Underground Railroad

This Week In Blackness

2008-11-15T17:41:00.006-05:00

Get caught up if you're new to the series:

Episode #1 - Diddy
Episode #2 - Electrifying
Episode #3 - Side Booty
Episode #4 - The Breakfast Of Racist Champions
Episode #5 - White What?
Episode #6 - Shocking News!
Episode #7 - Mass Debating!
Episode #8 - Please Excuse This Sexual Harassment.
Episode #9 - But She's STUPID!
Episode #10 - Yes, we totally ignored the 2nd Debate.
Episode #11 - There's Just Too Much BLACKNESS!
Episode #12 - Obama, Obama, Obama.
Episode #13 - Black, black, blackity black.
Episode #14 - This Year In Blackness (Part 1 of 4)
Episode #15 - This Year In Blackness (Part 2 of 4)

Mr. President

2008-11-05T01:18:00.002-05:00

Tic Tac Told Ya

2008-10-28T23:17:00.003-04:00

Bailout Basics

2008-09-29T19:14:00.005-04:00

Predictions

2008-08-27T18:53:00.010-04:00

Here's my prediction for the general election:

State	Obama	McCain
Alabama		9
Alaska		3
Arizona	10
Arkansas	6
California	55
Colorado	9
Connecticut	7
Delaware	3
D.C.	3
Florida	27
Georgia		15
Hawaii	4
Idaho		4
Illinois	21
Indiana	11
Iowa	7
Kansas	6
Kentucky		8
Louisiana		9
Maine	4
Maryland	10
Massachusetts	12
Michigan	17
Minnesota	10
Mississippi	6
Missouri	11
Montana	3
Nebraska		5
Nevada	5
New Hampshire	4
New Jersey	15
New Mexico	5
New York	31
North Carolina	15
North Dakota		3
Ohio	20
Oklahoma		7
Oregon	7
Pennsylvania	21
Rhode Island	4
South Carolina		8
South Dakota		3
Tennessee		11
Texas		34
Utah		5
Vermont	3
Virginia	13
Washington	11
West Virginia		5
Wisconsin	10
Wyoming		3
TOTAL	406	132

Unfit To Lead

2008-08-22T06:41:00.001-04:00

Paris Attacks

2008-08-06T06:26:00.004-04:00

John McCain thought it would be a good idea to smear Barack Obama by comparing him to Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton:

But I bet he didn't expect to catch a smack-down from Ms. Hilton:

It's going to be a long fall for McLame...

42 Reasons

2008-06-25T18:40:00.004-04:00

This is one of the most effective political ads that I've seen in the viral video era:

Clinton Concedes The Obvious

2008-06-07T14:00:00.001-04:00

Hillary has FINALLY conceded that which everyone else has known for months now. It's a brand new day...

Be Prepared

2008-05-30T04:15:00.001-04:00

Stuff like this isn't supposed to happen either...

Prepare for a moral and spiritual struggle as we head toward the general election. It ain't just about policy, it's about people.

Yes We Can

2008-05-10T08:07:00.002-04:00

Stuff like this isn't supposed to happen, until it does...

Faux News: Rev. Wright Redux

2008-04-24T17:58:00.002-04:00

Click the title, then watch and learn how you speak truth to idiots...

2008-04-22T21:35:00.002-04:00

Okay, okay. So Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania. Kudos to her.

I'm watching the alphabet soup cable news channels, and they keep talking about how Obama outspent Clinton 3-1 and he still lost, and how bad that is.

Um, is it just me, or is Obama running against the former First Lady, and by extension, the President of the United States?

She's got built-in brand recognition. He pretty much has to outspend her just to break even. He has to work twice as hard just to get to the starting line.

The fact that he continues to raise bank over her says a lot (in my humble opinion).

And, after all this, she still does not have enough delegates to pass him.

Congrats to Clinton for winning a state she was expected to win. Wasn't she up by like 20 points a few weeks ago?

I'm just kinda tired of all this at this point. Time to lock it up.

The Audacity Of Hate

2008-03-21T17:44:00.005-04:00

Over the last few weeks there has been much Sturm und Drang regarding some of the sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Immediate-Past Pastor of Chicago’s Trinity Church of Christ, church-home of Senator Barack Obama. The crux of the current controversy has been Reverend Wright’s sin of blaspheming the righteous name of the United States of America, rejecting its omnipotence, infallibility and inerrancy in all that it declares or does. Naturally, Reverend Wright’s message has been received about as well as Jeroboam II received Amos’ acute assessment of Israel’s apostasy – with lots of large stones flung at the messenger. Reverend Wright has been called a “hate-monger,” “racist,” “Black David Duke,” and worse – everything but a child of God – for saying that America has been weighed on the scales and found wanting. This controversy, however, misses the point. Reverend Wright’s words were accurate, and it brings up a prescient point that ought to be addressed: the audacity of hope has a necessarily equal and opposite perspective – the audacity of hate.

To be clear, Reverend Wright’s words were not hateful – contrary to conservatives’ convictions, speaking the truth that the United States is worthy of condemnation does not equate to hating America. Speaking the truth that the United States has committed war crimes does not equate to hating America. Speaking the truth that the United States has been and continues to be wrong in innumerable ways does not equate to hating America. Far from that, it is in fact a call for America to get it right, to fix that which is wrong, to change course from its current destructive path to a path leading toward a more perfect union.

Hatred does come into play, however, and necessarily so. You see, that which we love, hope for, and aspire to be is intimately tied to that which we hate, fear, and wish to avoid with all that is within us. We progressives love unity and hate discord. We love tolerance and hate condemnation. We love inclusion and hate discrimination. What we love is intimately tied to what we hate, but we encounter problems when we misappropriate our love or our hatred. We hated what Ronald Reagan and George Bush were doing to the country that we love, so when Bill Clinton rescued us from that which we hated we loved him for it – despite the fact that he himself was not deserving of our love. Many of us loved what Howard Dean was offering the country in 2004 while seeing John Kerry as a pusillanimous mockery of a progressive, so the Junior Senator from Massachusetts felt the wrath of my fellow Deaniacs even though John Kerry was not deserving of our hatred.

The truth is that in many instances we are much more animated by that which we hate than by that which we love, driven by what we fear more than by what we hope for, even though they both motivate us to the same action. Many of our votes are against the one that we oppose instead of being for the one that we support. We pay taxes to avoid prison, not necessarily because we support everything that the government funds. Fear and hatred are often pilloried – and in many instances rightfully so – but fear and hatred are nonetheless valid emotions and motivations. I hate what George W. Bush has done to the credibility of the United States of America in the world. I hate what George W. Bush has done to the innocent people of Iraq and the noble soldiers of this nation. I hate what George W. Bush has done to the Constitution of the United States of America and I fear giving Bill and Hillary Clinton unfettered access to a presidency with unchecked executive power. That animates my support for Barack Obama as much as his policy positions and his ability to implement the changes that he so eloquently proposes. And yes, I do share in the audacious hope that a Black man can indeed become president of a nation that a generation ago did not even allow us to vote.

We can hate what America has done – we can even hate what America has become – without hating Americans. The problem in the current controversy’s context is that too many people conflate “America” with “White” – e pluribus unum, friends – and they fallaciously associate hatred of America’s actions with hatred of Americans, which they then mutate into hatred of Whites. The terrorists don’t hate our ever-waning freedoms; they hate our intrusions into their societies. Flag-burners don’t hate America; they hate what America has done in the world. Black Liberation Theology is not hateful of Whites, it hates the oppression of human beings, and the United States of America has a long history of oppressing human beings.

The Bible says, “Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow.” There is more than adequate Scriptural basis for saying, “God damn America!” regardless of one’s theological perspective, unless one’s theology posits divine perfections in the United States of America. The Bible says, “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Over the last seven and a half years America’s policies have been anything but just, merciful, or humble. Who declared that you’re either with us or against us? America. Who invaded a sovereign nation on a bevy of lies and false accusations? America. Who has doled out money and favors to the well-to-do while ignoring the least of these our brothers? America. So what should a faithful servant of the Lord of Hosts say about the current state of the Union?

God damn America.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright was right in his assessment of the United States of America, but Barack Obama is right in his proscription for how we get from here to a more perfect union. We audaciously hope for something better because we hate the current state of affairs. We audaciously hope for a more perfect union because we hate the divided state of America. We audaciously hope for a politics where we can disagree without being disagreeable because we hate today’s politics of personal destruction. We believe in the audacity of hope, with every fiber of our being we believe, but we must also understand that such a hope is inexorably attached to the audacity of hate. We have to love that which is good and hate that which is evil, and we have to be careful not to get it twisted, because we can easily and quickly come to personify the intolerant, discordant and discriminatory perspective that we so readily decry.

I would hate to see it come to that.

A More Perfect Union

2008-03-18T22:20:00.004-04:00

If you haven't seen or read Barack Obama's speech on race, religion, and politics then go here now.

Honestly, my initial reaction to the news that Obama was going to do a major speech on race and religion was similar to Granddad's, but Barack pulled it off without a hitch, much like Huey...

Of course, there's always Uncle Ruckus...

Epiphany

2008-02-15T18:48:00.010-05:00

Every now and then I have moments of clarity, moments when things that were previously confusing make perfect sense. I had one of those moments today while reflecting on the presidential campaign when I remembered an event from last year in my own life.

I had just signed up for Yahoo Messenger (I'm way behind on some things - I just got on Facebook this year) and it sent invites to everyone in my address book. Me being a pack-rat I rarely delete anything, so there were some addresses in there that I hadn't used in over a decade. I ended up hearing from someone attached to one of those old addresses, a sister with whom I shared an intimate relationship during my freshman year in college. Actually, there's no way to sanitize it - we went at it like rabbits back then, to the extent that most people thought that I had turned her out when the truth is that she came to me well-prepared and exceedingly experienced.

Anyway, we had a little conversation before I excused myself from the chat, but I am in such a different place now from where I was in undergrad that there was absolutely no possibility of us hooking up - in any context - as she's essentially the same person that I knew back then. Back then she was what I needed, what I was looking for, and she satisfied a serious need for me back then, and I her.

Well.

But that was then. My needs today are much more complex and require a completely different kind of sister. Even back then it only took a couple months of abject carnality for me to see that I needed to do something different - and someone different - but it took many more months for me to fully extract myself from the relationship. That's why, when I got her IM and the discussion alluded to us rekindling that which once was, my reaction was revulsion.

That is what reminded me of the current presidential election, specifically the Clintons' refusal to withdraw from the Democratic primary contest. Back in 1991-2 we Democrats were desperate for someone - anyone - to put an end to the GOP lock on the presidency, and Bill & Hillary Clinton did that for us. Back then we looked past Bill's bimbo proclivities because he was the one who rid us of the Reagan-Bush years, despite the fact that he was no friend to rank-and-file Democrats. We tolerated Clinton's caving on most Democratic principles because he was our president, not their president. However, we Democrats have changed significantly in the past decade. Howard Dean began an awakening of the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and we have found in Barack Obama a candidate that we can whole-heartedly vote for instead of the usual "Not-A-Republican" candidates that we've had to hold our noses to affirm.

It is in this context that Hillary launched her campaign for president, and I would argue that it was DOA - even if Barack Obama didn't exist someone like him would have come to the fore, because this is as much a "No" to Hillary Clinton as it is a "Yes" to Barack Obama. Hillary might have been right for 2000, and she may even have been right for 2004, but in 2008 we are so far removed from what the Clintons are selling that they might as well be hocking 8-tracks. You see, if my former fling had contacted me around 1999 or 2000 then we probably would have been married by now, had kids, gone though an acrimonious divorce, and I'd be paying alimony and child support - much like where we'd be after another Clinton presidency.

There's much to be said for providence...

Smoke and Mirrors

2008-02-10T03:18:00.000-05:00

The battle between Obama and Clinton could wind up a draw going into the convention with the nomination to be decided by the superdelegates. This, of course, would be a horrendous development. I don't think any of us want to go back to the days when candidates won or lost in back-room deals filled with cigar smoke and the scent of scotch.

Donna Brazile, the manager of Al Gore's campaign, had her own strong reaction about the situation:

"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this..."

According to CNN, Obama leads in pledged delegates 908 to 877 (thank you Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington). But Clinton leads in super delegates 223 to 131, which gives her an overall edge of 41. The magic number is 2,025.

What is the price for the soul of the Democratic Party? If the party rolls over the give the finger to the Democratic process the results will not be pretty. Even more important is the affect on Black folk. If Obama ends up with more pledged delegates and gets the shaft I may have to follow Ms. Brazile's lead. It isn't just about Obama, it's about Carl McCall getting pushed aside in the New York State gubernatorial election, about Kweisi Mfume getting pushed aside in the Maryland senate race. It's about the Democratic Party thinking that civil rights legislation passed forty years ago obligates the support of Black folk in perpetuity. I have heard of more than one person saying they would vote for the Republican nominee if Clinton gets the nod, and I'm sure the number would balloon if it's done in a back-room deal. It might not be a bad idea to spread the notion of a "Plan B." There's no reason to support the Democratic Party if they're not supporting us. What have you done for me lately?

I'm not a big Cynthia McKinney fan, but she is running for president on the Green Party ticket.

....I'm just sayin'...

Black Love

2008-01-25T20:19:00.001-05:00

You know, when you've had a particularly bad day and it seems like all the world is doing its utmost to destroy you, there's nothing in the world like a Black Woman who has your back, no matter what.

To love and to cherish
For better or for worse
For richer or for poorer
In sickness and in health
To have and to hold
Forever and ever.

When a sister is with you - and I mean with you - anything is possible. You can exceed every expectation. You can defeat every enemy. You can turn shocking defeat into a massive beat-down of all your haters.

I have been in the struggle all by myself and I have been in the struggle with sisters who were kinda-sorta there but not really, but I'm here to tell you that when a sister is with you, you can do anything - while one can put a thousand to flight, two can put ten thousand to flight, or as Fabolous (featuring Ne-Yo) famously put it, "I'm a movement by myself, but I'm a force when we're together."

Barack Obama did his thing and won the South Carolina Primary in a convincing fashion, but I want to show some love to the one who made this possible, the one who strengthened him when he probably felt discouraged, the one who had his back when things started to look bleak and who probably reminded him, "Yes, we can!" - Michelle Obama.

What Have You Done for Me Lately?

2008-01-22T23:32:00.000-05:00

In all this campaigning, debating, back-and-forth "love fest" going on I keep hearing about how Hillary Clinton has been so great for the Black community.

But then I realized that no one seems to be saying what she actually did for the Black community.

Which lead me to wonder - what has she done for the Black community?

I know people like to talk about Bill a lot, but I'm not really sure what sweeping changes he made either. Yes, he did appoint a good number of Black folk, more than all previous administrations combined - points for that. Incomes and home-ownership went up during the Clinton presidency, but so did incarceration rates and the income gap. In fact, President Clinton had more control over the incarceration rate by signing the 3 Strikes law than he did over rising incomes (the Federal Reserve holds more sway over the economy than the president).

But enough about Bill - what about Hillary?

What has she done?

And I don't want to hear about "a rising tide lifts boats" as an argument that her general work on health care or child advocacy speaks to her concern for the Black community - she's a good White liberal in the traditional sense, no doubt, but that doesn't say anything about the specific concerns of Black folk.

I'm not trying to bash Hillary here, I really want to know. So if you know something, please let me in on it.

Thanks

Fight! Fight!

2008-01-22T23:28:00.000-05:00

Did you see the debate last night? Man, Obama and Clinton went at it! In case you missed it...

Obama Wins Iowa

2008-01-03T23:55:00.000-05:00

Don't Migrate Just Yet! It has been confirmed that Barack Obama has won the Iowa Caucus.

Not only did Obama win, he smacked up the competition with 38%. Edwards came in second with 30% and Clinton came in third with 29%. I was hoping Obama would win, but I didn't expect such a commanding margin of victory. Eight percentage points may not seem like a lot at first glance but it really is something when you think about Hillary Clinton was expected to demolish all competition. And considering how tight the race has been and especially considering that he's a brother in an almost entirely white state.

Did you see the victory speech? Man, that was something. In case you missed it...

As big as tonight's victory is, this is only the beginning. The New Hampshire Primary is on January 8th.

Let's continue making history.

The Chocolate Migration

2007-12-23T07:42:00.000-05:00

There are some things so secret, so shameful, that people dread the day when their inner thoughts and desires are aired for all the world to see. There are some activities that are so perverse that no human being should ever participate in them, yet many do so anyway. I have found myself in such a situation, wondering if I am alone in my inner perversion, but I have found that there are many more people out there who are just like me, people who share in my shame.

Let me explain.

I first cast a vote in 1988, and it was for Michael Dukakis against Geroge H.W. Bush. In the 19 years since I have never voted for a Republican in a partisan race. Ever. I have not voted for a Republican presidential candidate, Senatorial candidate, or Congressional candidate. I have not voted for a Republican governor, legislator, or mayor. I have not voted for a Republican city councilman, property valuation administrator or dog catcher. I have never, ever voted for a Republican, but if Hillary Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee then that may well change.

God help us all.

There are two basic problems with a Hillary nomination - how she'd have to win it and what she'd do if she's elected. In order to win the nomination, with the trajectory of the primary contest to-date, Hillary will have to seriously Swift-Boat Barack Obama. We've seen a couple attempts at this already from Clinton surrogates with Billy Shaheen having to resign and apologize to Barack Obama for his remarks and Bob Kerry having to write an apology to Barack Obama over his comments. When the Clinton camp gets desperate it is quite possible for them to further go Willie Horton on Obama, and that will galvanize Black support behind Barack Obama. If Obama then goes on to lose to Clinton then the resentment against Clinton will be overwhelming, opening up an opportunity for the GOP within the Black community that hasn't been seen since Reconstruction.

The second problem with a Clinton candidacy is what she would do as president. A Clinton presidency would have liberal trappings - there will be some executive orders and signing ceremonies in the first 100 days - but the substance of it would be totally corporate from day 101 until its end. Moreover, much like Bill, Hillary would be pulled rightward in order to prove her critics wrong and to demonstrate that she has the balls to be president. An honest assessment of the Clinton years would show that the core constituencies of the Democratic Party got the shaft on the issues that matter most to them - Labor got NAFTA, Blacks got the Crime Bill, Women got Welfare Reform, gays got DOMA, and peace activists got military interventions in Kosovo, Haiti, and Iraq. I would expect more of the same from a second Clinton presidency, particularly since Hillary has been promising more of the same from the first Clinton presidency.

Here's where I become a heretic.

If Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary to become the Democratic nominee, then I think the best thing that could happen for Progressives and indeed for the country is for Mike Huckabee to be the next president of the United States. Much the same way that Hillary would be pulled to the Right, Huckabee would be pulled to the Left, because when it comes to caring for the least of these Mike Huckabee is a Christian, not a Republican who mentions Jesus Christ merely to gain votes, and he is catching considerable heat from his fellow Republicans on that score, best summarized by George F. Will, "Huckabee's role...is not merely to attempt to revise a few Republican beliefs. He represents wholesale repudiation of what came after the 1970s -- Reaganism."

Amen.

I thought that I was alone in this perspective, that I was the only apostate who was seriously considering Huckabee if Hillary managed to defeat Barack Obama, but it turns out that there are many people in my neck of the woods who are quietly considering the same thing, who are looking at Mike Huckabee as a candidate that they could actually vote for instead of merely voting against the other guy - in this case, girl. A friend of mine asked me what I thought about the GOP nomination fight, and when I got to Huckabee we agreed so quickly that it scared me - we're raving about a REPUBLICAN! I then went and spoke to several other politically-active firends locally and the reaction was the same - nothing but love for Huckabee. Nobody is supporting Huckabee openly because we all want Barack Obama to win, but if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee then all bets are off.

If Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama and if Mike Huckabee survives the GOP nomination then I believe we could see the beginning of the Chocolate Migration. Huckabee's Baptist background gives him the worldview and vocabulary to speak directly to the hearts and minds of church-going Black folk, and he does so instinctively. Democrats, if they're smart (insert your own joke here), will respond to this by emphasizing their secular credentials, much the same way that Republicans have won elections in the past by emphasizing their religious credentials. The new divide could easily become between those who are overtly religious against those who are not, in large part pitting those who are epistemologically conservative against those who are epistemologically liberal. Blacks, especially church-going Blacks (who also tend to be the ones that vote), are epistemologically conservative and overtly religious, and if the Democrats push their secular credentials too hard, as many are wont to do already, they will alienate many Blacks and drive us into the Republican Party on Huckabee's bandwagon, the Chocolate Migration.

The Republican Party, if it is smart, will be ready for the Democrats to over-reach and will open its tent in earnest to church-going Blacks, but it will take a great deal of political skill and finesse to merge Blacks and Southern Baptists into the same camp, a total eschewing of White Supremacy that is in no ways limited to rednecks in sheets or the GOP. It may be that no such political skill or good will exists and that Blacks will simply have to suck it up and deal with functionally atheistic corporate Democrats if we still find Old South Republicans to be too strange a bedfellow, but it will be an interesting journey over this election cycle to see if this realignment actually plays out - libertarians migrating to the Democratic Party and Blacks returning to the Republican Party. Of course, if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president then all bets are off.

Barack, boma ye!

Why I'm Not A Republican

2006-11-08T07:15:00.000-05:00

As Judgement Day draws nearer (November 7, 2006) I think it is an appropriate time to revisit my political affiliation. When I talk to Republicans they often comment that I don't sound like a liberal, and they're right. When I talk to Democrats they often note that I don't sound like a liberal, and they're right. In fact, one of the very few things that my Democratic and Republican friends could agree upon is the fact that I think and sound much more like the people who constitute the Republican base than those who constitute the Democratic base. So why is it that I am a Democrat, and a partisan one at that? It's really not that complex:

NIGGER PLEASE
One doesn't have to actually utter the word "Nigger" to convey the thought associated with the word, much the same way that saying that a woman has Ann Coulter tendancies would be calling her a female dog without uttering the appropriate word, or commenting about the foreskin on a man's neck would convey the meaning without uttering the appropriate word. America's Pac, a Republican group that claims to be refuting the belief on the part of the Republican Party that they cannot attract the Black vote, recently aired an ad that featured the following dialog:

Amos: If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,' you'll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked.
Andy: That's too cold. I don't snuff my own seed."
Amos: Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican."

Now the ad doesn't actually name the speakers Amos & Andy, but they might as well have. The fact that someone alligned with the Republican Party would think that minstrel advertising would appeal to Blacks reveals either their contempt for Blacks or their absolute ignorance of Black culture. Based on the Republican Party's track record I would tend to believe the former, but if it is pure ignorance then it also shows their contempt of Blacks in that they didn't even bother to check with their target audience to see if it would be effective or offensive. Personally, I think they couldn't care less about Blacks and our votes - they simply want to show White suburbanites that today's Republicans are not Trent Lott racists since they do Black outreach. WTF ever.

SPIC N SPAN
Of course, Republican bigotry is not limited to Americans of African descent. A Congressional candidate in California named Tan Nguyen (Republican, of course) mailed out a letter to 14,000 Latino residents of Orange County which falsely claimed that immigrants could be subject to criminal penalties if they voted in a federal election and that anti-immigration groups would be able to access a federal computer system containing the names of those who vote in October and November. Aside from the fact that no such law or database exists this naked attempt at vote-suppression is normal for Republicans, be it through purging felons from the voting files (and anyone with a name similar to a felon, sorry Mrs. Jackson - I am for real) or through installing fewer voting machines in urban precincts than in suburban precincts or through opposing every initiative to make voting more accessible and verifyable. Mr. Nguyen operated in accordance with the Republican playbook, he just neglected one minor detail - you have to use shadow groups to do your dirt (e.g. Swift Boats or Club For Growth or America's PAC). Obviously, the County GOP has asked Mr. Nguyen to withdraw from the race, feigning righteous indignation at their candidate who had about as much chance of winning in that district as Barney Frank would have winning in Mississippi. SSDD. And Black Republicans are demonstrating that they understand the Jesse Helms playbook too:

Family Values
I affirm the ethical system that is commonly referred to as "Family Values" at every point, however I do not believe that it is the job of the government to enforce that ethical system. Our laws reflect all of our values, and I certainly believe that every American has the right to work toward persuading a majority of their fellow citizens to support laws that reflect their views and values, but I have a serious problem with people dragging the name of Jesus Christ into secular politics, as I have noted on several occasions (An Evangelical View On Progressive Politics; Religious Right And Wrong; Theocracy, Rapture, And You; Pharisees, Sadducees, & Scribes; et al.).

I especially have a problem with this overwrought focus on the family. I believe that the family is a practical and valuable entity, but the United States of America is organized around the individual - not the household - and unless one advocates a one-household-one-vote Constitutional Amendment (which would likely repeal the 19th Amendment in the process) it is impossible to logically assert the family as the primary organizing unit of society. Paychecks are cut to individuals, not families. Criminals are punished individually for their crimes, not their entire families. People are elected to office individually, hired for jobs individually, and sued in court individually, not bundled with their families. American society is based upon the individual, and how those individuals interact with each other should be of little interest to the government - every small-government conservative should affirm that without question, as I have already noted.

But does the fact that America is organized around the individual mean that Christians should simply shut up and say nothing about the value of families? Hardly, but valuing the family unit is not among my highest priorities and it ought not be among the highest priorities of Bible-believing Christians. Why not? The priorities of Christians ought to match the priorities of Jesus Christ, and Jesus commanded us to focus on His kingdom, saying, "...the pagans run after [material] things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." The things that we ought to prioritize are the things that will transcend this life, things that are eternal, like the salvation of men's souls. When we take an eternal view of secular politics is it abundantly clear just how futile all of this talk about families really is: there are no families in eternity, just individuals.

Say what?

Consider this discussion between the Sadducees and Jesus:

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"

Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

If there is no marriage in eternity then why are we so pressed about families here and now? When people try to redefine marriage into something that it has never been then we should certainly resist them, and when people try to equate moral turpitude with the union of one man and one woman we should certainly say No, but this is not an issue that requires any kind of priority. Marriage was instituted for the benefit of mankind - "It is not good for the man to be alone" - mankind was not created for the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a means to an end, not an end unto itself, much like the Sabbath. Who cares if three men want to call their intimate relationship a marriage - what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? It certainly does not conform with God's revealed design for mankind and a Christian should certainly reject it, but reject it and move on - it's not that important and it's certainly not enough to make me vote Republican.

ABORTION

I am Pro Life, I believe that human life begins at conception. This is something that would be expected of an Evangelical Christian such as myself, but the interesting thing is that my Pro Life stance has next to nothing to do with Christianity - the Bible is mostly silent on the question of abortion. Most of the Biblical passages that are used to support the position that human life begins at conception actually speak - in context - to God's foreknowledge and sovereignty, not to the nature and character of the baby in the womb:

Psalm 139:13-16

For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Some would argue that this passage refers to the personhood of the unborn baby, but the writer is speaking of God's foreknowledge, as the writer himself concludes in verse 16.

Job 3:11

Why did I not perish at birth,
and die as I came from the womb?

Here, clearly Job acknowledges that he was alive before exiting the womb, but the most ardent supporter of abortion will admit as much - this passage has no impact on the abortion discussion.

Jeremiah 1:4-5

The word of the LORD came to me, saying,

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

Again, this text speaks to God's foreknowledge, not Jeremiah's human existence prior to being born.

Luke 1:39-45

At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!"

Now this passage comes close to making a case for opposing abortion, the problem is that most every Christian will affirm that Jesus was no normal baby, so trying to prove a point based on the Zygote Jesus would be stretching it at best. As for John the Baptist who leapt in his mother's womb, he was heading into the third trimester and there is no debate about the humanity of a baby in the late-second or early-third trimester, so again this passage doesn't have much impact on the abortion debate.

Exodus 21:22-25

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

This passage actually does indeed speak to the issue of abortion. If a woman miscarried as a result of two men fighting then the one who caused the miscarriage would have inflicted upon him whatever harm came to the baby - eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise, life for life. Some would say that the penalty is inflicted based upon what happens to the woman, not the baby, but if that were the case then there would be no need of mentioning the pregnancy. It is referring to the baby and it treats the baby as a human being. The problem, of course, is that the passage assumes that the baby is formed such that an arm could be identified, a wound could be discerned, a tooth could be found, and that would be well after conception. This passage does little to refute the logic of Roe v. Wade, and is thus pointless in the current abortion discussion.

The reason why I am Pro Life is because from the moment of conception there is no ontological difference between that baby and a full-grown adult besides growth and development. There is no point after conception where the baby "becomes" human, she is human from the moment a human genome is created - at conception - and as such it is just as wrong to kill her as it is to kill a full-grown vagabond by running over him with your car. No one else might ever know about the death of such an unknown individual but it is no less wrong. Ontologically, a human being is created at conception and the same laws that apply to killing any human being have to apply across the board to all human beings, be they newly conceived or terminally ill.

So how in the world could I vote for a Democrat? Simple - abortion is not a voting issue for me.

Say what?

If over a million children are being murdered every year with the approval of the government then abortion is not a voting issue, it is an overthrow the government issue. I don't think that too many people were impressed at Nuremburg when people said that they voted against the holocaust. When it comes to opposing abortion there is no middle of the road - either it's the murder of a million children a year, every year, or it's not. Either it is an evil practice that has to be eliminated immediately, by any means necessary, or it is merely the elimination of unwanted bio-matter. There is no middle way on abortion, yet suburbanites lack the courage of their convictions to actually do something about it. Soccer moms hate that babies are being slaughtered but they have to get Becky to practice - they'll just vote Republican and feel better about themselves for having struck a blow for the "good guys."

Let them comfort themselves with the ashes of Slavs, Gypsies and Jews from Auschwitz, because that's the end result of their voting - death and dismemberment. The Republicans have appointed ten (10) of the last twelve justices to the Supreme Court, and Republicans have appointed every Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the last 50 years, but Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. If the Republican Party was serious about ending abortion then they would have done it by now, but they are more interested in milking the issue than solving the problem.

But even if Roe v. Wade were overturned abortion would still be legal in America - the red states would immediately ban abortion and the blue states would immediately legalize abortion, leaving the purple states to fight it out. The GOP in purple states like Michigan and Pennsylvania tend to be more moderate, and concentrating the abortion fight in those battleground states - along with the money and volunteers that the national party craves - would strengthen a wing of the GOP that they have spent a generation trying to exterminate. The GOP has no interest in killing the goose that lays the golden campaign contributions or in resurrecting a dead wing of their party so they will keep abortion legal for as long as they can milk contributions from those who are long on expectations but short on personal commitment.

And yes, the Democrats do the same thing from the other side of the aisle.

And if you stop to think about it, both parties are full of male-bovine fecal material on the issue of abortion. It is the Republican Party which believes that government has no place in the private affairs of citizens. It is the Republican Party which believes that the government that governs least governs best. It is the Republican Party that should be articulating the Pro Choice argument, yet they take the opposite position. Why?

The Democratic Party seems to have no problem with the idea of creating a new branch of government to save some helpless creature against the wiles of the powerful, so why is it that the Democrats are absent when the most helpless of all needs someone to stand up for them? It is the Democratic Party which believes in an active government that protects the disenfranchized against the decision-makers. It is the Democratic Party which believes in protecting the least of these even if that means limiting the options of others who already have that which the least of these are trying to achieve - LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - yet Democrats side against the most helpless of all, unborn babies. Why?

The answer in both instances is the same - constituency.

When abortion became a big issue in the 60s and 70s the feminists and others who were pushing for abortion on demand were already solidly in the camp of the Democrats, so the Democrats ignored their governing philosophy and adjusted to accommodate the desires of their core constituency. The Republicans were beginning to welcome a flood of Southerners who were abandoning the Democratic Party in droves after Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress and signed it into law, and the Southern Baptists were (and are) among the most committed in their opposition to abortion, and the Republicans weren't going to alienate their new constituency by maintaining fidelity to their governing philosophy so they adjusted to accommodate the desires of their new constituency. Political parties are about winning elections, not philosophical consistency, so they focused on what was important to winning elections - their constituencies - and they've ensured that the gravy train of money and volunteers continues to flow by keeping Roe v. Wade on the books and blocking any initiative that would decrease the demand for abortions. "They" being Democrats and Republicans.

And nobody dares mention fertility clinics which potentially kill as many unborn babies as abortion clinics...

When it's all said and done, both the Democrats and the Republicans are full of crap regarding the issue of abortion - neither party has any interest in ending abortion, and those who claim to viscerally oppose abortion have no intention of actually doing anything about it other than sending the Republicans millions of dollars and hundreds of volunteers. Nothing is going to change when it comes to abortion - I give you the last 30 years as proof-positive - so for me, at the end of the day, abortion is not a voting issue.

Two tears in a bucket...

ECONOMICS
If there is a measure of debate regarding my party affiliation when it comes to social issues then there is no debate as to where I stand on economic matters - I solidly stand in solidarity with those who work for a living, with those who have to earn their keep, with those who have to struggle to make ends meet. Without question I side with the Have Nots over the Have Gots inasmuch as it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick, specifically regarding:

The Minimum Wage and Welfare
Slavery was abolished with the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, but it is still in effect today. In slavery the master provided for the slaves' food, clothing, and shelter and the slave worked whenever the master scheduled them to work. Today's wage slaves are paid just enough to cover their food, clothing and shelter, and they haven't had a raise in a decade, such that many people end up worse off if they try to leave welfare in order to get a McJob. It just so happens that the Republicans have controlled Congress for the last decade, and while they have made every effort to cut taxes on the Have Gots they have done nothing for the Have Nots, and they never will. It's almost like they've never heard the words of Jesus, where He said:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Jesus: bleeding-heart liberal...

Taxes
For as long as I can remember Republicans have been proclaiming the need to lower taxes, but one thing that I have never heard from Republicans is what they believe to be a fair level of taxation. There is one Republican who has been honest enough to say outright that which today's Republicans imply - Steve Forbes. The Republicans ultimately want to eliminate the progressive scale of taxation whereby poor people are taxed a smaller percentage of their income than are the wealthy. Republicans want a flat tax because they no longer hold to the belief that was once unquestioned in America and indeed throughout the civilized world - noblesse oblige. From a practical standpoint it is certainly true that the wealthy benefit more from a stable society than do the poor, therefore they should pay a higher percentage. The police protect life, liberty and property from theft and it isn't the poor who are at risk of having property stolen. A stable society bolsters the position of the wealthy at the top of the economic food chain - keeping them from Marie Antoinette's fate - so it only makes sense for them to pay a disproportionate percentage since they benefit disroportionately from a stable society. Today's Republicans want no part of a progressive tax code and they have no fear of a popular uprising, "Oderint Dum Metuant" having replaced "E Pluribus Unum" as the nation's motto under the GOP.

Health Care
The United States of America is the only industrialized nation in the world without some form of univeral health care. Even Costa Rica has universal health care, and there is a relatively simple way for the United States to implement it here: if the federal government were to remove the enrollment restrictions from Medicaid then we would instantly have universal health care, corporations would no longer need to foot the cost of medical insurance for their employees, and if the increases in taxes were entirely absorbed by the corporate employers and everyone who was on commercial health insurance switched to Medicaid then the corporate employers would find themselves with a windfall of roughly $2000 per employee and family member covered per year. Consider the numbers:

Medicaid Members (2004): 42.4 million
Medicaid Budget (2004): $173 billion
Medicaid cost per member (2004): $4080
Medicaid cost if extended to every US Citizen (300 million people): $1.224 trillion
Current corporate spending on employee health benefits: $1.8 trillion

Savings: $576 billion each and every year, not counting the $250 billion annual savings from Medicare

Sources:
Medicaid At A Glance
Health Insurance Costs
Cost Of Inaction
Bush FY 2004 Medicare Budget

If the increase of taxes were split between employers and employees then corporations would realize an even greater windfall, yet the Republicans would never support such a proposition since it has as it's primary concern the well-being of people instead of the well-being of profits. There's a really simple equation when it comes to health care:

Profit Motive + Inelastic Demand Curve = Exploitation

Only in America.

Labor
The right of workers to collectively bargain is non-negotiable, both in the public and private spheres. On this fundamental principle I will never waver - there is nothing to discuss - and that has no place in the GOP. Neither do I.

New Nupe

2007-12-01T15:36:00.000-05:00

Yours-truly, as of 3:36 PM today, has crossed the burning sands of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.

From right to left:

Know-1-der
Komotose
Kourse-I-kan
Krackin' Up
Keystroke (yours truly)
Kappa-Tail B

We are 6 In The City.

Comics

2007-11-14T09:49:00.000-05:00

Since I'm laid up at home with the flu today, here's some comics:

Solidarity By Line
Branding
Rage Against The Machine
Support The Troops
Baby Boom
QxR
Alienable Rights
Homeland Security
Vlad The Impaler
Jenna Deep 6
Jena 666
Die Bold
GOP Lockstep
Democrat or Republican
Quintessentially American
Enhanced Techniques
Plenary Indulgence
Bush-League...
...Clinton-Fatigue
ADM Windfall

And my favorite for today: Kuku