Should We Walk to Montgomery or Park Place, Barack?

Is Obama Black Enough? or better yet:

Was "Bloody Sunday" Bloody Enough?

The current Presidential race is a case study of "how much" the candidates must be to gain endorsements and votes:


How Christian John McCain must be.

How un-female Hillary Clinton must be.

And how Black (and blue) Barack Obama must be.


Some of us are pretty clear about the first two but still wondering about the third. Obama just doesn't seem to fit the profile. Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly seemed fit, but then again he was also against type in many ways: he was a Baptist minister with a doctorate in systematic religion. It is important to note, however, that HE WAS NOT A SOUTHERN BAPTIST MINISTER. No SBC members (I think) ever took part in Bloody Sunday or the other Montgomery marches (unless, of course, they wore police uniforms). When MLK took the last march into his own hands, he was still playing against type because respectable ministers in the Deep South did not challenge Jim Crow no matter what their affiliation or denomination was.



I was bothered about Obama until I read the speech he gave exactly 1 year ago today:


"It's because they marched that we elected councilmen, congressmen. It is because they marched that we have Artur Davis and Keith Ellison. It is because they marched that I got the kind of education I got, a law degree, a seat in the Illinois senate and ultimately in the United States senate.


In response to the question of his "blackness":

"'... well, you know, your father was from Africa, your mother, she's a white woman from Kansas. I’m not sure that you have the same experience.'

And I tried to explain, you don't understand. You see, my Grandfather was a cook to the British in Kenya. Grew up in a small village and all his life, that's all he was -- a cook and a house boy. And that's what they called him, even when he was 60 years old. They called him a house boy. They wouldn't call him by his last name.


Sound familiar?"

What Would Uncle Walter Say? McCain and the Media!

Cronkite might recuse himself

When he was anchoring for CBS Walter Cronkite never injected the news with any inkling of a personal opinion. So how would he cover today's presidential race?

He wouldn't. The application of today's religious views to politics would have forced him to defer to another anchor. The man who covered Viet Nam and the assasinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK would have loathed today's politial scene - too much to appear unbiased:

(In his endorsement of InterFaith Alliance)

When I anchored the evening news, I kept my opinions to myself. But now, more than ever, I feel I must speak out. That’s because I am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence of people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson on our nation’s political leaders. Like you, I understand that freedom of speech is a founding principle of our nation, and I respect people with the courage to speak their minds. As a concerned person of faith, however, I have watched with increasing alarm as Religious Right groups manipulate religion to further their intolerant, political agendas. Over the years, they have gained considerable influence at every level of government...on local school boards, in the Administration, the courts, and in Congress. They have shrewdly twisted the traditional healing role of religion into an intolerant, political platform.


He wouldn't have thought much about John McCain's reversals either, from "agents of intolerance", to speeches at Liberty Uniersity and endorseents by televangelists. McCain even did an about-face yesterday involving the press itself:

Think Progress: McCain Hosts His ‘Base’ for a BBQ: The ‘Maverick’ and the Press Are Back Together Again (3/3/08) by Benjamin J. Armbruster

When the New York Times reported on John McCain’s "unethical relationships with lobbyists, McCain banished reporters... to the back of his campaign airplane." But in an attempt to "woo the reporters" back, McCain invited campaign journalists to "a 'thank you' cookout on Sunday... at his vacation home." According to Armbruster, his "latest 'charm offensive'... may have paid off."

The senator always chalks his reversals up to "not holding a grudge." But who else is he pulling off a "charm offensive" on (or for)? Key words in his speeches and communications to watch out for: Bible, apocalyptic, sinful, grace are just a few. And for the hawks our country there will be more military rhetoricc than could ever possibly hope for.

ANOTHER Cowboy President?

How will they remold John McCain?

(sssshh)... Very Quietly

Three hours ago (9:00PM PST) Mike Huckabee abdicated from the campaign of the Christian Right (most of whom didn't think he had his heart in it - not Reconstructionist enough) and withdrew from the race for the Republican presidential nomination. Conservatives and Hillary- Haters now have only one person to vote for in November: Arizona Senator John McCain, a hawk who sometimes acts like a Democrat.

"He's a maverick." I looked up the etymology of the word "maverick". The word originated in the name of Sam Maverick, a leading name in Texas history and politics (1803-1870). He was a land baron who refused to brand his cattle, hence the association with lone cattle outside of the herd.

So J.M. is going to don a white stetson and try to save us from those heathen Al Queda Muslims? ... AGAIN?!

McCain's supporters and campaign staff will need to start divesting him of any cowboy image - and that inludes the adjective "maverick". And what kind of candidate he is molded into will depend on who is molding/controlling him.

Gasp! Do you think he'll be steered by any special interests?

Yes. But whoever does the steering will need to be quiet about it. So that leaves out Pastor John Hagee. But let's put aside John Hagee for a moment (ah, figuratively). A Christo-Fascist with a brain (admittedly not a very large gene pool there), money and influence could call the shots if he's discreet. Remember: McCain's association with the "Keating 5" scandal (1989 - failing S&L campaign contributions) will be dug up again. McCain's also known for admitting lapses in judgment - a luxury he won't be allowed as President (or shouldn't be allowed - we've had waaay too much of those under Dumbya).

And, make no mistake, McCain will curry favor with any people on the Religious Right. His 180 with Falwell raised some eyebrows. After his speech at Liberty University:

If McCain's outreach succeeds, the effort could pay off not only in South Carolina, where the senator's defeat in the 2000 primary doomed his presidential bid, but also in Iowa, a state with many politically active Christian conservatives and a crucial role once again in the next election. In short, Liberty University could help make John McCain the Republican presidential nominee in 2008.*
(Washington Post.com, McCain - Can He Be a Falwell Republican? May 7, 2006)

So, John, what's it to be? An apocalyptic super-hero? A moralizing military man? You might not tell us, but your campaign might.

65 years ago, the Nazi Party took control of Germany.

Who will take control of John McCain?


*How prophetic can you get?

P.S.: The above photo is not James Garner in Maverick. It's Clint Walker as Cheyenne. I posted it because of all the cowboys on TV, he provided me with the best eye candy.

It's America's World War III! Granny Clampett vs. Matthew Bourne!

What Culture War?

Almost everywhere we turn we're faced with war or the possibility of war: Iraq, Iran, Isreal, Darfur, Equador, Colombia, Venezuela - on only three of seven continents of course: Europe is too old and too tired, North America would rather fight on foreign soil (except when it comes to the Mexican border), Australia doesn't have enough people for a good one, and Antartica's emperor penguins have a hard time walking with their eggs on their feet.


But then, there's our very own "culture war."


Pat Buchanan tried to define it at the Republican National Convention in 1992:


"There is a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation we will one day be as was the Cold War itself." In this war, Buchanan said that the forces of goodness (of course) were battling: "environmental extremists", "radical feminism," abortion, sexual orientation, popular culture, as well as clashes over the Confederate Flag, Christmas and taxpayer-funded art.


Culture war. I'll attempt to define it in one of the ways I see it (hey this IS my blog!). Whenever the conversation (or ecommunication) gets around to the subject, I usually say: "The culture war with the right-wingers? They're waging the war, but we've got the culture."



I know it sounds contrived and silly, but I can't help but think there's a grain of truth in it. Why are gays envisioned embracing culture while so many people in America embrace the pop culture of the American Dream? I wish there were a study of tabloid demographics. I looked up "Checkpoint Bonnie (Fuller)" on the web. She's the queen of taboids in the sense that she knows what sells and what doesn't. According to Kein Hyson (CMO of American Media Inc - parent company of Enquirer, Star, et al), Bonnie has adhered to this demographic (which admittedly hasn't changed much over the years):


The typical reader of the Enquirer and Star, according to Mediamark Research, Inc. (MRI), remains a grocery-shopping mom in her late 30s to early 40s with a high school education and household income in the upper 30s to mid 40s. In its pitch to advertisers, AMI boasts that readers of the Enquirer and Star "know everything about the big stars" and "watch a tremendous amount of TV." The tabloid audience "has gotten a little older over the years, as is true with all the 'Seven Sisters' and other titles creating the front end of supermarkets," says Hyson.



Yes I know, I'm making an attempt to justify stereotyping but I just can't help it. For the last 20 years, I've winced when someone in the supermarket line picked up a National Enquirer or Weekly World News - because I ouldn't believe anyone would be that starved for celebrity sandals or, dare I say it, that stupid.




My personal favorite:

Bigfoot's Baby Found Abandoned on the Grounds of Neverland Ranch!
(sorry, couldn't scan that one in, but it's for real )


So, who's currently in the front lines?

On one side: Britney Spears, The Olsen Twins (either one), Pastor John Hagee, Prince Harry, WalMart.

And on the other side: the rest of us.

Not a fair fight, is it?

So, guys and gals, what'll we watch tonight?

Should we watch our favorite show? Get a little culture? ...Or a whole lot of culture?

Obama and the "Why Can't We All Just Get Along" Race Card

...Yeah, But Will It Play With Skinheads, Neo Nazis,

Southern Baptist Ministers and the KKK?

And just how many Sister Souljah moments is McCain going to have? Sure the Senator has responded vaguely to the Hagee endorsement, but there will be a lot more of them down the road.

Race will be the word of the day beause 17 years ago, the initial cause of the 1992 Los Angeles riots ocurred: the videotaped beating of Rodney King. The aquittal of the police involved triggered the massive 4-day riot, one of the most intense civil disturbances in U.S. history. By the time the police, Us Army, Marines and National Guard restored order, there was nearly $1 billion in damage and 53 deaths; 2,383 injuries; more than 7000 fire responses; and 3,100 businesses damaged. (Wikipedia)

And while Obama's cheered stateents of change and hope resonate through many American hearts, he still can't break through the wall of anger and distrust built by many conseratives. Here's what ardent conservative David Limbaugh (leaning on the celebrity of his brother Rush) has to say about Obama's words of hope:

When I see Obama proposing a number of genuinely conservative ideas, I'll reconsider the ludicrous possibility that he values bipartisanship and getting along more than advancing his liberal vision for America. (from TownHall.com).

I would characterize that statement as a "cc" - couched and careful.

We'll see just how many Sister Souljah moments McCain can handle.

King Kong, King George and the Boomers

Allegories straight out of our own history.

Glossary of terms to this rather convoluted post:

King Kong - the symbol of a once-proud monarch of nature being brought down by civilization.

King George W. Bush - the once-proud monarch of a world-esteemed country both brought down by their own arrogance.

Boomers - people who take advantage of anything made available to them.

O.K., so this post doesn't list McCain, Hagee, Clinton, Huckabee, Obama, Iraq, Iran or Televangelists in the title. And it may not be read by anyone looking for a direct link to current news, but when I noted that the classic movie, King Kong, premiered on this day in 1933, I immediately felt empathy for Kong - especially as an American citizen on this day.

America was once like King Kong: feared by some, but respected by many. The natives gave sacrifices to Kong and respected his power. His power, in fact, brought the natives together in peace to coalesce for an objective: to keep Kong at a respectful distance.

The invasion of Iraq by our stalwart King George changed America's image of strength and respect, not only because countries lost that respect and began to fear us more, but because they sensed more than ever our country's greed.

Something else happened on this day back in 1889: The Indian Appriopriations Bill was signed by Congress. In effect, this bill sanctioned the "purchase" of what is mostly now Oklahoma from the Creek, Cherokee and Seminole Indians and reassigning these "unassigned" lands to the frst people who could homestead them. Those people, oddly enough, were called BOOMERS. Over 50,000 people lined up for the first "land run" and nearly forty-five million acres were assigned in less than 4 years. How much did the Indians get paid for all of that valuable land? Oh, about 25 cents per acre.The average homestead of 160 acres was worth under $40 in expenditures to the US government. The Boomers of the era, in their own "down home" style embodied the same greed encountered by King Kong. The same greed exemplified by George Bush and his administration.

Some may say my reasoning and allegories are way out of whack. But its very hard to describe feelings and gut reactions in a reasonable fashion. King Kong was a mighty beast moviegoers identified with (especially during the Great Depression) and they felt very sorry for the beast's ignominious demise. Our country's "baby boomers" (regardless of the radical 60's) rushed for the unassigned (democratically, that is) natural resources of Iraq.

Yesterday, famous actress Angelina Jolie asked our country as well as the United Nations to help the two million Iraqi refugees who can no longer take safe harbor in Jordan or Turkey ("Sorry people, we're full up!"). How ironic, in a way: when we look at the faces of those refugees, we might as well be looking at the faces of Creeks, Seminoles and Cherokees. And they in turn might be looking at us as if we were a huge, mortally wounded beast.

America and its last friend

The "Biggest Story Since the Resurrection!" Hagee, McCain, Jesus Christ and

...The Kidapping of the Lindbergh Baby!


The kidnapping of a famous aviator's 20-month-old boy became a cottage industry for the press in 1932. Even skeptical journalist H.L. Mencken called it "the biggest story since the Resurrection."

But when Jesus Christ resurrected, was it NEWS?

No. It was to his Jewish disciples, but do the math: three frightened women and eleven cowering men were not exactly Israel's version of Associated Press or CNN. NEWS is when an heir to the English throne is found fighting in Afghanistan. NEWS is when a president says there is no recession just before the stock market takes a major nosedive. And NEWS is when a televangelist says that Christ was not the Messiah...then endorses an Arizona senator for president.

And NEWS is what powerful people make it to be:

During the first part of the Spanish American War, famous western artist Frederick Remington was an illustrator and journalist for William Randolph Hearst's newspapers and stationed in Cuba. He telegraphed Heast asking if he could come home since there didn't seem to be any conflict. Hearst's response was:

"Please Remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."

O.K., so what am I getting at? Just this: today's American public frames the NEWS much more than the NEWS frames itself: a U.S. senator's campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination and his religious endorsemens is what the public WANTS to read/view/blog about. The ruminations of a "heretical" televangelist is what HE wants the public read/view/blog about. And when a preacher's influence gets to Hearst proportions, it's too late: he's already in the public psyche. He couldn't pull out even if he wanted to.

And Pastor John Hagee doesn't want to pull out. He and his "flock" want Armaggedon - NOW. Televangelist Hagee is calling Christ to come down from heaven.

Christ better heed the call.