"Do we really need Ryan Reynolds and Ryan Gosling?"

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Yes, we do. But considering The Green Lantern and whatever this Vice Versa/Freaky Friday ripoff is, I say it's Gosling for the win. The smirkiness begins at 1:30:

Who's that curly-haired guy?

.

This is how far we have come

Obama's victory caps struggles of previous generations. Hooray!

New Congress turns more -- much more -- Democratic. Hooray!

Prop. 2, animal protection measure, wins. Hooray for the animals that we're going to eat?

Early numbers favor same sex marriage ban in California. What?

I would like to note that over 6 million Californians voted to protect the animals, while under 5 million Californians voted to protect the rights of their fellow human beings.

Some may say, "you should be happy about the first black guy in the White House." Well, I am happy that the reign of terror will be over soon. However, the video below displays one of the many reasons why I continue to be concerned, nay disappointed, in the direction of this country, especially with two men in charge who think that some people should be separate but equal:

.

Where was this guy in 2003?

Oh yeah, he was banging the drums for war.

Powell endorses Obama as 'transformational', by Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin, Politico via Yahoo! News and Meet the Press.

. . . Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions . . .

Then came an exchange which irritated me, and also provided an excellent example of white privilege:

MR. [TOM] BROKAW: And you are fully aware that there will be some--how many, no one can say for sure--but there will be some who will say this is an African-American, distinguished American, supporting another African-American because of race.

GEN. POWELL: If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago. I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud--not just African-Americans, but all Americans--that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world.

I wish Mr. Brokaw would have asked me that question so I could have given him a good what-for on national TV. How dare he ask such a racist question? How many white men have endorsed other white male politicians throughout the history of the United States? Has anyone ever dared to ask people like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Joe Lieberman if they were endorsing someone like John McCain because they are all white men? No. I have never heard that. Ever. But let a retired General and former Secretary of State endorse a US Senator who is leading the polls in the Presidential race, and the question that pops into Tom Brokaw's mind is, "you're not doing this because you're both black, right?".

.

Next debate, please.

Last night's Obama/McCain debate did not deliver many laughs or surprises. I am eagerly awaiting the vice presidential debate this Thursday, October 2. It will be quite a show. How will these two kooky VP candidates further embarrass their respective parties? Will Sarah Palin carry a loaded shotgun, just in case she spots any animals ripe for huntin' ? Will Joe Biden make the entire viewing audience uncomfortable when he inevitably insults moderator Gwen Ifill on her race, or when he insults her on her gender? Will Senator Obama and Senator McCain sit behind the stage in the green room, holding each other and weeping as they wonder why they selected these jokers to be their running mates?

.

"Joe, we've decided to send you instead."

Bush invites McCain, Obama to White House meeting, by Jennifer Loven, AP via Yahoo! News.

With extraordinary stakes on the line, President Bush invited both men vying to succeed him and key congressional leaders to a White House meeting to hammer out a massive financial rescue plan. The president also was appealing directly to Americans in a prime-time address Wednesday to help push his tough-sell bailout into reality . . .

. . . not long before his planned 12-minute address to the nation from the grand East Room, Bush took the unusual step of calling Democrat Barack Obama to invite him to the White House for the meeting on Thursday, said presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino. The White House said the presidential invitation was also extended to Republican John McCain and to Republican and Democratic leaders from Capitol Hill.

I can only imagine getting that card in the mail, and then pondering how to RSVP. Considering the lengths that the Republican party has taken over the past two years to distance George W. Bush from the 2008 Presidential campaign, this public invitation must be causing John McCain to poop his pants.
.

"What?! There's a black guy?!"

With the announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate, the 2008 U. S. Presidential election continues to resemble "Star-Spangled Banter", episode 4.08 of Will & Grace. It's surprisingly relevant. And funny! If you have the ability and the link is working, you can watch the episode here. For the rest of you, the relevant dialogue is below:

[WILL ENTERS HIS APARTMENT. GRACE IS SITTING ON THE COUCH READING A MAGAZINE.]

GRACE: You know, Sarah Michelle Gellar is really smart. I mean, at the beginning of this interview, she's just talkin' about stuff, like where she gets her highlights, but then she starts in on foreign affairs and campaign finance reform. I'm gonna say it... She's a genius.

WILL: Let me see that. [WILL FLIPS THROUGH THE MAGAZINE] Hmm... Interesting. Yeah. See? these pages are stuck together. You've been reading an interview with John McCain. Here's the rest of Sarah Michelle.

GRACE: [READING] "And even after all these years, limos are way cool." Yeah. I probably should've figured it out when she started talking about her time in a P.O.W. camp.

WILL: Ooh, uh, before I forget, I need you to write me a check. There's this guy, Ted Bowers. He's running for city council. I really think we should support him.

GRACE: Well, what do we know about him?

WILL: He's gay.

GRACE: And?

WILL: And... he's gay.

GRACE: But what's he for? I mean, you know, where does he stand on the issues?

WILL: What do you care? You thought Buffy was in a prisoner of war camp.

GRACE: I'm just wondering, what are his positions?

WILL: I don't know. I think he's a top. Come on. Write a check already. You should support gay men. Gay men support you.

~ ~ ~

SCENE III: Will's Apartment Building
(GRACE is doing down in the elevator when it stops and MRS. FRIEDMAN [played by Anne Meara!] enters.)

[MRS. FRIEDMAN ENTERS.]

GRACE: Hey, Mrs. Friedman, how are things on the eighth floor?

MRS FRIEDMAN: I'm not talking to you, Grace Adler, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

GRACE: I swear, the elevator smelled like this before I got on.

MRS FRIEDMAN: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your button. I can't believe you're supporting that man.

GRACE: Ted Bowers happens to be an excellent candidate.

MRS FRIEDMAN: [SPITTING] Ptewey! Your candidate sucks my rain boots.

GRACE: Hey, I like Ted Bowers, and he's gay, and I think it's high time we had gay representation on the city council, especially in a society that still undervalues the rights of gay people.

MRS FRIEDMAN: Fine. Do what you want. Me, I'm voting for the Jewish woman.

GRACE: There's a Jewish woman running?

~ ~ ~

SCENE V: Will's Apartment
(WILL and GRACE are home.)

GRACE: Uh... So, listen, I need a check.

WILL: What for?

GRACE: Judy Green. She's running for city council, and I think we should support her.

WILL: But we're backing Ted Bowers.

GRACE: Well, I found out a few things about him that makes me think I should support the other candidate.

WILL: Like what?

GRACE: Like he's running against a woman.

WILL: So? Who is she? What do we know about her?

GRACE: She's a woman.

WILL: And?

GRACE: And she's Jewish.

WILL: And?

GRACE: And she's a woman.

WILL: So what? What are her positions?

GRACE: I don't know. She's Jewish. She probably just lays there. Come on. Write the check!

WILL: I am not gonna write you a check. That would just cancel out the check you wrote me.

GRACE: I know. That's why I've already stopped payment on mine. Now, come on. Make it payable to "Judy Green for City Council."

WILL: All right. Is a zillion dollars enough?

GRACE: Come on! Women need a voice on the city council. I mean, 50% of the population is women.

WILL: So, one could argue that 80% of the population is gay. [BEAT] They just don't know it yet. Anyway, this is not about statistics. This is about who has the better candidate.

GRACE: Well, what makes you think that you have the better candidate?

WILL: Grace, he's gay.

GRACE: Well, mine's a woman and Jewish. That makes two victims to your one.

WILL: Since when are you so Jewish anyway? You're about as Jewish as Melanie Griffith in A Stranger Among Us.

GRACE: Well, you're about as gay as Tom Sellick in In and Out.

WILL: I am plenty gay.

GRACE: When was the last time you had same-sex sex?

WILL: I'm choosy!

GRACE: Ha! You're straight! Go watch a basketball game!

WILL: Yeah? Well, you're barely a woman. You pee standing up!

GRACE: Hey! There are a lot of diseases you can get from a toilet seat!

WILL: Our own?! [POINTING TOWARDS THE BATHROOM.]

GRACE: Well, I never thought that I would hear this from you! You hate women!

WILL: Well, you hate gays!

~ ~ ~

SCENE VIII: Will's Apartment
(WILL and GRACE are hosting their simultaneous fundraisers for Ted Bowers and Judy Green.)

TED: Good evening, everybody. A lot of candidates in this race wanna tell you that there's an easy solution to our city's problems. Well, I'm here to tell you, there's not.

[WILL APPLAUDS. HE'S THE ONLY ONE.]

WILL: [EMBARASSED] Was that not an applause line? 'Cause it felt like one.

TED: For instance... Homelessness. Now, this is an awful, awful problem, and one solution that I advocate is give them a hot meal.

WILL: Mm-hmm.

TED: Give them a shower.

WILL: Uh-huh.

TED: Put them on a bus and get them the hell out of our city.

WILL: A-- What?

[CUT TO A BIT LATER.]

TED: So, in conclusion, women in the home, force those foreigners to speak our language, and if God didn't want some people to be poor, he'd give them money.

MR ZAMIR: He is very good.

GRACE: And now... Let's hear from a real candidate. Ladies and gentlemen, Judy Green.

JUDY: Thank you, Grace. Let me start by saying how gratifying it is to see so many white faces here tonight.

GRACE: Goh!

~ ~ ~

SCENE X: Will's Apartment
(The fundraisers are over. WILL and GRACE are relaxing on the sofa.)

GRACE: Remember when Election Day used to be fun? Passing out leaflets, knocking on doors, ripping our bell-bottoms and running from the fuzz?

WILL: That wasn't us. That was Linc and Julie from "The Mod Squad."

JACK: [ENTERING] Well, I've just pulled the lever for democracy. Oh, and I also voted. Ah-ha ha ha ha! What are you two sad lovers doin'?

WILL: Nothin'.

JACK: So, did you vote?

WILL: We don't deserve to.

GRACE: We just didn't think it was right to vote for someone without finding out what they stand for.

WILL: Who'd you vote for?

JACK: The black guy.

Both: What?! There's a black guy?!

[WILL AND GRACE BOTH JUMP OFF THE COUCH AND RUN OUT OF THE APARTMENT.]

.

Eh.

Obama taps Biden to be running mate, by Liz Sidoti and Nedra Pickler, AP.

You so know Senator Biden was having the Best Week Ever after the John Edwards story broke. He was just waiting for someone to pay attention to him again. With John Edwards out of contention for anything indefinitely, Senator Biden can finally get the recognition he deserves by bringing his non-"risky" qualities to the table. However, I do not know what else he contributes to the campaign besides his "safe"-ness. And by safeness, I mean he's a white male, in case you couldn't click on the linked articles.

At least John Edwards was trying to end poverty. I could never figure out what Joe Biden was doing in the primaries. Apparently he was running for Vice President.

I'm not impressed. Wake me up when someone ends the wars.

.

Judge not,

unless you've never cheated on your cancer-stricken wife, like some people:

Edwards admits to affair he denied as candidate, by Pete Yost, AP via Yahoo! News.

This just in: Elizabeth Edwards standing by husband after affair, by Pete Yost, AP via Yahoo! News.

I have lots of thoughts about this situation. The first thought relates to women like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama (no, there is not a similar scandal a-brewing for Barack). How do these women do it? How do these women look at their multiple degrees and their own high potential for success, then decide, "I am going to dedicate my life to supporting my husband's dream of becoming the President of the United States"? Because that is what they did. These two women each got their law degree from the same school as their respective husbands did. Yet their husbands were the ones who decided to take the spotlight as US Senators and presidential candidates. Their husbands also decided to keep their last names.

My second thought is regarding any of you readers who are thinking to yourself, "Bianca would be a great first lady. I should marry her before I run for President." Before you call the caterers, ruminate on this: If my spouse cheated on me while I had cancer, I would not then "stand by" my spouse, in theory or in reality. I would not continue to support my spouse's campaign. I would tell my spouse to find another place to live. They could find their clothes to the left, if not out on the street. And if my spouse ever thought about running for any national office again, I would never let the mainstream news media outlets ever forget that my spouse cheated on me while I had cancer.

.

I remember seeing Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact, and thinking,

"Of course he's the President. He's pretty much the most famous person in the movie. Who else would be in the White House? Bill Pullman? Oh." I also thought he should have been nicer to Téa Leoni. She was just doing her job. How was she supposed to know that E. L. E. was not some top official's mistress named Ellie, but instead an Extinction Level Event?

This late-90s flashback was inspired by the following article:

Fear of a Black President, by Seth Grahame-Smith, The Huffington Post via Stuff White People Do.

. . . I'm a liberal, college-educated white guy. I think gays should be allowed to marry, I think women deserve equal pay for equal work, and I firmly believe that the more ethnically diverse America becomes, the more perfect and lasting our Union will be.

What do you want, a cookie?

But there's something about the idea of a black president that scares the shit out of me.

Until now, the notion of a black chief executive has belonged exclusively to Hollywood. I remember seeing Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact, and thinking what a cool, novel choice it was to cast a black man as the president of the United States. Cool, because it hit my progressive sweet spot. "Yes! That's the way the world should work!" Novel, because the idea seemed impossible. And that was scarcely ten years ago . . .

It didn't strike me as novel at all because it was Morgan Freeman. He drove Miss Daisy and battled both a monkey virus and hard rain. He later went on to play God. Twice.

Mr. Grahame-Smith continues, emphases mine:

. . . But the idea is very real now. A black man may well become the leader of the free world. And even for someone who fancies himself a progressive, that's forced me to take a long, hard look at what that would really mean to my white mind. To identify that tiny, obscure part of me that's suddenly afraid, and find out what its problem is.

Here's what I found.

It's been easy believing in equality, because part of me -- the part that's suddenly afraid -- didn't really think we'd ever achieve it.

For as long as I can remember, I've felt secure as a white person. Secure in the unspoken belief that no matter how much social progress we made in America -- no matter how many blacks and Latinos graduated Magna Cum Laude or how many trophies Tiger won -- that we'd always be the ruling class from sea to shining sea.

What?

That belief was so ingrained in my DNA [In your DNA? Really?] that nothing could shake it loose. Not the first billionaires of color, not the surging growth of the Latino population, not the Congressional Black Caucus...not even Oprah.

For though my better angels usually won the day, and though I was happy with the strides America was making, I was also -- deep down in that DNA -- gratified by the knowledge that mine was still the easiest color in America to be.

But a black president? That's different.

A black president means anything is possible. It means that that last little parcel of earth -- which for 232 years has been solely inhabited by white men -- is now open to people of all colors. That may seem insignificant. After all, there are black CEOs, black movie stars, black Senators...but the "highest office in the land" is just that . . .

Mr. Grahame-Smith was then shocked (shocked!) that people read this and concluded that he was "either an idiot or a racist." Well, dude, it's one thing to believe that being white is the easiest color to be in the United States of America. It's a whole other thing to believe 1) that white supremacy would and should continue forever; 2) that electing Senator Obama as President would end white supremacy; and 3) that the end of white supremacy would be a detrimental event because "a black president somehow takes ... white folks down a notch."

There's more!

. . . Some of these hypothetical people are simply racists. People who've let that fear consume them, and who would never vote for a black candidate no matter what. Others [others?] are like me -- whites who embrace equality, and who've loved people of all colors with all their hearts, but who (somewhere deep down in that DNA) are afraid of what this brave new world will look like. Of what their place in it will -- or won't -- be . . .

Okay, bucko. If you actually embraced equality and "loved people of all colors", you wouldn't be worried that the darkies are taking over and kicking you out of your assumed place. You would see a black President as more representation of more people in our flawed governmental system. Just because you call yourself a "liberal" doesn't mean you are one. If your readers are calling you a racist idiot, I suggest you take some time to figure out whether their claims are valid and why.

Because Voting for Barack Obama + Having black friends ≠ I'm not a racist!

.

Courting the fictional chimpanzee vote

Curious George publisher mulls legal action over Obama shirt, by Jay Fitzgerald at the Boston Herald, via Defamer.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is considering legal action against a Georgia tavern owner selling T-shirts depicting presidential candidate Barack Obama as the Curious George monkey character.

In a statement, the Boston publisher, which owns the book rights to Curious George, said today the firm finds the T-shirt "offensive and utterly out of keeping with the values Curious George represents."

Because clearly George is a Clinton supporter. I'm waiting for official statements from superdelegates Lancelot Link and The Bear.

.

An Inconvenient Truth

On Tuesday, I spent a portion of my evening yelling at my mother over the phone, expressing my annoyance at Senator Barack Obama's much ballyhooed speech.

Here is the speech: Obama Race Speech: Read The Full Text, from The Huffington Post.

Here is what caused the speech: Controversial comments made by Rev Jeremiah Wright, by Daniel Nasaw at The Guardian.

Here is the problem with the speech: The Great Conciliator, by manish at Ultrabrown.

Barack Obama’s Great Race Speech yesterday drew plenty of frothy praise and historians’ plaudits. But it was a disappointingly limited speech, projecting a static, black-and-white image of America which has little to do with its real racial makeup today.

Keep in mind that all Obama had to do was walk in, denounce Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views without sounding like an angry black man, and not drool on himself, and the chattering classes would be rapturous. We’re at a time in political history when a politician who speaks like an adult startles us . . .

. . . there’s some truth to the Saturday Night Live portrayal of a press which fawns over Obama. The pundits are primed. The mere appearance of an adult at the table can send them into orbit. What Obama did not address in any detail: Latinos, who outnumber blacks in America. Asians. The multiracial. How multiculti the music industry and sports teams and many big city neighborhoods already are. America is not just black and white and has not been for a long time . . .

America has never been "just black and white", despite what my history text books insisted throughout my middle and upper school years. Racism didn't begin with slavery and end with the Civil Rights movement. There are countless peoples and events that came before, between and after 1492 and 1960.

Let's take Senator Obama's speech paragraph by paragraph, and ignore the passages that don't my points of view. My comments are in the brackets.

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men [Yes, men. White, landowning men in specific] gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution ["patriots" who then chose to exact the same tyranny and persecution on the native people already living on this continent] finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery [and by the mass genocide of the Indians], a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law [except for women, nonwhite people, and non-landowning males]; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time. [Or, the founders could have chosen not to demean, enslave, and murder their fellow human beings. Either, or.]

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time. [No, what we needed was for our country not to be founded by successive groups of hypocritical, self-entitled, homicidal maniacs. Who in their right mind thinks to themselves, "you know what would be a great idea? Let's import some people from Africa, not pay them, and then kill off all these other brown folks squatting on our land." Was there no one to tap Thomas Jefferson on the shoulder and say, "How about you take some time away from impregnating your wife's half-sister, whom you own, and get a clue?]

The fun doesn't stop here, people. Keep reading!

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible. [Really? No other country on Earth? Not even Canada?]

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic [It's not endemic; it's institutionalized.], and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

That last phrase is both inaccurate and inflammatory. I agree that the conflicts in the Middle Ease are not rooted primarily in the actions of the people of Israel. However, the conflicts in the Middle East should not be blamed on "radical Islam" either. That was an irresponsible characterization. I have never heard such phrases as "radical Christianity", "radical Hinduism" or "radical Buddhism" ever uttered in American media. But I can't swing a dead cat without hitting a political pundit shouting the phrase "radical Islam" or "Islamofascist". The situations in the Middle East are very complicated. It is not fair to label Israelis or Palestinians or Jews or Muslims or Arabs or Americans, or any combination of the above as the sole cause of centuries of tension and instability.

Next.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

These problems do confront us all. However, economic inequality and the chronic health care crisis have disproportionately affected the black and brown communities for years, decades even. Yet now that these issues are affecting more white people, suddenly they are newsworthy problems to be addressed by Presidential candidates?

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

Why didn't you address this sooner, before it became the major news story of the month? You've only known the man twenty years. One of your aides could have told you, "this guy is going to present a problem."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

Did you really need to cite "the welfare mom" and "the former gang-banger"? Was that necessary? FYI, welfare moms and gang bangers are prevalent in every other community as well. Don't you watch Law & Order?

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. [I agree.] We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, [but not among black women?] and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition [Complicity? I didn't do anything wrong!], and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races. [That's right!]

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. [Ha! They are so wrong.] Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. [Yes, "as far as they are concerned".] They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. [I feel that way, and I'm not white.] So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism. [Where would Stephen Colbert be without them?]

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. [That's what I'm saying!] And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding. [But some white (and nonwhite) Americans' resentments are misguided and racist. Didn't you see the Goobacks episode of South Park?]

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. [But black people have always dealt with those things, too, often at the same time.] And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, [My father died, and I don't have any children. Therefore, I will continue not to take any responsibility for my own life.] and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. [Except that many of those homes belonged to blacks and Latinos, including the rich ones.] This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. [That's right!]

That's all of the nit-picky snarkiness I can muster for now.

.

Let me tell you.

If I had been up on that stage, I would have gone off on this muckraker masquerading as a "journalist":



If you can't access the video, here is what Ms. Such and Such from Politico, whose name and title I won't bother to write inside this post, said to Hillary Clinton at the Democratic debate in California last night:

"Senator Clinton, your husband has set off several firestorms in the last few weeks in early primary states with the way that he has criticized Senator Obama.

Greg Craig, who was one of your husband's top lawyers, and is now a senior adviser to Senator Obama, recently asked if your campaign can't control the former president now, what will it be like when you're in the White House?"

If you peruse the transcript of the debate, you'll notice that there was no follow up question to Senator Obama asking him how he keeps his wife in line. In fact, there haven't been any such nasty questions posed about any of the other candidates' spouses in either party.

Hmph. This is not cool.

And, to make me even more upset about the state of crazy women talking about other women today, I read this post last night on Catherine's blog and this post tonight on Feministing. You know I had to leave comments on both. You have to scroll down really far for the latter one.

That's all.

.

I heard about this while listening to Frangela

on KTLK AM 1150: Al Gore endorses gay marriage.




If we can all reminisce about my musings during August of last year, I think we'll all understand why I really can't vote for anyone in the California primary now. At least John Edwards cared about poor people, and I'm poor. The remaining Democratic candidates are essentially the same person with different baggage. Ooh, and one is called "assertive" while the other is called "mean." I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

.

Now I can't vote for anyone in the primary.

Kucinich Drops Out, The Nation via Yahoo! News. Emphases mine.

. . . [Dennis Kucinich] has been a forceful critic of the Bush Administration, opposing the Patriot Act and spearheading the motion to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. He is the only candidate to have voted against the Iraq War in 2003 and has voted against funding it ever since. Of all the serious candidates, only he and Governor Bill Richardson propose a full and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And only Kucinich's plan sets aside funds for reparations. Moreover, Kucinich has used his presidential campaigns to champion issues like cutting the military budget and abolishing nuclear weapons; universal, single-payer healthcare; campaign finance reform; same-sex marriage and an end to the death penalty and the war on drugs. A vote for him would be a principled one [despite what my friends and associates have said]. But for reasons that have to do with the corrupting influence of money and media on national elections as well as with his campaign's shortcomings--such as its failure to organize a grassroots base of donors and web activists--a democratic mass movement has not coalesced around Kucinich's run for President.

.

Fried chicken tacos

Obama and the Latino Vote in the NY Times, by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, at Multiplicative Identity, via Feministe.

. . . There are many things to admire about the New York Times. A complex and nuanced understanding of the vast diversity of Latino America is not among those things.

In a story on page A1 of the Times yesterday, reporters Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer stated that Latinos are not going to support Senator Barack Obama in his bid for the White House because, “in Obama’s pursuit of Latinos, race plays a role.” In other words, they said that Latinos would not vote for a black man, and backed it up with nothing other than a couple of anecdotal quotes from random Latinos in Los Angeles.

The sloppy, inaccurate story goes on for 32 agonizing paragraphs, using the terms “black” and “Latino” as though they were mutually exclusive – which they are not. Historians estimate that 95 percent of the African slave trade to the Americas took place in Latin America.

To this day, the vast majority of people in the African diaspora live south of the U.S. border, in Latin American countries from Brazil to Colombia to Cuba and, yes, even Mexico. The song "La Bamba," in fact, was brought to the Veracruz region of Mexico by Africans enslaved to the Spanish. The song likely has roots in the Bembe (Bantu) culture from what is now the Congo. This is only a stone's throw, geographically, from the Kenya of Obama's father's birth.

How quickly we forget in this country. How brutally we refuse to learn . . .

That's been bugging me too. What also has been chapping my hide is the incessant drumbeat of the mainstream media insisting that black people and women are also mutually exclusive voting blocs. After listening to the cable "news" outlets and reading the major national publications--all of which are owned by corporate oligarchies--one would come to the following conclusions about the 2008 Presidential election as well:

• Older women are voting for Hillary Clinton because they felt sorry for her after she cried.
• Older black people are voting for Hillary Clinton because they want Bill Clinton back in the White House, while younger black people are voting for Barack Obama because he's younger and he gives them hope.
• Hispanic and Latino voters are all Spanish-speaking immigrants who live near the border of Mexico or in Spanish Harlem or in East LA, and they are all voting for Hillary Clinton because they don't like black Barack Obama.
• White people all over the country tell pollsters they will vote for Barack Obama, but "will secretly vote for John McCain" or some other white candidate. Why? Because either they want to impress the person doing the poll and appear "open-minded" by voting for the black guy, or they don't know that in their hearts, they are really racists.
• Barack Obama will never win the South because the South is where all racists live. No racists live anywhere else in the United States, no nonwhite people live in the South, and every white person in the South is a racist.
• Americans are not concerned with any current events or issues like the illegal occupation of Iraq, health care, the current recession, education, the mortgage crisis or the rising cost of living. Americans are only voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, or for Barack Obama because he is black. Americans are only concerned with making the 2008 Presidential election a historical event because they could choose the first President who is not a white male.
• There are only two people who can become President: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. There are people running on the Republican side, but no one really cares about them because they are too old, too stupid, too racist, too Mormony, too lazy, too into 9/11, or too . . . wait, who are you again? Oh.
  
• John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich do not exist. In the Democratic primaries, people are voting for Barack Obama because they don't like women, or they are voting for Hillary Clinton because they don't like black people. There are no white men in the Democratic party running for President, so they must vote for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

Happy voting! Also, watch the Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate on Monday night!

.