trust him, and trust him a great deal more than the would-be-gods of politics. Perhaps some scandal will break that will disillusion me. Or, worse, perhaps he uses this face to accumulate power, much like the faux-populist currently in the White House, only to, like President Bush the Younger, abuse the weight and power of his office. Time will tell. But, in the meantime, enjoy this story from his latest book:

One day in February I found myself in particularly good spirits, having just completed a hearing on legislation that Dick Lugar and I were sponsoring aimed at restricting weapons proliferation and the black-market arms trade. Because Dick was not only the Senate's leading expert on proliferation issues but also chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, prospects for the bill seemed promising. Wanting to share the good news, I called Michelle from my D.C. office and started explaining the significance of the bill - how shoulder-to-air missiles could threaten commercial air travel if they fell into the wrong hands, how small-arms stockpiles left over from the Cold War continued to feed conflict across the globe. Michelle cut me off.

"We have ants."

"Huh?"

"I found ants in the kitchen. And in the bathroom upstairs."

"Okay..."

"I need you to buy some ant traps on your way home tomorrow. I'd get them myself, but I've got to take the girls to their doctor's appointment after school. Can you do that for me?"

"Right. Ant traps."

"Ant traps. Don't forget, okay honey? And buy more than one. Listen, I need to go to a meeting. Love you."

I hing up the receiver, wondering if Ted Kennedy or John McCain bought ant traps on the way home from work.

Changes Coming?

I guess you've probably noticed that I've slowed down a bit, posting only Adam's second annual birthday post since last Wednesday's manifesto on Christian enlightenment. I've spent most of my writing time of late editing material for my hypothetical future book or staring at the screen waiting for inspiration to come. I've finally finished reading Marcus Borg's new book on Jesus, and have almost finished with Barack Obama's new book on, well, Barack Obama, but neither of them have really provided me with too much to respond to. Both books are excellent, don't get me wrong. But Obama's book is essentially outside my field, and Borg's book is mostly a retelling of everything he's already written, only in greater depth, with a few words changed. Anyway, I've written more than enough on Borg since this blog started.

Meanwhile, I've been busy at church. I led a Forum series on the Creation Myths of Ancient Israel, but I haven't yet edited my notes for that into something that I could use here. I also finally got to preach from the "big pulpit" in the sanctuary of my church, one of the most magnificent sanctuaries in America. Standing behind that pulpit, proclaiming my interpretation of the Word of God to the racially, culturally, socially and theologically diverse congregation that gathers there every Sunday for worship, was literally awesome. A moment filled with awe.

I'm used to preaching from pulpits. Before I was appointed to my own church I was frequently a guest preacher at other churches. I have many friends in ordained ministry, and when I was a Youth Minister they would call me to fill in for them whenever they went on vacation. I was a pinch hitter of sorts. Of course, when I got a pulpit of my own, those calls stopped coming. And, after I left ministry I'm not sure that many of them knew what to think. Did my leaving the pulpit signal a desire to stop preaching altogether, or just a desire to no longer have a charge of my own? Not even I could say.

But never in my life have I preached in such a majestic place, such an architectural wonder. The space itself seems sacred, as though the artistry in the building, the aesthetics, somehow makes it a "thin place," a space where the sacred and the secular meet, if only for a moment. Standing behind that pulpit I felt what I had always imagined I would feel as a pastor, instead of the emptiness that so often filled my brief and embattled pastoral career.

I preached on I Corinthians 13. The occasion was "Youth Sunday," the day that the teenagers in the congregation lead the worship service. We have no Youth Minister. When I arrived I asked our pastor what the greatest need in the congregation was. She - knowing me from my reputation as an ex-pastor - had no idea that I spent most of my ministerial career working with teenagers, so she said, "Well, I don't know if you can help in this area, but our greatest need in in Youth Ministry." I volunteered to teach the Youth Sunday School class. It was, quite literally, the least I could do.

As a Youth Minister I loved working with teenagers, but I hated programming. As you can probably imagine, I have absolutely no idea what most people consider fun. I wasn't very good at being a teenager when I actually was one, and I have a very hard time pretending to be one no that I'm not. The farther removed I get from my teenage years the less I know about what "the kids" like to do these days. I can teach almost anyone almost anything, but I can't program to save my life.

So, I volunteered to teach, telling myself that I would finally have the freedom to do what I'm good at without having to worry about being fired for what I'm not good at. Win-win situation. I can still minister, but I don't have to take the grief that comes with the paycheck.

My role has expanded a little since I started working with these teenagers. Now, as Chair of the church's Education Team, I oversee all education ministries, including Youth. As a part of that, I got to help plan for Youth Sunday. After we picked the scripture and the topic, I started coaching the teenagers through their roles. Well, first I had to figure out what their roles were going to be. The I had to bribe them into accepting their roles. After all that, I got to coach them, to get them ready for their respective parts in the service.

I didn't intend to preach. I've preached a little since I've reclaimed my amateur status, but always in the safety of our communion service in the chapel, a small, lay led service at 8:45 Sunday mornings. My plan was for the teenagers to give the message for Youth Sunday. We poured over the text for weeks in our Sunday School class, as I gradually broke it down for them, and then taught them how to do it for themselves. Finally I gave them each a homework assignment: Pick a sentence or two from the passage, and tell me what it means to you. That would be the message on Youth Sunday.

But nerves set in. Most of them didn't want to get in front of the congregation. What would they say? How would to church respond? They weren't used to being in a position of leadership, and weren't comfortable with it. I finally agreed to provide a brief introduction, explain what we had studied in class, and then personally introduce each teenager as they shared their answer from our homework assignment. That "brief introduction" turned into more of an exegesis of the passage, and soon enough I had an actual, bonafide sermon on my hands.

So, last Sunday, before the teenagers each had their moment behind the pulpit, I had mine. Fifteen minutes of exegesis, just like it used to be. The only differences were that I was in a congregation of my choosing. A "liberal" congregation, an urban, multi-cultural congregation, that knows where I stand and accepts me as one of them. I got to preach as a lay person, one of many members of the congregation, sharing his gifts with the others. And then, like a proud parent, I got to introduce three of my students as they shared their thoughts on the passage.

I've been meaning to turn that sermon into a piece for this blog, too. But other projects keep getting in the way. When I preach I rarely write anything down. That is my gift, and my curse. I don't exactly improvise, in that I have everything planned out. A tight exegesis that sticks pretty strictly to the text. But, I chart a course in my head and follow it, allowing the specific language to come in the moment. Those of you who have heard others preach like this know that the result can often be disaster. But when I do it, it isn't. I preach the way that I write, and it works out about the same.

Consequently, there is no script for me to copy and paste here. There are only the ideas that are floating around in my head. So, to turn that sermon into a blog post I would have to recreate it in a much different environment. I would have to look at my few notes, and then stare at this computer screen, hoping that it inspires the same sort of words that a sanctuary full of some of my closest friends already inspired. I'm sure I could write something very good. But it would not be the sermon I delivered last Sunday, any more than my post on Moses and the Burning Bush was the sermon that I gave on the same topic in the chapel five days before I posted it.

And now school is about to start. I'm looking forward to my classes - I can't wait to get started. But I also know that going back to seminary will take me from this blog. I'm just hoping that it won't keep me from working on the book. Reality is setting in. This blog is running out of steam. Soon I may be just another infrequent blogger who posts from time to time merely to relieve some misplaced guilt.

Anyway...

The congregation's response to my sermon rocked me. It isn't just shameless arrogance when I say that I was and am a very good preacher. I can deliver a sermon with wit, depth, poetry and power. Even my biggest enemies have always acknowledge that - it was perhaps their biggest reason for opposing me. I remember at my only pastoral appointment, one Sunday after church, hearing a visitor exclaim to her friend that the church was lucky to have such an excellent preacher. The friend, one of my strongest opponents in the church, grumbled, "Well, he talks good, anyway."

If I were ineffectual then there would never have been any reason to oppose me. I would have opposed myself, discrediting my theology with ineptitude. Oddly, by being competent at my job, a decent person, and an excellent thinker, writer, and public speaker, I created more enemies, more opponents in my congregation, than ineptitude ever could have.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not being egomaniacal. My former church didn't hate me because I could preach. But their hatred, and their opposition, carried a sense of urgency because of it. They had a fear that if they didn't oppose me as vehemently as they could, I just might lead the entire church astray, seducing them with my eloquent words and heretical theology.

But, having climbed back into the pulpit again, if only for a Sunday, I found myself accepted, loved, and encouraged. Most people who found me after the service encouraged me to rethink my calling. "God isn't done with you," they said. "You should do that for a living," they said.

My plan in going back to school is to try to carve out a living as a theologian, as a teacher and a writer. My goal is also to transform the church from the inside, as a layperson who models the commitment to ministry that God calls all of us to, and not just some professional class of Christians we call the clergy. Yet, after giving a sermon last week, and after listening to the congregation respond to what I had to say, I have to wonder, even if only a very little bit, if I'm not running away from my calling. I have to wonder, even if only a little bit, if I'm not scarred and scared, and looking for anything to do except what I might be best at.

Oh, well... time will tell. Back to work on the book before I hop in bed. I just tucked Adam in, and, and my head is more full of sleep than "lofty" thoughts. And once again I'm rambling...

We're Not Done Yet!

I was sorely tempted to write an unequivocally joyous post this morning, trumpeting the new dawn in American politics. I stayed up far too late last night, drinking far too many celebratory beers, filled with pride in a country that could elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama, the son of a Kenyan and a Kansan, president.

I wanted to proclaim a last and final (yes, I know that's redundant) end to the Civil War, with an African-American not only winning a presidential election, but even gaining the electoral votes of the former capitol of the Confederacy.

I wanted to do this. I really did. But my joy is tinged with grief this morning. Because I see a new Civil War emerging.

While one avenue of oppression was at least partially closed, with racism getting a stinging (if incomplete - the election of a black president neither ends nor erases centuries of institutional racism) rebuke, another avenue of oppression is seeing a tremendous increase in traffic.

Across the country there were ballot initiatives designed to trample of the rights of same-sex couples, and all four of them passed:

With 92% reporting, Arizona Proposition 102 is ahead 57% to 43%, which means, of course, that it has passed. This is especially painful because a similar ballot initiative, Arizona Proposition 107, was defeated 51.8% to 48.2% only two years ago. In those two years, then, it seems homophobia and heterosexism have enjoyed a 9 point bump in Arizona.

Meanwhile, Arkansas voters, responding to a 2006 Arkansas State Supreme Court ruling that a state policy banning LGBT foster and adoptive parents, have "approved a measure banning unmarried couples who are living together being adoptive or foster parents." This ban is essentially a back-door route to banning LGBT foster and adoptive parents, although its victims are not limited to the LGBT community.

In Florida, voters - not content with having already banned same-sex marriage - have voted to do it again, just for good measure, passing Amendment 2 62% to 38%.

But, most shockingly, it looks like California Proposition 8, a measure to change that state's Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, has probably passed. Yes, even in California, heterosexism and homophobia still rule.

Last night was still a great night for America. The country stood up and demanded change, and change has happened. But many, many more changes are still needed. A young African-American girl or boy may now be able to dream of leading the country without being laughed out of the room, but a gay man or a lesbian can still be denied fundamental rights, and can still be scapegoated for the problems faced by heterosexual couples.

Racism may have been dealt a blow, but it has certainly not been killed. And, this same election that dealt that blow to racism has also proven that heterosexism and homophobia are not only still alive and well, but are in fact growing.

So congratulations to Barack Obama, president-elect of the United States. And congratulations to America for taking a bold but necessary step. We can certainly rejoice in this great moment. But my rejoicing is muted this morning, as I mourn for those citizens of this great nation who were told in no uncertain terms last night that they are still "other," still "less than," still at best second-class citizens, who cannot marry the person they love, who cannot adopt children (or even take in foster children!) and who may even be denied the right to visit their partner in hospitals.

So, by all means, take a moment to celebrate. But when that moment is done, realize this sobering truth: Injustice and inequality persist, and are in some very significant ways growing in strength.

We're not done yet!

________________________________________________________________________________________

Update:

Oh, and Comic Elon James White takes on the notion that Obama's victory somehow signals an end to racism and the rise of a post-racial society in Episode 12 of his brilliant This Week in Blackness:

I Love It: Faith and Hope, Together

Sorry for the punny title, I'm so happy I simply couldn't resist. Believe it or not, I had several drafts, trying to work "faith," "hope" and "love" into the title of this blog-post. The monstrosity above really is, alas, the best I could do.

Anyway, I am happy, and encouraged, not just by the news that Barack Obama is leading John McCain among Christian voters, according to a recent poll by the Barna Group, but even more by this:

Mark Nickolas of Political Base is reporting that a Christian group, Matthew 25, will soon air their first pro-Obama ad.

Check out Mr. Nickolas' post for more details.

In related news, despite the obvious similarities (just ask Hal Lindsey!), it turns out Barack Obama is not, after all, the anti-Christ.

Good to know.

I just want to say "thank you" to the aliens...

who snatched Pat Buchanan's body!



I didn't see this clip live last night, because I've long since given up watching cable news talking heads ruin my love of politics (I watched the convention on CSPAN - novel idea, watch the whole thing, without pundits bloviating over it). However, it warmed my heart to hear this morning that even Pat Buchanan thought Sen. Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night was simply brilliant, the best convention speech ever.

Watching the convention on TV, I got the same feeling of raw energy, of hope welling up into a singularly transformative force, that I used to get at evangelical Youth Rallies and revivals as a teenager on fire for Jesus. Not only were many of the speakers comfortable with the language of faith - a fair amount more comfortable, I would add, than the Republicans who have too often been pimping out the faith of others - they did so in a thoroughly non-theocratic way. I didn't get the idea, as speaker after speaker spoke to the way that their faith helps shape their populist politics, that these were men and women that wanted to convert you, to compel you to adopt a particular religious creed, only the acceptance of which would secure your full citizenship. Instead I felt that these were men and women who shared a sense of calling by a holy power to reach out to all who are suffering under a political and economic system that simply does not care about them. To reach out without exception. To reach out with compassion. And to offer some entirely worldly and pragmatic salvation that isn't pie in the sky, but rather food on the plate.

But what struck me the most was the sense of hope, the sense of calling, the anticipation that the gathered community could make a difference. It was like how church ought to be. And it would have been so even without the many references to faith.

Obama's speech was rightly the climax of both the evening and the convention, and as I watched it I felt proud to be a part of a nation which could, despite its manifold sins and wickedness, produce such a remarkable person.

I know, this is just a gushing, gut-level reaction, rather than some substantive engagement with the content of the speech. And I know, Republicans are and have long been attacking Sen. Obama for his ability to inspire such glowing praise. But I maintain it is a sad day indeed for any party who is reduced to attacking a candidate because of their ability to inspire, their ability to call us passionately to be our best selves. For their ability to draw more than 80,000 people out to hear a political speech. For their rallying of a generation that has never expressed an interest in electoral politics.

For their ability - as the clip above demonstrates - to disarm even their harshest critics, if such critics have the courage to simply sit and listen with a semi-opened mind.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Update: In case you missed it, here's the speech itself:

You can't tell me someone from Georgia...

doesn't know the racist overtones of the word "uppity."

Here's a quote from Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Georgia):

Just from what little I’ve seen of her [Michelle Obama - CB] and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity.

Republicans have been flirting with the "uppity" image for a while, I just never thought that one of them would be brazen enough to actually use the word, use it on the record, and then clarify that yes, in fact he used it and meant to use it.

That's some racist shit.

Republicans to the Obamas: Get back in your place!

[Note: This post was typed while chillin' to Stevie Wonder's Songs in the Key of Life. By the time "Black Man" came on, I just knew I had to post on this.]

Amazon.com thinks Obama is a Terrorist?!?

How else do you interpret this?

As Chris Brown notes on his post at Political Base, they have now "removed the item called 'Barack Obama Mask' from the "terrorist costume" category page." Good for them. But how did this happen? And, because of this, why shouldn't I boycott them?

I'd hate to do that, because most of my theology books - including and especially books that have long been out of print - come from Amazon.com. I'm not sure where exactly I'd find many of the books I'm looking for. But, damn it, this simply can't stand! Selling a Barack Obama Halloween costume as a "terrorist costume"! It's simply beyond words!

An Open Letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton

Sen. Clinton,

First, please allow me to tell you how uplifting it is to see a woman mounting a serious campaign for the presidency less than a century after the ratification of the 19th Amendment. While the playing field is by no means level - especially in light of recent studies of attitudes concerning women in leadership - you are showing us all that women can accumulate the political, social, and economic power to seriously challenge the male-dominated nature of the political arena.

I think that you have been unfairly attacked in the past, made a target by an often misogynistic right wing for your refusal to act within the constraints generally placed on women in our country. Too often you have been derisively dismissed as "Billary," a product of your husband's undeniable political skills, as though you were not as much involved in shaping him as he has been in shaping you. The double-standards of our culture weigh heavily on you, as when you exhibit traits, such as cunning and ambition, that are often considered virtuous in men, you are condemned as a "bitch" by the gender police. That b-word, incidentally, should when applied to women jar our ears as much as a certain n-word does when applied to blacks. Both are verbal slaps that socially communicate not only hatred and derision, but, most importantly Get back in your place!

All of that said, I must confess that I have some serious concerns about you and your campaign for president.

First, while we both agree on the necessity of universal health care, I fear your plan to achieve it comes complete with corporate sponsorship. I know that you were burned the last time you expressed any sort of prophetic leadership on health care before, but that doesn't excuse your coming up with a plan that does more to line the pockets of an already-too-well-fed industry. I've never understood our irrational fear of socialized medicine.

While I think a great many goods emerge from a free (or, at least, relatively free) economic marketplace, that doesn't mean that all goods should be made subject to our insatiable desire for greater and greater profits. Further, I don't think that most Americans really believe this either. Despite the neo-conservative drive to privatize everything, we are still, by and large, willing to grant that our security should be provided by the public sector. We are still, by and large, willing to grant that our children should be educated in the public sector (though I'll grant that is contentious). And we are overwhelmingly inclined to let the public sector keep on handling our Social Security.

These are goods that most Americans agree have nothing to do with dispersing profits to shareholders. And, when it is placed this bluntly, I firmly believe that most Americans would also be willing to grant that their health would be best served by those whose only goal is to care for it, rather than by corporations that are first and foremost interested in profits. And, despite vast lobbying campaigns to the contrary, this is precisely what health insurance corporations are principally concerned with.

I don't need to cite statistics to you; you've been at this a lot longer than I have. [For such, readers of my blog should see this post.] You and I both know that universal single-payer health care would be considerably more efficient than the plan you're suggesting, in which private insurance is secured for each and every American (the health insurance industries most fantastic wet dream). You've seen the same numbers that I have, showing that while 4% of Medicare's costs are administrative, less than 2% of Canada's single-payer system are administrative, a whopping 30% of the average HMO's costs are administrative in nature. You just - like so many of your political peers - lack faith in the American people to come on board.

I am similarly concerned about your shifting position on Iraq. I won't mention your husband's ridiculous claim that he always opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. While opposing requires of one a great deal more than just private disagreement, you can't be blamed for your husband any more than my wife can be blamed for me. I certainly wouldn't want her held accountable for every ridiculous thing I've said. No, even though I suspect he said that to lend you some credibility in the anti-war crowd, I'll let him stand alone on that one.

What concerns me isn't that your position on Iraq seems to have shifted. That, to me, is the sign of a health, evolving person, who adapts their stances when confronted with new data that makes the previous stance no longer tenable. Would that our current president demonstrate that trait from time to time. No, my concern is more in your unwillingness to admit that your authorization of this quagmire was a mistake.

I know that your first few years in the Senate were dark and difficult years. We were living under a cloud of fear. While the threat of terrorism did not begin with 9-11, the public's awareness of that threat by and large did. And that public awareness, coupled with the drums of war, cultivated a climate of fear, a climate in which it was difficult to give anything less than full-throated support of any military plan. We had been attacked, and public sentiment demanded that someone must pay. And, with the Bush administration's conflation of Iraq and the "War on Terror," it is easy to see how you could have justified voting with the overwhelming majority.

But, Senator, you were wrong. Your current stance says as much. But your mouth won't admit it, and that concerns me. I know that women are held to a different standard, especially on national defense. I know that your political enemies would have painted you with the broad brush of "weakness" if you hadn't voted for the war, and with that same brush if you now admitted the obvious, that your vote was an understandable mistake, and that you regret it. But your inability or unwillingness to admit this obvious mistake, even as you now attempt to court the anti-war vote, concerns me. Perhaps it reminds me too much of the current president, who as best as I can tell has never recognized a mistake.

Alas, in a culture in which the cosmetic trumps the substantive every time, the real reason why I'm writing you today has nothing to do with health care policy or war. It is regrettably cosmetic, more of a "process" concern than a "policy" one. As fired up as I am over health care and the war, I wouldn't have taken the time this morning to write you (even if you'll never see this) if I hadn't seen this, an apparently trivial thing which, in our culture of trivializing the monumental (and especially vice versa) somehow stands for me as a symbolic act, the significance of which I reserve the right to unpack later.

I saw that you attacked Sen. Barack Obama for claiming to have not planned to run for president. I'll admit that Obama's claim, while trivial, seems disingenuous. In our culture everyone is planning to run for president, aren't they? Some of the evidence you present is even a little bit compelling, though it is offered in support of the trivial (What, after all, is at stake in Sen. Obama's claim, or in your rebuttal to it?). But what has me concerned is the last piece of evidence you offer: that in Kindergarten he wrote an essay titled "I Want to Become President."

Please pardon me, as I'm new at this whole political thing, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?!? I think I wrote that same essay, though I can now honestly say that I have no intention of ever running for city council, much less president. The spotlight shines too brightly on you politicians. I'm sure under such a bright light I'd make more than a few public blunders. But, dragging up what someone's Kindergarten teacher remembers about their political ambition?!? This is what passes for a presidential campaign?!?

No wonder as a country we are getting turned off by politics. I hate to make you a post child for everything that's wrong with the political process right now, as there are many equally compelling candidates for that. But I'm concerned about you. Try to get some sleep. Quit sweating the small stuff, and all that. One day you may have a country to run. And, if you think this is stressful...

Obama in King's Pulpit

While I share Michael Westmoreland-White's reservations about politicians in pulpits, I also share his desire to share this sermon, delivered by Barack Obama yesterday to the congregation at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta:



For more, click here.

Obama's Speech

From Barack Obama's website.