My cousin, Lynn, made the following comment on my blog concerning Lupe Fiasco--I have some comments for her comment myslef--I'll make them after her's . . .
"I too love Lupe Fiaso and his music. Check out him and Jill Scott in Daydreamin' one of my all time fav's. I have agreed with you and proclaimed my frustration in the church and the way they have capitalized religion. I have agreed with you and proclaimed my frustration with Christians who only go to church so they don't have to be Christians everyday. I have stated that I am not religious but instead spiritual in nature, trying everyday to break down the barriers that lead men who claim to be ruled by a teaching of love to kill in the name of doctrine. However....I am a follower of Christ. I believe all of the differences from one Christian church to the other to be minutia. They all believe in Christ and that is the important part. Are they perfect, absolutely not. I believe everyone has the right to accept whatever religion they want, Christian or not, but I, in no way, would support or declare another religion as something that I was proud of or agreed with. I can agree to disagree with people and allow them to say what they will, but I will not be proclaiming what I do not believe in. Do not allow your voice to be used for something you do not believe in. By posting this video you, in essence, are proclaiming that you agree with him and that Mohammed is the equivalent to Jesus or the true prophet of God. I can not agree with you on this one."
Obviously, the part where we digress is witnessed by her own transition "however". Cousin Lynn is under the assumption or presumption that my posting of Lupe's Muhammed Walks somehow constitutes my "witnessing" or "proclaiming" a Muslim message. More importantly, she assumes I would (or perhaps should) have a problem with that.
Since Cousin Lynn is a faithful follower of this blog--I feel rude not directing this to her--not to single her out; but in an attempt to not be rude; or so as not to feel as though I am talking behind her back instead of to her face. That being said--I will henceforth direct this to her . . .
Lynn--the assumptions/presumptions laid out earlier get to the heart of your issue. You state that I alleged that I "support or declare another religion as something that I was proud of or agreed with". I did no such thing. In the original post I said I was a fan of Lupe and that this song was "smart and good". I did not issue a testament to the tenets of Islam; and if saying something is good is the same as saying I am proud of it--then there is a chasm of difference in our understanding. Likewise, declaring something as "smart" is not limited to Christian themed or secular themed material, art or media. I assume (yes I know it is dangerous to assume) that you have no issue with his other work--as you yourself even recommended his music in your opening comment. Therefore, is the issue JUST that the song I chose was about Muhammed? It doesn't change his beliefs (anymore than it changes my beliefs) to post it. It doesn't make the song go away or not exist--so I don't quite comprehend how posting it is a declaration or promotion of Islamic values or beliefs.
Secondly, implied or inherrant in your comment is that I should see something wrong with Lupe's beliefs or with my posting the song. I do not. I believe what we have in common is greater than what divides us. I know you fervently defend the right of everyone to believe what they want to believe; you have no objection to Lupe choosing to be Islam--indeed, you state such in your comment. Your only issue is that I posted said song. But I ask you--why is it offensive. If America gives us the right to think, believe and express whatever we choose personally; is not the logical consequence listening to each others beliefs? Listening to someone else doesn't mean I am brainwashed into their thinking--instead it means often that I have a clearer understanding of my own beliefs--BECAUSE they are exposed to other beliefs and challenges. Faith that cannot be exposed to other beliefs or review is not faith worth having. Your passioned defense of Rick Warren's presence at the Inauguration was one of the voices that caused me to self-reflect and review my own critiques. (see here) Is that fairness of opinion only reserved for Christian beliefs?
Finally, and this is the crux, I have nothing against my fellow humans. I find there is some peace and truth in the teachings of Muhammed. I find solace in the wisdom of the Jews. I appreciate the symbolism and learnings of Shiva and Hinduism; I can learn from Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism. And yes, I can and do look for guidance in the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as Darwin or Marx or Jefferson or Ghandi or Lincoln (all 6 were "non-traditional believers"). In fact, Lupe remade/released that song to show what we had in common. After listening to Kanye's Jesus Walks, he thought "Hey we believe Jesus was a prophet too. Lets highlight what we have in common." (listen to interview here - segment 1 has the interview--and scroll down near the bottom for the extended interview) His understanding or worldview is not the same as mine, but neither is yours; but I can appreciate his sincerity. I can appreciate his attempt to show that Islam and Christianity share a same G-d; share many of the same teachings; and many of the same people. I have no problem with anything he said in the lyrics (click for full lyrics)
"For we all are sinners
Bless us to be among the winners
When it ends
But until then please strengthen the mission within our hearts
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many.
They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.
To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages.
We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Pres-elect Obama: "One of the things I hope my presidency helps to usher in is a, a return to an ethic of responsibility. That if you're placed in a position of power, then you've got responsibilities to your workers. You've got a responsibility to your community. Your share holders. That if -- there's got to be a point where you say, 'You know what, I have enough, and now I'm in this position of responsibility, let me make sure that I'm doing right by people, and, and acting in a way that is responsible.' And that's true, by the way, for members of congress, that's true for the president, that's true for cabinet members, that's true for parents. I want all of us to start thinking a little bit more, not just about what's good for me, but let's start thinking about what's good for our children, what's good for our country. The more we do that, the better off we're going to be."
It's one thing dealing with difficult people with whom you have a professional or casual relationship, such as your boss, a co-worker, or anyone you deal with on a regular basis. But if the problem person is a relative and your relationship is personal and permanent, that’s a whole different beast. You must clearly define the boundaries you’re comfortable with, let the other person know what those boundaries are, and then enforce them.
Steps Define your boundaries. You set the boundaries in your relationships. If those boundaries are crossed and the other person can’t seem to take the hint, you have to assert yourself to restore balance. If you have relatives who fail to respect your boundaries and behave as if the purpose of the relationship is for you to bend over backwards to satisfy all of their needs, you certainly aren’t alone. What you need to do is define boundaries which you consider to be bottom lines that should not be crossed, ones that make you feel violated when they are. For example, if you value your privacy and a relative insists on frequent unannounced drop-in visits, that may be a bottom line for you. The first thing to realize is that it’s perfectly OK to satisfy your own needs. A relationship that makes you feel violated isn’t healthy. Verbalize your boundaries. Use nonviolent communication (observation, feeling, need, request) the next time a relative oversteps boundaries. If you’ve been going years without clearly verbalizing and enforcing your boundaries like a mature adult (i.e. you’ve been letting the other person treat you like a child for too long), most likely the other person won’t take you seriously at first. There may be a "shock" reaction (usually feigned) at the mere suggestion that you dare attempt to put restrictions on this behavior. Just let that person have his or her reaction, but stand your ground anyway. Enforce your boundaries. Try to enforce with kindness and compassion at first - after all, there's a good chance you've allowed this behavior to go on for years, and that makes you partly to blame for the fact that your relative has not learned the behavior you want from him or her. But if that fails, and your relative doesn't respond to gentle reminders, here's a no-nonsense approach to enforcing your boundaries: Let the other person know that for the next 30 days, you intend to strictly enforce the boundaries you’ve described. Make it clear that if that person violates your boundaries even once during those 30 days, you will then begin a 30-day communications blackout. For 30 days you simply have no contact with the other person. No drop-in visits (if s/he shows up, you firmly say, "Sorry, we just aren't ready for visitors right now. Also, we are not having contact with you at this time - remember? That is to help you with our new rules."), no phone calls, no emails, nothing — unless it’s absolutely mandatory. After the 30-day fasting period, you can restart the original 30-day boundary-enforcement trial and repeat the process. Of course you should let the other person know you’re doing this — be totally transparent about what you’re doing. Also, let the other person know that you’re resorting to this process because s/he's left you no choice - remind him or her that you've made many attempts to let him or her know how serious you were, and those attempts were ignored. Say that you want a fresh start, so that a new relationship that you can both enjoy can grow, and that by taking a 30-day break, you hope to make a clean start, both understanding how to respect one another's boundaries.
The first attempt at a 30-day blackout will surely be filled with attempts to contact you. You will rebuff the attempts by not responding to them. Hopefully, the attempts peter out, and you finish the 30 days in peace. However, if your relative is relentless and will not respect your request for 30 days, then you need to inform him or her that you're going to have to take stronger measures. Reset your calendar to Day 1. From this time forward, if the other person attempts to make contact with you at all during the 30-day blackout, the 30 days resets to Day 1. Be sure your relative understands the rules of this game, don't just do it without letting him or her know what you expect, and what the consequences of violating your request will be. If the rules are breached more than a couple times and you reach the point where you’re pretty clear the other person has no intention of respecting your boundaries whatsoever, regardless of your attempts to enforce them, then you’re done. The relationship cannot continue in its current form. If the other person can’t even respect your boundaries for 30 days, then what kind of future do you have together? It means that your boundaries will be trampled for as long as you allow the relationship to continue to exist in its current form. This might sound a bit harsh, but keep in mind that before you reach this point, you’ve already expressed your needs clearly to the other person, and you were trampled. You owe it to yourself to take a step back and see if you really wish to continue this relationship at all. The 30-day blackout period is a time for both of you to re-evaluate the relationship from a distance. It’s also a massive pattern interrupt that lets the other person know with certainty that s/he crossed an uncrossable line, and enough is enough. Disarm the primary weapon: Guilt. If the other person attempts to use guilt as a tool of manipulation (which is extremely common), it’s fairly easy to overcome. Whenever you perceive the other person attempting to manipulate your emotions by making you feel guilty, bring the whole matter to conscious awareness by asking, “You’re not trying to make me feel guilty, are you?” The other person will probably deny it, but soon the pattern will re-emerge. Keep interrupting the pattern of falling into a state of guilt by bringing attention to the other person’s emotionally manipulative tactics. Simply keep asking questions like, “Why do you feel it necessary to use guilt as a tool of manipulation?” or “You must really find this upsetting if you feel it necessary to try to make me feel guilty to get what you want. Can we try a more mature way of discussing this?” You don’t need to beat the person up about it, but put a stop to the use of guilt as a weapon, once and for all. If you refuse to enter the emotional state of guilt, it will allow you to be more objective and compassionate in seeing that the other person is probably using guilt because s/he feels powerless. If you can address that powerlessness, you have the opportunity to transform the relationship for good. Re-evaluate the relationship. If the person refuses to change, think deeply about your relationship with him or her. You might find that you harbor one or more beliefs that perpetuate the problem. If you operate under the belief that all family is forever and that you must remain loyal to all your relatives and spend lots of time with them, those beliefs are your choice, and you’re free to embrace them - or release them. If you find yourself with family relationships that are incompatible with your becoming your highest and best self, then excessive loyalty to your family is likely to be extremely disempowering to you. Think deeply about your own beliefs about family and loyalty, and consider the following:
You would probably never tolerate the same behaviors in a stranger as you will in a family member. To push a family member out of your life might cause you to feel guilty, or could lead to a backlash from other family members. But genuinely ask yourself, “Why do I tolerate this behavior from a family member when, if it were a stranger, I would refuse to tolerate at all?” Identify the nature of the external conflicts you experience, and then translate them into their internal equivalents. For example, if a family member is too controlling of you, translate that problem into your own internal version: You feel your relationship with this family member is too much out of your control. When you identify the problem as external, your attempted solutions may take the form of trying to control other people, and you’ll meet with strong resistance. But when you identify the problem as internal, it’s much easier to solve. If another person exhibits controlling behavior towards you, you may be unable to change that person. However, if you feel you need more control in your life, then you can actually do something about your responses without needing to control others. You can love your relatives without having a particularly close-knit relationship. Maybe your personal values and lifestyle have moved so far from theirs that there isn’t enough basic compatibility to form a strong common bond anymore. Even though this might be the family you grew up with and shared many memories with, your core values are so different now that it just doesn’t feel like a meaningful family relationship anymore. Despite all these differences, you can be on good terms with each other and get along fairly well, but your differences create such a big gap that you have to settle for being relatives without being close friends. Familial relationships can be complex, and cutting one person out can lead to your losing someone you really do want to have a closer relationship with. Decide which hills are really worth dying on, in other words, if you only have to see this difficult person two or three times a year, consider just letting it roll off your shoulder. Although you want to be the captain of your own destiny, it won't hurt you to just endure this person for a few hours, and the trade-off is worth it if you are keeping your other relatives happy by doing so.
Tips When you see this pattern occurring where you don’t have the leverage to enforce boundaries, such as with your spouse’s relative, and your partner seems spineless about having a confrontation, then you have to enforce these boundaries with your partner. You must clearly tell your partner to speak to his or her relatives, to defend you and your marriage/partnership, and to make it clear to his or her relatives that you must be respected, or else the two of you will not be visiting much. This has the benefit of pushing your partner to grow up (albeit sometimes kicking and screaming), learning to put your needs first and the “Mommy” figure's needs second. Some people just need a good kick to get themselves out of childhood and into adulthood, especially during their 20s. In the long run, your partner will likely be grateful to you for his/her new spine. If all else fails, run! If the above solution fails, just up and move to another city. Many people swear their marriages have been saved by this solution!
Warnings If your boundaries are reasonable, and the person is either unwilling or incapable of complying with them, you’re done — in most situations it would be foolish to continue such a relationship. It will only erode your self-respect.
OK-it has already begun but its going to get worse. There is already an assault on the Obama Presidency. Yes, I know, he hasn't even been inaugarated yet. But instead of holding Bush and the "free-market at all costs" and "eliminate ALL regulations-no matter how common sense they might be" Republicans accountable. The press and establisment seem intent on asking why Obama isn't doing more. For example, Bush addressed the members of the G-20 and told them all the benefits of an unregulated free-market in creating wealth (don't YOU feel wealthy) and basically said that free-market didn't fail us; we failed the free-market. Was he taken to task? Was he held accountable? Was he questioned about how he can defend a free-market and nationalize the same market? No to all. Instead, it was ignored (like much of Bush this past year) and the question was put to Obama-what will he do to fix this crisis? Why wasn't he releasing a plan? Karl Rove (Why is he allowed on TV or in public after giving us the past 8 years. Does a person only lose credibility when they get a BJ from an intern??!!!???) Had the AUDACITY and TEMERITY to even say Obama had about 6 months after inaugaration and the American people would forget about the facts and would instead blame Obama for the situation and even has begun referring to this as Obama's recession! I couldn't believe it-was he really being this cynical?? Was he really that cavalier with the facts? Was he really that perverse? And explain to me how that is patriotic? But I see it is all part of some sort of meme that is being promulgated. It is NOT some conspiracy theory-but it is a combination of desperation, cynicism, willful ignorance and arrogance. A horrible cocktail to say the least! It can be seen in the daily propoganda that America is a "center-right" nation-which if you combine moderates with conservatives it is--but watch this fancy math; if you combine moderates with self-styled liberals you can just as easily say it is a center-left nation. That is how math works. But the media seems to have bought into this and are trumpeting it as fact. In truth we are a moderate nation as 48% of Americans identify as moderate indpendents. The Republicans (now the political arm of the Religious Right) is TOO FAR right, nowhere near center, and moving (or splitting over moving) further right. 75% of Americans think gays should be able to serve openly in the military, 67% of Americans think Roe v. Wade is a good/correct ruling, almost 80% believe limitations on stem-cell research should be removed and the majority of Americans think we should get out of Iraq and that our foreign policy should involve more detente. All ideas that are left of where the Republican party claims the center is. Karl Rove has also begun saying Obama won because he ran as a centrist conservative. (The "most liberal" senator, a socialist, elite, Muslim, wealth distributing, "friend of terrorists" anti-American, militant Black-national--as the right declared Obama) was "the conservative centrist candidate" and THAT was why he won! These people are ridiculous? How can Bush extol praise on unregulated free-markets after our crash and forced taxpayer takeover? Why would anybody listen to Rove after he almost single handedly gave us Iraq and Katrina? We as Americans (liberal, moderate and conservative) should be PISSED! We should demand Bush DO HIS JOB! We should relegate Rove, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest blathering blowhards of the "wrong" to the rubbish heap. We should demand intelligence, truth and facts of our country, our leaders . . .and ourselves. If Obama's election has taught us anything it is that this country is OURS, and WE THE PEOPLE have a responsibility as citizens. This is our country, but we must be educated, thoughtful and intelligent in our stewardship. You will probably see reporters talking about how Obama received "vastly more positive press coverage" (like Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright and flag pins????) And that the people who voted for him were uneducated and ill-informed (yes, it was Obama supporters who declared McCain was an Arab.) And that he was born in Kenya (he was born in Hawaii, released his birth certificate and even if he was born in Kenya-he WASN'T- his mother was still a US citizen and being her offspring would still have been a "natural born citizen"--and may I point out it was McCain who was not born in the United States, but in the Canal Zone-but did he have to declare his birth certificate? No-his color is the only creed he needs-it vouches and verifies HIS authenticity!) OH and the best-that he is the anti-Christ--this is so wrong and bigoted, I don't even know where to begin.
But all these are attempts to illegitimize Obama's presidency before it begins, they are more of the scare-tactics, jingoistic xenophbia, active ignorance and bigotted racism masquerading as religion. But then remember. . .We already won despite all of those attempts. Americans are smarter and more progressive than we gave ourselves credit for-and Obama is one of our smartest!
OK--the far-right (and I do believe they are ever more marginalizing themselves) have taken to spreading certain lies, untruths and "spin" about the election already. this is being done to damper their dismal prospects, convince the public they are not marginalized but a national movement and allow them to repeat and stand on the mistakes of Bush and Republican domination for 14 years; instead of holidng up a mirror and deciding what they should look like going forward.
Michael Glitz has an excellent article (in which he quotes Robert Borosage's debunk of the "center-right" country myth--I'll post the link for Borosage's piece in the context of the piece so you can link on it and review it at your convenience)
Here is Michael Glitz's piece:
Obama's Win and the Ten Lies The Right Is Spreading About It
During the final weeks of the election, when it became clear Barack Obama was going to win, the far right started a drumbeat of lies to minimize Obama's victory, dowplay the viciously ugly campaign that McCain and Palin ran and trick the weak-kneed left into bungling this opportunity. You know something is up when Karl Rove, David Brooks, Sean Hannity and everyone else starts repeating a phrase like the United States is "a center-right country." (A lie knocked down by Robert Borosage.) Now that Obama's historic win is in the books, those lies have become even more pronounced. Here are the top lies of the right and why you shouldn't fall for them.
The Top Ten Right Wing Lies About Obama's Win
1. Obama's win wasn't that big 2. Obama only won because of the black vote and the fringe far left 3. Obama only won because he ran a center-right campaign 4. John McCain couldn't have won 5. Political parties almost never win three terms in a row 6. The US is a center-right country 7. Bush prevented a terrorist attack for seven years and if Obama doesn't prevent an attack for the next seven years then he has failed to protect us 8. John McCain's concession speech was notably gracious 9. Punishing Joe Lieberman would be petty 10. Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican Party
OBAMA'S WIN WASN'T THAT BIG -- Obama only won by six points in the popular vote, they say. Shouldn't it have been much bigger? Sure he won, but it's not like Obama got a rousing endorsement. (This from the party where Bush squeaked out a win in 2004 by one state and 50.7% of the vote but immediately insisted it was a mandate.) Where to begin? The win by Obama and the Democrats was nationwide and significant on many levels. Obama won the biggest percentage of the popular vote for any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. He's the first to win more than 50% since Carter in 1976. Virtually, the entire country went more Democratic than Republican -- except for the Old Confederacy, where the Republican Party still holds on to a narrow, poor strip. Obama was the first Democrat to win North Carolina since 1976 and the first to win Virginia and Indiana since 1964. The party win was even bigger, especially given this era of redistricting where kicking out an incumbent is tougher than ever. The Republicans lost big two elections in a row. Like Ronald Reagan in 1980, Obama won huge margins of victory from young people. Add in Hispanics and independents and Obama's win may presage a wave of loyal Democratic voters for years to come.
OBAMA ONLY WON BECAUSE OF THE BLACK VOTE AND THE FRINGE FAR LEFT -- This is an attempt to treat Obama's win as simply identity politics (black people voting for a black nominee because it was the first time they could) rather than a broad mandate from the country as a whole that saw Obama as the best candidate. The truth is that Obama did better than John Kerry in virtually every demographic you can name, including white voters. The only two areas where Obama drew fewer votes than Kerry were the over 65 crowd and gays and lesbians. This was not an eked-out victory; it was a broad national success.
OBAMA WON BECAUSE HE RAN A CENTER-RIGHT CAMPAIGN -- That's the jaw-dropper from Karl Rove and others. The guy they were screaming was a socialist ran a "center-right" campaign. That's right, the guy who said he'd raise taxes on the rich and end the war in Iraq was pretending to be Reagan.
JOHN MCCAIN COULDN'T HAVE WON -- In this argument, the forces working to hand Democrats a victory were so overwhelming there was nothing John McCain or any Republican nominee could have done to change that. And when the economy went south, McCain's fate was sealed. It's the economy, stupid (plus the most despised President in 80 years if not ever, two wars, etc.) Well, by this logic it was a given that Gore would win in 2000 and there was nothing Bush could do to change THAT, either. It certainly shouldn't have been so close that one state (and a Supreme Court) could change the inevitable. In fact, nothing is inevitable. The simple truth is that McCain was ahead in the polls for much of the general election season and especially after his convention. It was McCain's floundering that sent his poll numbers tumbling, not some inescapable tide of history. He didn't lose because the economy went south: McCain lost because the economy went south and his reaction was a boondoggle of epic proportions. McCain made three rash, hasty decisions when faced with a major crisis and all of them made voters rethink their attitude towards him. First, he faced a floor fight at the convention if he chose the running mate he wanted, Joe Lieberman. McCain caved and hastly settled on Governor Sarah Palin. She thrilled the base but in a general election you're supposed to reach out to moderates and independents. The more voters saw of Palin, the less they liked. And it was abundantly clear he'd only met her once and chatted with her on the phone briefly before offering her the VP slot. Second, when Russia and Georgia came to blows, McCain bombastically declared "We are all Georgians!" and seemed almost eager for another war. With America bogged down in two wars already, the prospect of a President who looked delighted at the possibility of committing US troops to a third war that didn't involve vital national interests frightened voters. Finally, when the economic meltdown occurred, McCain rashly pretended to "suspend" his campaign and suggested the next Presidential debate might have to wait. Obama simply stated the obvious: that a President needs to be able to do more than one thing at a time. McCain caved and un-suspended his campaign even though no deal had yet been struck and looked even more foolish when he had literally nothing to offer in DC. And all of this ignores Obama, who ran a flawless campaign and had to. McCain didn't need to do anything if Obama made a gaffe, any gaffe, really.
POLITICAL PARTIES RARELY WIN THREE TERMS IN A ROW -- This is a strange one I've heard repeated a lot lately. Its message is simple: if you've held the White House two terms in a row, holding it for a third term almost never happens. It's one more piece of the "McCain couldn't possibly win" argument. Except that it's not even remotely true. For seven elections from 1800 through 1824, the Democratic-Republicans held the White House. Thomas Jefferson won twice, James Madison won twice, James Monroe won twice and John Quincy Adams won once. That was followed by three elections in a row for the Democratic party -- twice with Andrew Jackson and once for Martin Van Buren from 1828 through 1836. Then the Republicans won four Presidential elections in a row from 1868-1880 thanks to Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes and James Garfield. The Republicans won four in a row again from 1896 through 1908 with William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft. Well, maybe the 20th century is different? Not really. The Republicans won three in a row from 1920-1928 with Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Then the Democrats won five in a row from 1932-1948 with FDR and Truman. And of course Republicans won three in a row with Reagan and Bush in the 80s. It would probably have happened even more except for term limits.
THE UNITED STATES IS A CENTER-RIGHT COUNTRY -- Robert Borosage does a great breakdown of demogaphics to show how people who call themselves moderates (which is a bigger chunk than liberals or conservatives) lean left on major issues of the day. But don't get bogged down in exit polls and stats. Here's one fact: 39% of registered voters are Democrats, 32% are Republicans and 27% are independents. It's more likely that independents will pass Republicans in the next decade than Republicans catch up with the Democrats. Here's another simple reality check: the Democrats control a majority of state Houses, a majority of the Governor mansions, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate and the Presidency. And they increased their dominance in every category. In what fantasy world are a significant majority of the voters registered Democrats and the Democrats control every level of government from the local to the national level and yet someone can argue with a straight face that the US is a "center-right country?"
BUSH PREVENTED A TERRORIST ATTACK FOR SEVEN YEARS AND IF THERE'S A TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS OBAMA WILL HAVE FAILED TO PROTECT US -- That's a new doozy that does some pretty clever juggling of history. Bush prevented a terrorist attack for seven years on our soil? Um, but that ignores the fact that the worst terrorist attack on US soil in history occured on Bush's watch. The Democrats took 9-11 as a sign to rally around a President whose election victory was suspect at best and give him their full support. The Republicans are already signaling that the moment any disaster might strike they're going to attack Obama as "weak" on defense and the good of the country be damned. By the standards of Bush, Obama should get nothing but support if a terrorist attack occurs and THEN have a pass if it doesn't happen again for years. But this moronic "calendar" approach ignores the real test we should make. No leader can prevent bad things from happening. It's like hiring a fire chief and then blaming him because fires still occur. The test of a leader is not the impossible one of magically preventing bad things from ever happening again. It's how they respond to a crisis. Bush froze on 9-11 and then launched an unnecessary war that left tens of thousands of US soldiers dead or wounded, drained our national treasury to more than $1 trillion and counting, failed to catch or kill the people responsible and has left Al Quaeda stronger than ever by every measurement. That's the failure of Bush, not the fact that 9-11 occured in the first place.
JOHN MCCAIN'S CONCESSION SPEECH WAS NOTABLY GRACIOUS -- Every loser in a Presidential election is expected to say they fought a tough campaign, but the other guy won and now everyone should rally around the President-elect. That's not gracious; that's the LEAST anyone should do. John McCain did that and he did it fine. But it wasn't noble or remarkable or exceptional. Not even remotely. Nonetheless everyone from Elizabeth Hasselback of The View to historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin raved about McCain and how gracious he was. Barbara Walters cooed that his concession speech was "elegant." As others have pointed out, this is in some ways an attempt to pretend that McCain's campaign was just "tough" and "hard fought," just like every other campaign. Jon Meacham of Newsweek insisted "McCain ran a noble campaign; it could have been far worse." Short of having people at his rallies lynch Obama in effigy, it's hard to see how McCain and Palin's campaign could have been any less noble or more nasty. Historians love to quote the nasty slurs traded around back in the 1800s That's certainly true, but McCain and Palin ran the nastiest, most divisive general election campaign since George Bush (who I supported) and Lee Atwater in 1988. Palin regularly impugned Obama's patriotism, McCain rallies featured people calling Obama a terrorist and demanding his death and McCain's ads were so laughably and transparently lies that the traditional media felt almost obliged to denounce them in every possible way as absurd. And McCain didn't just sell his soul during the general election. He sold it four years ago when he hitched his wagon to Bush because McCain cynically decided to support a guy he despised as the only way he'd ever win his party's nomination.
STRIPPING JOE LIEBERMAN OF HIS CHAIRMANSHIP WOULD BE PETTY -- This, too, is a rather strange debate and John Aravosis of Americablog weighs in on on why it's so disastrous for the Democrats to go soft on Joe. Lieberman was ready to run as VP for the Republican Party. When he didn't get it, he endorsed his old friend John McCain but promised Democrats he would support McCain without attacking the Democratic nominee. Then he broke his promise and went on the campaign trail and spoke at the Republican convention, impugning Obama's patriotism at every turn. And this wasn't the first time Lieberman aligned with Republicans at the expense of Dems. It's one thing to support Bush's disastrous policy in Iraq. It's quite another to give Bush political cover by attacking any Democrat who questions Bush's policy as underming the troops, as he did repeatedly. Why would anyone believe they could malign and smear members of their own party and the Democratic presidential nominee and then turn around and expect lots of treats? Joe Lieberman could have easily and nobly supported McCain without attacking the Democrats. But he didn't. Only Democrats would debate whether a rogue Senator consistently undermining their party deserves every perk they can give him. Stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship isn't petty; it's common sense. I would never suggest using Karl Rove as a model for ethics or decency or just about anything. But it is instructive to imagine if the roles were reversed and Lieberman were a Republican and to imagine what Rove and Hannity and Limbaugh would be saying about what should be done to him. I think their only debate would be over tar and feathering versus a good thrashing.
SARAH PALIN IS THE FUTURE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY -- Actually, she represents the past. But if you're a Democrat, you should certainly hope the Republicans think so.
So what lies about the campaign and Obama's victory have you spotted?
Ok-I have been doing lots of thinking about my blog in the past week since the election. I had really been following an election/Obama theme-and I do not apologize, I mean this was heralded asone of the biggest elections in our history and definitely the biggest of our generation. So I think that going forward I want to return to more posts about religion and focus on politics where it interesects. Also-and I can't emphasize this enough-the election of President Obama has changed my thinking somewhat. Not that I won't do rants and posts from a cynical or caustic point of view, but I also want to take a page from our new Pres and work towards solutions and pragmatic ideas. I think this is partly because Obama's election has seemed to show some of the irrelevance of many of the far-right, fear-mongering, jingoistic, xenophobic, ultra-national, intolerant ideas. Not that they are eliminated, but I do feel that in post-Obama America, a lot of these ideas are being shown in the light of truth and they wither. I want to turn this into a blog post, and will at a later time. And the second reason I want to tweak my attention is the example of our future president. He has proven himself calm, intelligent, controlled and confident. His approach is truly the "3rd Way" and I think vitriol is not beneficial to solution making (or governing). Again, I will still vent, but I hope that my posts serve to ignite discussion, bridge differences, expound on common ground, and do my small part to moving us forward as a nation, as a people and as a community.
