The battle for the nomination of the Democratic Party continues to dominate the airwaves. Senators’ Clinton and Obama are beginning to make more strident attacks on one another. Ideologues on the left are starting to cannibalize their own littermates. Hillary Clinton has received the brunt of many of these verbal assaults. It seems that this party is beginning to come to terms with just how far to the left the power brokers controlling the party philosophy have drifted. Realistically, one has to wonder if either Clinton or Obama will pay the price this November. Time will tell and much can transpire on the international and domestic theaters before the general election. Expectedly, both of the democratic candidates are now attempting to place their view of President Bush’s legacy around John McCain’s neck. Intelligent as they seem to be, I find Clinton’s and Obama’s attempt to marginalize the campaign of Senator McCain somewhat humorous. After all, legacies are written in an historical context and if I’m not mistaken, we are currently living in the here and now. Why does the Democratic Party and many of its followers so despise President Bush? Do they merely suffer from what some have labeled the “Bush Derangement Syndrome?” Has this polarization within the United States developed over a long period of time or, is it a creation of both political parties and the media?
The Democratic Party and its followers have despised George W. Bush since the election of 2000. After all, if we believe their diatribe, “Bush stole the election!” Is this the case? No, he did not and the answer is beyond reproof. Like him or not, George Bush won the election. If you don’t believe me, read Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution. If you don’t like the Constitution then amend it. Al Gore won 48.4% to Bush’s 47.9% of the popular vote. Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. Bush carried 30 states while Gore took 20 states and the District of Columbia. Those on the left who think that they represent the political philosophy of the country at large would do well to study the election 2000 map at www.en.wikipedia.or/wiki/United States presidential election 2000. Vice-President Gore won the West Coast, the upper Midwest and, the Northeast. George Bush won the entire swath of the country which many liberals have condescending called “fly over country.” The events surrounding the election of 2000 were not precedent setting. The presidential elections of 1824, 1876 and, 1888 were also settled by the Electoral College. Thus, for many on the left, began the hatred for President Bush.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 changed the direction of the Bush Administration. Suddenly, the executive branch was forced to deal militarily with the terrorist threat. Many liberals refuse to accept the reality of these attacks. Osama Bin Laden didn’t wake up on the 10th of September and say, “Golly, lets attack America!” Islamic fundamentalism has been simmering in the Middle East since Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran in the late ‘70s. Republican and Democrat administrations made minimal efforts to squelch this fire. After all, we are a super power, who would dare attack us? All one can say is, “So much for the superiority of arms against a deep rooted hateful ideology.” Since the attacks on 9/11, we have been militarily active in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seemingly, everyone supports our activities in Afghanistan while the country is evenly divided over Iraq. Those of us who fail to connect our activities in Iraq within the context of our overall struggle against Islamic fundamentalism are suffering from myopia. Many of those opposing our efforts in Iraq state that, “Bush lied!” Many go on to spout such invectives as, “This is an unauthorized and illegal war.” Of course, all of this reckless banter is merely a bunch of uneducated and uninformed hyperbole. Are we in a hotbed in Iraq? You bet but, what good does it do to become ensnared in a mindless game of, “he said – she said?” I have no problem with anyone if they oppose the war in Iraq unless they play the “Bush lied” game. United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 authorized the use of force to remove Sadam Hussein. Some will ask, “What about the WMDs?” I don’t know where they are either however; I worked in Northern Iraq in 1991 and I saw firsthand the effects that Sadam’s use of chemical weapons had on the Kurdish population. When all is said and done, I will not convince anyone who plays the “Bush lied” mantra of their mental error. Others like to label President Bush an idiot. If you ask them why, they will make jokes regarding his less than stellar ability to speak publicly. If you delve further, and try to get those who say this to back up their assertions with psychological data connecting verbal skills to intelligence level in human beings you will more than likely receive either a blank stare or a flustered reassertion of their childish personal insult. These people should read some of the biographies covering the life of our third president. All of these biographies clearly show Thomas Jefferson to have been a poor speaker. Some have stated that these poor verbal skills led to his being assigned to the drafting committee for our Declaration of Independence. Jefferson never delivered an oral State of the Union Address to Congress; he simply sent them a written copy. Now, I am not comparing President George W. Bush to President Thomas Jefferson but; I challenge anyone labeling Bush an idiot simply due to his poor speaking ability to make the same assertion regarding Jefferson’s capabilities as president. Can this “Bush lied” or “Bush is an idiot” philosophy be connected to any other social context? I believe it can.
Our country became enthralled with a sort of laissez-faire attitude during the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. Many of us were comfortable with a sort of “if it feels good, do it” mentality. After all, the economy was humming along and everyone was just having a good time. Personally, I believe that many liberals saw his presidency as the realization of the social philosophies grown out of the “flower power” generation. Narcissism became accepted. Scandal after scandal rocked the White House but the Clintons' fought back by claiming to be victims of a vast right wing conspiracy. In my view, the issue was never whether President Clinton had sex with an intern or Hillary’s commodities market profits. I had and continue to have problems with their parsing of words in the English language. Agree with him or not, George W. Bush believes that all of your personal actions have moral and ethical consequences and I’m not sure if Bill and Hillary Clinton are overly concerned with these issues. Are people uncomfortable with looking at themselves in a mirror and conducting some self analysis of their character? Let’s look at a few important definitions of words in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
1. Character: The complex of mental and ethical traits making and often individualizing a person, group, or nation.
2. Ethos: The distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.
3. Ethics: The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.
4. Embellishing: To heighten the attractiveness of by adding decorative or fanciful details.
5. Lie: To make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive.
Some of you might be wondering by now where I am going with all of this. It is my contention that these words are important definitions of who you are as an adult human being. The Clinton’s actions over the years, in my opinion, have exposed serious flaws in their personal character. President Clinton should never have been dragged through the mud by Congress over the Monica Lewinsky debacle however; statements made by him while under oath such as, “It depends on what the definition of is, is.”, offer us an insight into his ethical belief system. Now, his wife wants the presidency. She has become embroiled in a controversial story describing her supposedly harrowing landing at the Tuzla airfield in Bosnia. That was a long sentence which can best be shortened by simply stating, “She has gotten caught making a bold faced lie.” This is not a new aspect of her personality. Supposedly, she was named “Hillary” in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary. Unfortunately for her, this is doubtful since he had not conquered the heights of Mt. Everest until after her birth. According to her, she first became personally exposed to racial hatred while playing on a girls’ soccer team in Junior High. Guess what? There was no soccer team for boys or girls while she was there. She has stated that she learned how to successfully trade commodities futures by reading the Wall Street Journal. Once again, this is a distortion of the truth. The Wall Street Journal was not publishing statistics for the commodities market when she made her exorbitant profits with beef futures. We were led to believe that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center at the time of the attacks on 9/11. Oh yes, I forgot, Chelsea retracted her mother’s misquote at a later date. Last but not least, the recently released White House records from the 1990s show her to have been a solid First Lady and not a President. So much for the validity regarding her “experience” claims. I believe it is not hard to begin to see a well developed pattern of personal behavior.
Democrats, Independents and, Liberals who despise President Bush would do well to remember that he is not running for reelection this November. You have the right to dislike him all you want however; I believe that you have an obligation to rise above the level of schoolyard insults and support your opposition to him with facts and not heated rhetoric. While you are doing that, I encourage you to hold other politicians accountable for their actions. For me, it is quite simple. The Clintons’ resemble a character in Clint Eastwood’s film, “The Outlaw Josey Wales.” If you have seen the film, you will undoubtedly remember the snake oil salesman in the white suit. Like him, the Clintons’ will say almost anything to get you to buy their product. As for myself, I’m not parting with my hard earned dollar or my vote. Their era is past and it is high time that we start a new chapter on the political scene.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, March 30, 2008
President George W. Bush: The Polarization President?
Monday, March 24, 2008
Iraq Five Years Later
We have now reached the five year anniversary of the war in Iraq. The KIA casualty figure has reached 4,000 and the clamoring for our withdrawal from the theater of operations continues on. So, what do we do? Do we, as Senator McCain has stated, prepare ourselves for a 100 year struggle in the Middle East or, do we take the Democratic candidates view and prepare for troop removal? The answer remains uncertain however; the political posturing by the Congress and all of the candidates has little to do with the reality on the ground in Iraq. Control of the White House has become the short term objective. So, how are we, the public at large, to fully understand the ramifications of any future actions in Iraq? Unfortunately, amidst the cloud of hyperbole and disinformation, it has become increasingly difficult to understand the truth about Iraq.
Most assuredly, we cannot sustain our presence in Iraq in an open ended manner. The wear and tear on equipment, troop fatigue and troop readiness will become more of a factor with our continued force totals in theater. However, nobody has stated publicly when this will become a concern for the military. Politicians have jockeyed for position on this matter but, the Pentagon has not publicly released any fact sheet regarding these issues. I know several individuals who have made three to four tours in Iraq. As a retired Sergeant Major, I am concerned about force readiness, morale, and the operational capability of our equipment.
Politically, things have become more complex. The race for the White House and the Democratic Party’s hopes for maintaining control of the Congress and gaining the presidency have created policy doldrums in Washington D.C. Their fear of further polarization within the electorate has led to limited activity within the Senate and the House of Representatives. The country is seemingly divided over the war in Iraq. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor an end to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most Americans are uncertain about just how our withdrawal should be conducted. Many people like to point to the stubbornness of President Bush and place all of the blame on him for our continued presence in Iraq. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution charges the Congress with the funding and equipping of our military. So, why have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid refused to challenge the President and severely limit or, cut off funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom? The answer is quite simple. They know that the public, mindful of the effect on the local populace that our withdrawal from Saigon all of those years ago had, would never support a repeat of such an action in Iraq. So what political game is now being played? If you think back, Kennedy called Iraq a quagmire, Reid said we had failed and, Clinton told General Petraeus that she would have to “suspend her disbelief” if she were to believe his report on the ground facts at the time he appeared before the Senate. Recently, the surge has been working so the new reality according to some is that this is only possible due to our increased force presence which most of these same people opposed from the start. People need to understand that political posturing from either side of the aisle is pure hogwash. The current objective is the White House meanwhile, our troops valiantly work on despite of the limbo under which they now operate.
Another aspect of our presence in Iraq is the Middle Eastern mindset. I spent a majority of my former career working in Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Turkey and, Egypt. Things don’t happen fast in this region of the world. This is not a criticism of their culture rather; it is a reality of working with such a mindset. We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to spend the time, capital and, blood required to work within such an environment? “Ba bukra” was a common phrase used by government and military officials when I worked in Lebanon. This phrase is best translated as the “day after tomorrow.” Such is life in the Middle East. We approach matters with what I like to call a “fast food” mentality and oftentimes we, as a nation, lack the staying power to see things through. I do not know if this cultural trait has infiltrated the minds of those demanding a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not however; I do know that several of our nation’s foreign policy missteps can be directly attributed to this national cultural fault. Either way, the issue will be solved by November of 2008.
De Oppresso Liber
Most assuredly, we cannot sustain our presence in Iraq in an open ended manner. The wear and tear on equipment, troop fatigue and troop readiness will become more of a factor with our continued force totals in theater. However, nobody has stated publicly when this will become a concern for the military. Politicians have jockeyed for position on this matter but, the Pentagon has not publicly released any fact sheet regarding these issues. I know several individuals who have made three to four tours in Iraq. As a retired Sergeant Major, I am concerned about force readiness, morale, and the operational capability of our equipment.
Politically, things have become more complex. The race for the White House and the Democratic Party’s hopes for maintaining control of the Congress and gaining the presidency have created policy doldrums in Washington D.C. Their fear of further polarization within the electorate has led to limited activity within the Senate and the House of Representatives. The country is seemingly divided over the war in Iraq. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor an end to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most Americans are uncertain about just how our withdrawal should be conducted. Many people like to point to the stubbornness of President Bush and place all of the blame on him for our continued presence in Iraq. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution charges the Congress with the funding and equipping of our military. So, why have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid refused to challenge the President and severely limit or, cut off funding for Operation Iraqi Freedom? The answer is quite simple. They know that the public, mindful of the effect on the local populace that our withdrawal from Saigon all of those years ago had, would never support a repeat of such an action in Iraq. So what political game is now being played? If you think back, Kennedy called Iraq a quagmire, Reid said we had failed and, Clinton told General Petraeus that she would have to “suspend her disbelief” if she were to believe his report on the ground facts at the time he appeared before the Senate. Recently, the surge has been working so the new reality according to some is that this is only possible due to our increased force presence which most of these same people opposed from the start. People need to understand that political posturing from either side of the aisle is pure hogwash. The current objective is the White House meanwhile, our troops valiantly work on despite of the limbo under which they now operate.
Another aspect of our presence in Iraq is the Middle Eastern mindset. I spent a majority of my former career working in Tunisia, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Turkey and, Egypt. Things don’t happen fast in this region of the world. This is not a criticism of their culture rather; it is a reality of working with such a mindset. We need to ask ourselves if we are ready to spend the time, capital and, blood required to work within such an environment? “Ba bukra” was a common phrase used by government and military officials when I worked in Lebanon. This phrase is best translated as the “day after tomorrow.” Such is life in the Middle East. We approach matters with what I like to call a “fast food” mentality and oftentimes we, as a nation, lack the staying power to see things through. I do not know if this cultural trait has infiltrated the minds of those demanding a quick withdrawal from Iraq or not however; I do know that several of our nation’s foreign policy missteps can be directly attributed to this national cultural fault. Either way, the issue will be solved by November of 2008.
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Barack Obama: Race in the 21st Century
Over the past week we all have watched the Clinton and Obama campaigns become ensnared in the turbulent waters surrounding racial tensions in America. Initially, we all watched the Clinton campaign distance itself from Geraldine Ferraro over her supposed racist comments regarding the campaign of Barack Obama. Anyone who knows anything about Geraldine Ferraro knows that she is not a racist. We then moved on to the sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and their impact on the world view of Senator Obama. It seems to me that our country has become racially hypersensitive. On a regular basis, individuals or groups complain that they have been racially slighted by another individual or another group. Some Native Americans claim that sports team names such as the Braves, Indians and, Redskins are racially derogatory in nature. Other groups state that comments on TV shows are out of bounds and inflammatory. A highly intelligent and gifted athlete from Rutgers University believes that the bigoted remarks of Don Imus have marred her for life. Has our racial hypersensitivity reached a point where constructive dialogues between differing groups become almost impossible? Why do we seem to forget that the media is a consumer driven industry and that commentators, radio talk show hosts and news outlets package their product in a way that will increase their market share? Oftentimes, the total truth behind any issue is hidden beneath the foliage of a fast paced world.
So, how has Reverend Wright influenced Barack Obama? In my view, I see him as only one of many influences on the life of Barack Obama. Obviously, Barack Obama is a serious thinker and as with all critical thinkers, he copies and pastes those points of views which most closely correspond to his life experiences and his outlook on the world. It is unfair to compartmentalize any human being into a neat and tidy package for your own benefit. I disagree with many of Barack Obama’s political viewpoints however, his views and his personal history demand more of our respect than the media or many of our fellow citizens are currently giving him especially, during this Easter Season. We also owe more respect to Dr. Wright and should attempt to understand his spiritual point of view and learn more about his form of Christian faith.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was born on September 22, 1941 in Philadelphia, PA. His father was a Baptist minister. He served in the military with the US Marine Corps. He has a Bachelors and Masters degree from Howard University. He earned another Masters degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He has a Ph.D. in Ministry from the United Theological Seminary. He has also been presented with 7 honorary doctorate degrees. He has been a pastor for 36 years with the Trinity United Church of Christ. If he had preached a single sermon per week for 36 years, Reverend Wright would have delivered 1,872 sermons to date. The media has now been presenting the same sound bites from specific sermons which portray Dr. Wright as an intolerant, bigoted and racially separatist preacher. Is this however, a true representation of the man and his spiritual philosophy? I believe that the media has been neglectful in their coverage of Reverend Wright. Barack Obama has titled his autobiography The Audacity of Hope. This title is taken from a sermon given by Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright’s sermon, Audacity to Hope, can be found online at http://www.preachingtodayaudio.com/. This 18 minute sermon provides the listener with another view of Jeremiah Wright. Another of his sermons, Let Me See Again, can be found at http://www.csec.org/. This sermon deals with the spirituality found in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of Luke. Of course these aren’t the only two representations of a different side to Dr. Wright. Rather, they provide us with a quick synopsis into the spiritual depth of Jeremiah Wright. Dr. Wright is a follower and preacher of Black Liberation Theology. What is Black Liberation Theology and how does it fit into American society? Why do some whites fear the tenets of the theology?
Our country has had a long standing fear of an independent black racial identity within American society. Thomas Jefferson believed that freed blacks and whites could never fully integrate. During the Ante-Bellum period, our nation struggled with the issue of slavery. Abolitionists could not all agree on what should be done with a large population of freed blacks. Some called for integration while others, such as the American Colonization Society, desired that the freed slaves be returned to Africa. David Walker (1785-1830) was a prominent abolitionist during this period. Born a free black from slave parents, he demanded an immediate emancipation of all black slaves. His main work titled, Walker’s Appeal, was published in 1829. This publication called for black pride and demanded that all blacks free themselves from the oppression of slavery to include by violent means if necessary. Almost immediately, southern states put a $3,000 bounty on his head and Georgia offered a $10,000 reward for his delivery alive into their hands. Somewhat later, Frederick Douglas (1818-1895) assumed the reins as the preeminent black abolitionist of his time. Unlike Walker, Douglas’s approach was more peaceable in nature. He did not conscribe to use of violence in the pursuit of equality. His greatest work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave, was published in 1845. As with Walker, he described the horrific inequities of slavery and the treatment of free blacks. Both of them castigated the Christian Churches for their failure to condemn slavery. If we move forward in time to the 20th century, we quickly can discern an almost identical similarity between the different philosophical approaches of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Black Liberation Theology rose from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America during the 1950s. This movement hoped to end economic repression in Latin America. They felt that the Catholic Church was ambivalent to the plight of the poor. They hoped for more than the mere removal of economic oppression and actively sought to change government and fought for the establishment of a Marxist form of governance. Unlike this movement, Black Liberation Theology is personal and not Marxist in nature and demands its followers pursue self identity and self reliance.
Black Liberation Theology draws from the life experiences of many prominent Black Americans. Amongst these, David Walker and the great philosopher W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) are of preeminent importance. Both of these men called for a sense of black pride and stressed the importance of the black presence on the American landscape. One of the foremost theologians of this spiritual philosophy is Dr. James Hal Cone. Dr. Cone is the Charles Augustus Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Dr. Cone states that, “Christian Churches have the duty and commitment to oppose social, economic and, political repression.” He goes on to note that “Blacks are the subject of and not mere objects of their history.” He also says that, “Black Christians should not follow a White Church.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ are followers of this theology. Dr. Terry Matthews, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Wake Forest University has an excellent lecture on Black Liberation Theology which can be found online at http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html.
The website for the Trinity United Church of Christ can be found at http://www.tucc.org/. Within this website you will discover many things. The more you delve into their belief system, the more you will discover just how similar they are to the way you view the world particularly if, you are of the Christian faith. Some in the media have taken issue with their Black Value System. In my view, the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As a white man, I find parts of it to be somewhat ethnocentric however; I realize that the black experience in our nation and their view is different from my point of view. If you closely analyze this value system, you will discover that as with other theologies, it draws heavily from personal behavior standards outlined in both the Old and New Testaments.
The American experience is in many ways quite unique. We are no better than any other nation on this earth yet, we are different. It is best to view our nation as a great experiment. Immigrants, whether free or as slaves, have come to our shores from across the globe. It is the personal responsibility of every American to attempt to understand those that are different and to always try to respect each other equally. Only then will we be able to achieve the realization of our nation’s motto: E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many One.”
De Oppresso Liber
So, how has Reverend Wright influenced Barack Obama? In my view, I see him as only one of many influences on the life of Barack Obama. Obviously, Barack Obama is a serious thinker and as with all critical thinkers, he copies and pastes those points of views which most closely correspond to his life experiences and his outlook on the world. It is unfair to compartmentalize any human being into a neat and tidy package for your own benefit. I disagree with many of Barack Obama’s political viewpoints however, his views and his personal history demand more of our respect than the media or many of our fellow citizens are currently giving him especially, during this Easter Season. We also owe more respect to Dr. Wright and should attempt to understand his spiritual point of view and learn more about his form of Christian faith.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright was born on September 22, 1941 in Philadelphia, PA. His father was a Baptist minister. He served in the military with the US Marine Corps. He has a Bachelors and Masters degree from Howard University. He earned another Masters degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School. He has a Ph.D. in Ministry from the United Theological Seminary. He has also been presented with 7 honorary doctorate degrees. He has been a pastor for 36 years with the Trinity United Church of Christ. If he had preached a single sermon per week for 36 years, Reverend Wright would have delivered 1,872 sermons to date. The media has now been presenting the same sound bites from specific sermons which portray Dr. Wright as an intolerant, bigoted and racially separatist preacher. Is this however, a true representation of the man and his spiritual philosophy? I believe that the media has been neglectful in their coverage of Reverend Wright. Barack Obama has titled his autobiography The Audacity of Hope. This title is taken from a sermon given by Dr. Wright. Dr. Wright’s sermon, Audacity to Hope, can be found online at http://www.preachingtodayaudio.com/. This 18 minute sermon provides the listener with another view of Jeremiah Wright. Another of his sermons, Let Me See Again, can be found at http://www.csec.org/. This sermon deals with the spirituality found in Chapter 18 of the Gospel of Luke. Of course these aren’t the only two representations of a different side to Dr. Wright. Rather, they provide us with a quick synopsis into the spiritual depth of Jeremiah Wright. Dr. Wright is a follower and preacher of Black Liberation Theology. What is Black Liberation Theology and how does it fit into American society? Why do some whites fear the tenets of the theology?
Our country has had a long standing fear of an independent black racial identity within American society. Thomas Jefferson believed that freed blacks and whites could never fully integrate. During the Ante-Bellum period, our nation struggled with the issue of slavery. Abolitionists could not all agree on what should be done with a large population of freed blacks. Some called for integration while others, such as the American Colonization Society, desired that the freed slaves be returned to Africa. David Walker (1785-1830) was a prominent abolitionist during this period. Born a free black from slave parents, he demanded an immediate emancipation of all black slaves. His main work titled, Walker’s Appeal, was published in 1829. This publication called for black pride and demanded that all blacks free themselves from the oppression of slavery to include by violent means if necessary. Almost immediately, southern states put a $3,000 bounty on his head and Georgia offered a $10,000 reward for his delivery alive into their hands. Somewhat later, Frederick Douglas (1818-1895) assumed the reins as the preeminent black abolitionist of his time. Unlike Walker, Douglas’s approach was more peaceable in nature. He did not conscribe to use of violence in the pursuit of equality. His greatest work, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave, was published in 1845. As with Walker, he described the horrific inequities of slavery and the treatment of free blacks. Both of them castigated the Christian Churches for their failure to condemn slavery. If we move forward in time to the 20th century, we quickly can discern an almost identical similarity between the different philosophical approaches of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Black Liberation Theology rose from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of the Liberation Theology movement in Latin America during the 1950s. This movement hoped to end economic repression in Latin America. They felt that the Catholic Church was ambivalent to the plight of the poor. They hoped for more than the mere removal of economic oppression and actively sought to change government and fought for the establishment of a Marxist form of governance. Unlike this movement, Black Liberation Theology is personal and not Marxist in nature and demands its followers pursue self identity and self reliance.
Black Liberation Theology draws from the life experiences of many prominent Black Americans. Amongst these, David Walker and the great philosopher W.E.B. DuBois (1868-1963) are of preeminent importance. Both of these men called for a sense of black pride and stressed the importance of the black presence on the American landscape. One of the foremost theologians of this spiritual philosophy is Dr. James Hal Cone. Dr. Cone is the Charles Augustus Briggs Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. Dr. Cone states that, “Christian Churches have the duty and commitment to oppose social, economic and, political repression.” He goes on to note that “Blacks are the subject of and not mere objects of their history.” He also says that, “Black Christians should not follow a White Church.” Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church of Christ are followers of this theology. Dr. Terry Matthews, an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Wake Forest University has an excellent lecture on Black Liberation Theology which can be found online at http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/twentyseven.html.
The website for the Trinity United Church of Christ can be found at http://www.tucc.org/. Within this website you will discover many things. The more you delve into their belief system, the more you will discover just how similar they are to the way you view the world particularly if, you are of the Christian faith. Some in the media have taken issue with their Black Value System. In my view, the media is making a mountain out of a mole hill. As a white man, I find parts of it to be somewhat ethnocentric however; I realize that the black experience in our nation and their view is different from my point of view. If you closely analyze this value system, you will discover that as with other theologies, it draws heavily from personal behavior standards outlined in both the Old and New Testaments.
The American experience is in many ways quite unique. We are no better than any other nation on this earth yet, we are different. It is best to view our nation as a great experiment. Immigrants, whether free or as slaves, have come to our shores from across the globe. It is the personal responsibility of every American to attempt to understand those that are different and to always try to respect each other equally. Only then will we be able to achieve the realization of our nation’s motto: E Pluribus Unum, “Out of Many One.”
De Oppresso Liber
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Presidential Race 2008
Hillary Clinton has once again resurrected her campaign from the ash heap of defeat and proven the pundits wrong. The Democrats are now amidst the turmoil of a heated primary pitting old party affiliates against the new surge of idealistic techno types, men against women, black against Hispanic and, poor against wealthy whites. After having clinched the Republican Party's delegate count, John McCain will have to search for new and innovative ways to get any sort of media coverage between now and the Democratic Party's convention in August.
Change has been the mantra during this primary season. Senators' Clinton and Obama have both been vying for this distinction even though there is barely a thread of distinction between their respective policy stances. Senator McCain's views on change are a bit more subtle. He believes that our country's direction only requires some minor tweaks. More than likely, his view is more realistic. Anyone who has ever been in a canoe knows that in order to avoid getting wet, you don't make any drastic weight transfers while on the water and this same principle applies to our nation's political reality. If one were to ask the average citizen what change was needed, more than likely they would be greeted by a shrug of the shoulders and a response such as, "I don't know, but we need to change something." Are things wrong with our country? Sure, health care costs are exorbitant and fuel costs continue to skyrocket however; the prescriptions for solving these issues have yet to be written. Where should change come from, the government or the individual?
During my travels around the country I have not noticed any great desire by the American public to conserve petroleum resources. Just this past week while traveling the length of California on I-5, I was regularly passed by cars towing dirt bikes, ATVs, boats and RVs. The highway sprawl of Los Angeles per usual, was chocked full of vehicles with a sole occupant. Gas prices have climbed over $4.00 a gallon in this region. Somewhat comically, I noticed huge billboards along SR-99 reminding kids to avoid obesity by getting outside to play for one hour a day. Hell, when I was a kid you spent more hours outside than in your own house. Sure health care and rising fuel costs are an issue but on an individual level, why not conserve fuel, exercise, eat right and not buy into the proposition that every TV advertisement from a pharmaceutical company offers you something that you really need?
The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and what have they accomplished? If change is today's buzzword then, where have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid been? If health care and fuel costs are putting a stranglehold on our economy then, where are the congressional committees? That's right, they are too busy investigating baseball for steroids use and looking for an opening to blemish the Bush Administration. According to Gallup, this Congress had an approval rating of just 18% between 13-16 August 2007. Are Reid and Pelosi merely treading water until they hopefully gain the White House next January? Of course, the truth is that they are scared. The electorate is evenly split and they are fearful of angering either side. For our part, if we truly want change then we need to set aside our political ideologies just long enough to find some common ground. Change in Washington begins with us and not some new shiny face in the White House.
The three remaining candidates all proclaim to be the agent of some type of change but lets look at their records. A quick study of www.govtrack.us/ provides us with an accurate and impartial record of their careers in the Senate.
Senator Barack Obama has served in the Senate since 2005. He sits on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pension; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veteran's Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting history is exceedingly poor. Since January 6, 2005, he has missed 201 of 1,121 votes for a rating of 18%. Since January 4, 2005 he has sponsored 129 bills. Of these, 120 never left committee and 1 was enacted. He has cosponsored 551 bills during this same period. A quick purview of his most recent bills have no Independent or Republican cosponsors and yet he claims fame for change? His congressional record states otherwise.
Senator Hillary Clinton has served in the Senate since 2001. She sits on the Senate Committees for Armed Services; Environment and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Special Committee on Aging. Relative to her peers, her voting history is poor. Since January 23, 2001 she has missed 175 of 2429 votes for a rating of 7%. She has sponsored 354 bills during her tenure of which, 307 never left committee and 2 were enacted. Unlike Senator Obama, she has crossed the aisle and cosponsored bills with the opposing party. Her pledged ability to provide change is somewhat hobbled by her proven ineffectiveness at getting her legislation passed while in the Senate.
Senator John McCain has served in Congress since 1987. As a Senator, he sits as the ranking member on the Senate Committee for the Armed Services. He is a member of the Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation and; the Committee for Indian Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting record is extremely poor. Since January 22, 1997, he has missed 604 of 3,743 votes for a record of 16%. He has sponsored 403 bills since January 21, 1997. Of these, 263 never left committee and 12 were enacted. During this same period, he has cosponsored 876 bills. A quick glance at his cosponsorship record clearly demonstrates his ability to cross the aisle in order to try to get things done.
In the final analysis, what are we, the electorate to do? Never before has a voter been able to acquire unambiguous data in an independent manner. Don't rely solely on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News or CNN for your research. Get involved; the candidates records are open to all. My early research clearly shows that Senators Clinton and Obamas' claim to change are more hype than reality. On the other hand, John McCain seems to be able to work with others. Why do you think that the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party distrust him? Maybe his record of cosponsored legislation worries them. Even though I might disagree with some of his positions; as a registered Independent, I admire his courage at attempting to deal with issues such as campaign finance reform, immigration and, climate change. Senators' Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy are not names regularly cited amongst conservative voters however; if we truly want Washington D.C. to function effectively, John McCain just might be what the doctor ordered to remedy what ails our country.
Change has been the mantra during this primary season. Senators' Clinton and Obama have both been vying for this distinction even though there is barely a thread of distinction between their respective policy stances. Senator McCain's views on change are a bit more subtle. He believes that our country's direction only requires some minor tweaks. More than likely, his view is more realistic. Anyone who has ever been in a canoe knows that in order to avoid getting wet, you don't make any drastic weight transfers while on the water and this same principle applies to our nation's political reality. If one were to ask the average citizen what change was needed, more than likely they would be greeted by a shrug of the shoulders and a response such as, "I don't know, but we need to change something." Are things wrong with our country? Sure, health care costs are exorbitant and fuel costs continue to skyrocket however; the prescriptions for solving these issues have yet to be written. Where should change come from, the government or the individual?
During my travels around the country I have not noticed any great desire by the American public to conserve petroleum resources. Just this past week while traveling the length of California on I-5, I was regularly passed by cars towing dirt bikes, ATVs, boats and RVs. The highway sprawl of Los Angeles per usual, was chocked full of vehicles with a sole occupant. Gas prices have climbed over $4.00 a gallon in this region. Somewhat comically, I noticed huge billboards along SR-99 reminding kids to avoid obesity by getting outside to play for one hour a day. Hell, when I was a kid you spent more hours outside than in your own house. Sure health care and rising fuel costs are an issue but on an individual level, why not conserve fuel, exercise, eat right and not buy into the proposition that every TV advertisement from a pharmaceutical company offers you something that you really need?
The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and what have they accomplished? If change is today's buzzword then, where have Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid been? If health care and fuel costs are putting a stranglehold on our economy then, where are the congressional committees? That's right, they are too busy investigating baseball for steroids use and looking for an opening to blemish the Bush Administration. According to Gallup, this Congress had an approval rating of just 18% between 13-16 August 2007. Are Reid and Pelosi merely treading water until they hopefully gain the White House next January? Of course, the truth is that they are scared. The electorate is evenly split and they are fearful of angering either side. For our part, if we truly want change then we need to set aside our political ideologies just long enough to find some common ground. Change in Washington begins with us and not some new shiny face in the White House.
The three remaining candidates all proclaim to be the agent of some type of change but lets look at their records. A quick study of www.govtrack.us/ provides us with an accurate and impartial record of their careers in the Senate.
Senator Barack Obama has served in the Senate since 2005. He sits on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pension; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veteran's Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting history is exceedingly poor. Since January 6, 2005, he has missed 201 of 1,121 votes for a rating of 18%. Since January 4, 2005 he has sponsored 129 bills. Of these, 120 never left committee and 1 was enacted. He has cosponsored 551 bills during this same period. A quick purview of his most recent bills have no Independent or Republican cosponsors and yet he claims fame for change? His congressional record states otherwise.
Senator Hillary Clinton has served in the Senate since 2001. She sits on the Senate Committees for Armed Services; Environment and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the Special Committee on Aging. Relative to her peers, her voting history is poor. Since January 23, 2001 she has missed 175 of 2429 votes for a rating of 7%. She has sponsored 354 bills during her tenure of which, 307 never left committee and 2 were enacted. Unlike Senator Obama, she has crossed the aisle and cosponsored bills with the opposing party. Her pledged ability to provide change is somewhat hobbled by her proven ineffectiveness at getting her legislation passed while in the Senate.
Senator John McCain has served in Congress since 1987. As a Senator, he sits as the ranking member on the Senate Committee for the Armed Services. He is a member of the Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation and; the Committee for Indian Affairs. Relative to his peers, his voting record is extremely poor. Since January 22, 1997, he has missed 604 of 3,743 votes for a record of 16%. He has sponsored 403 bills since January 21, 1997. Of these, 263 never left committee and 12 were enacted. During this same period, he has cosponsored 876 bills. A quick glance at his cosponsorship record clearly demonstrates his ability to cross the aisle in order to try to get things done.
In the final analysis, what are we, the electorate to do? Never before has a voter been able to acquire unambiguous data in an independent manner. Don't rely solely on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News or CNN for your research. Get involved; the candidates records are open to all. My early research clearly shows that Senators Clinton and Obamas' claim to change are more hype than reality. On the other hand, John McCain seems to be able to work with others. Why do you think that the ultra conservative wing of the Republican Party distrust him? Maybe his record of cosponsored legislation worries them. Even though I might disagree with some of his positions; as a registered Independent, I admire his courage at attempting to deal with issues such as campaign finance reform, immigration and, climate change. Senators' Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy are not names regularly cited amongst conservative voters however; if we truly want Washington D.C. to function effectively, John McCain just might be what the doctor ordered to remedy what ails our country.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Democratic Battleground 2008
Tuesday is quickly approaching and political junkies such as myself are eagerly awaiting the outcome in Texas and Ohio. Polls estimating victory for this or that candidate swirl in the airwaves. Who will come out on top? Of course, nobody knows and the imminent media frenzy surrounding the possible demise of Hillary Clinton has reached a clamorous crescendo. It seems that the media has forgotten their premature forecast of gloom and doom for the Clinton campaign on the eve of the New Hampshire primary. So much for the prescience of political pundits! Will history repeat itself on March 4th?
Ironically, the Clinton machine has been run aground by an unforeseen tide. Both she and her husband have always been able to blame their problems on the vast "right wing conspiracy". Not this time. She is being hounded by her own likeness with the only real difference being that people personally like Senator Obama more than her. While you might object to his political philosophy, he always comes across as the consummate gentleman and an all around nice guy. The camera and microphone are not kind to Senator Clinton. Oftentimes, she encapsulates what people see as a tyrannical, angry and, bullying person. This may or may not be a true image of her persona but, this is what the public sees. Television is her Achilles heel and in today's fast paced world of constant news streams, she cannot escape her fatal weakness. Will this problem lead to the end of her presidential aspirations? We shall all find out this Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton has attempted to convince us that she has garnered the requisite experience necessary to be president over the past 30 plus years. After endless hours of number crunching, I have been unable to come anywhere near 30 years of humble answerable service to her nation. Her only personal achievement in the realm of independent public service is her time in the US Senate. Yes, she was the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States and I am sure that she expended numerous hours of selfless service during both of these tenures however, she was never the "ONE" in charge of the government. As the saying goes, the buck never stopped with her. If I were a career minded, self-established successful woman, I would find Senator Clinton's claims to be extremely insulting. As it is, as a man, I see her attempt to pad her resume in such a fashion as disingenuous. My wife stood by my side throughout my 21 year career in Special Forces however, she could not identify herself as having been a Special Forces operator. Though equal in responsibility, her job description was different than mine. So it goes with Hillary and Bill Clinton. I believe that the American public sees this difference too. In reality, she has only six more years of personal public answerable service than Senator Obama. The "Experience Train" has already departed and she failed to board it.
I've spent the past week working in central Pennsylvania. I was delivering and picking up freight in the environs of Harrisburg. I have to wonder if the Pennsylvanians don't already know the outcome of March 4th. The only campaign posters I saw were for Ron Paul. Of course it might be too early but, hunters abound in Pennsylvania and maybe they sense the scent of a fresh kill in the air and know that post-Tuesday, Hillary Clinton's presidential bid will have met its end.
De Oppresso Liber
Ironically, the Clinton machine has been run aground by an unforeseen tide. Both she and her husband have always been able to blame their problems on the vast "right wing conspiracy". Not this time. She is being hounded by her own likeness with the only real difference being that people personally like Senator Obama more than her. While you might object to his political philosophy, he always comes across as the consummate gentleman and an all around nice guy. The camera and microphone are not kind to Senator Clinton. Oftentimes, she encapsulates what people see as a tyrannical, angry and, bullying person. This may or may not be a true image of her persona but, this is what the public sees. Television is her Achilles heel and in today's fast paced world of constant news streams, she cannot escape her fatal weakness. Will this problem lead to the end of her presidential aspirations? We shall all find out this Tuesday.
Hillary Clinton has attempted to convince us that she has garnered the requisite experience necessary to be president over the past 30 plus years. After endless hours of number crunching, I have been unable to come anywhere near 30 years of humble answerable service to her nation. Her only personal achievement in the realm of independent public service is her time in the US Senate. Yes, she was the First Lady of Arkansas and the United States and I am sure that she expended numerous hours of selfless service during both of these tenures however, she was never the "ONE" in charge of the government. As the saying goes, the buck never stopped with her. If I were a career minded, self-established successful woman, I would find Senator Clinton's claims to be extremely insulting. As it is, as a man, I see her attempt to pad her resume in such a fashion as disingenuous. My wife stood by my side throughout my 21 year career in Special Forces however, she could not identify herself as having been a Special Forces operator. Though equal in responsibility, her job description was different than mine. So it goes with Hillary and Bill Clinton. I believe that the American public sees this difference too. In reality, she has only six more years of personal public answerable service than Senator Obama. The "Experience Train" has already departed and she failed to board it.
I've spent the past week working in central Pennsylvania. I was delivering and picking up freight in the environs of Harrisburg. I have to wonder if the Pennsylvanians don't already know the outcome of March 4th. The only campaign posters I saw were for Ron Paul. Of course it might be too early but, hunters abound in Pennsylvania and maybe they sense the scent of a fresh kill in the air and know that post-Tuesday, Hillary Clinton's presidential bid will have met its end.
De Oppresso Liber
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)