Real Name: Samantha Gender: female Member Since: June 04, 2007 Last Signed In: August 13, 2008 Profile Views: 1783 Blog Views: 994 Coalition on Human Needs: Farm Bill Report Day Seven of the Challenge: Final Blog Day Six of the Challenge Day Five of the Challenge Day Four of the Challenge Day Three of the Challenge Day Two of the Challenge Food Stamp Challenge: Preparations & Day One Are you up for The Challenge? Mud for Dinner? The Rising Threat of World Hunger July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Warning: Politics Ahead.
Guilty By Association? In response to the blog "Race and Politics," and subsequent comments: I generally try to be very polite and vague here on Bakotopia in regards to political discussions, particularly when I disagree with someone else's comments ("I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," and all of that). It saddens me, therefore, when those efforts are not returned by others. Having said that, I'm going to attempt to retain that respect... but, for once, I'm not going to force my words to be governed by tact. The last thing I want to do is alienate or offend anyone, so bear with me... I think Obama's speech on racial issues and the state of the country was brilliant. There you have it, plain and simple. No more dancing around political debates with subtle, attempting-to-be-objective comments. I am not ashamed of my beliefs - and in this conservative town, they're admittedly somewhat of a departure from tradition - but I really hate our natural human tendency to immediately and completely judge others for a simple statement that may or may not claim a particular religion/political party/orientation/etc. I don't want to be pegged, categorized, or anything else'd because of this ONE perspective. In the past, this fear has detained me from expressing the full extent of my opinions here on Bakotopia, and in general, I suppose. That pesky want to be liked, to be regarded with respect and tolerance. Not to be dismissed just because I identify with one position or another. Because I believe that the moment one person decides to completely dismiss the values, opinions or views of another, the potential for healthy debate is instantly killed. Yes, I realize it will still happen... such is life. So, in regards to the Rev. Wright controversy: I am utterly astonished by the view by some that Obama is "guilty by association." Does anyone else remember the recent incident which required the McCain camp to seek to distance itself from supporter and mutual admirer Pastor Hagee? It was just this February, I believe, when John Hagee (televangelist and megachurch leader) referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and a "false cult system." McCain later issued a statement to the effect of "I repudiate any offensive comments made by Pastor Hagee, but I still support Hagee." So, according to your logic, an1ok1joe (not trying to pick on you, just responding to your point on Chase's blog!), is McCain guilty by association as well? Is it reasonable that when someone endorses a candidate, the candidate is therefore assumed to embrace all of their views? Personally, I don't think so. I have plenty of friends - many of whom I admire a great deal - who advocate positions I strongly disagree with. We remain friends in spite of our differences of opinion and our faults. We choose to be associated, and not because we are bound by any familial ties. We all know that these types of relationships can and do exist. Why, then, do we see Obama, McCain, and others in such a remarkably different light? Naturally, as public officials and especially as presidential candidates, they are subject to a great deal of scrutiny... but they are human, after all. I think that Obama touched on a good point when he mentioned this situation with regard to family members, because I imagine many of you will argue that comparing Rev. Wright - Obama's pastor of 20 years - to just some openly embraced religious endorser is completely without merit. However, Obama has stated that Wright has become like family to him (and, may I point out: Obama refuses to "disown" Wright for that reason, despite some of his controversial statements); their relationship is complex. Why is he not allowed to disagree with (and even condem) some of Wright's views? Some people are bothered by the fact that this is the man from whom Obama receives spiritual guidance, but perhaps Obama has taken everything he's said - both positive and negative - and used it to truly examine his own beliefs (note: again, responding to Joe). Maybe those views have enabled Obama to explore issues from all sides before attempting to find solutions... a quality I definitely want my President to possess. At one point in his speech, Obama said: "...What my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change. The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation..." Clearly, Wright's statements challenged Obama to come to his own conclusion regarding the issue of racism in our society. I realize that we're used to dealing with extreme hypocrisy in the political arena... but maybe, just maybe, it's possible that politicians who stand for integrity, faith, and humanity, who recognize the country's current issues for what they are - nuanced and difficult - do exist. Just recently, my grandmother and I took part in a mild argument - over the election, no less - and I was so fiercely (inwardly) outraged by some of the things she said, I walked away. I walked away, not because I was choosing to "admit defeat" or avoid confrontation, but because I grew uncomfortable when faced with the realization that I felt the need to admonish my own grandmother. I love her, I know that she is a good person, and we generally agree on many levels, politically speaking. I so completely disapproved of what she had said that, in that instant, I felt nothing but jarring distress, frustration, and a little resentment. I wouldn't dream of distancing myself from her entirely, even if those things had been said at a public function with all of my friends, family, employers, coworkers, and instructors present. I know I'm kind of jumping back and forth here, stream of consciousness - but, keeping this in mind - am I to understand that even though Obama has openly criticized and condemned the attitude and phrasing of those choice awful comments made by Wright... he is still somehow at major fault for associating with him? Who truly believes that it would show greater character on Obama's part if he suddenly and easily dismissed Rev. Wright as soon as the controversy surfaced? Personally, I would be more inclined to distrust him had that been his way of dealing with the situation. Then there's the fact that the media jumped all over those particular statements without putting them in any sort of context. Who knows how skewed Wright's view of the country may or may not be, based on his individual perspective? This wikipedia article (I know, not always reliable, but in this case, goes into more detail) offers some sort of context for Wright's statements, if anyone is interested. Again, it does not excuse anything that was said, but perhaps it offers more information. Ultimately, Obama felt the need to address his relationship with Wright amidst all the controversy, and rightly (and unfortunately) so. But, more so than the responses he provided to that pressing issue, his overall commentary on racism and the state of the U.S. is what really encouraged me: "...Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated bias. The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through — a part of our union that we have not yet made perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care or education or the need to find good jobs for every American." He inspires genuine hope in people. He consistently displays intelligence, care, integrity, passion, and the ability to unite. He speaks frankly about issues that face America today. Disagree with me if you'd like (and I will respect your opinion just as any other)... but that is someone I can stand behind. 43 comments from 9 users
posted by
Dizzyfingers
on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Hiya.......Thanks.......Hope is a wonderful thing.....Keep the faith............... posted by
Chase
on Mar 22, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I will definitely get to this a bit later. Now, breakfast (and yes, I am waking up at noon, what are you going to do about it, probably nothing!) posted by
twinkie
on Mar 22, 2008 at 01:12 PM
He inspires genuine hope in people. He consistently displays intelligence, care, integrity, passion, and the ability to unite. He speaks frankly about issues that face America today. I think this is why he's drawing out non voters and new voters out of the woodwork. People can relate to him, and love what he has to say. posted by
twinkie
on Mar 22, 2008 at 01:14 PM
I lent my very VERY Republican friend Barack's book, The Audacity of Hope and he was impressed and has changed his mind about the candidate he was originally going to vote for. Also, my mother in law changed her mind from Hillary to Barack after listening to a few other speeches he's made. See, that's what Barack is doing to people that actually take the time to LISTEN to his message. He's changing their minds about who they are voting for.
posted by
sistersheree
on Mar 22, 2008 at 01:44 PM
Sometimes negative attention is better than no attention at all. If you will not see me for who I think myself to be, I will make you see me by any means possible, but I will be seen and I will be heard no matter the cost to self or others. This train wreck mentality just cracks me the hell up. As for Reverend Wrights Sermon of hate. ( Which I failed to see as a speech of sheer hate and distain, I viewed it merely as one mans PERSONAL observations, made in his PERSONAL life experiences in this nation as a black man.) I am glad that the man spoke honestly from his own hearts experiences and did not make the front page news in the form of a photo of him hanging from a tree, or an article written about him being drug to death behind a truck. It gives me hope that maybe just maybe my country is making some progress towards redemption from the bloody path this Nation has used to carve its self from. posted by
an1ok1joe
on Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32 AM
John Hagee (televangelist and megachurch leader) referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and a "false cult system." I have to say I'm not a McCain supporter either Sam. Yes I think McCain could be just as guilty if he looked up to Hagee for advice too. , but perhaps Obama has taken everything he's said - both positive and negative - and used it to truly examine his own beliefs (note: again, responding to Joe). I like to think i do this in life myself. But I must say 20 years of experiencing a dark cloud In a church that you go to knowing you should be there. There is a problem. I love my half sister, the bible tells me this, The Lord tells me this, I do love her, I see she is an image of God as the bible states. But at 7 years of age she molested me. Should I hang with her? Nah I really don't care to. And that is one of many things that she has done that i wouldn't exactly agree with. Would I go to her really Christian Fundamental church she attends? No, I have forgive her but I don't feel the need to be around her. do you get my point? I know that was a mind full to deal with there. But When people do things you don't agree with you confront them and if they don't want to change you agree to disagree and it's your right to part ways. Some times it's best to do so. My own mother was the same way I had a heated argument with her on racist remarks she said once. Although I chose not to walk away, She did, but she would always walk away when good sense and logic didn't agree with her. But me being me and being stubborn and a fighter for my own life, I followed her down the street right beside her until she heard my argument. Maybe all this seem off the beaten path, but I'm just saying, distance yourself from people meaning you harm, you my not think it, but trust me,..they will drag you down. I have believed in what Obama has said in the past but this whole;e Wright thing has thrown a bad light on him. I know you may want change of a whole different kind someone that can do all these things: Inspires genuine hope in people. Consistently displays intelligence, care, integrity, passion, and the ability to unite. Speaks frankly about issues that face America today. My own personal belief is that he has been sooo close to what we need but not quite, It's like someone picking out that car they always dreamed of. But,..they get to the dealer and everything is perfect except this one thing, and this one thing is gnawing at them, it's minor but it's not a big thing. They can buy the car and then be sorry later, or they can wait and get what they really really want. I think Obama's time is not now. I just feel this,..I certainly don't care for the other two choices we have either. posted by
an1ok1joe
on Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39 AM
First off I'm not sure if Twinkie knows or not that the book she read was named after one of Wrights sermons. Out of the two Clinton and Obama I would vote for him because I think she is cold and calcualting. sistershree you must of not heard Wright damn America and not only doing that but using God's name in vain while doing it. Hmm he IS a pastor isn't he? ANd yes I'm glad to see that he would not be hanging from a tree, I'm glad this country has progressed to some civilence, but a long way to go. I think a Black president would be great, but just sadly not Obama. posted by
jenraven
on Mar 23, 2008 at 03:15 AM
Well written! I wish more of this sort of intelligent discourse would make it's way to the talk radio and the television. All we seem to get from the mass-media are sound-bytes, that play to sensation and cliche, rather than to logic. posted by
twinkie
on Mar 23, 2008 at 08:21 AM
joe, yes I do. If fact the book was named after said sermon. It's still a GREAT book. posted by
sistersheree
on Mar 23, 2008 at 09:20 AM
Oh I heard the Reverend when he said, "God Damn America" I heard him loud and clear as he spoke those words. I heard the frustration in his voice rising up from his heart and soul. Sometimes I too wish God would damn the parts of America that are ugly and soooo last millennium. Eight years into a new millennium and what do we as a nation have to show for it? Jobs are still being out sourced, not enough affordable housing and health care. A war thats bankrupting our nation and putting a strain on families everywhere. Children are still graduating from public schools that cannot read or write. Pedophiles still attend to altar boys on a regular basis and a whole onslought of other shit I seriously wish God would damn about this country. Oh yeah I heard the Reverend when he said God damn America and I trust that God knew exactly what the Reverend meant when he asked him to do it.
posted by
an1ok1joe
on Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Jen that's because the CONSERVATIVE RADIO/TV er Republican agenda is the only thing around these days,.Yes I said,..Liberial media is pretty much gone,( or really never existed too long, maybe in the late 60's early 70's) Besides they love to scream at sound bites or don't even allow callers in that have a good thought. most often. TV pfft there isn't a chance there. I'm sure it is a good book Ywinkie, as long as the name of the book was borrowed but Rev. Wright's ideolgy wasn't printed in it sistersheree, I think all that has to do a lot with this administration, the President. Notice how his cabinet bailed on him like they were on fire? A good sign they wanted to distance themselves from him. They might have wanted to do the right thing, I really don't think he's let them, he wanted to be the big wheel in the whitehouse. Presidents are usually mostly figure heads, This guy comes in and gums up the works. The pedophile situation is the power of the Catholic Church, I'm sorry to say those that are RC Church members. But to be honest here,..Ten Commandments: take your pick : KJV - 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. NRSV -7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. TEV - 7 "Do not use my name for evil purposes, for I, the LORD your God, will punish anyone who misuses my name. posted by
Chase
on Mar 23, 2008 at 07:45 PM
"you must of not heard Wright damn America and not only doing that but using God's name in vain while doing it" and the slew of other versions of the commandment: He wasn't using God's name in vain, he was speaking quite literally. God Dammit! is in vain, but the context which Wright used it was not. I don't agree with his position either, but to be attacking that aspect of it is ridiculous. And just in case you don't get what I mean, he was saying "Not 'God Bless America', but 'God Damn America'" which is based off the assumption that our country feels it should be blessed by God in light of its transgressions. I will explain further if I have to but I hope that is explanation enough. posted by
SamG
on Mar 23, 2008 at 08:20 PM
Wow, lots to catch up on! 1. "I think this is why he's drawing out non voters and new voters out of the woodwork. People can relate to him, and love what he has to say." -- Very good point, Twinkie, and one that I meant to elaborate on in the blog. Not only is Obama reaching people who are usually apathetic about politics, he's bringing scores of new voters in. That ever elusive youth vote - which has been the target of endless campaigns for the past decade - is showing increasing support for Obama. Young voters have been generally disengaged from politics, but now, with Obama on the scene, they're showing more willingness to get involved... which I think is really remarkable. As you said, something about him sparks interest in people. 2. Joe, I have to disagree that Obama should distance himself from Rev. Wright. I understand why you've expressed that opinion, but I don't share it. He has already addressed the fact that he does not share, condone or appreciate those select statements made by Rev. Wright, and that's good enough for me. I also wanted to comment on your point that Obama is "so close to what we need but not quite." I understand what you're saying, and I can almost agree. I believe that Obama will be even better suited to the Presidency with four or eight more years under his belt, but that fact does not persuade me that he's not ready for the White House now. There is good sense to the argument that in reality, America just isn't ready for him. I sincerely hope this is not the case, and I suppose that's where my youthful idealism comes into play. Sure, I don't think his campaign is perfect, and I don't agree with all of his policies. This time around, though - and this is a view that many people seem to share - I feel like we have a candidate to actually be excited about! Both you and Twinkie (and others) have mentioned that it always seems to be a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils when it comes to politicians. But for once, I don't feel that way. Obama IS about as ideal as I can hope for, at this point... arguably too much so. Not only do I not care for the other two choices, I genuinely like this one. And I definitely don't believe that we'd be "[buying] the car and then be sorry later," because that would imply that Obama can't effectively lead. If anything, we know it would at least be an improvement over the current administration... ;) posted by
SamG
on Mar 23, 2008 at 09:42 PM
Okay, trudging along... 3. Joe, you pointed out that "The audacity of hope" is a phrase originally coined by Wright. May I ask why you felt the need to bring this up? From what I can tell, you seem to be basically anti-Wright and against everything he represents, so I understand that you would not immediately advocate the book on the grounds that it's somehow connected to him... but it is, after all, written by Obama, not Wright. Have you, by any chance, read any of Wright's other sermons? The ones that didn't receive instant media attention? Or are you just of the mindset that anything linked with Rev. Wright is completely objectionable because of those specific controversial statements? I'm not being patronizing here, I'm honestly asking. 2. Thanks, Jen! I wish we'd hear more of this in the media as well, but, as sensationalism "sells," I don't know how much of that we have to look forward to. I can tell you that Real Time with Bill Maher makes a point to incorporate intelligent perspectives from all sides, though it still relies on the fusion of politics with humour... The Daily Show is, of course, in the same vein, though perhaps not as thorough. 3. Joe, I'm confused by your last comment... you say that the President is, essentially, "a figurehead" (which is unfortunately true, at least for the time being) but you also say that "[Bush's cabinet] might have wanted to do the right thing, I really don't think he's let them..." So, which is it? He does too little, or he does too much? Personally, I think Cheney is the one who's been running the country for the past eight years, with some help from Rumsfeld and Rove. He is chief, while Bush, as you say, is in the ceremonial role. Anyway, that's neither here nor there... 4. I side with sistersheree and Chase on the point of Rev. Wright's sermon. As Chase said, he was not taking the Lord's name in vain, he was actually referring to him very literally. And, like sistersheree, I can take into account Wright's background, his individual perspective, his frustration, and his intention when he spoke those words. I don't have to agree with everything he says in order to appreciate the message he's trying to convey. Also, I recognize your bringing the Bible into the equation in order to emphasize a point, but please keep in mind that not everyone here subscribes to your religion or necessarily agrees with it :) And I'll finish off with this: "I think a black president would be great, but just sadly not Obama." -- I think Obama would be great, and it has nothing to do with the way he looks. The only race I recognize is the human race... and we're all a lot closer than many of us realize. I don't think anyone should base their vote on the fact that Obama is biracial, or the fact that Clinton is a woman, or the fact that McCain is a white man. Why have we grown so accustomed to prefacing introductions with labels? Why can't we simply refer to them as "Barack Obama, presidential candidate; Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate; John McCain, presidential candidate? One woman (who is pro-Hillary) argued with me that "as a feminist, [I] should be supporting one of [my] own!" This statement infuriates me, and I am wholeheartedly against everything it implies. My vote is going to the person I want to lead my country; not exclusively due to ethnicity, sex, political party alliance, or sexual preference. The fact that racism even enters into the discussion of this election is proof that we are STILL looking at the color of a person's skin. We are still "race"-oriented instead of looking at what truly makes the measure of a leader (or a man or woman): namely, their actions, their values, their ability to lead, their policies, the decisions they've made, and so on. posted by
an1ok1joe
on Mar 23, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Chase I understood is literal speak, i understood what he was saying the context in which he was saying it. I don't believe a man of God would say it though. He was wound up and on a roll. I don't think it was some thing he had written down to say. Lets also remember that Clinton (Bill was a catch to younger voters too - "rock the vote") He was of hope and change too. Change only comes when all parties want change. Sadly we have old career politician that have other agendas. If Obama was to get in I would hope change does come about to better all. But I think there is still and Old Boy network in place and will have to wear itself out. That's why i don't see him being elected, Tonight on Larry King Live I watch Obama. When asked about Wright and if he has spoke to him recently. He said, No, I haven't talked to him recently, he is on sabbatical and is on a cruise right now. I suspect that is some distance. We will know more later. I agree with your closing statements for the most part he probably would be better than the alternatives we have now. But I also have to say that he still needs more years of experience in the Senate. and Politics in general, I'm cautious and trying to find the prudency of all this. I have been a youthful idealist as well. But I've seen a lot in my life. Not jaded, just very pragmatic. And anything is better than this Administration
|
Local time is currently Sat Sep 6, 2008 4:12:25 pm PDT
Bakotopia is 100% local to Bakersfield, CA, USA
