It's Everybody's Bible

This Dobson Accuses Obama of 'Distorting' Bible set of headlines is really one of the sickest flailings yet to emerge from the McCain side of the 2008 Presidential campaign.

In a nutshell, James Dobson, a right wing evangelist who has a huge following and a radio show called Focus on the Family, has said of Obama: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson went on to say: "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."

So what did Obama do? He simply raised the very important question about how to interpret the Bible, asking what do we want to take literally and what don’t we. Obama preached tolerance and acceptance of our emerging diversity. He said, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's?"

Obama pointed to passages such as the Sermon on the Mount, and sections of Leviticus that refer to Jewish dietary law and asked questions such as whether we accept the slave-owning laws along with the more relevant laws. It was this attempt by Obama to refer to these different sections that most offended Dobson. Dobson essentially said how dare Obama equate these Old and New Testament portions -- hence his “gutter” comment.

I think it’s critical at this juncture that the Obama camp hit back hard at what is clearly the most obvious vulnerability of Dobson’s attack. Namely, Lou Dobson is being anti-Semetic by refusing to include Old testament theology in what he deems are valid biblical sources.

As most of the Muslim world knows, I, Uncle Sam, am somewhat Jewish (that's part of why I get called the "American Satan"), and so I can assure Mr. Dobson that Jewish dietary laws are neither trivial nor archaic. Whether from that book we call the Tree of Life, also known as the Five Books of Moses, what most would acknowledge is the foundation of the religion we call Christianity, it is absolutely valid to use as examples the Sermon on the Mount and the Hebrew laws of the Kashrut. There is nothing distorted about using not just these two, but any two (or more) biblical passages to learn about what teachings to truly take away from the Bible. Indeed, ancient Talmudic scholars would often debate by sticking a pin through the Bible, and then the Rabbis would discuss all the ways a divine thread links all the verses touched by the pin.

As Jews, we find God himself alive in these simple dietary laws Dobson derides. Indeed, we find Him most alive and exhalted when we carry these laws out. By living God’s law in our daily acts we create heaven on earth.

Mr. Dobson, you can keep telling your followers the lie that all they need to do is believe to be saved. The rest of us will continue our focus on the day-to-day things we can do to make a Godly world a reality here on earth. And I think we’re in increasing agreement that one of those things is to come together to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

Good Article from Chris Durang

Hi America!

If anything makes me vote against Hillary (besides her war vote), it’s the vibe I get of the kind of operation she runs. It’s apparently a really gross club of egomaniacs, old school nasties and rat-f*#%ers (that's actually a political term from the Nixon days), infant terribles and power-hungry politico-freaks that I do not want assuming the core leadership positions of my country. Doesn’t it count for something that Obama has maintained amazing espirit de corps and discipline of the troops in a decidedly non-Republican way? Or that the management style of Obama’s campaign would obviously to some extent translate to the White House? I won’t print it all here, but read this amazing diatribe on what it’s like inside Team Hillary and tell me why it will be that different were she to be Prez, or for that matter, that it’s that different from what Bill’s romp was?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54d3af5a-abde-4874-9d98-2bc4b8e23185

And now, with one day to go before Pennsylvania votes, Chris Durang wrote a great, if somewhat rambling, piece for the Huffington Post today. He really pulls some key facts out of the whole melange to make the case against Hilary and for Obama, so I’ll just let him take it away:

Obama, not at the time in the Senate, gave a speech against the war that was smart and saw many of the problems that we ended up having with this wrong invasion. (Here's the speech.)

But consider two other things about Hillary's vote:

There was a substantial number of Democrats, unlike Hillary, who indeed voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to go to war (if and when he felt like it).

21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution. That's 42% of Democratic Senators who Hillary did not join in voting against the authorization.

Those 21 Democrats were: Senators Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).

Also voting against it was 1 Republican, Sen. Chafee (R-RI), and one independent, Sen. Jeffords (I-VT).

All those Senators, some of whom took the time to read the N.I.E. which included some of the intelligence opinion that did NOT favor invasion, voted against the resolution. Senator Durbin in particular urged people to read the N.I.E. and said it influenced his decision to vote against authorization. But the pressure to go to war was high, and most Senators did not read it. (I think Hillary did not; I came across articles where it seems she refused to answer if she had. Then I gave up looking.)

However, there was something else Hillary did not vote for. She did not vote for the Levin amendment, offered at the same time, that would have caused the president to return to Congress one more time before deciding to invade Iraq.

I came across an op-ed piece written by Senator Chafee (the one Republican who was against the authorization). It describes the amendment well.

And Hillary's not voting for this is a further example of bad judgment by her (and many other Senators). Because it's about war, and many have died (Americans and Iraqis) and five years later it's still not done. So this was a serious lapse in judgment.

I hope you'll read the whole Chafee piece but here are some quotes from it:

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States' international standing. Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, offered a substitute to the war resolution, the Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002.

Senator Levin's amendment called for United Nations approval before force could be authorized. It was unambiguous and compatible with international law. Acutely cognizant of the dangers of the time, and the reality that diplomatic options could at some point be exhausted, Senator Levin wrote an amendment that was nimble: it affirmed that Congress would stand at the ready to reconsider the use of force if, in the judgment of the president, a United Nations resolution was not "promptly adopted" or enforced. Ceding no rights or sovereignty to an international body, the amendment explicitly avowed America's right to defend itself if threatened.

...To a senator, we all had as our objectives the safety of American citizens, the security of our country and the disarming of Saddam Hussein in compliance with United Nations resolutions. But there was a steadfast core of us who believed that the tactics should be diplomacy and multilateralism, not the "go it alone" approach of the Bush doctrine.

Those of us who supported the Levin amendment argued against a rush to war. We asserted that the Iraqi regime, though undeniably heinous, did not constitute an imminent threat to United States security, and that our campaign to renew weapons inspections in Iraq -- whether by force or diplomacy -- would succeed only if we enlisted a broad coalition that included Arab states.

We also urged our colleagues to take seriously the admonitions of our allies in the region -- Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. As King Abdullah of Jordan warned, "A miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil."

Unfortunately, these arguments fell on deaf ears in that emotionally charged, hawkish, post-9/11 moment, less than four weeks before a midterm election. The Levin amendment was defeated by a 75 to 24 vote. Later that night, the Iraq War Resolution was approved, 77 to 23.

Hillary was one of the 29 Democrats who joined the Republicans to make 77 votes authorizing this war that has turned out to be a disaster and an enormous economic drain.

There were 21 Democrats who knew better. As did Barack Obama (and Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and many Democratic Congress people).

Stockholm Syndrome

We’ve heard it bleated to death: Barack Obama’s claim that the reason people resist supporting him is because they’re bitter about the economy, and so hold on to the values they know, their religion and their guns, and become single issue voters. The point he made is so obviously true it’s amazing he was even challenged on it. But in a low blow in a campaign of low blows, Hillary Clinton decided this was her best shot, and she took it. Playing to the mob, and indeed the lowest common denominator in the mob, she pounced with all her Battle of the Bulge remaining resources, and yelled to the crowd, “He’s saying you’re stupid! He’s talking about you, you idiots!” If there ever was a cynical ploy, this was it.

 

The saddest and most ironic thing about it is that at the end of a pretty impressive liberal career, fighting Watergate, fighting for Health Care, fighting for women’s issues, Hillary has been so bludgeoned by the “right wing conspiracy” that she has actually become more than its victim, she’s become it’s puppet. After Ken Starr and the humiliation of the whole scandal-plagued presidency of her husband, which she really did seem to have stuck with to have her own shot at the title,  she’s so scarred by the “republican playbook” that she can’t help but, in her death thoes, emulate it. It’s like Stockholm Syndrome, the documented strange human quality where you begin to identify with your tormentors. Hillary’s demagoguery defines her finally as those she’s fought to expose. Who but she knows better the truth in Obama’s explanation. The “bitter” ploy was base and baseless.

 

Since this website is rapidly turning into “What Obama Should Say Now,” let’s just conjure with that theme a little further and offer our best thoughts on his response. Tonight is the debate, and I think he should say, “Sorry if the truth hurts, but this is a big country, and that’s the way some people are. If you’re not used to this kind of straight talk, get used to it. Because if I’m President you’re going to hear a lot more of it. Until we’re honest about who we are, we’re not going to change how we are.” The other thing he could say, or point out, or somebody other than him could point out, is that he was being nice. He was essentially being asked why people might be prejudiced against voting for him, and rather than say “Because they’re racist,” he said, “Because they’re hurt.” That’s the mark of who he is, and that’s emblematic of the new politics he’s been talking about. He should, and we should, be proud of that.

 

The Torch Has Been Taken Hostage!

Protests in the city streets tonight. Olympic torch ironically headed for China due in San Francisco tomorrow. Hopefully tomorrow San Francisco will take the torch hostage. It could happen. See it with me: A guy dressed as Spock gives the torch runner a Vulcan nerve pinch because he’s really a martial arts master and knows how to knock the guy out with the least amount of effort. Our eco-performance artist terroir-ist grabs the fallen torch, and he tosses it to his buddy who evades security by driving through the pylons in a Smart Car, whereupon a bike messenger whizzes by and snags it. The torch ends up at Land’s End broadcast by live video feed: “China! We have your torch! You will not see it again until you stop torturing innocents and free Tibet!” So we send it out, a live broadcast on the Internet. It would work even if we don’t capture it. Who would know? “We have your torch. We have taken it hostage. “

Cut to live video from our eco-cave, with a parallel feed on Mapquest, showing the suspected site of the sequestered torch. As authorities rush to the spot, the live video shows our heroes chucking it out to sea, via catapult, where the Greenpeace Warrior is waiting offshore. As it’s thrown the eco-hero yells: “China, come and get it!” The Warrior, populated by among others a few Burners Without Borders with long telescoping nets, reaches out and grabs the catapulted torch. Now the torch is 500 yards off shore on a boat with state of the art broadcasting. A call to arms goes out, as people from all over the Bay Area swarm the old Battery, the Presidio, and Lands End, massing on the cliffs, waiting for an attack by China. The city is actually at peace, but as performance art it's war, and anyway if it’s live on the Web and TV it's really happening. All over the world the story rings out: “San Francisco took the torch hostage!” Mayor Newsom is briefed, and he’s into the drama. He holds a news conference during the crisis, laughing, saying, “Well, looks like the torch has been taken hostage. It is crazy San Francisco. I hear some guy has the torch in a cave somewhere in the Presidio.”

I'm just saying it's: “Come and get me China!” time. I'm just having a vision. I see all of America coming to our shores to defend this country. Not against an attack by sea, but against an attack we don't see. We begin to say it together: “Free Tibet, China.” Uncle Sam sez: Let’s have the guts Reagan did when he stood up to the Berlin Wall. Let's make sure the message is not lost: Free these people, China.

~ US

Change

Whether or not Obama wins, one point he has made sufficiently well is that at some point in history very soon there will be a President named something other than Jefferson or Lincoln or Kennedy. Great leaders though all these people were, there will come a time when in American history where there will be a president named Barack Obama or something similar.

Green For All

Today Green For All kicked off in Memphis. I called my dear friend Lora O’Connor for a report from the ground, and she said that Harry Belefonte rocked the house, saying how dare we distance ourselves from Reverend Wright. We should all of us be saying how dare people tell us who have been so wronged how to be angry. And Lora reported of the young people in the streets, dancing and inspiring us all with their own hope. She said, “History is being made today. This is the beginning of the true fusion of the envionmental movement and the social justice movement.” She said, “I wish you could be there.” I said, “I am there, with you.”

 

One last thought. Regarding the war in Vietnam, obviously somewhat like the war in Iraq, MLK said: “There will be no meaningful solution, until the attempt is made to know these people, and hear their broken cries.” Obama is saying this now. Only he’s actually running for president.

 

Yesterday Was an Interesting Day

Today was an amazing moment of confluence between events in China and inside the Democratic party. In each case, a ruling elite bent on retaining power lashed out against a perceived popular democratic threat with lies and hate-mongering. Who better than Hillary Clinton to tell us not to believe anybody’s sweet talk about what’s possible with a Barack Obama presidency. And who better than Red China to provide us with the exact same warning about the Dalai Lama. Using the politics of fear in a disgustingly obvious and disingenuous way, each camp portrayed the threat posed respectively by these two men as a sure recipe for disaster. It’s war, these so-called leaders are telling us, and we must realize the danger of following these phonies. It’s as if we’re all in chains, mesmerized by the shadows on the wall, and meanwhile somebody who’s been hammering away for years finally cracks through, and a shaft of light appears. The wizard behind the curtain freaks out, and has no choice but to pull out the Goebbels’ big lie. Obviously, these guys are really scared shitless, which is kinda exciting I think.

In other news today The New York Times, a newspaper that for a variety of reasons, mainly being a now somewhat lame, cow-towing, bleating, weak-kneed once great rag down on its luck, having dropped immensely in value and credibility and quality of writing and choice of subject matter and willingness to speak the truth over the last few years, did have a great issue yesterday. Once in a while a newspaper really just has a good issue, something you would want to stick in a time capsule, where everything just comes together, with stories that you won’t see anywhere else, and an overall appeal and effect that simply is far better than what we’re normally spoon fed. Wednesday's issue was such an issue.

I will only cite two stories that set Wednesday’s Times totally apart. One is the story about Mudhir Abd al-Karim Thiab Abd al-Kharbit, a guy who was one of the main information sources and planners for the CIA pre-Saddam, and once Bremer and his gang rolled in and shut down the Sunnis, got in a heap of trouble and because the Shiites issued an international warrant for his arrest, Interpol nabbed him in Lebanon and he ended up in jail. It was a sad, pathetic, beautiful story about a totally wronged man languishing in prison. Even the UN’s refugee program investigated the charges and called them baseless, but nobody, including the US, is willing to lift a finger to help him out.

The other was Maureen Dowd’s editorial. Normally she's irritating in the way any repressed, middle-aged, very white, seemingly oversexed, overly intellectual inside-the-beltway shrill-voiced politico can be (but she was the one who called Bill Clinton the “teenager in the White House," so good for her). But she really nailed it with the Hillary Waltz. She basically said that the primary fight is actually good for the Democratic party, but she did it in a totally new way. She made her point in such a way as to not tear down Obama, but rather forced us to recognize the battle-worn advantages that Hillary has over Barack and brings not just to the campaign, but to the other campaigners as well. She said it's great what Hillary's doing, she's a real American, and because there's something contained about the race, she's training Obama to deal with McCain and ultimately Ahmadinejad and whoever. She’s his sparring partner and it’s a good thing. It was a totally unique approach to this somewhat false debate, and she came up with it and put it out there.

Center Not Holding

Take Back This Country

The lull before the end game. The quiet before the storm. Pennsylvania, coming up. Soon thereafter, the final primaries. Here we go folks. Hillary vs. Barack – the Final Battle. I can even hear the announcer and the reverb. In an age where Professional Wrestling is the country's most popular sport, and in a culture of dualism that puts face off’s at the core of contemporary entertainment, we’re in for a fight that tops all of the hype. Just like 911 beat the best Hollywood disaster movie, this here's a throw down the likes of which this country ain't never seen. But it’s not a fair fight. Fact is, the Clintons and the McCains have way more in common with each other and Big Business than that whole Cabal does with Barack Obama. Barack’s raised his money from over 1,000,000 teeny tiny donations! People LOVE him. Nobody really loves the Cabal. So yes, it seems as if Barack can win it, but at the same time we stop and look at what’s going on and it seems so unbelievable that a guy that looks like Barack and talks the way he does could actually get elected. He looks too good and he talks too straight. Big Business must be shitting their pants. Their only hope is Hillary. At least she can be controlled. And she’ll probably lose to their boy McCain anyway. But there’s no telling what the crazy nigger might do. Hillary’s only hope is to get on a roll, paint Barack as a scary black guy in all the subtle ways that she already is doing, and shake up the super-delegates just enough to eke out a victory. It’s a page right out of the Republican play book -- hell, it is the Republican playbook -- but don’t doubt that this time around we will see our share of Stockholm Syndrome from the Clintons. It sounds ugly, and a recipe for losing in November, but watch out for that kitchen sink and don’t forget to duck!

For the moment, Barack is on vacation and Hillary is making hay. She said today that she would have split with Reverend Wright. Fair enough. Tough to imagine her not jumping on that one. And there was an editorial in the SF Chronicle today saying we really ought to wonder about Barack insofar as the two main people he picked to be in his life seem to hate America. And it’s true that his wife said recently that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” And Wright has said that we deserved 911 and that we should not bless, but rather damn, America. If Big Business and McCain and Clinton can all get together around pushing the idea out there that both the wife and the pastor of the guy who wants to be President are traitors to America, they might be able to stop him. And don’t doubt it: they will do anything to stop him. If they don’t, they’re hosed.

But let’s delve a little deeper. What exactly is the America Wright wishes to damn? Is it every version of America, or was he referring to the America that looks the other way when 30 million Americans still live in poverty? Did he want us to damn the America of Reverend King, or was perhaps in the context of Wright's sermon the America an America of haves and have nots, an America that still oppresses minorities and only respects the almighty dollar? I suspect it was a pretty unAmerican America that Wright was damning, and his rhetoric was in the set and setting of the black historical experience of that America. Come to think of it, Obama practically said as much in his speech on racism a few days ago.

Regarding the 911 comment, well, that’s the third rail of national politics, and very few people are going to be willing to accept that we deserved 911. Comments referring to “little Eichmanns” deserving to die make it hard to look for any nuance in this debate. So it’s tough to admit that we have comported ourself on the world stage with an arrogance that inevitably would occasion some response. The fact that it was a come-uppance on the epic scale of a Hollywood disaster movie with an Arabic elegance and precision doesn’t make it any easier. It’s hard for us driving around in our little bubbles, living in our little bubbles, working in our little bubbles, to understand that if the US uses 25% of the world’s resources, and generates 25% of the world’s pollution, and has only 5% of the population, then we are using and wasting 5 times as much as is our share. And we’re doing so on the backs of the poor and underpriveleged people. Our temporary wealth comes at the expense of the impoverished. New York, and the World Trade Center, stood as monuments to that wealth machine, and that’s why they were struck. I’m not condoning the attacks. But saying our chickens are coming home to roost is technically not that far from the truth. Obama can’t get into that, at least not yet, but he knows it, and deep down, he agrees with it. And deep down, I bet half our country does too. We know we’re on the losing end. We just need to be convinced that it will go easier for us if we face up to the truth vs. turn up the music and the lights and keep dancing (the Republican strategy from Reagan through Bush).

Regarding Michelle’s quote, that’s a toughie. She’s his wife, and first ladies simply have to be the very picture of dutiful, loyal, patriotism. As female, they must be mother, woman, and daughter of the American dream, the very image of Lady Liberty. They are Betsy Ross. Mamie Eisenhower. Homey Michelle don’t play that. She is darker than her husband, which makes her even scarier to people than her mulatto husband. She is pretty, but somewhat striking looking. She has a fierce face, a muscular posture, a fierce demeanor. Her eyes are fiery. Looking at her close up, as Mr. and Mrs. America are starting to do, they might think: I wonder if she doesn't like white people? They may not feel the soft, embracing love of femininity from Michelle Obama. I don't know if we're ready for the stern black lady that brooks no nonsense. What if she gets wise to our carryings on and whoops us upside the head? On the other hand, she may be way more conservative than her husband.

But did she really say she was proud of her country for the first time? No. She said for the first time as an adult, she was _really_ proud (emphasis mine). And you know, I can hear that. She and I are the same age. I remember being really proud of America when we landed on the moon and broadcast the video to the planet. I remember being really proud of America when we impeached Nixon and proved that we were a nation of laws and not of men. I remember being really proud when an honest man named Jimmy Carter won the Presidency and got out of his car and walked up Pennsylvania Avenue. But those things happened when I was 8, 14 and 16. Since I’ve been an adult, since Reagan, what’s there to be _really_ proud about?

Read the words of the conservative writer John Podhoretz: “Really proud of her country for the first time? Michelle Obama is 44 years old. She has been an adult since 1982. Can it really be there has not been a moment during that time when she felt proud of her country? Forget matters like the victory in the Cold War; how about only things that have made liberals proud — all the accomplishments of inclusion? How about the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991? Or Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s elevation to the Supreme Court? Or Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the Senate in 1998? How about the merely humanitarian, like this country’s startling generosity to the victims of the tsunami? I’m sure commenters can think of hundreds more landmarks of this sort. Didn’t she even get a twinge from, say, the Olympics?”

I got no twinge from the Olympics. Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Please. George Bush's Civil Rights Act of 1991? Sorry John, but as I go through your list, to be honest, it seems really weak. Those are pretty minor accomplishments, and even some of the nicer ones really don’t make me proud of my _country_. The fact that the Soviet Union fell apart didn’t necessarily make me proud of the USA, but it did make me proud of the world. But America waking up, believing in democracy for the first time since Reagan's voodoo, daring to hope we can turn this thing around, that’s something to be proud of! Listen to what Michelle actually said: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=49244. She’s saying that this movement is real, that she’s witnessing something that’s actually moving her to love her country again. If she and her husband unite around that quote, stand behind it, talk about how much they love this country, so much that they aren’t willing to hide behind a false patriotism, but so much that they are willing to force us to grow as a people, that the time is now to take it to the next level, they can take this debate right out of the hands of this Cabal that has controlled things for so long, and we can take back this country.

Eco Barack?

One thing I’d really like to see is Barack Obama stop drinking from all those plastic water bottles. I would like to get him his own custom water bottle. Or sell Barack Obama branded water bottles. Why not?

Free China!

Here we go again with China. I don't know how they do it. Between Taiwan, Tibet, the lack of human rights, copyrights, the proliferation of censorship and environmental devastation, it's amazing how much they're getting away with. We seem to be shamed into quietude, somehow because my own country so imperfect. I agree, but that's really besides the point. Nancy Pelosi said it best when she said: "(I)f freedom loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in Tibet, we have lost our moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world." That's it: If our lives are worth a damn we ought to try to help these people. The monks are so brave, and the Chinese government is made up of such cowards, that the USA should help protect the monks, and stop the Chinese from taking over the world. So I asked my camaraderie of symbolic figureheads what they thought, and here's what they said:

Paul Bunyan noted the Chinese government's explanation of the protests: "Some ignorant monks led by a small handful of people did some illegal things that can challenge social stability."

That's a perfect and compact expression of the whole commie-chinese thing.

Tibet is over. The have been absorbed like Rome absorbed Sicily. The only difference between now and then is the world has developed a sense of shame about conquest for some reason, and so there are certain pretenses maintained (mainly, 1., that china didn't take tibet, they just "always" owned it, and 2., they are doing this all for the "greater good" of tibetans, who were being oppressed by a theocracy.). Power has spoken, as far as the tibetan geography is concerned.

But there is something to do, which is to help the monks in exile. Cause they are in exile forever, like the Jews. There are a lot of them in No. Cal I think. There are also a lot of them in the twin cities for some reason.

Paul's Brother added:

Helping them in exile. It is being done to some degree. I think money to SaveTibet helps preserve the culture too.

The biggest thing that I see being done, and that I support -- and the most helpful no matter what happens to Tibet -- is the strong effort being made to preserve the Tibetan heritage in exile. In particular, the core of the Tibetan Buddhist teachings is being kept alive. The Buddhists are good at seeing what is really happening and they have put a lot of energy into this, realizing that this is more important than the country in crucial ways.

The Chinese are simply exterminating the culture. Lots of intermarriage is helping to make the death a soft death. The Chinese are absolute masters at this shit. And they don't give a shit about world opinion. Even less than we do.

My friends, who don't agree with what the Chinese are doing, are nevertheless taking the famous new Chinese railway up into Tibet (Lhasa eventually?) and seeing Tibet. Partly, they say, to see it before it is utterly destroyed. :-(

But this is just talk. Good question. What can be done besides just donating money. That's all I do at this point.

And I heard from Sacagawea too:

A Tibetan teacher said to me that the virtue of the Chinese invasion is that the Tibetan Buddhist teachings were spread all over the world.

And the thing is, there are lots of monks -- and nuns too! -- who need support, because their traditional culture that supported them is broken. I send funds every year to a nunnery in Dharamsala that also educates the nuns far beyond what they used to before the invasion.

And we have the incredible example of HH the Dalai Lama, who does not harbor hatred toward the Chinese. It is his practice.

Time to Speak Out

First Burma, now this. My heart goes out to these amazingly brave monks who are facing down the government of China. Don't you think the US should be sending protesters? Or at least performance artists? Let them get busted and have the American people see what the Chinese gov't does. We need to infiltrate who among the tribes of the movement is going and get some flights to china ASAP. Code Pink and Move On and partner with some right wing religious orgs too that are willing to send nuns to protest in solidarity. But I dont' see any voices in the movement talking like this. It's so ironic, but the only voice that says it's our job to speak up is George W. Bush's, which is really Michael Gerson's. And he's long gone. Dang. There _must_ be some show of being appalled at the games, but I wonder if we've got it in us.

Obama's Mama

The story in the NYTimes today was really special. It rounds out who Barack is. He emerges as something on an announted one, and his mother as a bit of a Mary figure. His whole candidacy makes even more sense. And what an angel she seems to be. I think we should say a prayer for her. The story, worth a read, is here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/14/MNCVVJJRK.DTL

Does Wright Doom Obama?

I wrote my good buddy Paul Bunyan that I was concerned about the white backlash to the Wright controversy. When the general public gets wind of the worst of what Wright has said, I'm afraid it will doom Obama. Paul kind of talked me out of it. He said:

You really think it dooms him? I don't. The African American church is an intense thing, really almost inseperable from being black in america. Or at least that's what black friend of mine in grad school told me. This church was the way he found to connect to that, which he was not born in.

I think it depends on how crazy this Jeremiah Wright guy is. Hmm.. site's down...hmm...wikipedia....

I think it's okay. I was afraid of some anti-semitism, but looks like the worst is some anti-Israelism, a little Blaming-AMerica-for-9/11, and a lot of Blackness-centered theology. Here's an excerpt: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13390609/campaign_08_the_radical_roots_of_barack_obama/print

"Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!" There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: "And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!"

Uncle Sam here again, resonding to Paul Bunyan quoting Rolling Stone (above). My thinking has expanded on the subject, mainly due to the point of placing the Black Church in the context of American freedom of religion. It got me thinking, and I wrote this while I was traveling the highways and byways of America:

As an American, I appreciate what it means to have the black church. I have actually been a big fan of some of the rhetoric of Farrakhan, and at times even dig where he's coming from. He takes care of his own, and believes in wholesomeness, speaks truth about his own people's problems, and aspires to greatness (as does Wright). His last formally racist comments were 24 years ago, and if you read them, there is the interesting distinction he makes between the “true Jews” which he respects, and the “false Jews,” which he doesn’t. Similar distinctions have been made about Christians through the millenia, and in the Bible, even by Jesus when referring to a "tepid Christianity" (most famously quoted by Dostoevski), and so anyway it’s possibly not 100% straight up Jew hating. It’s probably more complicated.

The million man march was a huge moment in our history, and Farrakhan's speech there rocked my world. I even love the way some black churches have taken aspects of Islam and connected them to black people, half-baked as it may sound to a true Muslim. It's enough truth with enough creativity that enables it to fly.Black people have had their culture ripped from them and to have a new American-style made up culture to bolt onto such a fragmented experience does make sense. But Wright and his ilk, starting with Farakkhan, broke from the Black Muslims, and focused more on roots. And what these connections to "roots" do is nothing short of transformational. Look at Muhammad Ali. Without the Black Muslims, he never would have been who he was. He could not have been the true Champion of the World, the all time greatest, as Cassius Clay. And to anticipate what Obama is gonna do when it all hits the fan about Obama and Trinity, Ali in all his name changing self creation is at its heart as American as it gets. So Trinity kind of does this same "connection with your roots" thing, only not so much with Islam as with Africa itself. Not perfectly or perfectly true, but better. But neither is the Jewish people connecting with 2000 years ago Israel entirely true. But it's true enough and it gives the identity the Jews need to survive. People need that historiocity. It's crucial. So 1) it saved Obama, and 2) it's a super American thing the way it saved him. The challenge is how not to lose a sufficiently large % of votes when people simply SEE what that Trinity website looks like. I appreciate that it's not that different than a Huckabee or a Romney. Americans have these intense churches with intense sermons that we get a lot from. But in the case of Trinity, it has a militant tone. And black people still scare white people, though the heroes of the 20th century have begun to dismantle that. But Obama offers proof that when white people mix with black people, musically, socially sexually, through fighting or sports, or even if just mixing DNA, black people win. Obama is half and half, but he's black. He is way more white then black, but because black is so much more powerful, he's still "black." America is ready for Bill Cosby, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Tiger Woods, and Michael Jordan. I doubt we will ever be ready for anger from a black presidential candidate though. So once this story gets circulated, and people feel the anger coming off the page, it will be on Obama big time to somehow let the anger out, and reassert himself as a man of peace. But from all I've seen so far, I think he'll do it.

It's 3 am and all is well

The 3 am ad literally says: do you want somebody in the white house who already knows all the world's leaders, as if being the president itself would not be enough. I really think Hilary has stopped to a new low with this ad. I think Barack should simply identify the types of situations that that call could represent (another terrorist attack, our nuclear submarine held hostage, etc., etc.) and in so doing both demonstrate his mastery of the complexities of foreign policy and show that he is capable of handling specific, not vague, scenarios.

Betsy Ross for Nader

My darling dear friend Betsy and I were IMing yesterday, and here it is folks:

[8:44:54 PM] betsy r says: victory gardens are happenign

[10:24:52 PM] betsy r says: Matt Gonzalez is running for V.P. with Ralph Nadar

10:13 PM can you imagine

10:13 PM crzy

[10:48:17 PM] Uncle Sam says: !!!

[10:50:47 PM] Uncle Sam says: how could he run against obama?

[10:55:13 PM] betsy r says: he is no race

[10:55:19 PM] betsy r says: but i still will vote nadar

[10:55:24 PM] betsy r says: i am an idealist

[10:55:30 PM] betsy r says: and want a 3rd party

[10:55:36 PM] Uncle Sam says: will you let me try to talk you out of it?

[10:55:44 PM] Uncle Sam says: not now, i mean

[10:55:52 PM] Uncle Sam says: but sometime in the next months?

[10:56:06 PM] betsy r says: :)

[10:56:08 PM] betsy r says: NO

[10:56:09 PM] betsy r says: sorry

[10:56:17 PM] Uncle Sam says: really?

[10:56:22 PM] betsy r says: i will move to belgium where there are 12 parites

[10:56:26 PM] betsy r says: or norway

[10:56:35 PM] Uncle Sam says: but you said you were voting...

[10:56:45 PM] betsy r says: i am down for porportional governing

[10:56:52 PM] betsy r says: represent the peeps

[10:56:55 PM] betsy r says: in the house

[10:57:01 PM] betsy rf says: i know it does not exist here,

[10:57:06 PM] betsy r says: but i believe in it

[10:57:14 PM] amy f says: and wil vote for those who believe in it

[11:03:58 PM] Uncle Sam says: well if you DO ever want to discuss it

[11:04:03 PM] Uncle Sam says: i'd be curious what you mean

So we'll see how much of a non-story this ends up being...

Valentine to McCain

McCain. So he's gonna be the Republican nominee for president. Well, sorry the media has misled you, but the guy actually is not such a hero. Were I to wish to identify those qualities in a John McCain that voters might need to know to accurately compare him with his rival, I might point out some of the following items about the man. He:

1) moved all over the country, admitted he never got an education

2) graduated at the very bottom of his military class at Naval Academy (894th out of 899)

3) nicknames were "Punk" and "McNasty" cuz he had a temper problem and fought all the time

4) never paid attention to details of flying an aircraft, got shot down, may have caused a major fire which consumed a bomber aircraft while screwing off

5) wrote a lame confession under duress trashing the USA, which he said he regretted ever doing

6) lived for most of his life as a super-playboy, dating strippers and trashy women, driving race cars, kind of an "I'm Mr. Flash" self-image

7) cheated extensively on his first wife, who was loyal to him while he was being tortured in the 'Nam, and left her soon as he was stateside, and only because, in his own words, "I was 40 and wanted to be 25."

8) lied to his trophy wife, the Stepford-looking Cindy, about his age (admitted doing this) to get her to marry him

Finally, he's 71, and does seem to be slowing down a bit. He might be a bit dottie. He has had skin cancer, now in remission, but it was really serious and for awhile it looked fatal or at least that he would never be able to run. He almost become Kerry's running mate. He almost left the Republican party. He helped bring about the S&L debacle. He can't raise his hands above his head. He's pro-life, pro-Iraq, pro capital punishment, anti-gay marriage, pro Bush tax cuts, and the list goes on. He cusses a lot, drinks a lot, shoots first and asks questions later, and is about as "old school" a guy as we could get. I just don't think we're going back to my old school this time. Another sort of a loser / pretty boy son and grandson of royalty. It's just too similar to W, and that's subtext will out down the stretch.

Obama needs to paint McCain as the trigger happy Dr. Strangelove that he is. He needs to make it so that America is more afraid of what McCain would do in an emergency situation than Barack.

Got two responses to this, one from Babe the Blue Ox, the other from Paul Bunyan. Paul says:

I agree, with the minor variance that I think Hillary would lose worse.

If so, then we have an interesting situation. Our fate lies in the hands of a man who has shown glimmers of decency and honesty in the past, but who kissed the ring of the godfather 8 years ago and has been raving like a madman ever since.

The money machine, the stupidity machine, the power machine--It's not meant to be fascism at first, its just rich fat guys rolling around in piles of money. It leads to fascism, terror, bankruptcy, and failure, but that's a byproduct.

Normally it would not matter so much who wins, but we need someone to stop the bleeding. To stop the Scalias and the Wolfowitzes and the David Addingtons and the Roves (Injustice, War, Torture, Deceit, respectively). There's a chance McCain might stop those things, but that chance rests on the idea that he has spent 8 years pretending to be evil in order to be president and do good. It seems a dark prospect. By the way, McCain, just today, voted against a bill to ban waterboarding. It passed the senate with 51 votes.

Babe wrote me:

On a flight from Burlington, Vt., to Warwick, R.I., on Thursday, Mr. McCain volunteered that Brooke Buchanan, his spokeswoman who was seated nearby and rolling her eyes, “has a lot of her money hidden in the Cayman Islands” and that she earned it by “dealing drugs.” Previously, Mr. McCain has identified Ms. Buchanan as “Pat Buchanan’s illegitimate daughter,” “bipolar,” “a drunk,” “someone with a lot of boyfriends” and “just out of Betty Ford.”

It is only a matter of time before some viewer, listener or reader complains — recovering addicts, for example, mental illness sufferers, or, for that matter, Pat Buchanan himself.

One of the trademarks of Mr. McCain’s rebel image has been his inability to cloak his emotions, especially anger. He has been prone to volcanic blowups over the years. And while he would hardly be the first president with a temper, Mr. McCain has been ever vigilant of late about resisting provocation.
>

So says one of those wry NY TImes campaign articles. Nobody has gotten away with this kind of humor in front of reporters since Johnson and Nixon. You gotta have very big balls to do it these days.

By the way, can somebody explain why the right-wingers hate this guy? As far as I can tell, he is as right wing as Satan, with the one single exception of stem-cell research.

South Carolina

Paul Bunyan sent me this after South Carolina.
> Watched Obama's victory (or whatever you call it) speech for South
> Carolina. Happened to catch it live. I was moved. I haven't had that
> reacation to a political speech in a long time. And it's been a long
> time since I saw a crowd for a national candidate look so into it, and
> so real. Wow.

and Paul is as big a cynic as I am. I think the only excuse not to vote for him is that it's too good to be true. But forget that. What's true is whatever we want to be true. I think this is the beginning of a new era in American Politics.

Dirty Money

Thereis a big issue being discussed in this presidential campaign, and it involves who candidates will and will not take money from.

The idea is that somehow, if you accept donations from a criminal, it rubs off on you. I think that's nuts. All you're doing if you take money from a bad guy is separate him from his money! There's no way that's why the criminal made his money illicitly to begin with, so you're not exactly supporting their life of crime. But once they got it, I say: Take it. Were I to be running, my motto would be: "I'll take money from anybody!"

Giving money is a different issue: that's where you have to screen where your energy goes. You need to vote with your dollars. But if money is energy, then why not separate money / energy from evil? If Exxon wants to give me a million bucks, I will take it.

Tit for Tat

This campaign is getting really interesting!

I love the current wrinkle, essentially amounting to whether Obama gets any play out of any response he can muster to the end of New Hampshire attacks that absolutely did hurt him.

His team did try to recoup, by pointing out that the attacks were a little bit racist, or unfair, and that got some play. But whether it translates depends on their response to Clinton's response.

Clinton responded by saying:

"I think that his story line is not accurate,” he said. “And in 15 debates, no one ever once bothered to ask Sen. Obama, ‘How can you say you were always against the war, and your judgment is better than theirs, and they were wrong to vote for that resolution which authorized force, when two years after you gave the anti-war speech in 2004, you, Sen. Obama, said you didn’t know how you would have voted on that anti-war resolution, number one, then two days later, you said there was no difference between you and President Bush on the war?’ ”

So for me now, the question is: what's Clinton talking about, and did Obama say those two things, or are they out of context? If Obama did say them, that was dumb, since it's the main thing that distinguishes him (the other two things are 1) I will talk to bad guys, and 2) I'm really going to fuck shit up and we all know it so I'm not going to say anything specific, which is what "change you can believe in" is code for.

I assume, in the Clinton quote, he's referring to the 2nd anti-war resolution, which Obama was absent for. But Clinton isn't being specific. And I'm not sure if it is that, that that makes Clinton's point that that means there's less of a difference, or how much less of a difference, between Hilary and Obama (I guess it's just going to be that for awhile: Hilary and Obama, unfair and sexist as using the female's first name and the male's last name is). But I really would be surprised to find substance behind the 2nd part of Clinton's quote, where he says the no difference thing. I just can't imagine. But again there's no reference.

Furthermore, Obama's side isn't responding so far. My feeling is that at this point they ought to. Barack (there, I used his first name) should very factually call Bill Clinton out and say what he meant in these two instances, especially if that meaning differs at all from how Clinton is portraying it. So my question is: does Barack respond?

Barack Obama's Church

I got an email from one of my right wing friends today. It said in part:

Barack Obama mentioned during his appearance with Oprah that he belongs to the Trinity Church of Christ. Below is a link to that church's web site.

Go to that site and read what is written there. This man wants to be president of the United States. On the first page of this site you will see that this congregation has a non-negotiable commitment to Africa. No where is AMERICA even mentioned. Also, notice what color you must be should you want to join.

Click here for Trinity Church of Christ web site:

www.tucc.org/about.htm

So that got me worried that all this racist stuff would come back to bite Barack. I emailed my old pal Paul Bunyan to see what he had to say, as he's pretty good at minority issues, being a giant and all (giants still don't have equal rights in this country). Paul told me the following:

Yeah that is his church, and it's a little controversial. God forbid black people get angry about anything.

This emailer is foaming at the mouth "No where is AMERICA even mentioned." In classic style.

This church is a big deal for Obama, it's how he came to religion from a non-religious childhood, and it's very heavy on black pride and as they put it, the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA. There is a firebrand preacher guy at the head of it, and it's a gigantic Chicago congregation.

It's dangerous stuff in a way, and Obama has had to back off from forefronting this too much. The concept is, you can counteract 10 generations of oppression by staking a claim to prior freedom in one's land of origin. But then the Outraged Masses can say it's anti-american. And they can say it's blacks-only. And both claims are true in part, if you refuse to understand the subtleties.

It reminds me of the Pryor routine in which he goes to Africa and finds there are "no niggers," in his words. What he found there was the absence, not just of oppression of blacks by whites, but the absence of the *ghost* of oppression. It opened his eyes to the american situation. There is this bind that america is in, where the history of subjugation is always present, where a black guy is always dealing with it, either fighting it or becoming it or imagining it or wondering if he's imagining it, etc. It's as though every interaction between blacks and whites is tainted by this sin.

At the risk of saying something awful, I think one reason whites can accept Obama is that he comes from a recent immigrant black origin, not a slave-descendant family. I'm not reifying Pryor's self-hatred here, and I don't think slave-history taints black people. But it does hang over the *relationship* between black and white, and Obama is partly free from that. God help me, but I think this is what Biden was saying when he said he was "clean." The flip side is that he also seems to inhabit the african-american tradition, in his speech and manner. Much more than say, Tiger does.

But anyway, yeah, Obama belongs to this pretty radical Afro-centric Black-empowerment church, which is essentially, if not literally racially-exclusive. Plus its charismatic leader is a big mentor to him. I think there will be nothing too crazy in his theology. I only hope he stares this issue down head on, cause it could be a problem.