Powered by Max Banner Ads
Thomas Frank’s Glenn Beck Ignorance
Thomas Frank has an odious piece in the Wall Street Journal today slamming Glenn Beck as an ignorant “panic peddling host”. He attacks Beck for his red phone hotline to the White House and for bringing attention to the long list of radicals in the Obama administration.
Thomas doesn’t see any radical in The White House — he only sees a nutty TV host.
Here’s what Thomas says about frequent Beck target Robert McChesney:
On Monday I wrote to an old friend, Robert McChesney, a professor of communications at the University of Illinois who has been a frequent target of Mr. Beck in recent weeks for his left-wing views and also for co-founding Free Press, an advocacy group on media policy. Did Mr. McChesney get a chance to respond on the red phone or any other way? No. "He never asked me or Free Press to call the red phone," Mr. McChesney wrote me.
What he didn’t mention about his “old friend” is that Robert McChesney is the former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review. I think being associated with a publication that has a 50 year history of supporting Communism and Communist regimes qualifies as radical. I don’t think I have any Communist friends — but I could be wrong.
It’s also amusing that Thomas refers to Free Press — the organization McChesney co-founded — as simply an “advocacy group on media policy”. What he left out was that “Free Press” (a laughable name) is a big supporter of Hugo Chavez and been supportive of his media crackdown in Venezuela.
Again, sounds pretty damn radical to me.
Thomas Frank would like to gloss over the big picture Beck paints on his show, but he simply can’t.
The current administration is the most radical in American history. The people the president has surrounded himself with are the most radical in American history.
It’s only thanks to Glenn Beck that the American people are aware of the extremists who are trying to remake our country.
Should Congress Be Larger?
The thought of making government any bigger sickens me, but Jonah makes some interesting points.
Predictable: Meghan McCain Attacks Michelle Malkin
She has attacked Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Karl Rove, and most other conservatives, so it was only a matter of time before Meghan McCain spewed her RINO (Republican In Name Only) venom at Michelle Malkin.
McCain complains of an effort by “extreme female conservatives” to bully her into leaving the party, which is of course phony.
The two main problems with Meghan McCain are that she’s a willing pawn of the left, and worse, doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.
Take this paragraph from her Malkin hit piece for example: (emphasis mine)
I don’t know exactly what about me threatens them so much, other than that people are listening to me. Malkin has the No. 1 book on The New York Times bestseller hardcover nonfiction list, but I have nearly twice as many Twitter followers as she does. And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published by the hyper-conservative publisher Regnery—which will be bringing you Carrie Prejean’s new book and published one of Ann Coulter’s.
How can someone who makes such asinine claims be taken seriously? Why would the republican party want such an ignorant person on the talk show circuit bloviating about what the GOP should do?
People like Rove, Coulter, and Malkin who’ve spent decades advancing the conservative agenda (usually with great success) should be ignored.
Instead, a 25-year old former Kerry supporter who’s been a republican for a whole year should be the new face of the GOP?
Yeah, right.
Meghan McCain may indeed have a lot of Twitter followers, but she’s not too bright.
If you want to read someone who is bright, pick-up Michelle Malkin’s new book Culture Of Corruption.
-Chris Jones
Sotomayor Brings Diversity, Mediocrity To The Supreme Court
The Washington Post has an a very good piece from Richard Cohen today about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Cohen says what most of us recognize to be true. That Obama chose “diversity” over intellect by picking Sotomayor.
She’s an average judge with an average intellect who admittedly used her gender and ethnicity to get to the top.
Don’t get me wrong. She is fully qualified. She is smart and learned and experienced and, in case you have not heard, a Hispanic, female nominee, of whom there have not been any since the dawn of our fair republic. But she has no cause, unless it is not to make a mistake, and has no passion, unless it is not to show any, and lacks intellectual brilliance, unless it is disguised under a veil of soporific competence until she takes her seat on the court. We shall see.
In the meantime, Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely, as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past. We have a neat summary of it in the recent remarks of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who said he wanted a Supreme Court justice “who will continue to move the court forward in protecting . . . important civil rights.” He cited the shooting of a gay youth, the gang rape of a lesbian and the murder of a black man — in other words, violence based on homophobia and racism. Yes. But who nowadays disagrees?
Sotomayor is no doubt qualified, but let’s not pretend she’s the most qualified. The president chose to make a cynical affirmative action pick to placate his radical left-wing base instead of choosing the best person for the job.
I’ll Show You A Stimulus Plan
What we should have done instead of passing that ridiculous Obama stimulus plan that was nothing but $787 billion in pork, is pass something real and tangible.
If the Dems want to go the socialist route, then let’s do that. How about we give every single man and woman in America that’s 21 years of age or older a check for $1 million.
If you’re 21 years of age or older and in the country legally, you get $1 million bucks — tax free.
Think about that. It would cost a fraction of what the phony stimulus plan cost and would put real money in people’s pockets.
I just wonder what the implications long-term of something like that would be? It would cost the government little, but I wonder what the long-term societal impact of something like that would be.
Would it end up being a net positive for the country? Would there be unforeseen consequences?
Before you jerks start emailing me about this, I’m not trying to claim this as my idea. I’ve heard it suggested before, but I really gave it some thought today.
Instead of pissing money away on phony global warming and porky special interests, imagine if we just gave a bunch of money back to the people.
-Chris Jones
The End of the Religious Right?
Mark Sanford and John Ensign are just the latest in a long line of conservatives espousing family values who’ve been caught having affairs. The amount of apparent hypocrisy in the Republican Party has caused many to ask if evangelicals will stop their one-sided support of the Republican Party in disgust.
Conservative evangelicals have gotten precious little for their support of Republicans in the past thirty years. Abortion remains legal. School Prayer is not allowed. Intelligent Design is not taught in public schools; evolution is. The only scraps they’ve been handed were ephemeral bans on embryonic stem-cell research and gay marriage. Still, on their biggest issues, Republicans have failed to deliver.
This is not true of the other factions in the Republican base. National security hawks and neo-conservatives got a military buildup against the Soviet Union, and an invasion of Iraq. Fiscal conservatives got large supply side tax cuts from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Case in point: in 2005, although opposition to gay marriage had helped reelect George Bush, he spent his political capital trying to reform social security, not amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.
This is truly sad because evangelicals have paid a steep price in return for nothing. They have identified fervent Christianity with one political party in the eyes of many Americans. The result has been to turn off people who are politically moderate or liberal who might otherwise be open to religion.
Besides being counterproductive, the idea that people of faith should all support one party is just wrong. One Christian can legitimately look at scripture and church teachings and feel moved to support a party which works hard to eradicate poverty and help the least among us. A Christian could be dovish on war—“blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
And of course, there is no doubt that another Christian can conclude that abortion contravenes God’s will, and is a moral evil to be stamped out, and want to support a pro-life party. I understand too, how a person of faith could read Joshua’s declaration that “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart,” and believe that abortion is not just one issue among many. Concern over the one million abortions a year can never be dismissed as trivial.
It is largely forgotten that there is a long, proud progressive tradition in American religion. Martin Luther King and many of the participants in the civil rights movement were inspired and sustained by their strong faith. They saw their faith as providing a mandate to fight for justice and improve the human condition. Conservatives have never had a monopoly on faith and values.
I do not call for the formation of a new religious left to counter the influence of the religious right. Tying religion to worldly politics surely cheapens religion. There is no way to know whether Jesus would have been a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t know whether he would support a public option for universal healthcare, or a cap and trade scheme. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible would likely have harsh words for both parties and Americans of all political persuasions.
So, when applying faith to politics, we could do with a little humility. Said Abraham Lincoln: “my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Members of the Religious Right and would-be members of the Religious Left should keep that sentiment in mind before they dare invoke God in support of their political philosophy.
-Marcus Gadson
Read Marcus’s blog at http://thegadsonreview.blogspot.com/
Stop Electing Judges
The American justice system is supposed to be fair and objective. Yet it was very possibly neither according to the Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, perhaps the most important decision it has rendered this year.
The plaintiff, Hugh Caperton, brought a successful lawsuit alleging that A.T Massey Coal and its chief executive Don Blankenship drove Capterton’s company into bankruptcy. In the next election cycle, Blankenship spent $3 million to oppose a state Supreme Court justice he thought insufficiently favorable to his cause. When the challenger Blankenship backed won, he refused to recues himself from the case. It was little wonder when he cast the deciding vote to overturn the first verdict.
What a depressing thought that justice in the 21st century can be sold to the highest bidder. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to tacitly acknowledge that money can be a corrupting influence on judges. That is perhaps why he raised practical concerns on implementation instead of attempting to argue that we should not be worried about the influence of campaign contributions on judges.
He lamented that “today’s opinion requires state and federal judges simultaneously to act as political scientists (why did candidate X win the election?), economists (was the financial support disproportionate?), and psychologists (is there likely to be a debt of gratitude?).”
I understand these concerns. So I propose a simple solution: stop making judges stand for election. Even with this decision, there is potential for all sorts of abuse. A judge ruling in a case now might not favor one side because he got campaign contributions from that side. Or so we hope. Remember the decision only says that excessive contributions compel a justice to step aside. But he may well favor one side over another because of other electoral concerns.
For example, a judge who owes his election to say the Religious Right could be a tad biased on cases involving the separation of church and state. In a racially divided area, a judge who wins because of high support from one ethnic group could be predisposed to favor litigants from that group lest he lose favor the next election cycle. Even if we expect that people who are essentially politicians will put aside their electoral concerns immediately after the election, the mere fact that they have to go before voters can create the perception of bias.
Having an independent judiciary is critical to our system of checks and balances. To maintain that system, the judiciary needs to be able to make unpopular decisions in some instances. There are cases brought to court, where the correct decision polls poorly with voters. For example, decisions protecting the rights of disfavored minority groups might cause a judge to lose an election even though it’s the correct decision legally.
During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts compared judging to being a dispassionate umpire in a baseball game. Just imagine the havoc on the game if we let umpires stand for election each inning. Or imagine if we made the umpires take polls after each pitch to inform their decision as to whether to call a ball or a strike. Whichever team had the most fans at the game would get the most favorable umpires. Unfortunately, this is not terribly different from judicial systems in state where the judges have to raise money and go before voters.
There is of course a realm for shifting public opinion in the political process. That’s why we let people vote for who represents them in Congress and who serves in the White House. But do we really want our judges looking over their shoulders at polls before rendering a decision? Triangulation is bad enough when politicians use it. It simply does not belong in the judiciary.
-Marcus Gadson
Hey Mark Sanford, Shut The Hell Up
Disgraced Gov. Mark Sanford is keeping his apology tour going strong with new and unnecessary revelations.
I think Sanford has completely lost his mind. He won’t just shut the f*ck up about his personal life. We already know more than we ever wanted to and sure as hell don’t need to know anything else.
Sanford is now flapping his gums about “crossing lines” with other women as well, but never the “ultimate line.”
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Tuesday that he “crossed lines” with a handful of women other than his mistress – but never had sex with them.
The governor said he “never crossed the ultimate line” with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed his once-promising political career.
“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” Sanford said. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”
During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he’s trying to fall back in love with his wife.
All this crap about a “tragic love story” is truly touching, but the real tragedy here is what a scumbag Mark Sanford turned out to be.
This guy is a disgrace and he should resign as governor. He’s clearly not in the right state of mind to be running a state or anything else.
Incredibly, his wife has said she’s interested in trying to patch things up with him. I’m sure knowing he’ll have to settle for her in place of his “soul mate” must really make her feel good.
I guess later in the week we’re going to hear about how times he’s beat off in the shower thinking about other women.
All this talk of soul mates, crying in Argentina, and tragic love stories is about to make me lose my lunch.
This guy is the biggest pussy I’ve ever seen and one sorry excuse for a human being.
Someone has to put a muzzle on this clown or send his ass back to Argentina or something. I just can’t take it anymore.
-Chris Jones
Kasparov: America Should Support Iranian Protesters
A man who certainly knows a thing or two about protesting for freedom is Russian chess champion Gary Kasparov.
Vladimir Putin has no greater foe in Russia than Kasparov. He’s been arrested too many times to count for leading marches in Russia against the authoritarian regime that Putin has created.
If Kasparov were not famous the world over, he would have been killed long ago. His fame is the only thing that has kept him alive under a regime that routinely murders journalists and jails people who speak out against the government.
Therefore, when Kasparov speaks out on issues like the protests in Iran he has a certain amount of credibility.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Kasparov has an excellent Op-Ed about the protests in Iran and offers an interesting perspective.
Mr. Putin has a great deal riding on the outcome in Iran. With the Russian economy teetering, he needs a steep increase in oil prices to stave off the collapse of his government. So he has been working to increase tension in the Middle East and now sees the Iranian crisis as potentially helpful — if Ahmadinejad comes out on top.
…For Mr. Putin, the unknown factor in all of this is how the West will respond to what’s happening in Iran. It could give him pause if Iran faces penalties of real significance for using lethal force against nonviolent protestors. Surprisingly, European leaders are showing unusual assertiveness in condemning the Iranian regime.
Kasparov goes on to say that president Obama is wrong to sit on the sidelines while everything plays out.
He says the president’s warning that “the world is watching” is meaningless, because the behavior of the Iranian regime over the last 30 years proves they don’t give a damn who’s watching.
Sen. Richard Lugar and CNN’s Fareed Zakaria are singled out by Kasparov as well for supporting president Obama’s timidity.
Kasparov concludes by saying there’s no reason for America to hold back if we can do something that would potentially tip the balance inside Iran.
There is no reason to withhold external pressure that can tip the balance inside Tehran. Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi is not an ideal democrat. But should he and his supporters win power they will owe their authority to an abruptly empowered Iranian electorate. It is reasonable to expect that the people will hold a Mousavi government accountable for delivering the freedoms that they are now risking their lives to attain.
Millions of Iranians are fighting to join the Free World. The least we can do is let the valiant people of Iran know loud and clear that they will be welcomed with open arms.
Unlike many on the right, I actually thought president Obama’s statements at the beginning of this crisis were correct. I think his measured response in the beginning was appropriate.
However, as images and video of Iranian citizens being brutalized and killed by Iran’s Nazi brownshirts are being broadcast around the world, America has a moral responsibility to throw our support behind the protesters.
We should be condemning in the strongest possible language the treatment of protesters.
This is a chance for president Obama to go on national television and ask the Ayatollahs of Iran to let their people have freedom.
Gasoline Prices – Countdown To Rip-Off
Calendars have all the official seasons and days conveniently pre-printed. No calendar has, or even attempts, to have them all. For instance, you have to write in your boss’s day off.
Only very special calendars have “driving season” indicated. It’s our oil producer’s favorite holiday- and it’s on the way. The clock is already ticking.
For them, “the driving season” is a cherished ritual. Are you ready?
Last year they ran the price up above one hundred and forty dollars a barrel. That was a new record. Although they run this scam every summer, 2008 exceeded their wildest hopes. Prior to our “sky is falling” episode last September, it was the number one topic; some even had the temerity to suggest that it could cause a recession. Imagine!
Now that we have a real recession, will they have the nerve to run the racket again, even though demand is clearly down? Despite the obvious oil glut, will interests still find a way to jack us up again?
Well, that’s not really a serious question, is it? They’re certainly going to try. These are very bright boys and girls; and they’ve got the eggs. Who knows, maybe this year they will convince us that higher prices are good for us! Perhaps an “oil rescue” plan?
While it’s less than a year since oil prices had us by the short hairs, very little notice has been taken by official punditry of the fact that the price of a barrel has increased from around thirty five dollars to fifty dollars in the last several weeks. While all the media hasten to remind us of how much better off we are than last year, independent thinkers must wonder what market forces are at work to raise prices in the face of declining demand.
OPEC is ready. As with other producers, they have begun to manipulate supply. Hugo Chavez is hopeful; and Amadinejad is wearing a hole though his prayer rug. In the various financial towers that grace this great land, the “Wall Street” types are at it again with schemes of buying and storing oil until this artificial withdrawal causes the price to rise. Already, so much oil has been diverted that the planet is running out of places and tankers to stash the stuff. They’re all puffing as hard as they can to inflate the “summer bubble”.
We can predict with confidence that, once again, in broad daylight, the theft of trillions of dollars will be attempted this year. Must we also expect the canned banal response from both the mainstream media and the blogosphere that we usually get? That is, the dreary after-the-fact and impotent post-mortems?
In a way, it does take your breath away. You have to admire the spectacular nerve it’s going to take this year, in the face of the suffering caused by the crash, to squeeze us again.
Maybe, like good little chumps, we should just sit back, relax, and have a good time? You’ve probably heard that old joke? Don’t drop the soap at the pump? We’re such good people. Maybe we could make a game of it, or a lottery?
The average “Joes” from “Main Street” could try to guess how high the price will go this year. Two seventy-five? Three dollars? Three seventy five? Four forty? Five sixty eight? Good clean fun; a diversion, a game to keep our minds off our emptying pockets. Something like an election.
Yet, it doesn’t have to be that way again. This is the perfect opportunity for an independent-minded alternative press to earn the respect and gratitude of the public. For, this is the ideal issue: Everyone will benefit from the effort. Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, every color, every religion, every creed, and every individual will stand up and applaud if somebody finally comes to the rescue.
Will this be the year that we stop them before they get over? Dead in their tracks- the first ever populist pre-emptive strike? Like a war that doesn’t start, sometimes the best story is the story that doesn’t happen.
This year, we can either spend the summer wringing our hands and protesting the hardships at the pump, or we can be the story, and stop this crime before it occurs.
There has to come a time when our efforts show effect.
The time is now.
-Richard Hirschhorn
God, And The Death Of Atheism…
The ice may be starting to break up. The sun peeks through the clouds. Here and there and once in awhile. But, for the most part, the partisan fogs remain..
This night is never darker than during political “honeymoons”; when, layered onto normal “exceptionalism”, we Americans indulge ourselves in the deliberate “bubble” afforded to “new” administrations. This simply exacerbates our intellectual problems, further prostituting scholarship, journalism and honest criticism.
Until the rush of gush over Obama recedes, it is highly unlikely that there will be any market for independent thinking We must content ourselves now with some subject not corrupted by partisanship; with something less scintillating than the blow by blow descriptions of inanity which currently suffice for dialogue, and seize upon some low key and innocuous concepts among which we may abide while awaiting the resumption of serious discourse.
How about God?
Maybe we can clear out some of the underbrush surrounding that subject, some of the detras du stupidity, and be prepared, like good scouts, to effect real change when, and if, a new millennium actually dawns. First, let’s get rid of those colossal bores, those monuments to the limitations of intelligence, the Mensa masturbators: The atheists.
Lost in a mass of mental machinations, this well meaning, but galactically stunted, group bars the way to understanding by throwing up a polarizing distraction. This chimerical device asks us to decide whether or not God exists, (As if there was any question), sucking us into a debate having no possibility of leading anywhere.
Claiming that God cannot be proven by secular reason or scientific method, the argument then proceeds to ignore all scientific evidence as well as common sense.
Remember, neither history nor anthropology are theological pawns. No excavation, academic or archaeological, will uncover evidence of substantial human habitation without also discovering something everyone agrees can be called religion. This evidence extends into pre-history, and continues forward with no breaks until the present day. In short, religion and human history are inseparable.
Second, and much more succinct, is this: Human Beings are the only species in the universe to feel a spirit world beyond nature.
In short, human spirituality is as inseparable from the human condition as romance, art, emotion, or idea.
What may have begun as an attempt to lead lightning, regulate rainfall, bring back buffalo, or any other manipulation of the fickle fingers of fortune, has been filtered through the ages by all the other qualities that distinguish our species. Some of these aren’t very nice.
Among these are our equally essential need to control, brand, centralize, compete, and expand. We are attracted, as to shiny objects and fireworks, to rules and dictum; to what is written in stone. We love to organize. Add to this our equally unique mastery of technology, and the present condition of human spirituality is readily understood. In the same way that chain stores have pushed the independent to oblivion, our natural tendencies have created a narrowed assortment of official religious conduits to choose from. Reduced to five or so brands, “major” religions dominate our God ideas the same way the seven sisters dominated oil production, in the same way that major brands seek to dominate any market. When added to this already potentially violent aspect of our natures, sacredness and piety simple amplify the deadly consequences of competition.
This is what “atheists” really are objecting to; Not God. Because the evidence of our essential and universal spiritual qualities is so simple and obvious to all, its sublimity does not satisfy the desire to over-intellectualize. Where some might build castles, throw the perfect pass, or polish twenty inch chrome wheels, this sort of vanity demonstrates its prowess through the fancy, if ultimately self-serving, process of over-complication. Confident that we are dazzled by such prodigious and athletic mental gymnastics, they dwell comfortably within the notion that nobody will notice that their arguments rest entirely on ignoring the two fundamental truths listed above; truths which even the most average second-grader can understand.
Thus blinded, they then proceed to make their impossible argument. Not realizing that the idea of God represents the evolution of authentic human investigation, no less than art, psychology or science, they reject the universal truths underpinning this search because they have objections to particular contemporary explanations. This is like saying that because we cannot explain its origin, the universe does not exist.
Our current explanation for our spirituality, the modern story, is what we call God. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, idea we come up with. Science proves, and history has recorded, that God, that mono-theism, was not our first answer. In the “west”, which includes all three religions of Abraham, we all supposedly worship the same God; the God of Moses, invented by the children of Israel a few thousand years ago. But for more thousands of years, there were other ideas.
In the great cradles of civilization; in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Greece and in Rome they were religious too: Yet they worshiped different spirits. When we view the idea of our God ontologically, that is, which came first- humanity or God, it is clear that humanity preceded God. God, as an idea, is a human invention. God is the idea which explains our spiritual relationship to life.
For atheism to assert that God does not exist, that God is not real; it relies, in the name of reason, on the proposition that ideas are not real.
Is evolution real? How about freedom? Beauty?
Oh, they say, truthful ideas can be proven by a scientific method, whereas theology is unsubstantiated. Science can only prove any idea through abstraction. Two plus two is a scientific certainty, but only an abstract representation. “Two”, like God, is a human invention.
There is much need for criticism of those who seek to control, brand, market and centralize our ideas about our nature. In fact, there is no end to the details they’ve got wrong. Foremost, is the idea that we already know it all; for it is those that make the religiously narrow argument that our idea of God is complete who are in fact arguing that the idea of God is dead, while it is those that doubt the perfection of any human idea who are actually arguing that the inquiry into the idea of God must be kept alive: To perfect is to preserve.
Much confusion arises from the silly notion that God created the idea of God.
We mistake the result of our inquiry with its need. Even while we must accept God as we accept any other idea, when we reject some particular aspect of this idea, or even the entire story, we do not disprove that human beings are essentially spiritual. Even if some idea of God is dead, as are most such ideas, we have said nothing about the underlying condition which prompted such ideas to begin with- human life.
To argue that God does not exist is to argue that humanity does not exist. Our spiritual selves are as real as all our other qualities. The ideas produced through spiritual inquiry are as real as any other idea. Ideas are real.
Finally, for those that say that religion is irrational- I say “so what”? What on earth ever possessed people to expect rational behavior from human beings? There are no rational human beings. Rationality is an abstract idea- JUST LIKE GOD.
The best of the religious, the humble, say God is love. Does love exist? Is love rational?
So, don’t tell me love is dead. What’s dead, is the useless idea of atheism.
R.I.P.
-Richard Hirshhorn
Racist Black Leaders In Chicago Fighting To Keep Obama’s “Black Senate Seat”
If you thought Barack Obama’s election to the highest office in the land would usher in a new post-racial period for America — think again. Laura Washington’s column in the Chicago Sun-Times today is about the perceived ‘hijacking’ of Barack Obama’s “black Senate seat” through a possible special election in light of Gov. Blago’s corruption.
The so-called “Concerned Clergy of Illinois” (meaning concerned black clergy concerned about black people) believes that the federal corruption investigation of Blagojevich is cover for a conspiracy by whites to take Obama’s “black senate seat.”
Meanwhile, the concerned clergy, a cadre of several dozen prominent black ministers, are “appalled” by the fallout of the sensational federal investigation. They see it as a thinly veiled attempt by white pols to hijack the seat, says Stephanie Gadlin, the coalition’s spokeswoman.
There’s a massive conspiracy afoot, Gadlin says. “We see it for what it is. What we are really looking at is ‘The Luck of the Irish’ — two Madigans, Fitzgerald, Durbin, Cullerton, Claypool, Daley, and all the rest. They’re making a power play to regain the control of the politics, money and jobs in this state.”
…White voters don’t and won’t accept the idea that America and Illinois need — and deserve — a black senator. (When the Senate was all white, they never complained).
So white people were fine with electing a black president, but electing a black senator is a bridge too far? The real issue here is that Chicago is full of black racists who flat out don’t like white people. Secondly, I wasn’t aware that Barack Obama had a ‘black’ seat in the senate. I thought his seat was the same color as all the other seats. People like Laura Washington (racist people) aren’t interested in filling a job with the most competent or qualified person, but rather with someone who shares the same skin color as them.
Black leaders in Chicago don’t want the people to have a chance to vote, because they may not elect a black person to fill Obama’s seat. The blacks who claim a racial conspiracy are in fact the only ones motivated by race in this situation. Barack Obama’s senate seat is not the property of black people simply because the guy who filled it was black.
Assuming his senate seat was filled by another black guy, what would that really mean? Did the south side of Chicago get any less corrupt, poor, or violent when Obama was a senator from Illinois? How did having a black senator from Chicago help the black community in Illinois?
The one thing about Barack Obama that sets him apart from his black colleagues in Chicago is that he doesn’t view everything through a racial lens. His blackness doesn’t come before everything in his life. He’s interested in doing the right thing for the whole community not just the black community. Unlike his pastor of 20 years, Obama doesn’t see a conspiracy cooked up by ‘white devils’ around every corner.
Blacks in Chicago need to wise-up and get with the times. Stop playing the perpetual victim. Stop pretending to be persecuted.
-Chris Jones
Posts
