I hate CNN

After watching several of these, I have come to the conclusion that CNN is running a third class operation.  They haven’t sunk to the level of FoxNews, but they are sorely lagging behind MSNBC.

While I appreciate CNN for reminding us that Stevie Wonder can still stand, Rob Reiner is still Fat, Isaiah Washington is still with his pretty wife with the short hair, and Bradley Whitford is still alive, The constant celebrity shots demean the stature of  the event.

Let’s pour a little out for John Edwards’ Campaign

Let me say that I appreciate John Edwards as much as I can appreciate a man that I trust about as far as I can throw him.

After today, basically the race boils down to  the old soldier vs. the mormon on one side and  the brother vs. the white woman on the other.

The show is basically over on both sides, near as I can tell.  Rudy’s betrothal  to McCain basically salts it away for him unless the Angry Right goes Nancy Kerrigan on McCain and really breaks down the party just to avert a McCain candidacy.

On the other side, with Edwards out of the way, Obama still finds himself down 3 scores with the ball  early in the fourth quarter.  He can still do it, but he is going to need a break.   He is going to need a score tomorrow at the Debate if he wants any hope at all of closing the gap.

If Edwards wants to have an impact, then he needs to make an endorsement, one way or the other, either today or tomorrow.

Waiting more than that won’t matter.

Either way, I doubt that the Clintons will miss him.

Let the dog and pony show commence

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States!

Now Everyone claps.

Everyone except Dick Cheney, who is clearly too cool to clap.

Nancy Pelosi introduces him officially, and let the standing Ovation resume, sans Dick Cheney.

Let us see what this fool is finna say.

W starts to frame the speech as being about his legacy.

Mysteriously enough, it sounds just like LAST year’s speech.

And oddly enough, I feel exactly the same way about it as I did last year.

Bah.  Foolishness.

Now get on with the applause lines so I can get back to what I was doing.

Toni Morrison shows the world how to endorse a candidate for President

Well, I asked where Toni Morrison was. And now I know where she is.

Endorsements may not mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I will be DAMNED if this aint the purtiest letter of endorsement I have EVER read.

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me–a public endorsement of a
Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing
it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that
this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their
peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one
thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even
revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the
person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always
seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I
am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it)
of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my
admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no
liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or
“new-centrist” ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very
much for your race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had
to offer or because it might make me “proud.”

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I
stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in
addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you
exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or
gender and something I don’t see in other candidates. That something is
a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It
is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we
call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if
we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the
forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds
it. Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a
class, or earn it in the workplace–that access can foster the
acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom. <–you cant teach that kind of eloquence. And you can’t fake it.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such
a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with
courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his
country’s citizens as “we,” not “they”? Someone who understands what it
will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself,
what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet
unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and
some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon
their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

Toni Morrison

So, NOW….can we please stop talking about Bill Clinton being the “first Black President”???

Powered by ScribeFire.

Rush Limbaugh was right for almost a full Half Hour today

It is a testament to how bizarre this election truly is that I listened to Rush Limbaugh for almost 30 minutes and found myself nodding in agreement rather than Punching the FM button in disgust looking for Souljah Boy help me exchange one level of foolishness for another.

but Wednesday. Rush was on a roll (by his own admission) and pretty much pulled the Clinton’s card.

And he enjoyed it.

And actually, so did I.

I have been giving Rush Limbaugh 10-12 minutes of my day for well over 17 years now. I remember when Rush launched headlong into “America held Hostage” after Bill Clinton rode that vaunted 43% plurality onto Pennsylvania Avenue and into the waiting mouth of …never mind. Let me maintain the high road and get to the good part.

From the Mouth of Mr. Limbaugh:

RUSH: The Democrat Party is at war, and it’s at war over race, and it’s a dirty little secret that the Democrats have been trying to sweep under the rug for decades, and it is surfacing. Yeah, we in the Republican Party, we’re at war, too, but ours is over philosophy. Theirs is over race. There’s no difference between what Obama wants to do and the Breck Girl wants to do and what Hillary wants to do if they get to the White House. But there’s a big difference on what we want to do based on our series and roster of candidates here. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: We’ll do the Democrats in this hour. The Los Angeles Times has a story here today by Dan Morain: “‘Longtime Patron May be a Problem for Obama’ — Hillary Rodham Clinton dropped the name of Barack Obama’s Chicago patron into the South Carolina debate Monday night, putting front and center a tangled relationship that has the potential to undermine Obama’s image as a candidate whose ethical standards are distinctly higher than those of his main opponent. Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy.” All right, fine and daddy, all well and good, and Hillary did bring this up after Obama correctly reminded people that she sat as a corporate lawyer on the Wal-Mart board. So the LA Times does this huge exposé of this Rezko guy, but no problems with Norman Hsu, right? No problems with all the indicted fundraisers and friends of the Clintons. What was the total amount of news coverage that Norman Hsu got, 12 minutes? Maybe 13. But now they’re going to do this giant puff piece, or hit piece on Obama’s patron? They found one Obama patron. If you look at the Clinton list of donors and fundraisers, you’ll find more than a gazillion of them, and they’re more than just patrons. You know, it would be quite the sad irony, and this is leading up to a point, by the way, and that is a theme that I have explained and expanded upon previously. The Clinton machine and the Democrat Party machine is out to destroy the uppity black guy. That’s what this is all about. The Democrat Party is at war with itself over race. Now, the Republican Party is at war with itself, too, but that’s over philosophy. The Democrats are at war with themselves over race, and Obama is the victim. It would be quite the sad irony if Obama is turned into the ethically troubling politician in his race against, of all people, the Clintons. This would prove, if we need proof, just how far in the tank the media are for the Clintons. Have you noticed, if you watched the debate on Monday night from South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton is backed by many of the old-guard blacks, the John Lewises, they’re all there, the Charlie Rangels, Andrew Young, all the old-guard blacks, all of the old-guard civil rights movement blacks are backing Mrs. Clinton, and they aren’t offended in the least. This is crucial to understand. These old-guard civil right black leaders and congressmen are not at all offended in the least over these racial attacks on Barack Obama. In fact, they chime in. And when Mrs. Clinton engages in these attacks and they are present, these old-guard guys start applauding. Here’s the reason why. Barack Obama is not part of their inner circle. The old-guard blacks, the Reverend Jacksons, the Reverend Sharptons, the John Lewises, most in the Congressional Black Caucus, they don’t want Barack Obama to win.   The old-guard black leadership sees Obama as an upstart who challenges their power. He has not followed their path. He is an outsider to them. He has not been down for the struggle. Well, I know Jackson supports Obama. But that’s mitigated by the fact that his wife supports Hillary, and the Reverend Jackson needs someplace to sleep when he’s in Chicago. Do you see him out there doing much for Obama? Do you see the Reverend Jackson coming to Obama’s defense as the Clinton machine makes racial attack after racial attack on Obama? So don’t give me this Jesse Jackson’s for him. Maybe so. But he’s not doing anything for him. He might have announced some months ago that he was for Obama, but it doesn’t mean anything, because Barack has not been down for the struggle, as they define it. Their power, the old-guard black guys, their power comes from the Democrat machine; their power comes from the Democrat Party. None of these members of the old guard, the black civil rights guys, none of these guys would be anything if not for the grant of power from the Democrat Party. It’s a two-way street. These guys deliver votes, these guys follow through on the agenda, and the Democrats give ‘em a seat at the table of power. Barack Obama will owe them nothing. Barack Obama may as well be Clarence Thomas to Mrs. Clinton, to Bill Clinton, to the civil rights leaders and elected officials from the old black guard. But, despite this, Obama is getting the black vote, overwhelmingly! And, you know what? Obama is proving that he is the voice of the future in that community. The Clintons hate it, and John Lewis hates it, and Charles Rangel hates it, and all these other guys. Barack will not owe them anything and so they can’t afford for him to win, and so they’re getting even more concerned about Obama. The Uncle Bills. That’s what we call ‘em. Not Uncle Toms, the Uncle Bills, the guys selling out their own guys, their own race, to stay in the good graces of Bill Clinton, the Uncle Bill. That’s all they are. John Lewis is an Uncle Bill. Charlie Rangel is an Uncle Bill. Andrew Young is an Uncle Bill. They know it. So they’re getting concerned about Obama and his appeal to blacks. He is showing how little power these old activists have over the black community, and this will further isolate them. I mean, Obama, look at what happened in Michigan. Seventy percent of the blacks there showed up in an irrelevant Democrat primary and voted “uncommitted.” You watch what happens in South Carolina. He’s going to clean up with the black vote. Interestingly enough, the Democrats are excited about this. The Clintons are excited. The Democrats, the Clintons, I should say, have their own southern strategy, folks. We discussed this in very brief detail yesterday. What’s going to happen is, if this holds true, Obama cleans up with the black vote, if he wins period and cleans up with the black vote in South Carolina on Saturday, that’s fine with the Clintons. Just fine. Because what will then happen is a bunch of people — never come out of the mouths of the Clintons — you have Terry McAuliffe or this Howard Wolfson guy, and they will casually, will not make a big statement about it, but they’ll get it in the news media cycle, oh, yeah, we kind of expected that. So many blacks in South Carolina, of course we expected that. What are they saying when they say that? Of course, there are a lot of blacks in South Carolina. What they’re doing is scaring whites. The whole point of letting Obama win South Carolina and ceding the state — she’s not there, Clinton’s running around to churches and so forth there, but she’s not. The whole point is to allow them their southern strategy after South Carolina going into Super Tuesday. “Yeah, yeah, but look at all the blacks there.” The old southern strangle, this is what they used to apply to Republicans. They’re doing it! They want to say to white liberal voters and independents in these February 5th states, and Hispanics, too, it’s designed to galvanize whites in greater numbers to vote for Hillary and women as well. Obama is proving that he is the voice of the future in that community. They’re more concerned about it. He’s really showing how little power these old-guard black guys have. She’s got a problem, too. I don’t mean to make them sound invincible here. She’s got a real problem if she’s nominated, and that’s who to pick as a running mate. Now, everybody speculates idly, who will Hillary choose? It’s not that simple. Hispanics are voting for her in bigger numbers than blacks right now, and there’s a subwar in the Democrat Party between blacks and Hispanics over who’s the most valid, qualified, deserving minority. Hispanics outnumber ‘em. By the way, you liberal blacks, you think this is by accident? It’s called illegal immigration, the Democrats wanted to sustain it, call it amnesty. Why? They wanted all those Hispanic voters. You think they care about you as much anymore? No. They never did, really. Now there are more Hispanics than there are blacks and there’s a little war going on where that’s concerned. Hispanics are voting for Mrs. Clinton in bigger numbers than blacks are. So if she picks Richardson, for example, to be her veep, that’s going to tick off a lot of blacks who will see it as a sleight to them, especially given Obama’s second-place finish. The blacks are going to say, “Hey, our guy came in second, and would have come in first if you hadn’t been a bunch of sleazeballs. You just can’t cast him aside.” And, if she goes for an Hispanic, there’s gonna be a war. If she picks Obama, which is doubtful because she hates him, but if she does for some reason, that’s going to tick off Hispanics, or at least some of them who have been helping her win in some of these states. What’s happening is they campaign on division, and they have to deal with it in the end, in the general. They’re dividing the party, the Clintons are, and they’re dividing it on the basis of race, and somehow they gotta put it back together in November, the general election. Now, she’s going to get the black vote in November, but the question is will she get enough of it? Will some of them get so mad they’ll just stay home? But make no mistake about this, the Democrat Party is now at war with itself, not over philosophy, but over race. There’s much more on this. If she picks a white guy, depends on who the white guy is. That’s what I’m saying. She’s got a dilemma here over who to pick. She might just say, I’m going to do both, I’m going to be president and vice president so that if something happens to me when I get sick I can appoint myself to be president.   BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Okay, the Democrat Party is at war with itself — not over philosophy, but over race — and there are two people that you can thank for this: the Clintons. You see, the Clintons learned racial politics in Arkansas, and they brought it to Washington, and now they’re using it to try and win Bill Clinton a third term, which is what this election really is. They’re going to use race in the primary and then use it against the Republicans in the general, all the while claiming it’s their opponents who are using race. Now, it’s a very hateful tactic, but that’s what they’re doing. Everybody knows it! But nobody has the guts to call them on it in the Democrat Party, in the Drive-By Media, or what have you. You’ve got people like Tom Brokaw talking about me and dogma and partisanship. Why doesn’t Brokaw challenge the Democrats in the media, in specific the Clintons, to cut out their racist tactics? This is rhetorical. I know it’s not going to happen. I’m mentioning it to you. All they can focus on is how “the Republican Party is falling apart and Limbaugh is losing his influence! Limbaugh is no longer effective.” Michelle Malkin’s got a great point today. You know why the libs love McCain? (I’m getting ahead of myself here.) He gives them cover to rip conservatives! They can support a Republican and still hate conservatives. I’m paraphrasing that, but it’s an excellent point. But these guys, they go on the Sunday shows, and they talk about me — which I’m flattered. They’re promoting the death of conservatism, the ascendancy of John McCain. Why are we not getting long discussions about the race war in the Democrat Party being waged by the Clintons, on the Sunday shows and the op-ed page of the New York Times? What is clear to me, ladies and gentlemen, is that racism is not dead in the Democrat Party. It’s got a long history of it, and if a black politician dares to challenge the Democrat National Committee, the Democrat establishment, the Clinton machine, that black politician is smeared. He is accused of being unethical. He is accused of lying. He is accused of whatever it takes to stop him. The fact is: The Clintons have no record of promoting blacks beyond where they’ve been in the Democrat Party. They have stomped on any black who dares to challenge them or their favorite candidates, and they’re now doing it to Barack Obama. I can give you the names. We go through this list of names constantly. Carl McCall in New York, who ran for governor, was abandoned. Maynard Jackson wanted to lead the DNC. I can even give you Hillary Clinton. If the Clintons and the Democrats were honest about their wailing and whining and moaning about the civil rights movement; would they not step aside and be promoting Obama for the good of America, for the good of race relations, for the good of civil rights? Yeah, if they were being honest, but they’re never going to do that. They don’t want the race war to end, the race war that they started. They don’t want it to end. It’s another arrow in the quiver they can blame on Republicans: racial discrimination and racism in the United States. But it’s the Clintons who have no record of promoting blacks beyond where they’ve been in the Democrat Party. By the way, neither Clinton has done anything that stands out as addressing the problems of the inner city. They side with the National Education Association. They promote other policies and put their power before the well-being of these communities. Their vaunted social programs have destroyed and ripped apart the black family. They’ve not done anything. Yet, they make it sound like they’re salvation and saviors. In fact, while I’m at it, since I’m on this roll: Neither the Clintons nor the Democrats have done anything to deserve the support of single women or women at all. This is something that’s always amazed me. Bill Clinton himself is a womanizer and a woman abuser. For crying out loud, can you imagine what would happen if he were a Republican? Mrs. Clinton is his co-conspirator in the abuse of women. Hillary has been a facilitator of his abuse for decades. You know, those bimbo eruptions weren’t to protect the women. It was to protect Bill. That was to destroy the women, and Hillary loved getting even with all those pretty girls. She loved it. She’s no victim. She’s a co-conspirator and a perpetrator. It’s the same with Hispanics. The Clintons have no record of addressing that community in any particular way. It’s all a myth! They’re power politicians. They seek self-aggrandizement. She, even more than him, seeks power to advance an agenda. It’s so alien to our tradition, it’s frightening.

The real difference between Clinton and Obama

It is too easy to suggest that I support Obama merely because we are both light skinned brothas with a flair for words, beautiful and dynamic wives and two gorgeous children.

It is because Hillary Clinton believes that the only thing wrong is that the right people aren’t in charge.

That the automobile of government lacks only competent drivers.

Obama on the other hand, believes that the car is broken and that he and others can fix it.

In the New Yorker (a LONG article, but a great read) George Packer says:

These rival conceptions of the Presidency—Clinton as executive, Obama as visionary—reflect a deeper difference in how the two candidates analyze what ails the country. Obama’s diagnosis is more fundamental: for him, the illness precedes the Bush years and the partisan deadlock in Washington, originating in a basic failure of politicians to bring Americans together. A strong hand on the wheel won’t make a difference if your car is stuck in the mud; a good leader has to persuade enough people to get out and push. Whereas Clinton echoes Churchill, who proclaimed, “Give us the tools and we will finish the job,” Obama invokes Lincoln, who said, “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
All the race-baiting and politricks obscures the REAL differences.
Obama wants a new car. Clinton just wants the keys to the old car.

Paging Toni Morrison, Toni Morrison to the Black Courtesy Phone, Please.

CNN has proven that it should be barred from holding Presidential Debates.  Joe Johns actually formed his mouth and asked Barack Obama if he Bill Clinton was the first Black President of the United States.

This is all Toni Morrison’s fault.  I, for one, would like to know what she has to say about all this.

In case you were wondering where the hell all this came from…i give you, via the power of the google:

Clinton as the First Black President

Toni Morrison

Clinton as the first black president

New Yorker, October 1998

Thanks to the papers, we know what the columnists think. Thanks to round-the-clock cable, we know what the ex-prosecutors, the right-wing blondes, the teletropic law professors, and the disgraced political consultants think. Thanks to the polls, we know what “the American people” think. But what about the experts on human folly?

This summer, my plan was to do very selective radio listening, read no newspapers or news magazines, and leave my television screen profoundly, mercifully blank. There were books to read, others to finish, a few to read again. It was a lovely summer, and I was pleased with the decision to recuse myself from what had become since January The Only Story Worth Telling. Although I wanted cognitive space for my own pursuits, averting my gaze was not to bury my head. I was eager for information, yet suspicious of the package in which that information would be wrapped. I have been convinced for a long time now that, with a few dazzling exceptions, print and visual media have thrown away their freedom and chosen jail instead–have willingly locked themselves into a ratings-driven, moneybased prison of their own making. However comfortable the prison may be, its most overwhelming feature is loss of the public. Not able, therefore, to trust reporters to report instead of gossip among themselves, unable to bear newscasters deflecting, ignoring, trivializing information–orchestrating its minor chords for the highest decibel–I decided to get my news the old-fashioned way: conversation, public eavesdropping, and word of mouth.

I hoped to avoid the spectacle I was sure would be mounted, fearing that at any minute I might have to witness ex-Presidential friends selling that friendship for the higher salaries of broadcast journalism; anticipating the nausea that might rise when quaking Democrats took firm positions on or over the fence in case the polls changed. I imagined feral Republicans, smelling blood and a shot at the totalitarian power they believe is rightfully theirs; self-congratulatory pundits sifting through “history” for nuggets of dubious relevancy.

I did not relinquish my summer plans, but summer is over now and I have begun to supplement verbal accounts of the running news with tentative perusal of C-SPAN, brief glimpses of anchorfolk, squinting glances at newspaper–trying belatedly to get the story straight. What, I have been wondering, is the story–the one only the public seems to know? And what does it mean?

I wish that the effluvia did add up to a story of adultery. Serious as adultery is, it is not a national catastrophe. Women leaving hotels following trysts with their extramarital lovers tell pollsters they abominate Mr. Clinton’s behavior. Relaxed men fresh from massage parlors frown earnestly into the camera at the mere thought of such malfeasance. No one “approves” of adultery, but, unlike fidelity in Plymouth Rock society, late-twentieth-century fidelity, when weighed against the constitutional right to privacy, comes up short. The root of the word, adulterare, means “to defile,” but at its core is treachery. Cloaked in deception and secrecy, it has earned prominence on lists of moral prohibitions and is understood as more than a sin; in divorce courts it is a crime. People don’t get arrested for its commission, but they can suffer its grave consequences.

Still, it is clear that this is not a narrative of adultery or even of its consequences for the families involved. Is there anyone who believes that that was all the investigation had in mind? Adultery is the Independent Counsel’s loss leader, the item displayed to lure the customers inside the shop. Nor was it ever a story about seduction–male vamp or female predator (or the other way around). It played that way a little: a worn tale of middle-aged vulnerability and youthful appetite. The Achilles’ heel analogy flashed for a bit, but had no staying power, although its ultra meaning–that Achilles’ heel was given to Achilles, not to a lesser man–lay quietly dormant under the cliché.

At another point, the story seemed to be about high and impeachable crimes like the ones we have had some experience with: the suborning of federal agencies; the exchange of billion-dollar contracts for proof of indiscretion; the extermination of infants in illegal wars mounted and waged for money and power. Until something like those abuses surfaces, the story will have to make do with thinner stuff: alleged perjury and “Lady, your husband is cheating on us.” Whatever the media promote and the chorus chants, whatever dapples dinner tables, this is not a mundane story of sex, lies, and videotape. The real story is none of these. Not adultery, or high crimes. Nor is it even the story of a brilliant President naive enough to believe, along with the rest of the citizenry, that there were lines one’s enemies would not cross, lengths to which they would not go–a profound, perhaps irrevocable, error in judgment.

In a quite baffling and frustrating manner, it was not a “story” but a compilation of revelations and commentary which shied away from the meaning of its own material. In spite of myriad “titles” (”The President in Crisis”), what the public has been given is dangerously close to a story of no story at all. One of the problems in locating it is the absence of a coherent sphere of enunciation. There seems to be no appropriate language in which or platform of discourse from which to pursue it. This absence of clear language has imploded into a surfeit of contradictory languages. The parsing and equivocal terminology of law is laced with titillation. Raw comedy is spiked with Cotton Mather homilies. The precision of a coroner’s vocabulary mocks passionate debates on morality. Radiant sermons are forced to dance with vile headlines. From deep within this conflagration of tony, occasionally insightful, arch, pompous, mournful, supercilious, generous, salivating verbalism, the single consistent sound to emerge is a howl of revulsion.

But revulsion against what? What is being violated, ruptured, defiled? The bedroom? The Oval Office? The voting booth? The fourth grade? Marriage vows? The flag? Whatever answer is given, underneath the national embarrassment churns a disquiet turned to dread and now anger.

African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President’s body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke? The message was clear “No matter how smart you are, how hard you work, how much coin you earn for us, we will put you in your place or put you out of the place you have somehow, albeit with our permission, achieved. You will be fired from your job, sent away in disgrace, and–who knows?–maybe sentenced and jailed to boot. In short, unless you do as we say (i.e., assimilate at once), your expletives belong to us.”

For a large segment of the population who are not African-Americans or members of other minorities, the elusive story left visible tracks: from target sighted to attack, to criminalization, to lynching, and now, in some quarters, to crucifixion. The always and already guilty “perp” is being hunted down not by a prosecutor’s obsessive application of law but by a different kind of pursuer, one who makes new laws out of the shards of those he breaks.

Certain freedoms I once imagined as being in a vault somewhere, like ancient jewels kept safe from thieves. No single official or group could break in and remove them, certainly not in public. The image is juvenile, of course, and I have not had recourse to it for the whole of my adult fife. Yet it is useful now to explain what I perceive as the real story. For each bootstep the office of the Independent Counsel has taken smashes one of those jewels–a ruby of grand-jury secrecy here, a sapphire of due process there. Such concentrated power may be reminiscent of a solitary Torquemada on a holy mission of lethal inquisition. It may even suggest a fatwa. But neither applies. This is Slaughtergate. A sustained, bloody, arrogant coup d’éat. The Presidency is being stolen from us. And the people know it.

I don’t regret my “news-free” summer. Getting at the story in that retrograde fashion has been rewarding. Early this week, a neighbor called to ask if I would march. Where? To Washington, she said. Absolutely, I answered, without even asking what for. “We have to prevent the collapse of our Constitution,” she said.

We meet tonight.–Toni Morrison

 wow…thats a mouthful.  I don’t even know how I feel about all that.  Let me sleep on this and get back to it.

They may have Tom Petty, but we have Mike Carey

Mike Carey to become Super Bowl’s first black referee
By far, my favorite Referee, It is about time that we see him on the biggest stage of all.

Welcome to History, Mike.

I will now begin to entertain offers for Halftime counter entertainment.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Wonks vs. Citizens

I live in a divided house.  I am an Obama supporter and Mrs. InkogNegro is a Hillary supporter.

She has benefitted from not being exposed to the back and forth (which is to say, she doesn’t read my blog or have a google reader full of play by play and highlights of the campaign) between the two campaigns.

My wife is a true Hillary believer, one who knows her as her resume reveals her.  When we discuss the campaign, the conversation devolves into a wonk vs. citizen argument which is completely counter productive to me being able to convert her.

Wonks watch (if not run) campaigns and have a clear grasp on where the boundaries are.  Wonks know where political stops and personal starts.  Wonks know the code language and we hear what ISN’T being said better sometimes than what is being said.

My wife is a brilliant and talented school teacher.  Not one of those activist do-it-for-free teachers,  but one of those teachers who talk about killing the kids when at home but would die for the kids between 8 and 4.  She is the dictionary definition of a citizen.

Wonks think citizens have no clue on how the game really works, usually because they are too busy watching bad singing to pay attention.

Citizens think wonks are so busy talking amongst themselves about what the citizens think that they never ask the citizens what they think.  This, of course, is because  wonks act as though the citizens are idiots, but in reality the wonks are the idiots…acting like RUNNING for office is more important than running a business or a classroom.

I realize now why Politics are so screwed up.

More Wonks need to be married to citizens.

I don’t know how the citizens will feel about that, though.

An Open Letter to Ron Paul Stans

Dear Folk,

THIS  is over the line.  I am positive you thought this was a good idea.  I am sure you will cake up mightily, just to spite me.  I am sure you don’t give a shit what an anonymous Black man says….

But trust me,  this shit is not cool.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

Sincerely,

InkogNegro.