Cranky Bastard

From a Chicago Tribune editorial posted May 30, 2008: "Obama said Pfleger’s words were “divisive” and “backward-looking.” Pfleger apologized for what he said at Trinity. “I regret the words I chose Sunday,” he said in a statement released by his church, St. Sabina. “These words are inconsistent with Sen. Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Sen. Clinton or anyone else who saw them,” he said.If they offended? They offended. After everything that happened with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, how on earth does a priest, or any religious leader, take the pulpit and behave as Michael Pfleger did?Yes, race is a factor in this campaign. Some voters will tell you point-blank that they won’t vote for Barack Obama because he is black. But what has marked Obama’s campaign is his great ability to inspire people to look beyond race. It’s a shame that all of Obama’s supporters haven’t done the same."

What I fail to understand is how "leaders" of a Church, group or even family could espouse such views. I have always thought that you didn't go to Church to hear what you wanted to hear, but rather be led by a Church leader who told you what you needed to hear. What has been proven as of late (though I already knew it) is the fact that Church leaders are "playing to a congregation". This further proves that they are not "leaders" at all. They are panderers and much more interested in dollars in the plate than salvation. To be a person of any race and continue, in 2008, to fuel the basest of racial discussions and maintain a belief of powerlessness within a class of people who need personal power the most is a disgrace and an utter disservice. To those for whom these men were putting on this display, I say pick your leaders more wisely. Find leaders who tell you how to build yourself up, not stay in a bitter and defeated state of mind. All of us, regardless of race, gender or any number of other issues, can feel defeated. What we learn is that we often find in others reflections of how we view ourselves. To cheer a man who is preaching your inability to fuel your own fate is to cheer your own destruction. I wish for you more than that.

Race - Presidential Election of 2008 - Barack Obama - Hillary Clinton - Elections - Politics - Democratic Party - New York Times: "Even as Dr. Cone and others such as the Rev. William A. Jones at Bethany Baptist in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, crafted a theology of black liberation, Catholic theologians in Central and South America crafted their own liberation theology, arguing that God placed the impoverished peasants closest to his heart."

Michael Powell makes this point twice. If that is so, then what we can deduce is the Church's complicity in arguing for their congregants to stay in poverty. If pastors suggest on hundreds of Sundays that their parishioners are more loved by their god as a result of their poverty, there is no impetus to remove themselves in the eyes of god. I understand that the people in this article and others would fight that conclusion, but it is logical and quite sad. What this also does at its most organic is suggests that they could not ever have confidence in themselves, as they will always be viewed as "the impoverished, down-trodden". This kind of belief perpetuates a long wrong. What we should know now, these many years after King, is that anyone of any color, creed or nationality, has a birthright to freedom and access to self-worth and success. Now, what would our nation look like if that had been the message at the pulpit over the last fifty years?

Utah Mine Disaster Was Preventable, Report Says - New York Times: "“It is quite possible that, had Mine Safety and Health Administration known the full severity of the March bump, M.S.H.A. would not have approved the subsequent development and retreat mining of the South Barrier,” the report said.
This conclusion about the cause of the disaster contradicts Robert E. Murray, the chief executive of the Murray Energy Corporation, which owns and operates the mine. Mr. Murray has adamantly insisted that the initial fatalities were not foreseeable because the collapse was caused by an earthquake rather than by mining operations.
Federal mining officials, who have publicly expressed skepticism that an earthquake caused the collapse, are due to release their own investigation report in June."

What we all suspected as we watched that guy say and do extraordinarily strange things. The one thing that made me question him most was when Bob Murray questioned the geologists who were clear that no earthquake had occurred. These are the people we immediately want to hear from after the ground shakes. If they say no earthquake, most of us tend to believe them. When he was so adamant as to their mistake, I thought we had a major problem on our hands. He was also so self-interested while his people were irretrievably trapped. This is something that as we watch, we question how in the world he could be so detached. Apparently, that detachment was natural for him, or at least a long pattern.

Utah Mine Disaster Was Preventable, Report Says - New York Times: "“It is quite possible that, had Mine Safety and Health Administration known the full severity of the March bump, M.S.H.A. would not have approved the subsequent development and retreat mining of the South Barrier,” the report said.
This conclusion about the cause of the disaster contradicts Robert E. Murray, the chief executive of the Murray Energy Corporation, which owns and operates the mine. Mr. Murray has adamantly insisted that the initial fatalities were not foreseeable because the collapse was caused by an earthquake rather than by mining operations.
Federal mining officials, who have publicly expressed skepticism that an earthquake caused the collapse, are due to release their own investigation report in June."

What we all suspected as we watched that guy say and do extraordinarily strange things. The one thing that made me question him most was when Bob Murray questioned the geologists who were clear that no earthquake had occurred. These are the people we immediately want to hear from after the ground shakes. If they say no earthquake, most of us tend to believe them. When he was so adamant as to their mistake, I thought we had a major problem on our hands. He was also so self-interested while his people were irretrievably trapped. This is something that as we watch, we question how in the world he could be so detached. Apparently, that detachment was natural for him, or at least a long pattern.

DRUDGE REPORT 2008®:
"HILLARY: WHITE PEOPLE SUPPORT ME... "

What? I am not quite sure how to appropriately respond to this. She certainly has to know better, but that almost makes a statement like this worse, knowing better and saying it anyway. Once again, we have the Clinton's raising race as a voting issue. That is in such stark contrast to the "dream" and to who Americans aspire to be. Really, it is just offensive. Also, this makes it very, very clear that she can no longer blame Bill's statements earlier on in the campaign on him going off on his own. I didn't buy that anyway as they are the king and queen of strategy. Not much is ever said that hasn't been weighed heavily, if not polled. This, it is clearer now, is their strategy. Sick.
I understand that, in desperation, people will say and do things that otherwise would be on the top of their list to condemn. In this situation, however, her better pitches to the American people have been dropped in exchange for this base and profoundly disgusting discourse. She should be discussing how she has been able to work with Senators of all stripes and each party effectively. In fact, those Senators who were probably more inclined to dislike her have spoken out in her favor over the last several years. No, no, she doesn't appeal to a country desirous of togetherness with her ability for it. No, she appeals to the much less evolved among us. Shame on the "first black president and the first black first lady".

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News: "Clinton fights on as prospects dim"

Last night, while waiting on the Indiana returns, the "experts" were opining on when Hillary would bow out. They asserted she would be "forced" out in the next couple of days, even as McAuliffe maintained they were not going anywhere. He said this, mind you, after the polls closed. I think many wildly underestimate the Clinton's desire for the White House. That is so clearly the only issue for them. I have heard so many times the whole "she doesn't want to destroy the party" argument. Do these people honestly believe she cares one bit about the party? Really? I don't. Her husband, the "first black President", made clear an at least latent disregard for African Americans in the run-up to South Carolina and other moments. That is to put it kindly, by the way. To think they have anyone else's interests at heart is to be naive and one who pays little attention to our recent history.

The Clinton's have long had the capacity to say, with straight faces, things that they absolutely know to be untrue. Most recently is the windfall profits tax to cover the gas tax holiday. She sells it to voters knowing full well that the windfall tax could never, ever happen in the next month to be in place by summer. Common sense is not an obstacle for their campaign.

What all of this tells us is that Senator Clinton is going to be with us until the convention. In fact, in a press conference just on television, she cited 1968. As I have believed for several months, she is in it to win it, regardless of the "will of the voters" or the nastiness of the tactics in their employ. She knows, like many of the rest of us, that politics is a minute-by-minute sport, with a change in wind direction only so possible at any time. She will await that meltdown for the next few months. And frankly, Indiana and North Carolina really didn't (though the newsies would have us believe otherwise) represent any real change in this race. We were in the same position after Pennsylvania. Two things didn't happen after Pennsylvania that was widely expected. 1) She didn't drop out. 2) The remainder of the uncommitted super-delegates did not stampede to the door of the Illinois Senator. You know why? Again two things. 1) They do not have the luxury of being wrong as they run for another term. 2) It has been an unwise wager when betting against the Clintons in the past. They have one hell of a good memory.

We should all sit and simply enjoy the drama, not expecting the players to change until August. That is because they aren't going to change. Now while I feel like that is an absolute, I am as yet uncertain as to the impact on the race, the Democratic party, or the Clinton legacy, among other things. I think a lot of that is determined by future events. One can't really argue that this is fun to watch and to ponder, so we should really just ready the popcorn and fire up the monster TV's.

PETA wants Eight Belles jockey suspended after filly's death: "PETA faxed a letter Sunday to Kentucky's racing authority claiming the filly was 'doubtlessly injured before the finish' and asked that Saez be suspended while Eight Belles' death is investigated.
'What we really want to know, did he feel anything along the way?' PETA spokeswoman Kathy Guillermo said. 'If he didn't then we can probably blame the fact that they're allowed to whip the horses mercilessly.'
Eight Belles trainer Larry Jones said the filly was clearly happy when she crossed the finish line.
'I don't know how in the heck they can even come close to saying that,' Jones told The Associated Press on Sunday. 'She has her ears up, clearly galloping out.'"

The PETA folks could not possibly know what happened, and they make that clear by saying "doubtlessly" followed by an "if-then". They have no more understanding of what or how than the man on the moon. It was sad for many of us watching, but to blame the jockey or act like they could know any more than the rest of us is silly. That is my normal reservation with groups like this. They rush to the absurd.

Cover story: 'Christopher Hitchens' by Alexander Linklater Prospect Magazine May 2008 issue 146: "His main business, he claims, has been to ally himself with what was originally an underground movement of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds—all working towards the overthrow of a latter-day Stalinist monster. “I have felt like I used to in the 1960s,” he says, “working with revolutionaries. That reminds me of my better days.”"

His better days? He has simply gone mad. Maybe this is his strange version of a mid-life crisis, where he mourns a youth gone. Maybe he is reminiscing on a perceived greater clarity of thought and values as is common in one's idealistic youth. Whatever this is, Hitchens is unwise to believe that he is one minute beyond his "better days".
Alexander, the author, though stretching his understanding too much in places, does bring us one terribly interesting insight. He notes that when Hitchy talks of his mother, he falls to rather flowery speech. In fact, what he seems to do is talk about nature. He notes the color of the sky, olive trees, and such. What he may also be doing is holding onto those moments by remembering every detail. I would want to be able to do that as well.
Where Alexander goes wrong is his deep desire, like others, to claim some part of Hitchens' beliefs are "faith". It is a crackpot way of taking him down a peg, of scrapping the anti-theist argument with a single word. What Linklater does not understand about Hitchy and others like us is that we don't need a faith, a group or any sort of support for these beliefs. We don't need to be preached to every Sunday to be reminded of what is important. We do not need to be in fellowship to reinforce the "rightness" of our stance. The author also suggests that Christopher's main goal throughout his career was to be "right". One wonders to whom that does not apply.
Another interesting note was Hitchens recalling his early days at the Statesman. "By 1973 Hitchens was writing political columns for the New Statesman alongside a cultural team that included Fenton, Martin Amis, Julian Barnes, Ian McEwan and Clive James. Later incorporating his friendship with Salman Rushdie, this period set him at the heart of what would become, and arguably remains, Britain's dominant literary grouping. Though his was already the most politically developed voice among this emerging elite, Hitchens was in his own words, “a secondary planet in this system, and not unhappy to be. I did a lot of listening.”" I simply don't have the ability to imagine him in a room with these men without interjecting opinion at every turn. I respect his desire to learn, but am unsure if he correctly recollects. It is not just that I would see them disagreeing. I would think that he would have then used argument as he does now, a way to "hone". I also believe that he has a rather compulsive desire to argue. For him, and I must admit for me, it is a wonderful intellectual exercise.
As an unabashed fan, I wish he saw himself the way that I so gladly view him. While flawed, occasionally wrong, and most certainly complex, Christopher Hitchens is the best mind of our times.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News: "AP: Police say a woman they believe to be convicted Washington escort service operator Deborah Jeane Palfrey committed suicide."

David Vitter, one of Palfrey's long-time clients, didn't have to testify. She, however, was facing over fifty years in prison after being found guilty in her trial. I was upset by the verdicts, but we should all be upset by the fact that the laws are so sexist that it led to this woman's suicide. Frankly, I should have been this upset by the verdicts. I am a bit ashamed that I wasn't. Nothing at all happened to her service's johns, but she was facing over 50 years in prison. In fact, there was a lot of hand-wringing about the names and phones logs being made public as that would lead to the poor johns being outed. It's outrageous! Two to tango, two to break a prostitution law, right? Wrong. I am not in love with the idea of prostitution, but we need to make it fair one way or another. Either it is illegal for both parties or it is legal for both parties. Parsing this on gender flies in the face of equality. It should all make us sick to our stomach that this woman, in order to escape injustice, felt she had to kill herself. And this was, make no mistake, a true injustice!

The Trouble With Transcending Race Views TheRoot.com: "But the undeniable truth is that black celebrities and politicians are held to ridiculous standards of acceptability. As long as white people are defining those standards, 'transcendent' black leaders will continue to walk a racial tightrope, and everyone is destined to end up disappointed."

This is really not true. What happened to Obama was the realization that a man he called a mentor is actually aligned with a bigot and a racist (in Farakkhan). I don't think of wanting the man who leads the free world to not be aligned with bigots and racists as a "ridiculously" high "standard of acceptability". Nor should anyone. If the races were different in this equation, there would be no question but that the campaign would be over. What America is doing really is giving Obama a pass that would not be extended to a white candidate, male or female, who had such friends.

From the article and from a blog: ""The support of white women made Oprah her billions. While she has every right to vote and campaign for whomever she wants, she stabbed all women in the back. She used her clout against the first viable white woman. Hope she sinks into oblivion. I will never forget.""
Thank you, but I would like to go back to believing that this kind of thought did not happen. I would like to think that people vote on bigger issues, yea or nay, than color and gender. Stabbed all women in the back? What, for thinking beyond her nose? For believing in someone with whom she has been friends for years? For not simply pandering to keep ratings up? The idea that people think this way makes my stomach turn.

Also from the article: "They were supposed to reflect blackness in the way that made white people comfortable, a blackness that lacked any hint of anger, resentment, or dare we say it, "bitterness." They were also supposed to pretend their blackness didn't matter. Oprah could be the black girlfriend who white women felt good about themselves for having, Obama could be the black candidate they felt good for supporting."

This is also simply offensive. White folks don't like Oprah because it makes them feel good about having a "black girlfriend". That's stupid. There have been plenty of black men and women on the air that did not get ratings out of "white guilt". White women watch Oprah because she educates, informs, and entertains. White people were drawn to Obama, not because he "entertained", but rather because he inspired. Marjorie Valbrun should be ashamed of herself for painting all white folks as weak-kneed idiots whose white guilt rivals that of Catholic guilt. Of describing white folks as those that need to be "entertained by blacks" otherwise we vote for a white.

Whatever happened to..."one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today!"? A reminder to Valerie...their blackness is supposed to be forgotten. That was the freakin' dream!