The Obama Project@WindonWater.net

I started to answer Sarah Palin’s speech point for point, but it just got tiring.  Here are tools to find out the facts for yourself:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

http://www.obamataxcut.com

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/presidential_candidates.cfm

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php

But these statements need answering:

This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn’t just need an organizer.

Hard not to take that personally, but I long ago promised a post on the submect of community organizing and I’m delinquent.  It will be up by Monday, in honor of my dad, who I will bury that day.

In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.

And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

Yet another character insult, and this one highly offensive.  I wish John McCain has used his career to stay the course of change, but instead he is now lock-step with the far right of the republican base – the very same who have been running the country for 12 of the last 20 years, including the last 8.   But alas, it was not to be.

What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

Frankly, though the nation may not be fully appreciative, if this were “all” that was accomplished – notwithstanding, this will have been a LOT to accomplish.

http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=53990

http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=48360&hl=cities
QT

I have been watching the unfoldment of John McCain’s Vice-Presidential choice with a great deal of dismay. For one thing, many in the liberal camp began immediately to dismiss the choice as foolish. The party was on, and I was alarmed at the arrogance, and lack of awareness of the feelings on the other side of the debate.. Then there was the sexism. Sure its easy to cry sexism when someone else is doing it, but how about when it rears its ugly head on your own side? Terms like G/VPILF were offensive – and were introduced by the liberal camp. Even today I saw a headline calling Sarah Palin’s vetting process a casting couch. Classy, huh?

But the biggest sense of dread I felt has finally crystalized into something I’m ready to write about…and that is the clear and obvious difference between McCain’s and Obama’s vetting process. On the one hand, you have a careful, thorough process, on which Obama was involved with, and one which set clear standards intended to ensure good governance. That process yielded Joe Biden. On the other you have a minimum amount of vetting done to justify the term, a candidate who seems imposed upon by outside forces in the selection process, and seemingly no thought given to governance issues – only electoral ones. The high energy invested in protecting this choice reeks of the same cronyism apparatus that has plagued the Bush presidency, at the expense of lives (see: Katrina), and stubborn defense of bad judgement (see: Iraq II).

Is it too much to hope that we would elect a man who demonstrates thoughtfulness instead of rashness, soberness instead of bluster, and humility in service instead of selfish ambition?

QT

I am not going to be very articulate – I’ve been browsing all the favorite sites to see what people thought, after having my own celebration of this historic event in my own quiet way.  I thought the speech itself was amazing – practical, down to earth, but with a hint of that soaring inspiration that everyone showed up to get.  Yes – I’ll say it.  80,000 people didn’t show up to hear a policy speech – they showed up to hear why they should have hope – and while it is true that Obama needed to be more practical, more nose-to-the-grind and feet-on-the-ground for this speech – he would have disappointed all those who showed up if he didn’t share a little bit of the inspiration his campaign has come to be known for.  People need a chance to believe in America again – this is a part of our collective self-esteem.

Chris Matthews, on MSNBC said,

I’ve been criticized for saying he inspires me. To hell with my critics.

Amen.  I have been loving Chris Matthews for his sloppy enthusiasm for some time now (that, and I think he’s way smarter than people give him credit for), and this is part of why.  Heck yeah.  Even journalists have a right to feel proud of their country – of their moment in history.  There will be plenty of time for journalists to do the journalistic duty of careful scrutiny, but that has nothing to do with one’s personal feelings.

On a Hillary supporter’s site – I saw yet another example of the perennially unhappy – looking for slights and problems everywhere.  Fortunately – the perennially unhappy were in the minority, while most others expressed, perhaps in more subdued terms than me, their satisfaction with the event.  I especially appreciated their critique – their genuine concern that this speech demonstrate “smartness” – what they saw in Hillary they need to see some of in Barack in order to have confidence that he won’t blow it and cost the democrats the White House again.

I watched the speech on BET – this was BET’s first convention coverage, and in celebration of all that this moment means to black America, I had to share it with them.  I still also taped it on C-SPAN, which has been my channel of choice during the convention.

I watched the speech with my son, who’s attention was often diverted – he’s a tween, and the significance of the moment isn’t lost on him, but it isn’t more exciting than his video games.

One person I didn’t watch the speech with, was my dad. My dad died yesterday morning. Perhaps fittingly, at 3 am I got the call from the hospital.  My father was a community activist, as had been Obama, and while he never sought political office (didn’t care for politics), my dad had a deep abiding interest in the welfare of black people in this country. He lived in one of the most challenging neighborhoods in Brooklyn, and was loved in the community, even in the end, when he had become so isolated from everyone due to some personal life choices and hard life circumstances. This would have been a day he would have loved to see, but I’m at least glad that he saw its advent.

What a wonderful view of the faith outreach in the Obama campaign! I was worried that it was only a Christian outreach – most of the press focussed there. But this makes me so happy to see – and I would love to be a part of any movements to talk about spirituality in the public square.

QT
More on Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

In an otherwise brilliant post, Bob Cesca nevertheless missed a key point.  He quotes John McCain here:

“[Senator Obama is] claiming putting air in your tires is the equivalent of new offshore drilling,” McCain said. “That’s not an energy plan, my friends — that’s a public service announcement.”

Yes, it’s a lie. Yes, it’s ignorant. But most importantly, it’s disingenuous — deliberately ignorant with the intention to deceive. Not unlike FOX News Channel, Senator McCain is not just exploiting the ignorance of his supporters — he’s counting on it. He’s and his cynical strategists are counting on their own supporters to be unaware of the verifiable fact that if we maintain proper tire pressure, we would conserve more oil than would be attained with the McCain plan for offshore drilling. And he’s counting on his supporters to blindly ditto this line — a line that’s specifically designed to be easily repeated for the sake of painting Senator Obama as weak and ineffectual. Ironic, isn’t it.

In point of actual fact – Obama’s support of tire gauges IS a public service announcement – that’s the concession that McCain had to make since, after all, it’s true. The LIE is the idea that this is Sen. Obama’s plan. It is not. Obama gave a full detailed, multi-faceted plan and McCain refuses to acknowledge it or give it a fair debate.

That, my friends, is not a leader we can believe in.

QT

BTW – A link to Bob Cesca’s blog is to the left. He’s both brilliant and funny – so have a look-see.

More on Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Hat tip (see! I’m catching on to blog lingo! ) to Ben Smith @ Politico for the reference to Scout Tufankjian’s amazing gallary of photographs of the Obama campaign to date. The pictures are stunning, moving, hopeful. (Plus – she is in Brooklyn – a fact that earns extra props from me…even IF she’s a Red Sox fan!) Please have a look! I’m hoping to save up some pennies and buy a print.

http://www.scouttufankjian.com/main.php

QT

Jesse Jackson was caught on tape offering to castrate Obama for “talking down” to black folks and telling “n*gg*ers” how to behave. On The View, Whoopi Goldberg and Elisabeth Hasselbeck sparred over the racial slur, with Whoopi arguing that blacks can use the word while whites can’t. Ta-Nehisi Coates, speaks into the issue with well-appreciated nuance and good sense. And so, I tried really hard to think about where I stand with it all.

It is true that there is some nuance in which calling another black person “n*gg*r” is indeed a sign of affection. That is – I can conceptualize it. I can conceptualize it in a humorous content (the way the word “fool” can be used in a teasing, affectionate way), and I have heard and understood brothers talking to one another that way. And because I recognize the inflection, I don’t flinch or even blink when someone uses it. I don’t have any personal affectionate usages of the word – don’t hang hard enough to have acquired the street sense of the word. But I get it.

For white folks who don’t it’s easy enough to explain. There is a clear difference – CLEAR difference, between two women calling each other “b*tch* affectionately, and a man doing it. Unless that man knows that woman REALLY well, and there’s a high degree of trust between them, under no circumstances will the term be well received. (BTW, Elisabeth Hasselbeck was crying over the potential use of the words in front of children. I think that the majority of us, unless we are heavy on the street cred, won’t use coarse language in front of children, so I’d like to take that argument off the table. If we don’t use coarse language in front of children but do use coarse language – the sense of the word n*gg*er and b*tch that I’m using falls in the exact same category.)

So it seems very clear to me that this argument that no one can ever use these words EVER just because white people (or conversely, men) can’t use these words willy nilly is just silly – it’s the ‘reverse discrimination’ argument run amok. We all can conceptualize circumstances in which it simply isn’t an outrage to use the words – and no amount of whining from the dominant culture on the issue is going to change this fact.

BUT… as a Baha’i, it occurs to me that we are missing the point if we leave it to purely situational ethics. Religion purports to give guidance on right and wrong that transcends situational ethics, and it occurs to me that this is one of those times when consulting the scripture might not be a bad idea. The thing is – it troubled me. It troubles me to see certain white folks, who likely call blacks “n*gg*r” all the time, complaining that they can’t do it openly. Those type of folks – you just KNOW that they aren’t being affectionate in their usage. And, here was Jesse Jackson – also CLEARLY not being affectionate in his usage. He’s calling black folks names – and he wants to be able to do it under his breath, the same way racist white* people do, while complaining that Obama wants to encourage improvement for blacks. And – he gets a bye on the subject… because he’s black, and because we all know – we black folk ALL know, just how prevalent it is in the black community for some of us to call others of us the “n” word in a less than affectionate manner. We on’t like it when whites do it, because there’s an inherent threat of an overwhelming prejudice – but we fail to notice the inherent threat of internalized self-loathing – buying into the frame that says that black people ARE n*gg*rs, or for that matter, that women ARE b*tches.

As I thought this through – I called to mind a central teaching of the Baha’i Faith – that we are created noble, and that it is we ourselves who make ourselves less than that. The Hidden Words from the Arabic say:

22. O SON OF SPIRIT!
Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.

(Baha’u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

And that seems to be the crux whereupon this argument stops, at least for me. The term “b*tch” isn’t a noble title for a woman, nor is the term “n*gg*r” a noble one for blacks. These words, hurled at people to abase, have not yet proven to be capable of ennobling. This isn’t the Christians at Antioch – embracing the word “Christian” because they were proud followers of Christ. This is the anglo saxon for a female dog (funny that Islam is condemned for having some sects classify women and dogs as unclean, while we in the west call women dogs…), and the slurred adaptation of the word for black. Nothing wrong with being black – but the intent of the word is to keep blacks separate – apart from the human family.

So I’ve decided, finally, that while I agree with those who say that the words mean something different when people in the affected group use them, I also agree with those who argue that the words ought not be used.

I found a couple of other quotes dealing with language, and how we speak – and I wanted to reference them – just as a record of the ideal – that our speech ought to be harmonizing and uplifting, not tearing one another down.

44. O COMPANION OF MY THRONE!
Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed. Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom for evermore.

(Baha’u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

Consort with all men, O people of Baha, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and goodwill. If it be accepted, if it fulfill its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding.

(Baha’u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 15)

__________________________
*Racist white people =/= all white people. I shouldn’t have to say that, but in this current climate, it’s important to be clear – white people are not all racist, and certainly aren’t all itching to use racially charged language.

Sometimes it just gets silly:

Above is video of Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC complaining bitterly about lack of press access in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish I had a longer clip that had Andrea Mitchell responding to the idea of the military being too positive to the Obama campaign. The idea is laughable on its face. General Petraus has no particular reason to be overly friendly to Obama, as he and Obama clash on opinions about what to do in Iraq (in today’s news conference, Sen. Obama asserts that this clash is appropriate – that the generals on the ground have a single mission while the president, or any candidates for that office, have to think about the country as a whole, and not just one aspect of the country’s strategic objectives). My point is – it seems highly likely that McCain is the favorite of the military, NOT Obama – and if the press was shooed away from the goings on in Iraq and Afghanistan it was either for their protection, or because the candidate wanted an opportunity to do as close to a genuine assessment as he could – which likely necessitated being away from press view.

Anyway – I am curious to know how Andrea Mitchell felt about today’s press conference, or how she feels about McCain’s lambasting of the media in an upcoming ad.

QT

Obama’s going to get a lot of flack about the “faith-based initiatives” announcement he plans to make today, as part of his major speech about faith.  He gets 100% support from ME, because I believe this is a fundamentally African-American perspective.

I’ll pause here to apologize.  I meant to start this project talking about sexism, but then my life went a little haywire – my dad and his wife, both chronically ill, needed my attention, and then my stepmother died – and while I will soon make an Obama Project post about her, I’ve not had the heart to do it just yet.  In the meantime, this issue has caught my attention, because it brings home for me how much like my Dad Sen. Obama is.

African-Americans are considered to be much more conservative than much of the democratic party, and in my own personal experience, I find this to be true.  Attitudinally, I’m one of those conservative minded folk.  I find it liberating to be divorced from political parties, because it forces me to truly vote my conscience, and not according to partisan agendas.   At least one reason why African Americans are so conservative is because of our rootedness in our religious experience.   Perhaps Obama was thinking of the African American experience when he talked about people clinging to religion – black folks do so to a large extent – and to the extent that we do, the community hangs together, and when we lose that binding tie – we fall apart.  For African Americans – religion has been the portal to freedom and progress across the board.  Churches acted as stations in the Underground Railroad.   Biblical passages acted as beacons of hope in the stride toward freedom.  Preachers railed about injustice through the generations – Martin Luther King is just the most famous – not the first or only example of this… and Malcolm X, though he was of another faith, was yet another example of the expectation of blacks that faith would be an active force in today’s world, not just in the promise of a better hereafter.

Community activism therefore, frequently began and ended at the church – and in a disgraceful crisis of black male absence from religious life, the way to attract black men to faith has been in to assure them that they were not going to be passive waiters on God’s Accomplishment, but active instruments of God’s Will.  If they could pray, and then get up and sign up 50 new voters, or march on Washington, or city hall, or whatever – men could believe that there was something worthwhile in Faith.  Obama came to faith in this way – a trajectory that isn’t uncommon in the black community.

My dad was also a community organizer.  Raised Christian, having taken a turn with Islam, and having been for a while a Black Panther (original black panther), community activism was the hallmark of his life for most of mine. And while many would suppose that a former Black Panther would be against anything “white” – when I was old enough to observe my dad in action – one of his biggest allied organization was Catholic Charities – the Catholic church in his community ran a homeless shelter/soup kitchen/day care center/etc.  My dad worked with them to find funding, ran his own community service center in which he processed clients and referred them to Catholic Charities, etc.  Funding that became available through Lyndon Johnson dried up under Reagan, and took a considerable toll on his efforts as a small community organizer – and therefore on the community in which he served.

Looking at my dad’s example, I know that increased funding to charitable organizations – including religious ones, would have been a boon to the community.  My dad lived in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn.  In Brooklyn, we called it ‘Do-or-Die Bed-Stuy” – which should give you a good idea of just how rough a neighborhood it is.  A community full of people falling through the cracks… the homeless who aren’t homeless enough to be counted as such, the kids being left to raise themselves as their parents struggle through addiction, the abandoned buildings that serve as tax shelters to whomever owns them but refuse to actually develop them (leaving the crack addicts to make these places their homes), etc… these aren’t problems government can fix alone – these are problems that absolutely require a partnership between the local community and the government.

My dad is now disabled, and I’ve been spending the last few weeks running around trying to get him situated with social services.  The bureaucracy involved is unbelievable.  Many reading this post will be squeezed, as I am, between children and parents needing care. But not many will be dealing with a parent who misses qualifying for medicaid by $24.00.  Not many will be struggling to figure out if HEAP and Section 8 will meet his need to survive on a budget of $769.00/month.  Not many will be banging their heads against a brick wall trying to get themselves established as the designated payee by social security for a parent who has short term memory loss, mild dementia, and is surrounded (and possibly influenced) by crack-addicts who know when his social security check arrives in the mail.  The bureaucracy that is absolutely necessary to ensure that our government services are being used appropriately – is in the way of the real person who needs help.  Local charitable organizations, including religious ones could help immensely – because being closer to the ground they are more able to make real assessments, and not rely on guidelines set  in abstract.

This perspective – one that rather disproportionately affects African Americans, is one that Obama has, first hand, as a community organizer from the South Side of Chicago.  I have no doubt that he’s seen this kind of problem first hand, over and over… and I have no doubt that this is what drives his decision to continue, and even expand, the faith-based policy that Bush established, while his personal eclectic background gives me confidence that he will genuinely apply the principles – it won’t be a “Christians only” kind of thing.

As a Baha’i, commitment to service is absolutely a fundamental of the Faith.  Much of the Faith’s efforts are wholly self-funded – only Baha’is are able to contribute to Baha’i funds.  That said – there have been a number of initiatives Baha’is have been involved in that have extended beyond the Faith and reached out in partnership with government and/or interfaith groups.  These would benefit from funding from Faith-Based initiatives – and I believe these would have truly transformative influence on the communities where they are based.

QT