Dear Mary,

Having read your latest missive that was ostensibly about Christopher Hitchens, I was struck by what I felt were your unwarranted attacks on most Bible believing Christians. You had some harsh words for those that read the “saccharine” “pastel covered” tomes in Christian bookstores instead of Milton and the like. You also had some very unflattering things to say on regards to those that read the Bible literally and insinuated that they are not well read, and that they are the one’s that give ammunition to the people like Christopher Hitchens to attack the Christian faith.

While I have no problem with your love of literature, as I am a bit of a reader myself, I do not see where the literal reading of the Bible is at odds with literature or scholarship. I think that you have fallen into the trap of intellectualism, in that you have the feeling that only those at your intellectual level are worthy of respect; if that is not your position, then you may need to check what you write and how you write it, because that is what I felt when I read your article.

Let me explain a little about those, who like me, read the Bible literally. We read the Bible literally because we believe that the Bible is the revealed Word of the Living God. We read it literally because we believe that the Bible needs no interpretation except where it so indicates, and I those places the Bible itself provides the interpretation. We see that when men attempt to interpret the Bible, many plain and precious truths are ignored while men search in vain for the “mysteries” that the Bible allegedly contains. We read the Bible literally because we have faith that God has given us his written Word to be our ultimate guide, to be our roadmap, to be the place where we van go to for truth and answers and not lean on the understanding of men who will “interpret” the Bible to suit their own narrow purposes.

You also had some criticism for those that would open up a Bible inspired theme park, or a creation inspired museum; you seem to think that these people supply ammunition to the atheists of the world to attack Christianity, so you launch your own sugar coated attack on them. I will gladly stand to defend them, because I understand what they are trying to do. In a world where violence, depravity, and sexual license is celebrated, even in children’s “entertainment” there are people that feel that Christians need a place where they are welcomed and their faith is celebrated and not under attack. A privately funded Creation inspired museum is certainly no worse than the multitude of tax-payer funded museums that present the theory of evolution as scientific fact, and a Bible inspired theme park is certainly no worse than a theme park where Christians have to schedule their visits so that they miss Gay Pride day, is it? And you should know that people like Christopher Hitchens need no other reason to attack Christians and their faith other than the fact that they exist.

As for your feeling that literalists like me are stupid hicks that belong to the “Jesus club”, and make those that don’t “know” Jesus feel like outsiders, there is a reason for that…and it is not us. I do not know if you know Jesus as your personal savior or not, but your comments make me think that maybe you don’t. When that woman asked you in the laundry room if you knew Jesus, she was not talking down to you or trying to make you feel like you were being left out of a “club”; she was most likely wanting to bring you into a personal relationship with Christ. She was probably trying to lead you to a place where you put your trust in Him and Him alone, she probably wanted to lead you to the peace of knowing that God does love you and wants to take care of you, to be your Friend, Counselor, Comforter, and Redeemer. The way you bristled at that suggestion indicates to me that you know about Him but do not really know Him for yourself.

But hey, if reading Milton is what gets you to read the Bible then that’s fine…whatever floats your boat. But please, please spare me the condescension that I detect in your writing, spare me the gratuitous insults about us stupid literalists that don’t read books “other than the Bible”. We do read other books than the Bible; we just keep it in its proper place as our primary text for living a Christian life. Milton’s works may be classics of literature, but there is only one Book that we ignorant Christians know of that can lead a man to salvation, and provide him a place to build his faith, and to renew his strength or the daily challenges that life throws at us. That is why we treasure the Bible and cling to its words, and not the spurious “interpretations” that the leading lights of the day have for it. We are adhering to the words recorded in Second Timothy 3:16-17 which read: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

But maybe that is just a bit more simplistic drivel from us Bible thumpers, which gives all of the intelligent Christians pause, and the intellectual atheist’s ammunition.

 

Do you ever wonder “What if…?” about things? It could be anything, maybe a ‘lost love’ or a major life decision, that gets you wondering “What if” and thinking how things may have turned out if you had done this thing, said those words, or went to a certain place. As you can tell, I do that at times and lately I have been thinking “What if John Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated?” That thought intrigues me, because I wonder how different our country would have been had Lee Harvey Oswald not been able to carry out his murderous plan on that sunny day in Dallas, Texas so many years ago.

I think that had Kennedy not been killed, the parties as we know them now may not exist in their present form. The GOP may not have a virtual lock on the ‘conservative’ label that it has done little to warrant lately, and the Democratic Party may not have drifted so far left that it is a virtual socialist enterprise.

I say that because I firmly believe that John Kennedy was more of a forebear of Ronald Reagan than he was of Bill Clinton, roguish behavior and charm notwithstanding. Look at Kennedy’s record as a politician and you make your mind up as to whether he fit today’s template of liberal or conservative.

On the military, defense, and intelligence Kennedy was way more hawkish than any modern Democrat save Joe Lieberman. While Kennedy made some bad decisions in how to get things done militarily, he at least saw the need for a strong military and for a functioning intelligence arm. The Kennedy administration saw some of the most ridiculous plots to off a revolutionary Communist threat this side of a Naked Gun movie, but we can at least see that he understood the threat that communist ideology presented to us, and he acted on it.

Contrast that with the Democrats of today, and you would have to say that Kennedy would definitely not fit in with little brother Teddy and his ilk. The Democrat Party of today sees no greater threat to the safety and security of this nation than Republicans, George Bush, talk radio, and anti-incumbent political speech. This is where their head is at, in a world where Al-Qaeda has sworn our destruction, Iran is feverishly trying to get a nuclear weapon in order to wipe Israel from the map, and Russia is being led ever so gently back into a state of despotism the Democrats see one of our greatest threats as Sean Hannity!

And I know that the line about Kennedy and Reagan has probably raised some eyebrows…and some ire as well…but I think it is a valid comparison. Look at the way both men thought of America, and how they spoke of it. Both saw America not as blight on the world, but as a shining example of what the world should aspire to. Both men saw America as a place filled with opportunities waiting to be grasped, of dreams begging to be fulfilled, and great destinies to be achieved; not as some lowly, oppressive, hell-hole that has nothing to offer but pain, misery, and despair.

And think of this, when John Kennedy ran for President against Richard Nixon he ran to the RIGHT of the sitting Republican Vice President…and it was authentic, not a put on! Kennedy believed that America was doing well, but that it could be doing great; he believed that America was strong, but could be stronger. That type of attitude would get Kennedy the Lieberman treatment from today’s Democrats for sure!

And I don’t think that a Kennedy led Democrat Party would have become the gigantic nanny party that I has morphed into, because I don’t see Kennedy as being a man that thought the government was supposed to run your life for you. I don’t think that “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” was just an empty slogan in his inaugural address. I firmly believe that Kennedy meant it, and we probably would never have seen the “War on Poverty” or the “Great Society” come to fruition on his watch; we probably would have seen a President that believed that social safety net programs were just that, safety nets, and not lifestyle programs!

Who knows, if John Kennedy had lived the Democrats and Republicans may have ended up 180 degrees out of phase, to steal a phrase from the Maha Rushie with the GOP giving in to its leftward leaner’s and the Democrats staying in the middle and leaning a bit to the right.

Now wouldn’t that be crazy…me, a Democrat!

On a recent blog post of mine Philosophocon asked me a question about the immigration debate, but he wanted a view that doesn’t get heard a lot. He asked me about how Blacks felt about the immigration issue, and that got me thinking seriously about it. Keep in mind that I can’t speak for all Blacks in the country, but like I replied to Phil I’ll give it a shot!

As a student at Winston-Salem State University, a HBCU located in Winston-Salem, NC I have been privy to several conversations on this issue, and believe me it would surprise you what these young people are saying. Many of them feel that the influx of illegal immigrants is outing them in a financial bind; many of these students are on some type of financial aid and have jobs to make some personal cash. Many of them feel that illegal immigrants are locking them out of jobs that they would traditionally have, summer work like landscaping or construction is basically off limits to them because employers have access to incredibly cheap labor for the job openings that come available.

The students that I have talked to also feel that the influx of illegals has locked them out of what would be entry level jobs that they could have had a few years ago. Jobs like working at McDonald’s or a place like that are increasingly unavailable because they are being filled by illegal immigrants that have no real desire to move up, and are willing to work at minimum wage for long periods of time. The students that I have spoken with have looked at these as jobs that they could hold all through school, and have a chance to move up in before they left the company; now they feel as though the companies do not want to give them a chance to even get started.

But in the broader sense, the Black community is probably more conservative on this issue than one would expect. Blacks seem to see that increased illegal immigration threatens the economic stability of the Black middle class, and they want to see something done about it. Many Black small business owners are being directly affected by the influx of illegal workers, as they are being priced out of certain jobs because they cannot compete using legal workers. Because they have to pay their employees legally, and at wages above the minimum, the businesses that employ illegal immigrants are able to beat them on price. Also, the threat is very real for the reason I mentioned before: too many Black youth are being shut out of entry level jobs and are not having the opportunity to develop job skills. School is great and all, but kids need to have some real world experience before they go out on their own and right now they aren’t getting it, many times because there is a cheaper alternative available.

Politically, Blacks are starting to look askance at their “leaders” and at the Democratic Party over this issue. When the Hispanic/Latino population began to really grow in America, the politicians that had for so long claimed to be our friends began to ignore us; there was a new victim in town, and a new group to pander to. Democrat politicians still give lip service to the issues that Black “leaders” tell them are important, but their attention is with the growing Hispanic population and in trying to find a way to get their votes. Suddenly La Raza is getting as much attention from the Democrats as the NAACP, and many Blacks are getting their hackles up about it. Many are upset that the Democrats have left them like a jilted lover, while many more are starting to see that the Black community has been used not so much as a mistress, but more as a hooker that has been p*mped out by it’s leaders…and that spells trouble for both the politicians and the so-called leaders of the Black community.

And there is tension between Blacks and Hispanics, even if the media will never tell you about it. For years Blacks have felt that because of our status as America’s largest minority, and the power of our votes to determine many an election over the years that we were indispensible to the Democrats, and that the media would always treat us with a measure of deference. That has gone by the wayside as the Hispanic/Latino population has outgrown the Black population and they have become the group of choice for the political panderers to ply with their blandishments. Politically savvy Blacks have seen this coming for years, which is why you have seen many start to take a few tentative steps away from the Democrat Party leadership; they knew that the time would come when they would be thrown over for the new group in town. Consider it a political “7 Year Itch”, if you will. This competition for the attentions of the Democrat leadership has led to an understandable feeling of jealousy and mistrust between the “leaders” on both sides. And regular, everyday Blacks have long seen this push towards amnesty for what it is; a play by the Democrats to bring in another captive voting bloc to the Democratic fold, at the expense of the Black vote that has been solidly Democratic for as long as I can remember.

What the Black community will do is anyone’s guess; we may finally get ourselves out of Silky’s Cadillac and stand on our own feet, or we may decide that it’s scary making that type of change and scoot over for Silky’s new ho. But whatever happens, it will come with our eyes wide open and be a conscious decision that we enter into; we can’t claim to have been bamboozled on this one!

And that’s my take on the truth, in Black and …Brown!

                                                                       
                                    The Decider........   The Mouthpiece.... &....The Jester

Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud. Proverbs 16:18-19 (NKJV)

Hubris (n): exaggerated pride or self confidence  Langenscheidt’s Pocket Dictionary (Merriam-Webster)

                       

In the last few weeks, we have been treated to some serious hubris on parade coming out of the nation’s capital. Everywhere we look, there is someone out there trying to sell us on the merits of the amnesty bill for illegal aliens that the Democrats and too many members of the GOP have conspired to cook up. While it is par for the course for the Democrats to want to make the immoral moral, or the illegal legal, what has been truly disappointing has been the actions of the Republicans in Washington, D.C. and their complicity in this “scamnesty”, as it has been so accurately called.

But what has truly been breathtaking has been the way the White House and it’s (few) supporters have taken in after the very people that put them in power in the first place…the conservative base of the Republican Party. They have stooped to the same tricks that the Democrats are known for when someone crosses them; name-calling, mud-slinging, and back-biting. They have leveled false accusations at people, and have taken to blaming talk radio for all their problems selling the scamnesty bill to the people.

Take President Bush, aka The Decider for example. He has been out there beating the…um...well, bushes for months trying to convince people that there is no other way on the immigration issue except to issue an amnesty bill and put all 12 million illegals on the fast track to legal status. He has tried to convince us that building the border fence isn’t quite “do-able” and wouldn’t be a good idea anyway. We are to believe that it is impossible for a country that can put a space shuttle up into orbit to fix a space station run by our friendly Russian cosmonaut friends….all things that were seemingly impossible when I was a kid…to build a fence along our southern border, or to find the 12 million illegal immigrants that are in country now. I have to wonder if The Decider actually thinks we’re that stupid, or if he’s just trying to convince himself that we’re that stupid!

Then there’s Tony Snow who has the task of taking the President’s position to the media and trying to sell it to the people out in TV land. Now, I can’t say if the White House position on amnesty is the same as Mr. Snow’s views but from the way he has been acting I have to assume that it is. Take Mr. Snow’s very recent turn on The Sean Hannity Show this week. When Mr. Snow was challenged by Hannity on the merits of the bill and on the particulars as well, Snow went into Mouthpiece mode. He told Hannity that he, and others on talk radio, were giving the public false information and trying to mislead them on the merits of the amnesty bill. I don’t know about you, but on this issue I trust Rush, Sean, Laura, Lars, or Levin to tell me the truth way more than the White House; mainly because the talk show hosts don’t have a dog in the fight and because they actually listen to the people on this issue. And when Sean challenged The Mouthpiece to present one…ONE!..fact that he had wrong, The Mouthpiece couldn’t give him one and said he would send him a list of his mistakes. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that list to be forthcoming though, because Sean had his ducks in a row and has made no untrue or misleading statements about the bill        ; he has simply put out in public what the politicians want to hide!

Finally we come to Trent Lott, the Jester. Senator Lott has been very vocal lately about the ills of talk radio, and how they “run the country” presumably by shaping public attitudes. What I don’t remember, however, is Trent Lott bashing talk radio when he let his loose lips get him into trouble a few years back; which, by the way is probably what caused him to dress up in that ridiculous outfit in the photo. Back when Trent was being excoriated by the press for allegedly being a supporter of segregation…when he was about 9 years old…it was talk radio that rode to his rescue. It was talk hosts like Laura Ingraham that pointed out how two-faced the media was being in their treatment of Lott when they had a former Klansman in the Senate being lauded as the “conscience of the Senate”. It was Sean Hannity that pointed out that Lott was not in any position to support or oppose Senator Thurmond’s positions on segregation at such a young age. And it was Rush Limbaugh that pointed out that while Lott was being ripped to shreds for saying something nice to an old man at his birthday party, the Democrats had supported for President a man whose biggest political idol was an avowed segregationist J. William Fulbright.

And what is even more curious, is that The Jester is throwing in with a President and administration that was less than supportive of him in his time of need. There were no strong words of support for Sen. Lott when he was being forced to issue apology after apology, and being stripped of his place as Senate Majority Leader. For him to go to the mattresses for this administration on this issue is beyond the realm of my comprehension for two reasons: 1. The White House abandoned him in his time of need, and 2. this is an issue that is a total political loser because the vast majority of Americans oppose it. But Sen. Lott has chosen this issue to how his loyalty to the President on…simply unbelievable!

Maybe all the clowns in Washington trying to shove this down our throats need to stop, step back, and reassess the situation. This is something that liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and moderates have all made known they oppose. Yet the politicians in Washington keep talking about how good this is for the nation…what chutzpah!

This is truly hubris on parade!

                                               

Here is another article from Charles Davenport on why there is such enthusiasm for a Fred Thompson presidential run. Enjoy!

p.s.: There will be another The More Things Change article forthcoming about the environmental movement, so be on the look out for that as well!

Thompson pleases the Republican base

--From the (Greensboro, NC) News & Record of Sunday, June 10, 2007

Last year’s electoral success for Democrats was the direct result of disenchantment and malaise among conservatives. The Bush administration and the formerly GOP-controlled Congress have disappointed the Republican base on several issues paramount to the traditionalist Right—most conspicuously, on immigration. Meanwhile, the current field of GOP presidential candidates has elicited from culture-cons a yawn of indifference because no candidate is considered both conservative and electable. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 57 percent of Republicans are “dissatisfied” with the present field.

The conservative countenance brightens dramatically, however, at the mere mention of one name: Fred Thompson. His candidacy, likely to be announced next month, quickens the pulse to a degree reminiscent of November 1994 and the Gingrich revolution. Justifiably so. Thompson, a “Law & Order” star and former senator, is indisputably conservative and eminently electable.

On the latter point, even Democrats agree. Strategists and campaign managers on the Left have forthrightly expressed their fear of a Thompson candidacy. John Fund, writing in The American Spectator, brings to our attention the opinion of prominent Democratic strategist Bob Beckel. A Thompson candidacy, he says, “scares me.” Beckel believes Thompson’s communication skills and broad appeal would make him a formidable opponent. Long-time Clinton staffer Lanny Davis concurs, writing of Thompson: “I hope he isn’t the GOP nominee because he would be very difficult to beat.”

Fred Thompson’s conservative credentials were firmly established in the 90s, during his tenure as a senator from Tennessee. His voting record earned him a rating of 86 from the American Conservative Union. (Senator Clinton’s rating is 12, Obama’s an 8, and Edwards’ a 10.) Although there are other GOP candidates with higher ACU scores, they are relative unknowns, and probably unelectable.

In recent months, Thompson has rejuvenated the Republican base with a series of red meat-laden speeches, articles and television interviews. When liberal filmmaker Michael Moore challenged him to a debate on health care last month, a cigar-chomping Thompson responded with a stinging, deliciously sarcastic video clip on the Internet. The applause from conservatives was deafening.

Pro-lifers, given the opportunity, will storm the voting booth in droves to support Thompson. His Senate record on the issue is excellent, as evidenced by his 0 rating from NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League. He considers the Roe v. Wade decision “bad law and bad medical science” that should be overturned.

Although Thompson embraces tolerance, he rejects “special rights” for anyone. He opposes gay marriage, for instance, but believes the states should decide the question of “civil unions.” Marriage, he says, is the exclusive domain of “a man and a woman.” Federalism is a key component of Thompson’s belief system, across the board. His nod to the Tenth Amendment will appeal to advocates of lower taxes and limited-government—in short, the Republican Party’s base.

Conservatives will also be delighted with Thompson’s position on gun contol: he opposes it. His voting record is friendly to Second Amendment enthusiasts and, specifically, to owners of firearms. He also favors school choice.

But the issue likely to propel Thompson to the top of the GOP heap is immigration, on which his views are identical to the conservative rank-and-file (and 70 percent of the electorate). In the good-natured, congenial way that he speaks of most issues, he blasts the GOP establishment’s position on immigration.

The immigration bill currently before Congress, for instance, Thompson considers a “phony bill of goods on border security.” The American people, he believes, will not be duped again by promises of enhanced border security and workplace enforcement provisions in exchange for amnesty. Of stricter enforcement, he says merely “putting it on a piece of paper does not convince the American people.” Thompson believes border security must be in place before we even consider the status of the 12-20 million illegal immigrants (or “undocumented workers”) already here.

As president, Thompson says, he would remind Mexico’s Felipe Calderon that a “sovereign nation loses that status if it can’t secure its own borders,” and that the U.S. will enforce immigration law. Calderon is mistaken, Thompson believes, in his belief that it is this nation’s responsibility to “make citizens of his constituents.” Furthermore, perhaps Calderon should rethink Mexico’s “left-of-center” policies which have created an economy that depends “on the export of its own citizens.”

Fred Thompson has neither declared his candidacy nor spent a dime on advertising, yet he consistently places second and third in national polls. Unlike any candidate in recent memory, Thompson inspires and motivates the Republican base. Consequently, upon announcing his candidacy, he will leapfrog the rest of the field.

Charles Davenport Jr. (www.cdavenportjr.com) (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears in the News & Record on alternate Sundays.

We hear a lot about the plight of men in the society of today and rightly so. If there is one group that can be picked on, made fun of, ridiculed, or mocked it seems to be men. They are the group that everyone seems to think it is okay to malign, to humiliate, and to devalue.

Masculinity is seemingly always under attack in the popular media. Behavior that once was seen just as boys being boys is now characterized as dangerous, violent, or hateful. When I was a boy, my brothers, cousins, and various family friends played football, basketball, cowboys…the whole gamut of boyhood games. And no one thought it strange, no one said we were doing anything wrong, and when we left the girls out no one said we had to let them play with us. We even organized our own wrestling promotion, complete with contracts, home made belts, ring names and entrances, and on family gatherings we had our “supercards” where all the titles were up for grabs. We did it up first class…for a bunch of kids…and our parents smiled, told us not to hurt each other, and left it at that. Just boys being boys.

As we got older, we started to chase after girls a little bit, since that was the natural progression expected of boys as they became young men. We had our little schoolhouse romances, got our first kisses, and even snuck around and copped the occasional feel of our little girlfriends behinds. They would tell us to stop, we would, and that was that. There was no need to tell your parents or call the cops, because it was expected if not accepted that this is what boys at a certain age do. Boys will be boys, after all.

Now things have radically changed. The things that were fun for us as kids are now frowned upon by society. Roughhousing is no longer expected, but is grounds for mandatory anger management counseling; trying to kiss your little girlfriend or feel her up is now the impetus for sexual harassment counseling and in some cases for the involvement of the police. That’s right, what was innocent for the most part in my day is now criminal; do what we did and you might find yourself appearing on sex offender website!

And it gets no easier as men, as the popular culture is inundated with images of men as dimwits, slow-coaches, or brutes. A man that is forceful and commanding is characterized as a brutish bully, bent on intimidating all those he comes into contact with. If not bullies, men are the punch line to life’s jokes; men can’t express themselves, can’t deal with emotions, can’t connect with their children, can’t talk to their wives, can’, can’t, can’t….the list is endless.

Now there are authors and advocates that are challenging this trend, and are getting the word out about it. They are trying their best to rescue the image and reputations of men from the distortions that modern society has made in that image. But as bad as it sometimes seems to white men, the same is happening to black men. But for blacks there is a double whammy that makes this problem even worse for us.

While we get lumped in with the “dumb” man jokes and all that, we face the extra slap of being treated as useless, irrelevant, or criminal…and worst of all unnecessary. Society sees us as the criminal class, the media treats us as second class, and our own communities have started to see us a nearly unnecessary impediment to black women. This attitude towards, and treatment of, black men has its roots in the Great Society scheme that Lyndon Johnson and his Democrat cronies dreamed up in the 1960s.

The Great Society was supposed to be a set of programs that gave financial help to the poor, but in the black community it morphed from a war on poverty to a war on black men. When the government began to give unmarried mothers money to feed their children, house, and clothe their children that was the beginning of the end for black fathers in many communities. The government became the very thing that fathers had always been, and stripped black men of some of their authority. The government was the provider, instead of the black man, and suddenly it became more profitable for black women to raise their children alone than with the help of a man. Look at it as our own little “women’s lib” moment, if you will.

And from that start sprang the current conditions that face many black men today; they are distrusted by many in the wider society and are discounted in their own communities. I can hardly count the times that I have seen or heard, in media or in person, the sentiment that black men are basically worthless. How many times have I seen in movies the image of the black man as one who runs out on his responsibilities, leaves his children fatherless, and will not do what it takes to be a man? That theme is one that comes up over and over again, and while there may be some truth to it, it is not all there is to the story.

Let me give you a real life example of what I am talking about when I say that the stereotype does not necessarily hold true. I have a cousin, more like a brother actually, who is raising his three kids on his own. He and his wife had some serious marital problems and eventually divorced; he fought tooth and nail to gain custody of his children in a system that was quite obviously stacked against him. He got custody of his two older children first and continued to fight for custody for his youngest until she was able to come live with him. He works a full time job and has a small business on the side, yet he never misses any activity that his kids are involved in. He makes sure that they are involved in after school activities, to keep them away from the temptations of the streets, and he makes sure that they value their educations and bring home good grades. He has set high goals for them and he pushes them to achieve them because he has made the commitment to them to make sure they have a chance to succeed in life. He puts the welfare of his children above all else, and they are much the better for it.

I say this not just to pat him on the back, even though he well deserves it, but as an illustration that the stereotypes are just that…stereotypes. My brother is not the only black man out there doing right by his kids and his community; it happens all the time all over the country. It’s just not the story that the media wants to tell; they are still stuck on pretending to be our friends while stabbing us in the back.

But in spite of all that, we will stand strong as men, and as black men. We know that we have much to offer and that we are important to our families, our communities, and our nation. We know that we are more than the punch line to another weak attempt at humor and that we are necessary to the correct functioning of our society. And we take solace in the fact that even in the midst of all of the scorn, ridicule, and attacks there are those that value us and fight for us.

So as we come into the upcoming Father’s Day celebration, let me be the first to wish all of the fathers reading this a happy Father’s Day. I salute you all.

As men.

Today I am going to do something that I have never done before, I am going to turn the Spade over to a guest writer. Charles Davenport Jr. is a columnist whose work appears in on my local papers, The Greensboro News & Record and he is a solid conservative. I usually read his articles that appera in the paper, and while i don't always agree with his viewpoints, I can always respect them. That is what seperates us from the liberals, we can disagree on some points without being drummed out of the movement....but I digress.

The article that I am about to post eals with the issue of aboton and the recent SCOTUS decison on partial birth abortion. I reprint it with Mr. Davenport's permission because he is able to express many of the feelings that I have on the issue, but have been unable to adequately express. So enjoy the article, as I did, and feel free to leave any comments you may have.

A victory for the defenseless

From the (Greensboro, NC) News & Record of Sunday, May 27, 2007

Critics of last month’s Supreme Court decision on abortion have portrayed the ruling as an assault on women’s “constitutional right to choose,” and a dangerous precedent that could open the door to additional restrictions. In truth, the Court has prohibited only one, particularly vicious type of late-term abortion, a method pro-choice activists call “intact dilation and extraction.” Critics of the procedure prefer the term “partial-birth abortion,” which is inflammatory, but dreadfully accurate. Consider the testimony of a nurse who witnessed the method performed on a 26-week fetus and described it to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms--everything but the head...The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby went completely limp." For the sake of comparison, Jamie and Jennifer Brannock have graciously contributed an ultrasound of their 20-week fetus, Jordan Lynn, who is due September 15.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which she criticized the Court for weighing the “moral concerns” of partial-birth abortion. Likewise, in a Counterpoint feature earlier this month, Greensboro’s B.J. Weatherby expressed “outrage” over the Court’s utilization of “moral norms.” The author, who refuses to use the term “partial-birth abortion” (“a vile, gruesome name designed to make everyone shudder”), asks readers, “whose norms” should determine matters of “privacy and individual rights.”

If a procedure is vile and gruesome, the term used to describe it should be vile and gruesome, unless of course, one’s intent is to conceal the nature of said procedure. An explicit description of intact dilation and extraction (or whatever we call it) should make everyone shudder—or at least, everyone with a conscience. The Constitution says nothing about a “woman’s right to choose” the taking of an innocent life; it certainly does not condone the killing of infants in a fashion mere inches and seconds away from infanticide.

Justice Ginsburg expressed dismay over the Court’s utilization of “moral concerns” in prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and Weatherby demanded to know whose “moral norms” should prevail. But morality is the cornerstone of law. The collective conscience dictates that robbery, rape, and murder are morally wrong, therefore illegal, and punishable by law. Civilized societies condemn barbarism. Behavioral and moral norms, as reflected in the collective conscience, are enforced by law.

Would defenders of partial-birth abortion argue that a prohibition on rape or murder is an unacceptable “imposition” of someone else’s morality? Intellectual consistency would lead them to such conclusions; but no, they are selective about when the imposition of morality is acceptable. In this case, the collective conscience (the moral norm) has declared partial-birth abortion cruel, inhumane and, contrary to the claims of its defenders, unnecessary.

Nevertheless, virtually every prominent Democrat has condemned the Court’s decision. Former Senator John Edwards called it “ill-considered,” a “hard right turn” that reminds us of how much is at stake in the 2008 election—meaning, of course, “a woman’s right to choose.” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said the ruling is “a departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that recognized the importance of women’s health” and an “erosion of our constitutional rights.” In the 90s, President Clinton vetoed a ban on partial birth abortions. Twice. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned it as “a significant step backward.”

While researching this topic, I stumbled across an editorial on the death penalty that appeared in these pages two months ago. The irony of one sentence from the editorial board’s closing paragraph is staggering: “Physicians are trained to treat every life as valuable, and government should not try to use its power to undermine the moral underpinnings of the practice of medicine.” Inversely, when physicians do not treat innocent life as valuable, when the practice of medicine has abandoned its moral underpinnings, doesn’t the government have a responsibility to enforce the collective conscience?

Charles Davenport Jr. (www.cdavenportjr.com) (daisha99@msn.com) is a freelance columnist who appears alternate Sundays in the News & Record.

As Fred Dalton Thompson gets ever so close to stepping into the Presidential race, the GOP's conservative base is getting nearly giddy with excitement. Here is the man that we have put all of our Reagan wish fulfillment fantasies in; the strong, authoritative, articulate conservative that is uabashedly conservative. There is not even a hint of any "compassionate conservativism" in anything he says or does. He is what we claim to have been looking for for the last 8-12 years, and now he has arrived.

But I don't think that Fred Thompson's anticipated entry into the race is at all a reason for giddiness; I am looking at this as he point where the GOP is now going to have to finally take a stand. Is the GOP in line with the principles of the base, which is overwhelmingly conservative. Or is it, as I have long suspected, filled to the brim with country club elitists who do not embrace conservatives but merely tolerate them in their ranks.

How the GOP reacts to the anticipated Thompson candidacy will say volumes about where the Party sees it's future. If the Party poers and pundits, including some here at Townhall, continue to push a Guiliani or McCain nomination at us on the grounds that these two are "electable", we will know where the GOP has staked its future. It will have become a Party that is totally bereft of any principles, save one...winning elections; just like it's cousin, the Donkey Party. If it embaces Thompson, there may be some hope yet that conservative values are still a core part of the GOP and its future.

I am not saying that any opposition to Thompson is opposition to conservatism, but the nature of that opposition will be. How many, and how quickly will the power players of the GOP will rush to label Thompson as a captive of the "religious right" or the "far right"? And how many will try to tell us that all that matters is the "electibility" of the more "moderate" candidates? That will speak volumes.

No, this is not a time for dancing in the streets, for patting each other on the back, or for jubilation. This is a time for the conservative base to let it be known, by our words, actions, and votes that we are the backbone of this Party. It is a time for the conservatives in the GOP to watch closely what the party does: Will it support Guiliani over Thompson as it supported Specter over Toomey? This is a time for clarity of thought, and steely eyed determination to reclaim the Party from the "moderates" who embrace everything, while standing for nothing.

And if the Party chooses to ignore the base...again...and ignores our voices, it will be time for something else entirely. It will be time to call the Party to account.

It will be time for a reckoning.

When I wrote my first post about the more things change, it was concieved as a one time thing. But as I continue to do some reading and listening to the issues that are being covered today, and how they are being covered, the idea keeps calling me. So I am thinking of making it a semi-regular feature at the Spade. I hope you all enjoy it!

This entry of  The More Things Change comes from a book that I am currently reading, The News Manipulators by Reed Irvine, Joseph C. Goulden, and Cliff Kincaid. They are the founders and driving forces behind the Accuracy in Media (AIM) watchdog group and this particular piece was originally written on June 5, 1992 and is found on pages 138-140 in their book.

     "On the eve of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, The Washington Post punched a hole in the global warming balloon with an excellent article by Boyce Rensberger pointing out that the alarmist claims that we are going to fry if we don't curb the emissions of greenhouse gases are not supported by empirical evidence. Rensberger pointed out that the climate scientists don't differ about what the data show. They agree that there is a grenhouse effect produced by the earth's atmosphere that has been keeping the planet warm for billions of years. They agree that some of the gases which contribute to this effect, notably carbon dioxide, have increased since the industrial revolution began some 200 years ago.
     They also agree that the increase in the earth's mean surface temperature over the last hundred years of about one degree Fahrenheit is within the range of normal climate variability, but they then divide into two groups. One group believes that the warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not to natural causes. They cite the increase in the percentage of the carbon dioxide component of the atmosphere from about .00028 percent in 1800 to about .00036 percent today, warning that if the present rate of increase continues, it will lead to a heating of the globe unprecedented in human history."

     "The netwoks prefer Michael Oppenheimer, the scientific spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund. Oppenheimer has been all over the tube lately ladling out panic-promoting misinformation. On ABC's This Week With David Brinkley he said "there's no question" about the long term warming trend continuing. He cited a White House report that said that there is a consensus among a broad range of scientists that the build-up of greenhouse gases will lead to a warming of the earth in the range of three degrees to eight degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Oppenheimer said, "That would make the earth warmer than at any time in the history of the human species...That's a threat we need to act on now."
     The same day, Resenberger in the Washintgon Post reported that climate scientists are divided into those who want immediate action to curb greenhouse gases and those who don't. He said, "Most of the scientists who specialize in the subject still can't figure out whether anything unusual is actually happening to Earth's climate...Scientists generally agree that it has been getting warmer over the last hundred years, but the average rate of change is no greater than in centuries past, and there is no consensus that human activity is the cause. And while there is no doubt that continued emissions of 'greenhouse gases' tend to aid warming, it is not clear that cutting back on emissions could do much to stop a natural trend, if that is what is happening."
     Dr. Fred Singer, a scientist who opposes panicky action, says the White House paper cited by Oppenhiemer is a misrepresentation of the 1990 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This report observed that the future warming rate could accelerate and increase by as much as 5 degrees by the year 2100, but it did not claim that there was any consensus that this would occur. The IPCC report said: "It is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available."
     Why was Fred Singer allowed only a few seconds in the taped introductory segment of the Brinkley show while people like Michael Oppenheimer and his think-alike, Sen. Albert Gore, are featured guests? Rensbereger supplied this answer, "They are the most visible because many are backed by large, activist organizations and because the news media traditionally give alarm calls prominence."
     Tom Murphy, the CapCities/ABC chairman, claims that ABC wants to give the public all the facts. He has said, "We would like to think we are discussing all these major issues of our time with all the scientific community, and we're tryin to do the best we can." Try a little harder, Tom. You can do a lot better."

Change a few names and dates, and the debate hasn't changed a whole lot. Only now, there are hardly any media voices that do not subscribe to the fear mongereing, "the earth is gonna burn" mindset found when the topic is global warming!

Global warming fear mongering: Built to last and going strong since 1992!

My good buddy BrianR has a policy that he does not involve himself in the religious debates that explode at Townhall from time to time. He doesn't see where they are usually profitable, and he sees them as oftentimes being a distraction from larger political issues. I can respect that position, and the debate at Mike Gallagher's thread about Mitt Romney was a perfect example of what BrianR happens to have articulated in the past. The thread quickly devolved from Mike saying that he didn't particularly appreciate being called a bigot for saying that Romney's LDS faith was a sticking point for him, into a debate about the theology of the LDS church.

And that was a shame, because the larger point that Gallagher was trying to make was important in my view. It is of great import to know what type of religious beliefs a man holds, or how he applies that faith in his life when deciding on a presidential nominee. And using that type of criteria to help make a decision is, in my opinion, absoultely valid and does not mean that you are some type of bigot.

You see, the type of religious beliefs a man holds goes to the very heart of that man. A person's religious faith will, or at least should, be a defining part of his character. What he believes will impact the way a person lives his personal life, and it will impact the political choices and positions of politicians. Your religious faith is supposed to inform not just your religious life, but all aspects of your life...including your worldview.

And that is why individual voters are justified in applying their own religious tests to the people that we are being asked to give our votes to. People are usually not going to vote for people that have nothing in common with them, and are especially unlikely to vote for people who hold religious views that are at odds with theirs. That is the very reason that many evangelical Christians are uncomfortable supporting Mitt Romney, why conservative Catholics are squeamish about Guiliani, and why Christians, Catholics, and Mormons alike are opposed on general principle to supporting Muslims who may run for high office. They are opposed not because of hatred, but because of the fact that they cannot reconcile voting for someone whose religious beliefs are contrary to theirs; they simply canot ignore their religious compass and support someone they are not in tune with.

And truthfully, I have no problem with that; as a matter of fact I completely understand that sentiment, because I share it. I would have great problems if the government applied a religious test to office seekers, but I have no qualms about individuals applying their own religious tests to candidates. Personally, I would have a hard time voting for Romney not just because of his policy flip-flops, but because of his religious beliefs. I have been a Mormon, and while some of the best people I have ever met have been Mormons, that does not change the basic tenets of the LDS church. And because of those tenets, I would have to question the loyalty of the office seeker...is he totally committed to serving the country, or does his loyalty to the LDS faith trump all? It is the same question I would ask of a Muslim: are you committed to upholding the Constitution as you swore to do, or is your first and greatest loyalty to Muhammed the Prophet and his god? These are legitimate questions, and voters should not feel embarassed or ashamed to ask them of their candidates.

We are all different, we all have different likes, dislikes, beliefs, and positions. We have to feel free to make our judgements based on all the available information we have, and we should not be subjected to hectoring or name calling for using that information to make choices. I shouldn't have to justify or explain my giving or wthholding support to anyone; and I definitely should not be called a bigot for not supporting one candidate or the other.

I know that BrianR probably won't be commenting on this, as per the usual...although I would dearly love to get his take on this issue. But I can respect it if he doesn't want to talk about it and will accept his decision if he chooses to stay out of it. I just wish that others could give the same type of respect to those that see the linkage between a person's religious beliefs and their political lives. It is important to many of those trying to make a choice in this...and other...elections.

Because whether you believe it or not there is something that will give you more insight on a person than any number of speeches, policy reports, or media interviews. If you really want to make a complete decision on the quality of candidates, you have to look deep. You have to look at the soul of a man.

I recently borrowed a book from my local public library for a trip I was about to take called A Short History of the Civil War by James L. Stokesbury. It is a nice little read, very informative without being too academic; but one chapter that I read today made me sit up and take notice. The parallels between the attitudes of the Democrats and some Republicans in the Civil War are eerily similar to attitudes that are held today about the Iraq war. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same; read on and you'll see what I mean. Change a few names and dates here or there, and you wouldn't even know that it wasn't the current conflict that is  being discussed.

On the election of 1864:
"In 1864 the Democrats thought they could beat Lincoln, and many Republicans agreed with them. A good many of the latter, indeed, went so far as to suggest that the Republicans should rid themselves of Lincoln, and that they would have a better chance at winning the election if they replaced him..."(pp 259)
Sound familiar?

On Democratic Party campaign strategy:
"They (Dems) certainly needed to cover themselves as best they could, for the game was there for the Democrats to win, if only they could develop a combination to do it. That was the real rub. It was all well and good to cry, 'The war is a failure!' but what did they offer as an alternative? They did not really know. They had some vague ideas that if they stopped the war, somehow all would be well agian; the country might be reunited, and everyone could agree that the late unpleasantness had just not happened. It was far from a positive program, and even that was achieved only by dillegently ignoring a great many facts, most notably that the war had happened..."(pp 259)
Shades of 9/11 anyone?

On selecting a candidate:
"Their (Dems) dilemma was underscored by their search for a candidate. Who would possibly be the Democratic standard-bearer against Lincoln? Since the were going to repudiate the war, it would look best if they had a war hero to do it. The extreme Peace Democrats did not want even that, and they did their best to nominate Horatio Seymour of New York, one of the most difficult anti-war state governors with whom Lincoln had to contend. There was, however, a more charismatic figure, and he let it be known he was available: George Brinton McClellan. The man who had once been willing to "become dictator to save the country, and perish by suicide to preserve its liberties", was now willing to become the Democratic presidential candiate."(pp 259-260)
Ned Lamont, netroots revolution, and John F. Kerry come to mind here!

On the run-up to the elections:
"Most observers were pretty sure the military men, or those connected with them, would in fact vote Republican, but what of the rest of the country, all the millions of people who just needed to get on with their day-to-day lives? They might well not support a war to which they could see no end, and in which they could see little profit. These were the people to whom the Democrats appealed. The war is a failure, the war is a waste; "this bloody and expensive war" was a stock phrase of Democratic editorials and oratory. Lincoln and his gang had suspended civil rights, imposed burdensome taxes, wrecked the country, and for what? To free the slaves? To keep South Carolina in a union it wanted to leave? Surely the country deserved better than these abolitionists, fanatics, political charlatans and backwoods yokels. Surely the country deserved George B. McClellan and peace and prosperity.
In July and August it looked not only as if that was what the country deserved, but also what it wanted. The reports Lincoln recieved from his political managers did not look good. they would almost certainly lose many of the state governments, much of Congress, and they would probably lose the White House too. People were so tired of war and death and destruction; peace was worth almost any price."(pp261)
Where have I read/seen/heard this before? Maybe the MSM?

On what actually happened on election day ( this is a lengthy passage):
"On a more practical level, the Republicans were determined to do all they could, legally and occasionally illegally, to win the election; both sides urged their followers, as the quip has it, to "vote early and vote often." The fall of  Atlanta (Gen. W.T. Sherman, September 1864), though it was percieved as cutting a good deal from under the Democrats' "The war is a failure" campaign, still did not make the election a sure thing or even approach it. One measure the Republicans chose, wisely as it turned out, was to allow and encourage voting by the soldiers themselves. The government hoped that its fighting men would support the war effort, rather than repudiate it. Soldiers from some states that required their physical precence were furloughed so they could go home to vote. Other states sent commissioners to their regiments in the field to record the soldiers' ballots there.
The result was gratifying beyond the Republicans' wildest hopes. Here were the men doing the actual fighting and dying, asked to vote in support of the government, in effect a war, that would make them continue to fight and die--and they did so resoundingly. These men were not fooled by the Democrats' hedging on the great questions of the day, and they knew better than any others that when Jeff Davis said independence was a precondition to peace, he and those who followed him meant exactly that. Of the soldier votes that were tabulated seperately, 199,754 out of 154,045 were for Lincoln-78 percent for the war. There is no reason to believe that those who went home voted any differently from those still in the field; thus Lincoln carried the army by three to one." (pp281-282)
Seem familiar to you?

Now is it just me, or does all this sound familiar? I have heard Rush Limbaugh say for years that the Democrats never change their playbook, but I doubt even he realized that the playbook hadn't changed since the Civil War!!!

I guess the old saying is true: The more things change, the more they stay the same!

*All passages quoted from: A Short History of the Civil War by James L. Stokesbury. New York: Morrow, 1995. Pages 259-61, 281-2.

Before we go any further, let me in form you that this is not about San Fran Nan or her Democrat cohorts. No, this is all about the GOP in general and conservatives in particular; there are enough voices letting people know what the Dems are up to and how conservatives feel about it, that I don't quite think my voice needs to be heard on that subject right now.

I do think that someone needs to speak to the negativity that is emanating from the ranks of the GOP and conservatives concerning the 2008 election. The more I listen to my friends on the consevative side of the aisle, the angrier I get, the more frustrated I become. Everywhere I turn, it seems that we have just about given up any hope of retaining the White House or regaining any strength in the Congress in the '08 election cycle. Too many of us have turned into Negative Nancy's!

Now, I understand that there are problems with the GOP, especially the tendency to promote "electable" WISH (R)'s in nearly every important election cycle. I know that most conservatives are not thrilled with the prospect of having Rudy "The Nogun" Guiliani, John "Maverick" McVain, or "Slick" Mitt Romney as their choices for the presidential nomination and I number myself among them. All of these men have their own baggage to deal with in order to get the nomination and will have a tough time fighting the media tide as they attempt to campaign...if it ever comes to that. I also know that many conservatives, including me, are tired of the GOP's willingness to leave our borders basically unsecured, allowing the flood of illegals to continue unabated. And many are growing weary of a war that has been prosecuted in a bassackward way seemingly from the beginning, and a near phobia about really punishing the enemy and breaking their will to fight. All of those are legitimate concerns and are worthy of serious discussion inside the GOP and in conservative circles.

What I don't get is this rush by many in the GOP and in conservative circles to look into the 2008 election and see only doom and gloom for the right. Too many are damn near handing the election to the Democrat nominee before a nominee has been chosen for either side, or before a single vote has been cast for any candidates!  Maybe it is a situation where folks want to prepare for the worst, but I don't subscribe to that type of thinking. I think we would be better served to spend less time fretting about a possible Democrat win and more time trying to find a way to win. We need to get busy trying to succeed instead of preparing to fail.

And make no mistake, while we are sitting around whining about the eventuality of a Hillary Clinton administration the Democrats are busy trying to create some type of Democrat win. They are not spending all their time an energy on the primary fight, they are looking forward to setting up a winnig campaign for whomever comes out of their primaries as the nominee. Meanwhile, the GOP is standing around in fear of having to face either Obama, Clinton, or horror of horrors....a Clinton-Obama ticket! They are spending all their time seemingly focused on what the other side is doing, to the detriment of their own plans. Do you think Democrat strategists are shaking at the mention of Rudy, Mitt, or McVain?

We have just as much of a chance to win the upcoming elections as the Democrats, so we need to stop running around acting in the exact opposite manner! We need to start planning for success instead of waiting around to fail; we must heed the wisdom of the old saying "Failing to prepare is preparing to fail".

And if we don't stop acting as though we have lost the presidential elections well over a year...a year!!!...out, then we won't just be Negative Nancy's. We will quickly become Perishing Pachyderms...a party in deadly decline.

I am not a culture warrior. There, I said it and it feels good to get it out there! There is so much talk and so many people laying claim to being culture warriors on the conservative side that it seems that being a CW has become almost a requirement. But that's just not me, and as a matter of fact I think the whole idea is pretty silly.

One of the major reasons that I am not a CW is that I do not see it as my duty as an American, and especially as a Christian to be fighting the culture wars. That is not to say that the state of our culture isn't important, I just don't see any precedent for me as a Christian to be running around trying to rescue this fallen culture. As a Christian, my job is to witness to lost souls and try to win them to Christ, not to lobby Congress to get bad words banned from rap muisic. That may be a noble idea, but it isn't exactly what we have been instructed to do.

I also see this whole situation as being an imposition of my tastes on others. While I may not like the lyrics in rap music, I don't think I am exactly in a position to tell others what they should listen to. Just because I don't like something does not mean that no ne else should have access to it. And it smacks of hypocrisy from the conservative side when we rail all day about personal choice and responsibility, yet we are more than willing to try to impose our choices on others. And when we advocate this type of thing, it begs the question of where it all ends. If we succeed in punishing the rappers for saying things that we find to be vile, what are we to say when the left goes after us for saying something they think is vile? There will be nothing we can do, because we will have already set the precedent.

Finally, I see this whole culture warrior stance as being one of extreme arrogance. Every CW I listen to, be it Hannity, O'Reilly, or Laura Ingraham all come across as arrogant when they begin to go into their CW speil. It is all about them, what they want, what they like, and how they are speaking for the people. The only thing is, they are not in a position to even speak for their entire audience, much less the entire populace! Take O'Reilly's stupid campaign against Ludacris and Pepsi. He spent all this time and effort to pressure Pepsi to drop Ludacris as a spokesman because O'Reilly disliked his lyrics; nevermind that Ludacris was a top selling artist at the time, and many people in the viewing audience knew who he was and didn't care if Pepsi hired him or not. No, the only thing that mattered was that O'Reilly didn't like him so he had to save the world from the pernicious creep of Ludacris lyrics. Do you not see how arrogant that seems?

I have lots of likes and dislikes, but I have never been so arrogant as to believe that I represent the people. Hell, I don't even embody all the beliefs, attitudes, and opinions in my own home...so I am pretty sure that I'm in no position to speak for anyone but me!

For me, I think that changing the culture has to start at home. My job is to try to live a godly life myself, and then to instill positive morals and values in my children. If I do that, and I am a good example for my friends and neighbors then I have done more to affect the culture than I ever could in protesting who Pepsi uses as a spokesman. If you really want to change the culture for the better, start at home, then start in your neighborhood, your block, and your town. That's how you change things, not howling at the moon about Hollywood movies!

So I think I'll just keep my sword sheathed in this broader culture war. I have a feeling that it wouldn't have done much good to draw it anyway!

*Special thanks to my brother Patrick for helping inspire this idea!

For as long as I can remember race has been the true third rail in American society. We have attempted to understand it, we have tried to discuss it, and all we ever seem to do is argue about it. And we have the same arguments, with the same points raised, all of the time. As much time as has been put towards the discussions, the commissions, and the dialouge efforts we seem to always find ourselves back at the same place. And the question is why. Why can't we seem to come to grips with this issue? Why can't we come to some mutual understanding? And to borrow a phrase from Rodney King: Why can't we all just get along?

I don't claim to have all the answers to these questions, but I am more than willing to share my observations on the issue with you.

One of the reasons we continue to have these issues is that some people don't want to recognize that we are different. While I don't believe that blacks are a different "race", we are a different ethnicity with some unique cultural features...just like those of Japanese ancestry or Polish, or German ancestries. But to say that to some whites, it is like you just slapped their mothers or something! They immediately respond with comments about blacks trying to set themselves apart, trying to make themselves a protected class, or being a Balkanizing force. If you read my post from a while back "It's a Black Thing" and the responses, you will see exactly what I am talking about.

What we black folks don't get is why that is so upsetting to so many whites. What is it about the idea of blacks as having a distinct ethnic identity that gets the blood boiling so? Why is it that many whites treat that type of attitude in blacks as some sort of threat to the American Way? Why can't you just be content to let us have Kwanzaa, especialy since it is not hurting anyone else? Now I personally don't celebrate Kwanzaa, as I think it is a somewhat silly idea; but I do not attack the celebration or those that observe it as some type of subversives either! I live and let live, which seems to be something that many whites seem to be unable to do when it comes to issues of "race".

Where we both, black and white, miss the boat is in treating the other group as a monolithic entity