MLK Jr., Letter, Dream

In honor of today, here are links to Martin Luther King Jr.'s most know works, "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," and "I Have A Dream."

If you read anything today, please read King's "Letter." One of my favorite passages, especially because of the form (the use of anaphora and copia) and the content:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more that 340 years for our constitutional and Godgiven rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored" when your first name becomes "Nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when your are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

Call her Clinton

I want to initiate a conversation here that I began at Separation of Spheres. All political preferences aside, I'm having a really hard time with the media's tendency to call Hillary Rodham Clinton by her first name. Our own Megs even does it in one of her recent posts. I'm sorry to use you as an example, Megs, but you have, unfortunately, illustrated it beautifully. People from Maureen Dowd to Chris Matthews to the other candidates have routinely referred to Clinton by her first name. Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is sexist and disrespectful. No one ever (at least not as far as I can tell and I have been looking) refers to Barack Obama, John Edwards, John McCain, or Mike Huckabee by their first names--not even the people they are running against. And to reiterate the point I made here, no one is calling Senator Clinton by her first name to differentiate between her and former-President Clinton. In the appropriate context, I think the average American realizes what Clinton is running for president in 2008. I also don't buy the argument that the media and political pundits call her by her first name because they are familiar with her from her time as First Lady. Last time I checked no one was calling Laura Bush by her first name; she was being respectfully addressed as Mrs. Bush or as the First Lady. Calling Senator Clinton by her first name implicitly questions her ability to do the job and , her viability as a candidate, disrespects the work she has done for the country, and directly undermines her authority as a U.S. Senator. While I certainly don't think the average person consciously does any of these things, I do think that Clinton's opponents and the Republicans are conscious of what it means to refer to a woman in power by her first name. Further Calling her "Hillary" rather than "Clinton" is the equivalent of calling adult women girls while calling adult men men.

Hell, Yes!

Here is Obama's speech today at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. It's a bit long, but shit:

The Scripture tells us that when Joshua and the Israelites arrived at the gates of Jericho, they could not enter. The walls of the city were too steep for any one person to climb; too strong to be taken down with brute force. And so they sat for days, unable to pass on through.

But God had a plan for his people. He told them to stand together and march together around the city, and on the seventh day he told them that when they heard the sound of the ram's horn, they should speak with one voice. And at the chosen hour, when the horn sounded and a chorus of voices cried out together, the mighty walls of Jericho came tumbling down.

There are many lessons to take from this passage, just as there are many lessons to take from this day, just as there are many memories that fill the space of this church. As I was thinking about which ones we need to remember at this hour, my mind went back to the very beginning of the modern Civil Rights Era.

Because before Memphis and the mountaintop; before the bridge in Selma and the march on Washington; before Birmingham and the beatings; the fire hoses and the loss of those four little girls; before there was King the icon and his magnificent dream, there was King the young preacher and a people who found themselves suffering under the yolk of oppression.

And on the eve of the bus boycotts in Montgomery, at a time when many were still doubtful about the possibilities of change, a time when those in the black community mistrusted themselves, and at times mistrusted each other, King inspired with words not of anger, but of an urgency that still speaks to us today:

"Unity is the great need of the hour" is what King said. Unity is how we shall overcome.

What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.

I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.

I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.

We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame – schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.

We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their children get sick.

We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.

We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.

And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.

So we have a deficit to close. We have walls – barriers to justice and equality – that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.

Unfortunately, all too often when we talk about unity in this country, we've come to believe that it can be purchased on the cheap. We've come to believe that racial reconciliation can come easily – that it's just a matter of a few ignorant people trapped in the prejudices of the past, and that if the demagogues and those who exploit our racial divisions will simply go away, then all our problems would be solved.

All too often, we seek to ignore the profound institutional barriers that stand in the way of ensuring opportunity for all children, or decent jobs for all people, or health care for those who are sick. We long for unity, but are unwilling to pay the price.

But of course, true unity cannot be so easily won. It starts with a change in attitudes – a broadening of our minds, and a broadening of our hearts.

It's not easy to stand in somebody else's shoes. It's not easy to see past our differences. We've all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart – that puts up walls between us.

We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don't think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

For most of this country's history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man's inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.

So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scape-goating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others – all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face – war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.

Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.

But if changing our hearts and minds is the first critical step, we cannot stop there. It is not enough to bemoan the plight of poor children in this country and remain unwilling to push our elected officials to provide the resources to fix our schools. It is not enough to decry the disparities of health care and yet allow the insurance companies and the drug companies to block much-needed reforms. It is not enough for us to abhor the costs of a misguided war, and yet allow ourselves to be driven by a politics of fear that sees the threat of attack as way to scare up votes instead of a call to come together around a common effort.

The Scripture tells us that we are judged not just by word, but by deed. And if we are to truly bring about the unity that is so crucial in this time, we must find it within ourselves to act on what we know; to understand that living up to this country's ideals and its possibilities will require great effort and resources; sacrifice and stamina.

And that is what is at stake in the great political debate we are having today. The changes that are needed are not just a matter of tinkering at the edges, and they will not come if politicians simply tell us what we want to hear. All of us will be called upon to make some sacrifice. None of us will be exempt from responsibility. We will have to fight to fix our schools, but we will also have to challenge ourselves to be better parents. We will have to confront the biases in our criminal justice system, but we will also have to acknowledge the deep-seated violence that still resides in our own communities and marshal the will to break its grip.

That is how we will bring about the change we seek. That is how Dr. King led this country through the wilderness. He did it with words – words that he spoke not just to the children of slaves, but the children of slave owners. Words that inspired not just black but also white; not just the Christian but the Jew; not just the Southerner but also the Northerner.

He led with words, but he also led with deeds. He also led by example. He led by marching and going to jail and suffering threats and being away from his family. He led by taking a stand against a war, knowing full well that it would diminish his popularity. He led by challenging our economic structures, understanding that it would cause discomfort. Dr. King understood that unity cannot be won on the cheap; that we would have to earn it through great effort and determination.

That is the unity – the hard-earned unity – that we need right now. It is that effort, and that determination, that can transform blind optimism into hope – the hope to imagine, and work for, and fight for what seemed impossible before.

The stories that give me such hope don't happen in the spotlight. They don't happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She's been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.

And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta.

And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia.

And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope – but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together.

Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone.

In the struggle for peace and justice, we cannot walk alone.

In the struggle for opportunity and equality, we cannot walk alone

In the struggle to heal this nation and repair this world, we cannot walk alone.

So I ask you to walk with me, and march with me, and join your voice with mine, and together we will sing the song that tears down the walls that divide us, and lift up an America that is truly indivisible, with liberty, and justice, for all. May God bless the memory of the great pastor of this church, and may God bless the United States of America.

Presidential Qualities

What are the most important qualities, qualifications, and characteristics for a President?

I do not think we have even touched this question officially, though a lot of the posts move revolve around this topic.

Meet the Press II: The VP

If the coronation occurs and Clinton receives the nomination, would any candidate want to become the second Vice President? I mean, Hillary may be the President, former President Clinton would be the Vice-President, so who would want to take the "official" office of the Vice President?

Meet the Press: The Vision of the Democrats

On Meet the Press this morning, the group discussed the vision and identity of the Democratic Party. They begin with a clip of Obama interview with the Reno Gazette Journal in which he said:

"I think it is fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time for the past ten, fifteen years in the sense that were challenging conventional wisdom. Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not And in a way Bill Clinton did not. He [Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for that. He tapped into the feeling which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

John Edwards, in response:

Senator Obama, when speaking used Ronald Reagan as an example of change. Now, my view is I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change.

Hillary Clinton:

"My leading opponent the other said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats over the last 10 - 15 years. That is not the way I remember the last ten 10 - 15 years."

In these quotes, there is a lot about character. First, Obama's comments focus on trying to reshape the party in a way that would lead, rather than have a presidency, like President Clinton did, where he needed to carve out space that the Republicans gave him-- hence Clinton's policy of triangulation, which limits the amount of agency, rhetorical or otherwise, a speaker possess. Second, Obama speaks of building a coalition, similar to the Reagan Democrats, which may decrease the ideological fight between parties.

The comments by former Senator Edward's seems childish-- "oh.. I would never use Reagan as an example..." Not even as a bad example?

Yet, the comment by Senator Clinton is far worse since it, first, is intellectually dishonest for the way in which it twists what Senator Obama said and, second, seems to focus the identity of the Democrats on the development of a devil figure, either Reagan or Bush. The problem with this is that the enemy will go away. And, once the enemy goes away, then there is nothing left to fight and, consequently, no identity.

For example, after the first Gulf War, President H.W. Bush had nothing to run on and he lacked that "vision thing" to build a foundation. All he could do was say that yes there were domestic problems in 1992 and he and James Baker would turn their attention to them.

It was not a good strategy then and will not be now.

Feminism, Redefined

Solon and I are watching Meet the Press and I'm disturbed by something conservative Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan just argued. She claims--I'll see about linking to a transcript when MTP's web site posts one--that Hillary is being anti-feminist by playing good cop/bad cop with Bill. Don't even think about a comparison between JFK and RFK, who did the same thing. This is a man/woman thing and it's clear that Hillary is just sending her husband out to defend her. Seriously? So if no man can speak for Hillary, should her entire campaign staff consist of women? Talk about insane identity politics.

Why are so many on the right (not all, of course, but more than I'm comfortable with and more than one would find on the left) in no way beholden to an actual definition of feminism that feminists would themselves maintain. It just makes these cheap arguments so easy.

Robo-Calling in Nevada

Take a listen to a call from the "Hillary Campaign" against Barack Hussein Obama.

How Fox News. How Republican.

And just think, earlier in the day, the Clinton campaign wanted the Obama campaign to denounce an ad from a 527 that criticized the Clinton campaign support for the law suit that wanted to stop people from voting in Nevada.

The electoral college problem with the primaries

For the second primary in a row, the Clinton campaign "won" the primary (in terms of popular vote) but the Obama campaign won the delegates.

Odd.

What Would Obama Say? And Is That the Same As Doing?

In the spirit of the potentially feel-good nature of the Situation, here is a heartwarming story in the Times about Jon Favreau, Obama's 26-year-old head speechwriter. It's a fluff piece, no doubt. But it highlights the freshness that runs throughout the Obama campaign. (Favreau works with two other writers, ages 26 and 30.)

And the article also reignited my interest in a huge Hillary Clinton dig at Barack from New Hampshire: "You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose." To my knowledge, we haven't yet conquered this statement on the blog, and I want to open it up for discussion. I get what Clinton is saying, that there is a difference between talk and action. But is that difference a real one? (And what, by the way, makes prose more active than poetry?)

Admittedly, this is a bit philosophical for a Saturday night, but Solon and I have been lobbing it back and forth for days. In theory, I think we all would submit to some degree to the actively heuristic nature of speech. BUT--and this bothers me a bit--Hillary has made a decent case for the need for concrete action that is separate from arousing speech. (Leaving out, of course, what has been read as her quasi-racist statement on Johnson as the doer and King as a mere poet.) I do think, though, that a little more poetry in the White House might not be a bad thing.

So which is it, poetry or prose? Or are they the same thing, as we want to believe?

A Rhetorical Situation: Chris Matthews' Apology for His Petty, Ignorant Smear of Hillary Clinton

Somewhere in the overlap between Hillary Clinton's Iowa defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, and her victory over him in New Hampshire, she was absolutely shellacked by the Television and Print media. No matter what one's feelings on Hillary Clinton there can be no denying this.

More recently there has been, at least arguably, a semblance of backing off on this front.

Here is a recent apology from Chris Matthews.



Nice to see a tool like Chris Matthews grovel. But, in terms of The Rhetorical Situation in which he finds himself, does he pull off an effective apology?

A rhetorical question

Tomorrow, the primary in South Carolina may have fewer voters voter because of inclement weather... Yes, it may snow in South Carolina, meaning the elderly and others may not get out to vote.

If this does occur, and say a religious candidate such as Mike Huckabee receives fewer votes, loses to McCain, and needs to bow out of the election, could we declare that God spoke and no longer wanted Huckabee in the election?

I mean that he did declare that is God's candidate...."There is only one explanation for it and it is not a human one. It is the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5000 people."

Seriously. Harrogate, your response on the least dangerous candidate?

At the intersection of law and politics

A Nevada Judge ruled that the Democratic party can set up nine caucuses at casinos on the Las Vegas strip for tomorrow's caucus in Nevada. According to CNN,

The state teachers union went to court to challenge the plan, arguing that the casino caucus sites Saturday night will give the roughly 200,000 workers on the Las Vegas strip an unfair advantage over other voters who have to work that night.

But U.S. District Judge James Mahan rejected that argument after a Thursday morning hearing.

The lawsuit sparked a battle between the 28,000-member Nevada State Education Association and the state's biggest labor organization, the 60,000-member Nevada Culinary Workers Union, which supports the casino caucuses. The culinary workers endorsed Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in Saturday's contest and accused the teachers union of trying to tilt the race in favor of his leading rival, senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton of New York.

Recent published polls show Clinton and Obama in a statistical dead heat going into the Nevada contest. Saturday's results could give the winner the upper hand going into the first contest in the South, the January 26 primary in South Carolina.

"When you're trying to change the rules a week before that were approved 10 months before, that's just not right, and I think people see through it as just crass politics," D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of the Nevada Culinary Workers Union, said Wednesday.

The teachers' union has not endorsed Clinton, though some of its members and leaders are backing the former first lady.

From this little electoral escapades, it appears that the Clinton campaign desired the prevention of the caucuses at the hotel. A guest, who sounded as if he represented the Clinton campaign, on Tucker Calson's show tonight stated that the people who would vote there would be the workers in the Casinos, the valets, the kitchen workers, the uneducated, and they would not be smart or willful enough to stand up to their union bosses, who would of course be in the room. This of course means that the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, would lose votes as Barack would gain votes through voter intimidation.

Bill Clinton attacked the lawsuit because it would give the casino workers an unfair advantage and give them, a group with 60,000 people, five times the vote of the teacher unions, a group with 28,000.

Of course, if we discuss electoral fairness, it would not be fair that the casino workers need to work while the teachers, since it is Saturday, do not. It is also unfair that some people live closer to poling places, etc...

The best standard would be state and federal holidays for election days for both primary and general elections.

Here is a very interesting clip between former President Clinton and a reporter, Mark Matthews, who challenged President Clinton on the lawsuit.

I am sure that this would all be different if the Casino Union supported the Clintons.

Obama, Clinton, and Identity Politics

I wish I could have expressed my thoughts on the current focus on Obama's race and Clinton's gender as well as Judith Warner does in her weekly column. She raised a compelling question: can the left separate identity from politics? I have to agree with her: I'm not sure we can.

Some (Wrong) Thoughts on Huckabee: A Reply to Harrogate

It seems that Harrogate's position is that a religious theocracy would be a better place so long as it is a peaceful place.

Yet, in populism, whether it is economic or social, one finds no true friend of fundamental rights, only the desires of a lustful majority.

Huckabee's pandering allowed him little room but to shun his prior experiences with immigration to join the Xenophobic portions this country. To get the nomination, one may need to purify the country, not the soul.

Yet, while I may not share the neoconversative view in regards to the march of the flag, I do not believe that either McCain of Rudy would possess the public support to march the flag. This makes your dovish criteria obsolete.

Accordingly, I would prefer to rule out the candidate that would turn political questions into religious questions. Religious questions require anti-democratic and authoritarian answers; in the world view of a literalist, consensus is not desirable, only the strict interpretation of an arcane book. While you disdain the arrogance of the Bush administration, you prefer the candidate with the arrogance (and blasphemy) that one knows the meaning of the Bible and God's standards.

Good Grief!!!!

Some Thoughts on Mike Huckabee: Harrogate's Retort, of a Type, to Solon

In recent posts Solon has exposed Hucakbee's constitutional weaknesses, his invocation of Divine Law, his panderings to the evangelical base. All of this is to the good. No issue is more important to Harrogate than the issue of gay rights, and Huckabee is decidedly on the wrong side of morality, and for that matter history, on this important issue. On a related note, the most damning thing about Huckabee so far is his recent defense of his statement in the 80s that AIDS victims should be quarantined.

And yet. Here are some Talking Points in Huckabee's favor:

Of the GOP candidates, only Guiliani (not counting Ron Paul) is clean of anti-gay bigotry.

Huckabee's Faith-Based rhetoric is less hypocritical than what we get from the other Republicans. For example, he takes seriously New Testament (not to mention humanist) mandates for taking care of the poor and weak.

Huckabee is not a global warming denier.

Of all the GOP candidates for the Presdidency, Harrogate has come to believe strongly that Huckabee is the least scary. Huck and McCain are the only ones who are not 100% in the pocket of the corporate death grip on the middle and lower classes--the subprime crisis, the health care embarrassment, and the outsourcing plague are all BFF with Giuliani, Thompson, and most especially the Mormon.

To an extent far eclipsing even McCain, Huckabee has demonstrated a consistent and acute worry over "kitchen table issues": Huck is the only GOP candidate, as he says in an effective soundbite, who is more in tune with workers than with those who lay workers off.

Huckabee is also (followed in a distant second by McCain) the least Xenophobic of the Republican candidates for President.

Look at his record in Arkansas. It demonstrates an active interest in education and health care for poor children (he achieved near-univesal health care in his state) that goes beyond lip service and extends into real life.

Finally, and most importantly of all, Huckabee is by far the least likely of the candidates (excluding Ron Paul) to escalate things in Iraq while at the same time experiencing a hard-on at the prospect of starting brand new bouncing baby wars. If you don't want another war, or several of them, then beware McCain, Giuliani, Thompson, and the Mormon: look again at Huckabee's emphasis on the Bush Admin's arrogance on the international stage, his frank embrace of diplomatic negotiation, and his refreshing lack of lust for blowing shit up to prove the bigness and badness of the United States.

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination, Harrogate will vote for. But of the GOP candidates, it is Stephen Colbert's running mate that Harrogate is least sickened by/afraid of.

Confederate Mike, or, the Huckabee Flag

Only during campaign season would a politician make such a remark, especially with no theory of constitutional interpretation to support it: From CNN :

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag," Huckabee said at a Myrtle Beach campaign event. "In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."

And, yes.. this comes from The Former Governor Mike Huckabee while campaigning in South Carolina today.

Though, after reading these comments, I do think the country needs to reflect and rethink about his position over same-sex rights. After all, It does seem that Huckabee supports some forms of sodomy. And outsiders are not welcome.

I think we all need to admit that the man is just brilliant constitutionally.

Barack and Race

It seems like all anyone--or, at least, anyone in the Clinton campaign and the media--can talk about lately is the fact that Barack Obama is a black man. Oh? His skin is deliciously bronze? I hadn't noticed...

I've been reading a lot of race and passing stuff for the current diss. chapter and I'm a little hung up on a detail. Obama's father was Kenyan-American and his mother is a white American. (I'm not sure of her ethnic heritage.) Which means, of course that he's half black--and half white. But with all the discussion of whether he's too black or not black enough, I feel like we're still, as a nation, subscribing to the one-drop rule: if even one drop of black blood is in a person, the saying went, then that person was black.

Don't get me wrong, if Barack gets elected, and I think--and hope--there's a good chance that he might, it will be a HUGE and very belated positive step for our country in terms of the electability of someone who looks like he does. But I think the recent obsession with race is, if not offensive, then at least misleading. The argument is that Obama is sidestepping the race question because he doesn't think he can get elected if he focuses on his blackness. I'm sure that's, unfortunately, partly a factor. But maybe he's not sidestepping the race issue at all. He is, after all, a brown-skinned man who was raised by a white mother. I'm sure he's seen it all in terms of race roles and the complications thereof.

Will we ever move beyond the dichotomy of the black/white line?

So I lied

Ok, so in my introductory post I wrote that I wouldn't be blogging about sports, and I apparently lied. I came across this story at today, and I have to say a few things. First, I have no idea who Tejada, nor do I care. I also don't care whether anyone else in baseball ever used "performance enhancing drugs." All right, so that isn't entirely true either. I care when it comes to records. I do think Barry Bonds' home run record is different than Hank Aaron's, and I do think Bonds' use of drugs (or, should I say alleged use) should be noted in the record books.

This issue has been driving me crazy for months, and I, who really don't know anything at all about baseball or most other sports, have been interested in this ongoing drama for one reason: I don't think the Senate has any business holding hearings on this issue. I'm sure there are all kinds of reasons why the Senate needs to hold hearings on steroid use. But give me a break! We're involved in a war in two countries, our deficit is growing exponentially, and we may well be entering a recession. Further, over 40 million Americans (including approximately 9 million children) are uninsured and our schools are going to pot. Surely the Senate (and the FBI for that matter) has better things to do than listen to rich baseball players reveal that their trainers gave them shots of steroids. I think their time (and my tax dollars, quite frankly) would be better spent tackling the bigger problems listed above than talking to baseball players all day.

Stephen Colbert's Famed Portrait Now on Display at the Smithsonian

Hat tip to the lovely Mrs. Harrogate, who has alerted Harrogate to this groundbreaking development.

Fans of the Colbert Report knew that the great Colbert had recently attempted to bribe the portrait's appearance into the museum's National Treasures wing, but that his bid was shot down when some obviously clueless patron declared he would rather have Dorothy's red slippers than the portrait, if given the choice.

And while the AP Report indicates the Portrait's hanging is temporary, Harrogate is confident that Smithsonian officials will do the right thing and assign it permanent status before all is said and done.

More on this historic development as it unfolds......

The Rhetorical Situation: A Makeover

By now Readers have noticed that momentous things are underway with The Rhetorical Situation. Not only have we added two voices in the last week, but more personalities/deep thinkers are on the way even as Harrogate effuses this post. At the same time, Harrogate continues to hold out hope that some of the 'old lions,' inspired by the new blood, will get into the swing of things as well.


The credit for these changes, as for most things concerning our award-winning blog, goes to Solon (depicted below), whose sheer enthusiasm and force of will has sparked a sputtering blog back to life.

Greetings, Situators of Rhetoric

It's megsg-h, aka Mrs. Solon. Having been strong-armed--ahem, sweetly invited--to rejoin the ranks of the blogosphere, I thought I would, like my buddy M, say hello with a brief introduction. I'm currently a dissertating stay-at-home mom and I'm obsessed with this political race. Football gives me goosebumps, but this political season tops even that. I'll do my very, very best to stay committed to the blog because I'm excited about the heated discussions that I anticipate will present themselves in the next few months. So greetings, everyone, and cheers!

What are the Republican voters thinking?

And I don't mean that sarcastically at all! I am truly flummoxed by the recent caucus and primaries. First Huckabee, then McCain, and now Romney. If Thompson wins the next one and then Guiliani after that, where does that leave the Republicans? I find it oddly gratifying that the Republicans are, for once, as indecisive the Democrats.

Now for a Little Paranoid Android (Solon's Fault)

This is Solon's fault. See a few threads down for more details.

Why Some People Like Ron Paul, Part Deux

Shortly after Harrogate posted the first entry of his now heavily acclaimed "Why Some People Like Ron Paul" series, the GOP candidates had their second South Carolina debate, with Paul once again waxing combative on behalf of his principles.

What Harrogate finds most fascinating about Paul is the passion he inspires in his supporters. He was cheered heartily by glassy eyed white men who somehow made it into the debate: the cheers accompanied him as he accused McCain, Guiliani, Romney, and the rest of betraying the Party with their war posturings. He sparred with Fox News sycophants all night, and you could tell he was especially pissing off Brit Hume. At the end, when Fox News ran its online viewers' poll asking who won, Hannity and Colmes reported a heavy victory for Ron Paul. Aghast, the green-blooded Sean Hannity intoned, "Paul didn't win, he lost." Among other things, this response vividly illustrates Hannity's intellectual reach in the field of debate.


Now, lately it has become very evident that Paul's supporters include white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and other groups historically invested in pushing their agendas of hate from behind the ersatz veneer of States' Rights. But do not be fooled into believing that the passion Paul has inspired is limited to those repugnant quarters. Indeed, Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race whose supporters are inspired by love of liberty (as opposed, for example, to being inspired for the sake of being inspired, as is the case with Obama).

Readers of this blog know that Harrogate could never support Ron Paul or any other hard-core libertarian. Still, he was moved by the video below. Note the devotional, even elegaic celebration offered on Paul's behalf. Nobody could make a comparable video on any of the major candidates, at least not with a straight face.

Introducing M

As Solon has graciously invited me to join The Rhetorical Situation, I decided I should introduce myself. I am M, and I typically blog on matters relating to motherhood, families, and academia over at Separation of Spheres. I occasionally venture into politics, and as the upcoming election draws closer, I expect that people will continue to piss me off and I will blog about politics more often. I will not, however, join Harrogate and Solon in there ongoing debates about all kinds of sports. Thanks for the invitation, Solon.

Hillary Clinton and Race

It appears that last night, Senator Hillary Clinton asked Senator Barack Obama for a truce on the race issue, which is a little odd since the Clinton campaign is the party trying to exploit race while the Obama campaign is trying to transcend race. This issue ill be interesting for the Democratic Debate tonight in Nevada.

The latest claim against Barack Obama, was by Hillary surrogate Robert Johnson, the former owner and founder of BET, who stated that while the Clintons were working for Civil Rights, Barack was doing other things:

"I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book."

Johnson stated, later, that Barack was doing community work. Yet, the correct interpretation focuses on Barack's use of cocaine.

This comments is not racial, though it does rely on some conception that white people would not vote for a black person that used drugs. Further, what makes this comment so severe is that it is the second attempt by someone from the Clinton campaign to raise the drug issue in connection with race. The first attempt by William Shaheen, the former Clinton Campaign Co-Chair, resigned when he suggested that Barack would have problems in a national campaign against a Republican because of his drug use. In regards to a potential campaign, William Shaheen stated:

“It’ll be: ‘When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?’ There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It’s hard to overcome.”

After the comments, Clinton apologized for the remarks, though she did not apologize after Robert Johnson's comments. She also did not apologize for Andrew Cuomo's "Shuck and jive" comments when referring to Obama.

It seems that there is a pattern that Clinton surrogates use race as a divisive issue because they need to split the black vote, which has moved toward Barack Obama since the end of 2007. Of course, this issue backfired on the Clinton campaign and, hence, the truce. When Barack Obama refused to make the campaign about race and transcended the issue, which would have been detrimental to his campaign, the Clinton campaign needed to capitulate on the tactic.

What is disturbing in this campaign is the implicit argument by sign in the person/ act relationship. What do these incidents say about the character of Clinton that allows her surrogates, which serve as a reflection of herself, to attack her opponent on racial grounds? It certainly does not suggest a united party. It certainly does not reflect political prudence. Further, and even worse, it shows that Clinton will attack a portion of her base for political gain. This is a similar to President Clinton's support from the gay and lesbian community but refusal to fight the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and his comments in the 2004 Presidential Election to Senator John Kerry to attack gays to gain some support in the Red States.

As of now, Clinton wants to avoid the use of race in the campaign. Fine. Yet, will she be true to her word? On Meet the Press this Sunday she stated would not use gender in the race though, in her speeches, she discusses "raising the glass ceiling," which refers to gender. (Again, what does political hypocrisy say about the candidate. While I disagree with former Governor Huckabee's positions on the constitution he is up front about where he stands.)

The debate tonight will be interesting.

Pausing for a Moment

"Electioneering" by Radiohead

"Electioneering"

I will stop
I will stop at nothing
Say the right things
When electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote

When I go forwards you go backwards and somewhere we will meet

Riot shields
Voodoo economics
It's just business
Cattle prods and the IMF
I trust I can rely on your vote

When I go forwards you go backwards and somewhere we will meet

Mike Huckabee and Constitutional Interpretation

One of the more common debates about constitutional interpretation is whether or not we should interpret the document according to the original understanding or our contemporary standards. For example, in first amendment jurisprudence, originalists would say that the first amendment allows for freedom from prior restraint but that is all; once a message is published then there can be punishment of speech. On the other hand, in contemporary times, the argument is that the first amendment is absolute; Congress shall make no law means that Congress shall make no law. Limiting interpretation to only these two standards seems to be a reductionist move, but it allows the average person the ability to discuss the constitution.

Last night in a campaign stop in Michigan, Mike Huckabee added a third position: Let's interpret the constitution according to biblical law rather than contemporary standards. On MSNBC's Morning Joe, the show ran a clip of Huckabee stating:

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the constitution. But I believe it is a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that is what we need to do-- to amend the Constitution so its in Gods standards rather than to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary standards that the country needed to amend the constitution so it follows God's standards and not some contemporary standards on how we treat each other and ho we treat the family.

The hosts on the show stated that his comments were in reference to abortion and same-sex marriage. It certainly appears that he is attempting to differentiate himself from his closest competitor in terms of beliefs (Fred Tompson, will believes in a Federal Solution to these issues). Yet, this raises a few very interesting points.

First, what is the role of democracy in this process? Making appeals that rely on God's eternal truths constitutes politics not as consensus or as something people participate in, but a matter of interpreting God's words. While Plato may be proud, Huckabee removes the people from dealing with solutions-- Have a problem, find the answer in the Bible because the Bible is inerrant-- even as he runs on a populist platform, which requires the consent and involvement of the people. Unfortunately, his religious message means that consent from the people does not matter; the only thing that matters is the word of God.

Second, while the former Gov. of Arkansas is pandering to his base and there is little chance of this occurring, adopting Christian Reconstructionist positions-- he has received campaign contributions from Christian Reconstructionist seems to be dangerous for both politics and religion. Let alone that the Bible does not provide a definitive answer on Same-Sex Marriage and Abortion, since it does not mention the first and discusses the second only once and that is in relation to a fine a man must pay a woman if he causes something to happen in her pregnancy, it seems quite dangerous to present legal controversies as theological controversies from one Religion.It is made worse worse when the theological position develops from one or a few denominations within a larger religion.

This also develops an interpretive nightmare since individuals would need to interpret one document (the US Constitution) with another text (the Bible) and these two texts have nothing to do with one another and they never have.

And all of this from a man who is a national leader in the polls and possesses the second most delegates in the primaries. At the last Republican debate, Fox News asked Huckabee if he thought that the Reagan coalition (between social conservatives, economic conservatives, and national-power conservatives) split. Huckabee argued it was.

This, of course, is important because Republicans need all three groups to win, which was the key to success for Reagan and the Bushes. Yet, with comments like Huckabee's on constitutional interpretation, he will not be able to hold the coalition together as the other two groups will turn his back on the former governor.

Update I: I am not trying to make a guilt by association argument with this post. I do not find it a problem when a politician accepts money from radical groups, such as Huckabee with the Christian Reconstructionists. I believe that Ron Paul said it best, when asked about his association with 9.11 Truth Seekers, that he does not believe it but cannot tell other people what to think on the matter-- they should be able to determine the truth for themselves.

The problem with the former governor's comment is that he desires to impose biblical law to determine the outcome of social and legal controversies in the United States. While some individuals believe, through a textual or very narrow reading of the first amendment, that there is no separation of church and state, the Constitution does not allow a Christian Theocracy.

Update II: A campaign spokesperson for the former Governor stated his comments refer to a human life amendment (to eliminate abortion in the US) and that the living God refers to living life in a good way and to respect others. The Campaign spokesperson added: "I don't think it is too complicated over what he said." (From MSNBC.)

While the first aspect makes sense to Huckabees comments, the second does not no matter how "uncomplicated it is." This following mandates of a living God speaks of eternal principles that cannot be compromised.

Humor and the Campaign

I planned to write a substantive piece on the primaries. Instead, I have been reading and writing about the Supreme Court. Blah, Blah. (By the way, for some reason, I taught my 11 1/2 month-old daughter to say "blah, blah" last month. Yet, she refused to say "Dah!" or "Da-Da" on a regular basis until this weekend."

Here is a link to a witty one-liner blog, Twitter by Anna Marie Cox-- an editor of Time and inventor of the fabulous blog, Wonkette.

Here are a few excerpts:

Oakland Co. GOP Dinner: Local honcho announces, "I haven't seen so many Republicans gathered in one room since the opening of Hooters."

Auto Show: Huckabee's tie matches his wife's dress. Has smaller press contingent than Mitt but seems just as bored.

Myrtle Beach: Ron Paul has the voice of a sick cat.

Myrtle Beach: Huck should just plead the 5th on foreign policy.

Who gave Fred Thompson a Red Bull?

Chuck norris' teeth are as white as Iowa. And just as large.

Why Some People Like Ron Paul, Part I

Some people think Ron Paul is constitutionally pure. He is not. His wish to eliminate the Department of Education or the Income Tax is not grounded in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document are such things prohibited, abstractly or concretely. There is also the problem that a healthy chunk of Paul's base is white supremacists masquerading under the familiar banner of "stayyyyytes raaaaghhhhhts," but that's another story for another day.

There is however a very specific language regarding how the United States should go to war. Congress, not the President, declares war. That's Federal Law that Presidents keep breaking, and Congresses keep facilitating the breakage of that law out of sheer cowardice.

Ron Paul knows this and basically cleans all the GOP candidates' clocks on the issue, and on United States' imperialism more generally, in this recent videotaped debate. And this is a big part of why Paul, though obviously an Ideologue in the most accurate sense of the Word, is peeling off so much money from all over the political spectrum.

Harrogate is seriously, check out this video.

Especially check out Giuliani salivating at the opportunity to remind us, in case anyone anywhere forgot even for a nanosecond, that he was in New York on 9-11.


The FOX News framing makes it even more entertaining still.

Finally, click it over to You Tube and ye will see that someone entitled it, probably after some time on Pete's Couch, "Ron Paul Courageously Speaks the Truth."

:-0 and Hmmmmmmmm....

What Happened in New Hamphsire

As Harrogate has been writing frequently and at length on this blog, the Democratic part is currently in the process of screwing itself by delving into Cult of Personality aesthetics rather than confronting the actual dangerousness of the Republican Party. But somehow all those posts got erased, probably by a stoned Ron Paul supporter. Therefore Harrogate will here attempt to recap the analysis he has been developing.

But because Harrogate is somewhat proud of Hillary Clinton overcoming weeks of often overtly sexist bashing at the hands of the media, he will put off his despair at the prospect of her getting the nomination, and inevitably losing the general election to a dangerous Republican, for another post.


Want the Health Care crisis and Poverty ignored?

Want to protract the Iraq debacle ad infinitum and open the door for bouncing, baby new wars to boot?

Want to continue to hear an ignorant President on national television talking about the pressing need to "preserve marriage," "defend Christmas," and the like?

Well, do ya?


If you want these things, then it is no wonder that you are enjoying the Obama versus Clinton show. But as Harrogate said, Clinton gets a "bye" today for her kickass defense of vacation-home turf last night. So, on to Obama, and the fascistic glorification of newness and vigorous youth that his campaign has thus far channelled with resounding success.

For months now lots of fun has been had by American Democrats hyping Obama. What is being lost in all the fervor is that, were Obama to get the Democratic nomination he would possibly be the worst candidate to do so in a long time (and that's saying something!). Obama, in short, is an empty suit. His ardent supporters typically defend their support on the basis of emotionality: "You just don't understand, you have to hear him speak" and "something is happening in America" are the vapid kinds of things you will hear in that quarter.

About the only substantive things Harrogate has thus far been able to glean from Obama is that the guy is foolish enough to believe that uncivil discourse is the big problem facing America today! That if elected, Obama's friendliness and inviolable coolness would be enough to bridge the ideological divides separating Democrats from Republicans.

Kumbayah. Meanwhile, in the general election he would be destroyed by a dangeorus Republican. But hey, his supporters would get to "be part of the excitement," and that's what matters, right?

Ron Paul's Guys Versus FOX 's Guy

This is a funny exchange.

So long, and thanks for all of the losses.

Bobby Petrino, college dictator, resigns from the Atlanta Falcons.

Here is better commentary by Peter King and Don Banks.

You will be missed.

Further Reaction to Mitt's Speech

As the contestants attempt to position themselves in Iowa, there are interesting developments over the former Mass. governor by Marion City Councilman Craig Adamson. It appears that Councilman Adamson released an email that attacks Romney for his faith, even after his speech for the elimination of Religious Tests. Here is the email, here is an excerpt:

Would any of you support an avowed atheist for president? Do you think religion, especially Christianity, is being marginalized by ACLU and other organizations? If so than you would be piling on to vote in a Mormon. Mormonism is a cult. In case I didn’t type it clearly enough… Mormonism is a cult. I won’t vote for Mitt Romney for numerous other reasons, but based on my knowledge of Mormonism, I would not trust him as my president as he might be fooled into believing most anything. How could he possibly be trusted to negotiate with Islamic radicals? He might believe Muslim and Mormons are the same, just like he tries to pass off Mormons as Christians. The Mormon Church is extremely wealthy and extremely secretive. But that is information for another time. Additionally, the LDS religion is sexist, racist, and the Church president is considered both a prophet (on the same level as Jesus) and ultimately the authority for God on earth. Mitt would be going against Mormon doctrine and risks ex-communication if he didn’t take orders from his Church.

This seems to be another example of how beliefs trump arguments, or, how beliefs diminish the ability for a rhetor to gain adherence for his ideas.

My favorite line is that "I would not trust him as my president as he might be fooled into believing most anything." People deny evolution but believe that people were created from dirt: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Source for the email: Caucus Cooler

Nobody Expects A Religious Inquisition

Wait. Sometimes people do suspect that. Case in point:

According to Inside Higher Education, Richard Colling, a professor at Olivet Nazarene University, "has been barred from teaching general biology or having his book taught at the university that is his alma mater and the place where he has taught for 27 years" because of his beliefs in favor of Evolution. [Note that Olivet Nazarene University is a private university ] According to the article, religious supporters of the school were upset because of Colling's book that argues it is possible to believe in G-D and accept Evolution:

"Colling acknowledges that it is not possible to believe literally in the Bible’s creation of the world in six days but argues that this need not diminish the moral force of the Bible or belief in God."

While Colling believes that evolution and faith can coexist, the school's actions and beliefs state otherwise:

Official church policy (confirmed by a spokeswoman for the university) states as follows: “The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (’In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth ....’ Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator.”

This point seems troubling for a few reasons, but since this is a private institution, the first amendment angle does not apply. The first amendment only concerns private schools in the state of California.

Working at a private school, I am surprised that the school would take a PR hit and weaken its biology department because of religious supports and because the religious indoctrination classes, er., I mean theology classes, need to be in all of the classes in the University.

So it goes.

Love for Attacks Ads

Since Fred "The Fish" Thompson unleashed the first attack ad of the season, I though I would post a few of my favorite from prior elections. The first three are from the 2006 races; the last is from a time well before that. Enjoy.

Number Four: "Harold Ford: Call Me"


Number Three: "Walsh rejects Stem Cells... and little girls"


Number Two: Vernon Robinson, "Twilight Zone"



Number One:"Wrong on Metaphysics."

The best Holiday special, Ever

It needs to be The Year Without a Santa....

Why you ask? Well, because it has style. And in order to have style, you need a trombone.



"Some like it hot. But I like it really hot."

Reaction to Romney

A humorous excerpt from Christopher Hitchens' review of Romney's absurd speech on Religion:

If an atheist was running against him, would Romney make nothing of the fact? His stupid unease on this point is shown by his demagogic attack on the straw man "religion of secularism," when, actually, his main and most cynical critic is a moon-faced true believer and anti-Darwin pulpit-puncher from Arkansas who doesn't seem to know the difference between being born again and born yesterday.

The Speech

A Clever beginning about GHWB, his military service, and the protection of freedom.

But then, after the intro, the problems begin.

The speech rests on the dichotomy between freedom and dogmatism. Greatness develops through liberty, especially religious liberty, while damnation rests with tyranny. No big surprise here. Neither were the references with Kennedy.

He is strong when he defends his convictions:

here are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

This seems to be a point at which he distances himself from the religious voters who would not vote for him. If evangelicals may reject him for his beliefs on theology, he may reach common ground with them over his stance on following principle and tradition.

Yet, after beginning with a strategy of merger, he then follows with a strategy of division based on the paper-tiger argument of "secularism".

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

In the beginning of his address, he invokes Kennedy; yet here, he rejects Kennedy. In his 1960 speech, Kennedy spoke of an absolute division between Church and State, which his audience would accept. Forty-six years later, Romney cannot proclaim an absolute separation because his audience would reject it. Where does this lead us?

Romney:

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

This is a very interesting passage. He begins with the Founders, who did not place G-D on the currency or in the pledge or in Nativity scenes. The Founders did not places judges in position because of their "foundation of faith upon which the constitution rests." The constitution does not rest upon the foundation of faith. It does not rest on revelation but reason and consensus.

While Romney would reject religious tests he invokes religious tests. Romney:

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.

What about the concept that liberty is a natural right based on a common human experience. No, that for Romney is not possible. It requires religion.

This religion also requires the rejection of enlightenment, which the Founding Fathers would have accepted. Well, the Founding Fathers not invoked by Romney:

I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer.

Romney desires the balance of revelation and reason but too often he seems to reject reason. It is the same with his position of faith. He sees a problem with religion and extreme religion. Yet, if you are outside of religion, if you do not believe, then you do not have freedom and you can never desire or move toward freedom. Romney: "I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

Where does this leave Romney-

For the deeply religious, he offers those a message: Religion, in general, matters and there is good in all religions. Mitt:

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

. Yet, this message should not resonate for the "true believer" because, for those people, it is not only that their beliefs matter but their specific beliefs matter. If you know and possess the truth, then that truth is specific.

For the religious but not committed: this speech glitters in banality. It rewrites history, it places everything within the bounds of religion, and it creates a symbolic enemy that would take religion away-- those damn secularists. This is a great message for those not steeped in deep belief and theology, do not care for the day-to-day word, and show up to service during Christmas and Easter. It is summed up by this quote: "we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." Right, Mitt. Remember, you delivered this speech because some believe that Mormons, and to another extent, Catholics, are not Christians. That is a symphony invented on discord.

For the non-believers, you do not have a place at the table. This country is not for you. For remember, according to Bishop Mitt, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

For the extremists: you are dangerous. And remember, fanatics are not limited to Islam. Meaning, if make Mitt's religion a religious test for office, you are being dogmatic. And there is no place for you.

Points of Light

Does it burn GWB and his supporters that GHWB is introducing a member of a "cult?"

And that is not a shot on Mormonism.

Romney on Religion

In less than 30 minutes, Mitt Romney will be delivering a speech on his religion at the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University.

This is an interesting speech, especially to the concepts of rhetorical echoes. In 1960, Kennedy delivered a speech to the Houston Ministerial Association to defend his ability to be independent if he were President. But can Romney make the same rhetorical choice is he is choosing to seek the support of religious voters.

It is a very interesting choice to deliver this at A&M, a very conservative school. Former President George H.W. Bush will introduce him.

When Kennedy delivered his speech in 1960, he visited the Alamo before he delivered the speech. One of the most important aspects of Kennedy's speech is that during his visit to the Alamo, he noticed that the memorial did not take account of the religion of those who died. Of course, at the time, Baptists were in favor of the separation of church and state and not for the abolishment of that separation.

But how time changes.

Begin Again

The Blog is back and running, even if I am the only one posting-- to you other members of the situation.

Religion and Politics

There is an interesting article in The New York Times about the 2008 President Election and the Evangelical Community. If nothing else, it is very interesting to read this and see how beliefs shape arguments, especially the failure of reconciliation between incompatible world-views.

War, Gore, and GLobal Warming

Last week, former Senator, VP, and failed Presidential Candidate Al Gore received the Nobel Peace Price. The question remains, how does global warming relate to peace?

From Slate:

The idea of a connection between conflict and climate change is fairly new, and one that had been mostly relegated to academic journals until earlier this year. Then, in June, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon went on record to suggest global warming as a cause for the fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan. He pointed out that warming in the tropical and southern oceans, fueled in some part by climate change, led to a decades-long drought and clashes between herders and farmers over the degrading land. When a rebellion broke out against the central government, Sudan's leaders fought back by arming and supporting the herders against the farmers—and the entire region fell into war. If global warming did cause the Sudanese drought, then it's also responsible for the 200,000 to 450,000 lives that have been lost over the last four and a half years. We may very well be watching the first major conflict caused by emissions from our factories, power plants, and cars.
Other early hot spots for warming-related conflict are likely to be in sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, or the Caribbean—places where institutions are weak, infrastructure is deficient, and the government is incompetent or malevolent. The crisis in Darfur has already stretched into Chad and the Central African Republic. Nomads from Sudan, spillovers from Sudan's desertification, are pushing deep into the Congolese rain forest. In Ghana, nomadic Fulani cattle herdsmen, forced by the expanding Sahara desert into agricultural lands, are buying high-power assault rifles to defend their animals from angry farmers.

Climate-change conflict is even spreading into the Arctic, where normally pacific Canada and Norway have joined the United States, Russia, and Denmark in a five-way tussle over mineral and shipping rights unlocked by the melting ice. Thus far largely symbolic, the conflict could take a more serious turn as the waters warm and military traffic increases. Norway and Russia already face each other down over fish in the Barents Sea. And Canada and Denmark take turns pulling up each other's flag on Hans Island, a stretch of icy rock the size of a football field. These countries may be arguing over small fries right now, but what happens when oil is at stake?

Ethos and the Academic Bill of Rights

Currently, I am researching the Academic Bill of Rights by Students for Academic Freedom
"whose goal is to end the political abuse of the university and to restore integrity to the academic mission as a disinterested pursuit of knowledge."

In an article about the firing of two DePaul Professors, the author suggests that DePaul should fire another professor for his political beliefs, which seems to counter the principles of the Academic Bill of Rights.Now, in this article, there is no discusison that the professor is violating his professional duties by trying to indoctrinate his students. There is no discusison that he presents only one sided views in his class. Instead, the author of this article would like DePaul to fire him for his research and his beliefs because, "his entire [The English Professor's] corpus of "scholarly" work consists of exercises in "revolutionary" politics.

One paragraph sticks out:

Well, we would like to take Abraham up on the challenge and urge DePaul to take a close look at this fella's academic record, which can be seen here. Abraham holds a PhD in English from Purdue, where he wrote a dissertation about "The Rhetoric of Resistance," in other words a propaganda tract for the "revolutionary" left. Before that he completed an MA thesis in Arkansas that was a sycophantic celebration of the Maoist "philosopher" Michel Foucault.

I wonder if the author in question ever read the two works in question and knows enough about the rhetoric of resistance and the work of Michel Foucault to be able to judge its academic merits. Does the author know that "the rhetoric of resistance" could be used by "conservatives" against "liberals," which, by the way, is some of the purpose behind the Academic Bill of Rights.

But instead, the rhetoric of resistance is only a "propaganda tract of the left." If you are a conservative, nothing useful could come from it....

At what point does an intellectual pursuit just turn out to be a political pursuit?

Question for baseball Fans

A few random questions while watching the Yankees- Indians' game:

When did the seventh inning stretch tradition begin and why?

Why do they sing God Bless America? What is the conenction betwen this song and baseball?

Are there other traditions at other ballparks? I believe that Houston played "Wine, Women, and Snowpeas," er., I mean the Texas State Anthem. What elose is there?

This Just in:

President Bush just said the following: "This government does not torture people."

Explain this quote.

For reading materials to prepare your case, read this article from The New York Times.

The Revolution will not be sold (in stores)

There are certain moments in the history of music that serve as revolutionary moments, paradigm shifts in the Kuhnian sense. Ladies and gentlemen, we are about to experience another one of those moments, from a band that has already brought you two such moments,O.K. Computer and Kid A.

On October 10, you will be able to download Radiohead's new album, In Rainbows. You will not have to purchase it in stores and you will not have to pay an outrageous fee to listen to the music. Instead, you will be able to determine what price, if any, you would pay for the album.

From Rolling Stone, which by the way, also provides a preview of the new material:

As you've no doubt heard by now, Radiohead are releasing In Rainbows, their seventh studio album, in two different formats: a basic DRM-free download version that costs whatever you want that's available October 10th, and a deluxe boxed version that includes a double vinyl disc, a book, eight bonus tracks and two CDs, out the first week of December (it also comes with a DRM-free download that actives on October 10th).

"You look so tired and unhappy
Bring down the government
They don't, they don't speak for us"

Where is Oxymoron? Part II

Oxymoron's commercial is back on the tele. Because we miss him, here it is again:

Where is Oxymoron? Part I

Unlike yourself, it does exist...

It appears as if the maker of John Courage Ale pulled it from the US to focus on selling Newcastle.

What is the nature of academic freedom?

This may not be a coherent post but I am looking for some feedback on a few questions.

What should the term "Academic freedom" include?
What is the relation of academic freedom and partisan interests?
How is indoctrination different from persuasion or propaganda?
How should we discuss the “left” or the “right” or “liberal” and “conservative”? Treat them as a coherent whole or divide them into belief systems?

Recently, there have been a few national stories that challenge the sense of academic freedom:

Erwin Chemerinsky was offered a position to become the Dean of UC Irvine's new law school. Subsequently, the offer was rescinded by one of the school chancellors, Michael V. Drake. Chemerinsky is a prominent constitutional scholar, who has argued before the Supreme Court (The Texas Ten Commandment cases). Also, He is outspoken politically, as he has written editorials against the death penalty.

It appears that when Drake rescinded the offer, he failed to offer good reasons for this, leading many people to believe that the push to remove the offer developed from “Conservatives” within Orange County, California. Even one of the state’s more conservative Supreme Court Justices spoke out against the hire.

Last week, the school reoffered the position to Chemerinsky. You can read about this from the The L.A. Times

Second, former Harvard President Larry Summers was asked to deliver a keynote speech for a dinner at UC Sacramento. Some of the “liberal” professors objected to this because of Summers’ view on gender. The offer was rescinded and he did not speak.

Third, professors at Stanford protested the appointment of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute. As far as I know, the protests have not succeeded and Rumsfeld will still be a fellow at Stanford.

Fourth, Steve Bitterman,
a professor at Southwestern Community College was fired after offended students appealed to the school’s administration over Bitterman’s comments that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be read literally but rather figuratively. Bitterman told the class that "it was an extremely meaningful story, but you had to see it in a poetic, metaphoric or symbolic sense, that if you took it literally, that you were going to miss a whole lot of meaning there." After he was fired, Bitterman (a fitting name) said: I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job, I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job.”

How should we understand these four examples in heir relation to partisan interests and education?

John Hawkins Loves White People Like "A Fat Kid Loves Cake": The Battle for Framing in the Case of the Jena 6

"I love you/ like a fat kid loves cake" (from Get Rich or Die Trying).



Poetic recitation time being over, let us now repair to the topic of the moment. For a long time the position taken by M at
Separation of Spheres was the only one an interested party could find on the Internet and on the News. Well, actually that's not entirely true: In truth the way it started was the story was simply being buried by the media.

But then, thanks largely to socially conscious liberal bloggers like M, the corporate media was finally forced to come in and throw the big light on the bizarre and sad recent happenigns in Jena, Lousiana.

But anyway, when Harrogate first got wind of the story from the liberal bloggers, he wondered: are the conservatives defending this? Are the white students or their families or the DA speaking out in their defense? What, o What could they be saying in light of what looks to us like a clear case of justice miscarried by the good ole boy system? Here the importance of what famed linguist George Lakoff has to say about framing and contemporary politics is, it seems to Harrogate, very clearly illustrated.

There was a period where the conservative pundits layed low on this story and so the liberal blogosphere remained free to dictate the terms of our moral imaginations.

But the silence is over, and now the real battle for framing is afoot. As it heats up, the implications of this tussle will not extend to Mychal Bell himself, who already has been released on bond and now, quite appropriately, awaits his day in juvenile court to face charges dramatically reduced from what had started out as no less than Attempted Murder. But the battle has rhetorical and, therefore, political implications that are in many ways far more important than the fates of any of the individuals involved, or even for that matter the fate of Harrogate himself.

Increasingly popular pundit John Hawkins has captured, Harrogate believes, the essence of conservative apologetics for the Jena DA's original approach to the case. Harrogate exhorts ye, o readers, to peruse Hawkins' petition to the people that we have all been had by the hucksters of race.

Is there merit to his case? Harrogate reports. Ye decide.

(BTW, far be it from Harrogate to introduce the Ad Hominem element into his otherwise sober, wholly unironic, erudite political and rhetorical discourses. Yet he nevertheless feels it both necessary and even somewhat entertaining, in a morbid sort of way, to remind readers that when they're reading the ruminations of this god-prattling, gun-championing, homosexual hating, war supporting fella, you're also reading someone who very recently reminded us that the people of New Orleans need to stop milking Katrina sympathy, show some of that can-do American attitude and get over it already)

The Mask

Police releashed this image of the mask in question. One student stated it was "fleshy-colored" and "wrinkled."

I have no idea what it represents.

It appears that the gun was loaded but it only contained one round. The student, who has a history of mental illness, did not carry any other rounds.

Update: The New York Times reports that it was a Fred Flintstone mask.

And how was your day at work Honey?

At around 2:30 pm today, a crazed lunatic who wore a mask (some say it was the mask from Scream others say it was a mask of George H.W. Bush, but it looks like Reagan to me-- and I am being serious) and carried a rifle tried to enter the building in which I teach. Some of my students were last to class and, when I asked why they were late, they stated campus police were arresting a man with a rifle. I thought that to be a reasonable excuse.

The gunman had put his rifle in a bag and, when confronted, tried to get it out. Police sub-dued him before he could. It seems that someone noticed a man with a mask and a large bag, thought it was strange, and called security.

No one was hurt.

I will add more about this tomorrow.