Although Sen. Barack Obama, the very junior Democrat senator from Illinois, apparently is now more a star than, say, Elvis Presley, it's still not a bad idea to get past the hype and look at reality. As this quick-look by CBS shows, Obama has waffled on Iraq for years.
Even though Democratic party apologist Sen. Dick Durbin spreads the justification jam, the message is clear: Obama's campaign is actually a giant moving waffle house. There's another hidden message in Obama's speeches, and here CBS shows a major one.
Obama speaks of his campaign bringing whites, blacks, and Latinos together and of working on anti-poverty programs for those groups. Memo to Sen. Obama: among Illinois' top 5 ethnic groups are the original inhabitants of this land: Native Americans.
Census results from the turn of the century show that about 100 tribes are represented in Illinois, most in the Chicago area. Many Native Americans were moved to Chicago during the government's ill-fated "relocation" programs designed to break up tribal communities and reservations.
Obama needs to check on poverty statistics and needs for that section of his constituency, which makes up slightly more than nine per cent of his state's population. It's apparent, though, that like most black politicians before him, Obama finds Native Americans to be invisible--to him, at least.
Someone might also want to tell Obama that there are Asians, in fact, many racial backgrounds, in his state, and home city, and that many of them are poor or working poor. Again, Obama makes it clear, to those who can get past the media hype, that his focus is on snake-charming the all-important black, Latino, and white voters.
Does America really want, or need, a president who not only is a waffle king, but who's only interested in serving only certain groups at his slick cliche cafe? We need to think about that.
There's another problem here: the issue of race. Obama's campaign waffles there, too. It's supposedly not about race, but the mantle of "first potential black president" gets whipped around in the air like a Spanish matador's cape.
Make no mistake, it is about race--as duplicitously defined by the Obama camp. If you support him, it's not about race. If you don't support him, then you're part of America's racial problems. The core message is subtle, but pervasive: a vote for Obama is a vote to prove the U.S. is not racially prejudiced; a word, or vote against Obama proves it is.
Or so the Obama camp would have you believe. In fact, the essence of racial equality in politics is that all candidates get evaluated by their record and their statements, regardless of their race.That applies to Obama, too.
If this country really wishes to continue to mature racially, then it's time to get past the rhetoric and the hype, and make one thing clear: voting against Obama is not a vote against blacks, or a vote for white domination. It's simply a vote that chooses another candidate as more qualified and more trustworthy, based on the individual voter's beliefs and choices.
Will some people vote against Obama because he is black? Of course. On the other hand, will some vote for Obama because he is black? Of course.. Interestingly enough, a vote for Obama because he's black isn't a racial choice, according to the leftist rhetoric, whereas a vote against him is. Or (back to the waffle counter here) a vote for Obama is a good racial choice, proving our racial fairness; a vote against is racism.
America doesn't have to prove anything racially. Within a very short time, the U.S. has moved from the rotten era of routine segregation (not to mention routine sexism) to an integrated nation. If you doubt that, check out the Secretary of State's office, the Supreme Court, and just about every facet of our daily lives.
Dealing with racial issues isn't easy. Xenophobia seems to be hard-wired into us as a species. We each have to outgrow that, just as developing babies in the womb have to outgrow vestiges of a tail and the stage where the fetus looks more like a newt than anything else.
The reality is that in no time, in no place, will prejudice ever be totally rooted out of the human race other than by education and cultural changes, such as those demonstrated in the U.S. in less than 50 years. To frame this election only in terms of race is the mirror image of pre-integration days, when everything was framed by race.
We don't have to buy into proving ourselves as "not racist" by voting for Obama. That needs to be repeated. Evaluate him fairly--which means looking at him without the "first black" rhetoric.
Because color, or racial background, is a lousy reason to vote for, or against, someone.
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label war. Show all posts
Monday, February 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Friday, December 21, 2007
Torture Chamber, Mass Graves: Somber Iraq Discovery
Sometimes, it's not easy understanding what a "war on terrorism" is really all about. It's a fuzzy term, something that may seem a far cry from clearly-defined "start" points like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
But a chilling discovery by American troops brought the reality of terrorism and radical Islamism into sharp focus. An Al-Qaeda torture chamber in Muqdadiyah spotlights a base reality: the hatred goes beyond just philosophical "concepts" or political talking points.
The terror and brutality are up close and personal. These terrorists intend to destroy anyone or anything that is not part of their Islamic world. They torture, bomb,and murder every days. They intend to subjugate, degrade, destroy, maim and kill anyone in their path.
The pictures of the remains in the mass grave tug at the heart. These were people like you and I, people who loved, were loved, had friends and family. But they displeased the merchants of terror and hatred, and so they suffered, horribly, died, and their remains were dumped like so much garbage.
The terrorist/torturers even left behind a message. Scrawled on a wall: "Long live the Islamic State."
Here's what that state is like. Warning: these images are graphic.
But a chilling discovery by American troops brought the reality of terrorism and radical Islamism into sharp focus. An Al-Qaeda torture chamber in Muqdadiyah spotlights a base reality: the hatred goes beyond just philosophical "concepts" or political talking points.
The terror and brutality are up close and personal. These terrorists intend to destroy anyone or anything that is not part of their Islamic world. They torture, bomb,and murder every days. They intend to subjugate, degrade, destroy, maim and kill anyone in their path.
The pictures of the remains in the mass grave tug at the heart. These were people like you and I, people who loved, were loved, had friends and family. But they displeased the merchants of terror and hatred, and so they suffered, horribly, died, and their remains were dumped like so much garbage.
The terrorist/torturers even left behind a message. Scrawled on a wall: "Long live the Islamic State."
Here's what that state is like. Warning: these images are graphic.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Talking Turkey: Aunt Nancy, Uncle Sam & Turkish Demands
This is a fine mess. First Turkey was so miffed over the now-tabled Congressional "Turkish genocide" resolution that its ambassador flounced back home.
Now Turkey is demanding that the U.S.take military action against Kurdish fighters on Turkey's borders: or else. From flounce to hardball bounce, Turkey is making it clear that the U.S. is, apparently, among its subject states.
Of course, if the U.S. bows to their demands, then the U.S. will be excoriated worldwide for bringing in troops to support Turkey. If the U.S. doesn't send in troops, then the U.S. will be denounced for not sending in troops in Turkey's long-running domestic dispute.
It's a clear win-win for Turkey in their undeclared diplomatic war with the U.S. With the Turks spending millions on lobbying in the U.S., it's obvious that someone else will have to pay for aid to their poor, and their wars. And who better than Uncle Sam?
The complex issue takes on another strata of shakiness when the actions of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are examined. Pelosi, who assumed presidential airs as she jetted around the world on her own foreign policy trip, has fought against the support of American troops in Iraq.
At the same time, she cozied up to Syria, among others, and was one of the leaders calling for the Turkish genocide resolution. But when political shots were fired on the issue, Pelosi waffled and wavered.
Now Turkey wants real American guns on their side, on their borders. With Turkey's demands for firepower from Uncle Sam, will Aunt Nancy suddenly decide that wars abroad aren't a bad idea after all? Will she stand firm when pro-Turkey lobbyists tout "terrorism" as the reason for the U.S. to storm Kurdish ramparts?
What happens if Turkey's "or else" comes into play? The first threat is that Turkey will shut down an American air base used to support our troops in Iraq. In diplo-speak, that's called a "review" of the access. But Turkey's also mumbling about taking action against the U.S. in vague and seemingly-sinister ways.
So here's how the table looks: Turkey's battling Kurds & the PKK. The U.S. is at war in Iraq, and using Turkish land for an air base. Turkey, wanting everyone to just forget about the l.5 million Armenians slaughtered in 1917, is focused now on the Kurds.
Pass the war plate, please--with American aid. If not, Turkey will, at the very least, with-hold the American base biscuit. But now comes the key question: where's the gravy on this menu?
This Turkey is covered in gravy. Back in 2002, U.S. largess to Turkey included an arranged $16 billion IMF bailout and a $228 million US aid package. Plus specialized free trade arrangements for dessert.
OK, so buying allies gets more expensive all the time. In fact, in 2003 Turkey demanded $32 billion in U.S. funds. In 2006, Turkey had $10 million to spend on the anti-American, anti-Semetic film "Valley of the Wolves--Iraq."
Today it was announced that the U.S. is sending another $10 billion in aid to Turkey. That alone is a pretty darned good rental price for some land for a military base.
Not only that, The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are shipping in another $10 billion loan. Seems the $11.5 billion sent to Turkey just two months ago didn't go all tha far.
But then again, a reliable friend and ally is a good buy, right? Let's look at Turkey's role in World War II. Ostensibly neutral, Turkey actually made a darned good profit by being Nazi Germany's sole supplier of chromite, used to harden steel for weapons and armaments.
When it finally became apparent which way the war cookie was crumbling, Turkey lost no time in declaring "war" on Germany in 1945. Why? Turkey wanted a seat in the U.S. and the belated war declaration was its purchase price.
For awhile, Turkey eagerly jumped on the American lunch wagon. But, its feelings hurt by European Union humans rights charges and the 1997 declaration naming Turkey as unfit to join the EU, Turkey began biting the hand that feeds them.
Turkist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2004 accused the U.S. of "state terror." In 2003 Turkey lashed out against the Iraq war, saying that the U.S. campaign "lacked international legitimacy." In the mounting anti-U.S., pro-radical Islamist climate, the American government was compared to Hitler.
This from a country with its hand out for American largess and one repeatedly cited by Human Rights Watch for torture, attacks on civilians, and massive displacements of civilian populations? Apparently, Turkey is under the illusion that it can take U.S. money, tell the U.S. what it is to do, and threaten the U.S. with Turkish reprisals should Turkey's gravy get watered down.
Perhaps it's time for the U.S. to remind Turkey: at the great banquet table of world leaders, especially those who practice freedom and democracy, Turkey is well, very small potatoes.
Now Turkey is demanding that the U.S.take military action against Kurdish fighters on Turkey's borders: or else. From flounce to hardball bounce, Turkey is making it clear that the U.S. is, apparently, among its subject states.
Of course, if the U.S. bows to their demands, then the U.S. will be excoriated worldwide for bringing in troops to support Turkey. If the U.S. doesn't send in troops, then the U.S. will be denounced for not sending in troops in Turkey's long-running domestic dispute.
It's a clear win-win for Turkey in their undeclared diplomatic war with the U.S. With the Turks spending millions on lobbying in the U.S., it's obvious that someone else will have to pay for aid to their poor, and their wars. And who better than Uncle Sam?
The complex issue takes on another strata of shakiness when the actions of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are examined. Pelosi, who assumed presidential airs as she jetted around the world on her own foreign policy trip, has fought against the support of American troops in Iraq.
At the same time, she cozied up to Syria, among others, and was one of the leaders calling for the Turkish genocide resolution. But when political shots were fired on the issue, Pelosi waffled and wavered.
Now Turkey wants real American guns on their side, on their borders. With Turkey's demands for firepower from Uncle Sam, will Aunt Nancy suddenly decide that wars abroad aren't a bad idea after all? Will she stand firm when pro-Turkey lobbyists tout "terrorism" as the reason for the U.S. to storm Kurdish ramparts?
What happens if Turkey's "or else" comes into play? The first threat is that Turkey will shut down an American air base used to support our troops in Iraq. In diplo-speak, that's called a "review" of the access. But Turkey's also mumbling about taking action against the U.S. in vague and seemingly-sinister ways.
So here's how the table looks: Turkey's battling Kurds & the PKK. The U.S. is at war in Iraq, and using Turkish land for an air base. Turkey, wanting everyone to just forget about the l.5 million Armenians slaughtered in 1917, is focused now on the Kurds.
Pass the war plate, please--with American aid. If not, Turkey will, at the very least, with-hold the American base biscuit. But now comes the key question: where's the gravy on this menu?
This Turkey is covered in gravy. Back in 2002, U.S. largess to Turkey included an arranged $16 billion IMF bailout and a $228 million US aid package. Plus specialized free trade arrangements for dessert.
OK, so buying allies gets more expensive all the time. In fact, in 2003 Turkey demanded $32 billion in U.S. funds. In 2006, Turkey had $10 million to spend on the anti-American, anti-Semetic film "Valley of the Wolves--Iraq."
Today it was announced that the U.S. is sending another $10 billion in aid to Turkey. That alone is a pretty darned good rental price for some land for a military base.
Not only that, The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are shipping in another $10 billion loan. Seems the $11.5 billion sent to Turkey just two months ago didn't go all tha far.
But then again, a reliable friend and ally is a good buy, right? Let's look at Turkey's role in World War II. Ostensibly neutral, Turkey actually made a darned good profit by being Nazi Germany's sole supplier of chromite, used to harden steel for weapons and armaments.
When it finally became apparent which way the war cookie was crumbling, Turkey lost no time in declaring "war" on Germany in 1945. Why? Turkey wanted a seat in the U.S. and the belated war declaration was its purchase price.
For awhile, Turkey eagerly jumped on the American lunch wagon. But, its feelings hurt by European Union humans rights charges and the 1997 declaration naming Turkey as unfit to join the EU, Turkey began biting the hand that feeds them.
Turkist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in 2004 accused the U.S. of "state terror." In 2003 Turkey lashed out against the Iraq war, saying that the U.S. campaign "lacked international legitimacy." In the mounting anti-U.S., pro-radical Islamist climate, the American government was compared to Hitler.
This from a country with its hand out for American largess and one repeatedly cited by Human Rights Watch for torture, attacks on civilians, and massive displacements of civilian populations? Apparently, Turkey is under the illusion that it can take U.S. money, tell the U.S. what it is to do, and threaten the U.S. with Turkish reprisals should Turkey's gravy get watered down.
Perhaps it's time for the U.S. to remind Turkey: at the great banquet table of world leaders, especially those who practice freedom and democracy, Turkey is well, very small potatoes.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Al Qaeda Calls for Pakistanis to War on Their President, & Total Muslim War on U.S.
"Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda's second-in-command, has called on Muslims to fight the United States and its allies around the world.
"Stand oh nation of Islam under the victorious banner of the Prophet ... and campaign against the Crusader banner of [ President George] Bush," al-Zawahri said in a new video aired on Thursday." -- Al-Jazeera .
"Stand oh nation of Islam under the victorious banner of the Prophet ... and campaign against the Crusader banner of [ President George] Bush," al-Zawahri said in a new video aired on Thursday." -- Al-Jazeera .
n a new audiotape released Thursday, al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden calls on Pakistanis to rebel against President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
The message — details of which were not immediately available — came as al-Qaida released a new video in which bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, boasted that the United States was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other fronts. Speakers in the video promised more fighting in Afghanistan, North Africa and Sudan's Darfur region.
Source: msnbc.msn.com
Tags: afghanistan | Africa | al-Qaida | al-Zawahri | Ayman | being | boasted | CALLS | Darfur | defeated | Deputy | Details | Egypt | Fighting | fronts | immediately | Iraq | LADEN | message | Musharraf | Osama | PAKISTANIS | Pervez | president | promised | rebel | Released | SPEAKERS | Sudan | thursday | United States | video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
