Post No. 150: God, Obama, the Baltimore Ravens, and the Green Party

© 2011 and 2013, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

We previously posted this piece in connection with past sports world championship battles. Since the Super Bowl is about to start, we thought that we would re-visit some of the issues addressed. Enjoy.

Last evening, during his comments at the memorial service for the victims of the Arizona shootings, and after visiting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, President Obama shared that Ms. Giffords had, shortly after his departure, opened her eyes.

There followed some confusion regarding an earlier statement, several days prior, by her doctors regarding the opening of her eyes (in response to stimuli) and her opening her eyes on Wednesday (on her own).

Today, all over the Internet, articles flew back and forth bearing titles describing the President as, “the Miracle Worker,” “the Great Healer,” and “the Savior.”

Of course, his detractors characterized the media attention as another example of Obama having been designated as “The Anointed One,” which further complicates his reputation as a detached leader.

However, it reminded us of a conversation that we had two weeks ago in a men’s restroom in a “home style” restaurant here in the Southeast.

All of us have perhaps reflected on comments of players winning championships in their respective games, stopping to thank their God for their victories on their way to Disney World. Obviously Satan was in the locker room of the losing team.

(Hmmm. Does that mean that God sanctions the activities at Disney World and its owners?)

We’ve all witnessed the Democrats and the Republicans claim to be the party of “the People,” sanctioned by God. Somehow, we’ve always felt that some party, other than the traditional parties, might be the party sanctioned by our God; but then again, we suspect that reasonable people could take issue with that assessment. That may be the beauty of Pentecostalism.

Returning to our restaurant, we observed the fellow diner standing at the urinal in the restroom wearing a baseball style cap, which had a donkey on its side, with the top half of the donkey colored red, and the bottom half colored blue.

Our first inclination was to inquire as to which sports team had the donkey as its mascot or symbol, but when he turned to respond to our greeting, we noticed that it was an Obama campaign cap.

More than 2 years ago, the Logistician wrote a piece entitled, Why I Am Concerned that Obama Might Win. He suggested that the economic problems facing the nation and the world at the time of the article (the Fall of 2008) were 25 – 30 years in the making, contributed to by both political parties, and that we were in store for a long period of economic pain with anemic improvement.

He implied that because of the anticipated slow economic recovery, Obama would be a one-term president, and that the masses, both within and outside of his party, would call for his head at mid-term. From a philosophical perspective, he hoped that the first of any minority group, which historically had not occupied the Oval Office, not be viewed as a failure, due to factors far larger and more complex than those capable of being addressed by a mere mortal, no matter how well connected to God.

Since the diner in the restroom was obviously an Obama supporter, we asked him whether he thought that President Obama would be re-elected. Without hesitation, he exclaimed, “Yes. God is on Obama’s side, and Obama has a few tricks up his sleeve for his detractors.”

Although, because of the nature of our training and the mission of the Institute, we were tempted to explore God’s relationship with Obama further, we let the diner’s comment slide. However, it did cause us to remember a comment made by Professor Jonathan Haidt, which he noted in his article, What Makes People Vote Republican?, which we shared with you previously.

Paraphrasing, Haidt claims is that what Democrats have recently failed to appreciate, and upon which Republicans have learned to capitalize, is that politics is more like religion, and less like shopping, which seems to dominate their approach.

And so we watched our fellow diner leave the restroom, content in his mind that God was going to guide President Obama through the remainder of his term, and that he would be re-elected. We also wondered whether more Democrats might choose to attend places of worship during the upcoming year, and spend less time at Wal-Mart.

This just in from our Washington Office: President Obama will take the First Lady and the kids, Aaron Rodgers, and Ralph Nader to “Disney World” shortly after the next presidential election.

Post No. 146h: Article of Interest: Stephen Hawking's Change of View re God

Physicist Stephen Hawking has changed some of his views regarding God as revealed in his new book. To view the article, click here.

Post No. 138b: Re-Posting of Post No. 120: Taking Canopy Under the Cover of Religion

Earlier this week, while explaining why "enemy combatant terrorists" should not be tried in American courts, a member of Congress referred to them as "beasts." Later, a commentator expressed his concern that some of the criticism of President Obama had taken on a "religious fervor."

Right now, as we type this piece, Turner Classic Movies is airing the film which won the Academy Award for Best Picture for 1952, "The Greatest Show on Earth." Many have referred to it as one of the worst pictures ever to win that award, and many suspect that Cecil B. DeMille's support of anti-communist crusader Joseph McCarthy was a factor in the voting.

All of this reminded us of a piece which we generated earlier, about a C-Span2 Book TV presentation. We invite you to consider it again.


© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Last week, we saw an interview of a Ku Klux Klan member. He made frequent reference to segregation as having been sanctioned by God.

More recently, one of our “supporters” suggested that we “sprinkle” our articles with Biblical references to generate more interest, particularly because God has chosen to assemble more of his passionate followers here in the Southeast.

(In a previous article, we noted our repeated requests that God speak to us, all to no avail. We actually envy those special people to whom God speaks. They’re apparently doing something we’re not, despite our willingness to participate in a conversation. The Logistician’s Father long claimed that he was simply not trying hard enough.)

The segregationist and our supporter, in conjunction with the noise generated over President’s Notre Dame Commencement speech, reminded us of a blunder candidate Obama made on the campaign trail. In April 2008, he said that it was not surprising that working class citizens, in small cities decimated by job losses, might cling to guns and religion to deal with their frustration.

Many felt that Sen. Clinton would benefit enormously from this misstep.

And perhaps she ultimately will.

And so it was timely that C-Span aired a presentation entitled, “God is Back,” sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Taking Cover under the Canopy of Religion,” was coined by one of the panelists.

We learned that the “mega church” is actually an American invention – an extension of free market capitalism. In the 1970s, some religious leaders realized they were living in a very competitive environment. They suspected the application of business principles and marketing, along with getting more involved in the media and politics, would drive growth beyond their missionary efforts abroad.

One of the panelists noted that “Religion, American Style” has done so well in these “emerging markets,” that they have taken the business of religion to a new level. The growth has been particularly noteworthy in Guatemala and South Korea (where one mega church boasts 830,000 members).

It’s not just a matter of more people personally following religion, but rather the reassertion of religion as a force in life. Per the panelists, globalization is stoking the demand for religion.

China has roughly 1.4 billion people. Despite its purported communist underpinnings, it could become the largest Christian nation, Buddhist nation, or any other type of religious nation. Many suggest that the central authority of the Communist Party is fragile and subject to fracture.

The branch of Christianity most successful in riding this wave has been Pentecostalism, which places emphasis on a direct personal experience with God. (Perhaps that’s the ticket.) Globalization is driving insecurity, because change makes people insecure.

Insecurity historically has driven an apocalyptic attitude, and concern about impending doom. Pentecostalism also has a sociological element, which provides uprooted people with a philosophy in which they can emotionally invest.

To many, the Pentecostal Church service is the spiritual equivalent of infotainment. Entertainers from Ray Charles to Elvis Presley traced their musical roots to the melodies and arrangements they learned as children on Sundays.

As with everything in life, the panelists acknowledged a downside. When religion is at its most passionate, it is also at its most intolerant.

And most dangerous.

More blood has been shed in the Name of God, through religious wars, than for any other political purpose.

One perhaps counterintuitive aspect of the mega churches is the focus on small units to drive the agenda. One reason that Islam has grown so rapidly is that individual mosques have tremendous control and autonomy at their level, as opposed to functioning under a huge, centralized bureaucracy.

The strength in this approach is that it empowers people. The weakness? Doctrinal inconsistency, subject to variations of all types, and manipulation.

Our friend the Laughingman abandoned a Mormon heritage, traceable to Brigham Young’s initial march across the plains and mountains, to become an Episcopalian (not least to insure continued access to the company of Rev. Davenport’s daughter). Forty five years later, he remains a 4 times a month church goer… not least because he has discovered that getting down on your knees once a week, and reciting the Litany, is good for one’s sanity as well as one’s soul.

“We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and there is no health in us, but thou, oh Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders.”

He likens religion to a human operator’s manual. Pay attention to the Ten Commandments, and you can get through this life without causing harm to yourself or others. Ignore them, and it is hell living with the consequences.

We guess that candidate Obama got it wrong. Imagine that.

Post No. 120: "Taking Cover Under the Canopy of Religion"

© 2009, the Institute for Applied Common Sense

Last week, we saw an interview of a Ku Klux Klan member. He made frequent reference to segregation as having been sanctioned by God.

More recently, one of our “supporters” suggested that we “sprinkle” our articles with Biblical references to generate more interest, particularly because God has chosen to assemble more of his passionate followers here in the Southeast.

(In a previous article, we noted our repeated requests that God speak to us, all to no avail. We actually envy those special people to whom God speaks. They’re apparently doing something we’re not, despite our willingness to participate in a conversation. The Logistician’s Father long claimed that he was simply not trying hard enough.)

The segregationist and our supporter, in conjunction with the noise generated over the President’s Notre Dame Commencement speech, reminded us of a blunder candidate Obama made on the campaign trail. In April 2008, he said that it was not surprising that working class citizens, in small cities decimated by job losses, might cling to guns and religion to deal with their frustration.

Many felt that Sen. Clinton would benefit enormously from this misstep.

And perhaps she ultimately will.

And so it was timely that C-Span aired a presentation entitled, “God is Back,” sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Taking Cover under the Canopy of Religion,” was coined by one of the panelists.

We learned that the “mega church” is actually an American invention – an extension of free market capitalism. In the 1970s, some religious leaders realized they were living in a very competitive environment. They suspected the application of business principles and marketing, along with getting more involved in the media and politics, would drive growth beyond their missionary efforts abroad.

One of the panelists noted that “Religion, American Style” has done so well in these “emerging markets,” that they have taken the business of religion to a new level. The growth has been particularly noteworthy in Guatemala and South Korea (where one mega church boasts 830,000 members).

It’s not just a matter of more people personally following religion, but rather the reassertion of religion as a force in life. Per the panelists, globalization is stoking the demand for religion.

China has roughly 1.4 billion people. Despite its purported communist underpinnings, it could become the largest Christian nation, Buddhist nation, or any other type of religious nation. Many suggest that the central authority of the Communist Party is fragile and subject to fracture.

The branch of Christianity most successful in riding this wave has been Pentecostalism, which places emphasis on a direct personal experience with God. (Perhaps that’s the ticket.) Globalization is driving insecurity, because change makes people insecure.

Insecurity historically has driven an apocalyptic attitude, and concern about impending doom. Pentecostalism also has a sociological element, which provides uprooted people with a philosophy in which they can emotionally invest.

To many, the Pentecostal Church service is the spiritual equivalent of infotainment. Entertainers from Ray Charles to Elvis Presley traced their musical roots to the melodies and arrangements they learned as children on Sundays.

As with everything in life, the panelists acknowledged a downside. When religion is at its most passionate, it is also at its most intolerant.

And most dangerous.

More blood has been shed in the Name of God, through religious wars, than for any other political purpose.

One perhaps counterintuitive aspect of the mega churches is the focus on small units to drive the agenda. One reason that Islam has grown so rapidly is that individual mosques have tremendous control and autonomy at their level, as opposed to functioning under a huge, centralized bureaucracy.

The strength in this approach is that it empowers people. The weakness? Doctrinal inconsistency, subject to variations of all types, and manipulation.

Our friend the Laughingman abandoned a Mormon heritage, traceable to Brigham Young’s initial march across the plains and mountains, to become an Episcopalian (not least to insure continued access to the company of Rev. Davenport’s daughter). Forty five years later, he remains a 4 times a month church goer… not least because he has discovered that getting down on your knees once a week, and reciting the Litany, is good for one’s sanity as well as one’s soul.

“We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and there is no health in us, but thou, oh Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders.”

He likens religion to a human operator’s manual. Pay attention to the Ten Commandments, and you can get through this life without causing harm to yourself or others. Ignore them, and it is hell living with the consequences.

We guess that candidate Obama got it wrong. Imagine that.

Post No. 98: Jesus Christ and the Democrats

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received numerous responses. We posted one of them earlier today entitled, "Jesus Christ and the Republicans."

One of our regular readers felt that it might be interesting to examine this issue from another perspective. The following is the question presented by this reader:

"Taking into account the liberal social values of the Democrats, are they consistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ?"

Post No. 97: Jesus Christ and the Republicans

In our last post, we invited our readers to examine an article by a university professor entitled, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”

Although the title may have suggested that it was about Republican Party members, by examining their views, the author distinguished and articulated the views of members of the Democratic Party, or at least as he sees them.

We recently asked our readers to submit possible topics for discussion, and we received a very good response. Thank you. We had to choose one for our first topic, and we will present the others later, down the road.

You will recall that in a post last year, we examined whether Jesus Christ would have discriminated against people who engaged in activities which might have been deemed inappropriate or unacceptable by the Church.

One of our regular readers presented us with a topic for discussion which raises similar issues. The following is the question:

“In recent times, conservative Christians, particularly evangelicals, have played a significant role in formulating and articulating the core values of conservative/Republican politics in this country. Taking into consideration the conservative economic values, and the conservative geo-political agenda, are they consistent with the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ?”

We have purposefully chosen not to delineate or define the "economic values" and "geo-political agenda" to which the reader refers. We'll leave that up to you.

Post No. 10:How Rev. John Hagee’s Comments Reminded Me of Better Times (The Perils of Being an Information Junkie)

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

John Hagee – interesting guy. However, before I address the controversy surrounding his recent comments (and being politically incorrect might be a good thing), I must reveal a character flaw, with which I have wrestled all of my life. In fact, my Mother, a junior high school teacher and former librarian, is responsible for my condition. You see, I’m an information junkie. It is absolutely essential that I receive new information all throughout the day. My Mother contributed to my affliction in that she actively encouraged me to read anything and everything.

You wouldn’t believe some of the things that I have read. The identity of the writer does not matter. The message does not matter. Offensive materials? Sure, I’ll read them. I am always fascinated with how everyone with whom I come into contact has a position, and a point of view, with respect to virtually every written publication. If I mention a particular book, paper, author, or website, they immediately launch into why they admire or hate the work. Just the mere mention of a work evokes all sorts of emotions, and by simply mentioning it, people naturally assume that I found the work compelling and agree with the content. It appears that similar principles also apply to the spoken word.

In the late fall of 1977, I was watching an episode of 60 Minutes. Someone mentioned that virtually all people could be “defined” or perhaps more accurately, “consumed,” by one of three words, those being identity, stimulation, and security. For some of us, finding ourselves consumes us. For others, nothing is more important than a sense of security. And there are those who seek constant stimulation.

I wrote them down at the time in the front of my Day-Timer, and was therefore forced to revisit the concept on a daily basis for years. Of course, I asked myself repeatedly whether any of the categories applied to me. At least from my perspective, identity and security were of no interest to me. I entertained the possibility that stimulation was applicable to me, and yet I repeatedly dismissed the notion. You tell me.

Some people like music, and others visual images. Me? Give me radio. I love the auditory. Give me Gunsmoke or The Lone Ranger on radio, and I’m in heaven. I learned the game of hockey while attending the University of Michigan, by listening to the radio broadcasts on Saturday nights, just before I went out. Radio commercials occupy a special place in my heart. Even when the Lakers were in the playoffs, those many years, on their way to world championships, I preferred to listen to Chick Hearn do the simult-cast on the radio. For some reason, the spoken word gets my attention. I’m more engaged, and the message is more effectively communicated, from my perspective.

My favorite radio stations of all time? KFWB and KNX-FM, both of which are twenty-four hour, all news stations operating in Los Angeles, with the occasional exception of a radio drama and a game. I woke up to one or the other of the two stations for almost thirty years, and went to sleep the same way. Quiet at bedtime just never worked for me.

What I’ve figured out is that I’m basically an observer, and a loner, who loves to be in a crowd. Interestingly, because of some aspects of my personality, perhaps my unending curiosity and tolerance, I always had lots of folks around me during the day time. But radio time was my time. My time to reflect. Have to drive for four or five hours? Nothing better than a news station. “All news, all the time. You give us twenty-two minutes; we’ll give you the world.”

Now that I am no longer in Los Angeles on a regular basis, there is probably nothing that I miss more about the city than those radio stations. Talk radio is just not the same. Too many opinions and too much spin. Too many personal agendas. Too much anger and tension. But news, coming at you in a steady stream, takes one to a different place.

It forces one to ultimately process and focus. But while it’s coming at you, it forces you to simply absorb. You don’t’ encounter opinions or attitudes which turn you off, causing you to turn off the stream of information. I can’t imagine anything worse in life than tuning out. Isn’t that one of the benefits of higher intelligence, our ability to think for ourselves?

I’ll even admit that news took precedence over, and complicated my relationships with, most of my girlfriends. In fact, if a woman was able to distract me away from the news, it was probably an indication that she was not long for the relationship.

First thing in the morning, I wanted to hear the news. None of that hugging and cuddling stuff. Same thing at night. In fact, I never wanted to be at home until just before I retired. Walk in, brush my teeth, wash my face, and turn on the news station. Don’t cut off my circulation; don’t mention the concept of spooning, and keep the decibel level down so that we can hear the news. Obviously, I had to have some pretty good-natured gals in my life, who also loved the news, or rather information.

So here I’m traveling in the car the other night, and I hear that presidential candidate John McCain has finally severed his “ties” to the good Rev. John Hagee. This guy is interesting, and requires a little introduction. Rev. Hagee is the Founder and Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. The church has 19,000 active members. No, that not a typo, 19,000. He is also the CEO of a non-profit corporation, GETV (Global Evangelism Television), which disseminates his message around the world. He has power with a capital “P.”

Candidate McCain, out of concern that he was not the favored candidate amongst religious conservatives, actively sought the endorsement of Rev. Hagee. This is a guy who, after Hurricane Katrina, interpreted it as an Act of God, designed to punish the people of New Orleans, for committing a “level of sin offensive to God.” That was before the current presidential race. Several weeks ago, McCain had to somewhat distance himself from his endorser, when it was revealed that Rev. Hagee had referred to the Catholic Church as the “Great Whore.” However, the axe did not fall.

So I’m driving down the street listening to this talk radio station, and the news segment comes on. This is the closest thing to “all news all the time” that I can get in the Southeast, and I hear this story. McCain had to formally, and completely, sever his connection to Rev. Hagee.

Why? Because the good Reverend, during a series of sermons in the 1990s, indicated that God sent Hitler to Europe and orchestrated the Holocaust, to force the Jews to return to the Holy Land. (In fairness, it should be noted that Rev. Hagee is pro-Israel, and that is one of the factors that motivated McCain to seek his endorsement. If you want to understand the reason for his statement, and how the return of the Jews to Israel purportedly benefits humankind, I would suggest that you conduct a little research on your own. I just want you to appreciate that a simplistic conclusion, that Rev. Hagee is a racist, may not be particularly appropriate in this instance. It goes deeper than that. After all, we should always dig deeper.)

Actually, upon hearing this, the first thing that came to mind was not revulsion, condemnation, or surprise, but rather the pleasant memories of my old news radio stations. I recalled how I could experience any emotion, travel to any place, go anywhere intellectually, when I was engaged with the radio broadcast.

There’s something about that constant stream of information that just works for me. (Of course, there is spin associated with all media, and someone obviously selected the topics to be covered. However, it is about as close as one can get to pure information in the media. ) What I later realized is that I was simply storing information on my cranial hard drive, and not processing it until much later, when I then compared certain bits of information to others.

So here I’m listening to this Holocaust story, and because it was only a five minute news segment, I had the opportunity to gradually process the story shortly thereafter. The first thing that I did was to start chuckling, somewhat out of disbelief. The quasi-chuckle went on for about five minutes, then ten, and then twenty.

Plus, I kept remembering how I found myself over the years listening to hard news, with the same reaction. So now I’m saying to myself, this guy Rev. Hagee is wild; but he at least says what he actually feels. In my view, this was not a slip of the tongue. This was a carefully thought out position. I was also convinced, after a few minutes, that he really believes this, and that it represents truth for him, and perhaps many others.

So here I am reliving the joys of radio consumption, when I had the steady stream of news pumped into my brain, and I could always find out instantly what was going on in the world. There was a bit of nostalgia. Then something else came to mind. I recalled one of the first books that I ever read that most folks might deem “offensive.” It was a book written in the 1950’s by a southern segregationist, explaining why Negroes should be subject to Jim Crow laws.

I recalled reading it with as much relish as Don Quixote. (Well, may be not quite.) Remember, my Mom taught me to read everything. The value judgments came much later.

It always amazed me that black folks would choose to remain in the South and be subject to discrimination, even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, in discussions with many of my black friends, they said that they would rather know that someone was a racist, than live amongst people who called themselves progressives, or functioned with all of the trappings, but really were just closet racists.

In processing Rev. Hagee’s comments, I immediately asked myself, “Why should he have to explain or apologize for such a statement? “ This, once again, was not a slip. It is pretty clear that he feels that way, and I am absolutely certain that there are thousands, if not millions, who feel similarly. That’s when the concept of political correctness came to mind. (One of my buddies simply called him an “idiot,” although he did not consider Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be of the same “lodge.”)

Over the years, I heard various friends of mine complain about political correctness, but I really hadn’t given it much thought. Being a lawyer, I realized that the law prohibited certain types of conduct in certain situations and that part of the whole political correctness concept was derivatively related to some of our social engineering goals. I also recognized the possibility that we, as a society, might not want our children exposed to certain language or symbols. However, in the grand scheme of things, it just never seemed to me to be that important that someone address me a particular way, or refrain from using certain words. (I have sometimes wondered whether we spend so much time and energy fighting the symbolic battles, because of our insecurities, as a society, about our ability to really wage battle on the real, substantive issues.)

I also did not quite get it when some of my friends also spoke of political correctness as potentially bringing on the death of America. Well, in my mind, this seemed a bit much. But as I drove down the street, I began to think about the reverend’s comments and the concept of political correctness. He clearly has a right to make the comments. I learned long ago, through my international travels, that the concept of reality is situational. I also learned that belief systems are what they are – belief systems, and the last time I checked, no one currently serves as the belief police. You couple that with the fact that there are probably millions who agree with Reverend Hagee, and we have a dilemma.

If we agree that we can not regulate the belief or the thought process, then our concerns must lie with the expression and its form. Are we better off simply letting people speak their minds, and letting the chips fall as they may? Who gets to say what’s too far? Who gets to say what is appropriate? Who can prove that Hagee’s comments aren’t true? Aren’t we better off knowing what people really feel? Aren’t we more likely to be able to effectively “deal” with them? Isn’t there a value to transparency, instead of hiding behind a mask or a robe? Doesn’t the truth set you free?

As a buddy of mine once said, imagery is king in Los Angeles. I often watched buddies of mine try to date actresses, or professional “babes,” and I would remark, “You’re a better man than I.” Wouldn’t you want to know, in dealing with someone with whom you are pursuing an interpersonal relationship, that you’re really dealing with them, and not a script which they were instructed to read, or chose to read to accomplish an objective? Hey, I’ve got a solution. Maybe we should give people a choice. Maybe we should divide our schools, places of employment, governmental offices, and other institutions, into those for individuals desirous of adhering to politically correct principles, and those not. Quite frankly, being politically correct occupies too much of my time, and perhaps that of others. Just seems to me like the time would be better spent on addressing some serious problems, and once we address them to our satisfaction, then we could return to the symbol, word, and image battles.

I don’t know. Once again, I’m confused. It just seems to me that being straightforward and direct can’t be anything but a good thing in the long run. My partner, Laughingman, keeps saying that “doing the right thing is not rocket science.” Maybe being straightforward and direct is what he really means. I guess that’s Rev. Hagee personified. At least you know what you’re dealing with. Quite a few of us are a little tired of the dance.

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 5: The Triangular Box in Which America Finds Itself Circumscribed (Why We Really Don’t Like Any of the Political Candidates)

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

If we were honest with ourselves, we’d admit that there is something about political candidates which we dislike long before they are ever elected. I first developed a sense of this during the late 1970s, when I became excited about a particular candidate running for the U.S. Senate. I was a fresh, idealistic youth, excited about what this candidate could do for America.

I attended a reception in the lobby of a beautiful, historic office building downtown with high ceilings, filled with campaign supporters and the press. When I finally managed to get a close up view of the candidate who I planned to support, I noted a certain detachment in his eyes, taking on an almost Zombie- type quality. I watched him as he navigated the room, smiling, shaking hands.

I still did not connect with him on a personal level, because he just didn’t seem real. I also noticed the entourage, consisting of enthusiastic “grinners.”

I chalked up that initial experience to a lack of charisma on the part of that particular candidate. A couple of years later, I got excited about a gubernatorial candidate. This time around, the candidate was even more Zombie-like than the first. Of course, once again, there was an adequate supply of grinners. Although still idealistic, I decided that participation in political campaigns was not for me.

Some years later, the husband of one of my best friends in school decided to run for state office. Since I really admired this guy, and knew his views prior to his decision to run for office, I enthusiastically supported his candidacy. He was successful, and fortunately, he never changed. I always felt that he looked at me, and others, straight in the eye, and not past us looking for the next hand to shake. I viewed him as a real person. It probably helped that I knew him before, during, and after his political life.

Interestingly, after a subsequent unsuccessful bid for higher office, I asked him how he liked being out of politics. After letting out a big sigh, he said that he loved it. My sense was that there was nothing he hated more than being a politician. He obviously had a passion about serving his constituency, but the politician hat never quite fit him. I got the impression that it was a contorted existence, full of twisting and turning – almost unnatural in a sense. I then realized - that we have created an unattainable standard, with unreasonable expectations, or perhaps inappropriate expectations.

I have always felt, from a theoretical perspective, that serving one’s country, or serving the needs of others, was the highest form of societal contribution that one could make. Consequently, when I began to get this sense that being a politician was not a particularly good thing, it began to bother me.

I doubt that I ever actually looked up the word “political,” until roughly ten minutes ago. However, it always seemed to me that “being political” meant saying whatever one needed to say, that would offend the fewest people, and result in the least amount of noticeable criticism. (That’s coming from someone who does not consider himself cynical.) That’s not only bad from a public relations perspective, but it also creates a mood of alienation amongst our voters. Cynicism about politics is not a good thing. It makes one not care.

I have often joked with my friends that the primary reason that I have never been married is because I have no political skills. Knowing that, I made a decision never to get married. I’ve concluded that I’m not qualified for marriage.

In a similar vein, maybe we should come to the realization that the standard that we have artificially created for our candidates does not really make them qualified as functional leaders, although they might be, at least superficially, good moral leaders. (I’d be just fine with delegating all of the morality talk to the religious professionals - our ministers, priests, and rabbis.)

Maybe candidates can not really connect with us since they fear that we might see them for who they really are – less than perfect people. (They may know it, but their handlers may not want us to see it.) Perhaps they’ve got to hit you with something superficially positive, and move on before you figure out the real deal. Additionally, we all recognize that it is a numbers game.

For many years, we have spoken about election decisions involving choosing the lesser of evils. We often assume that they are all egomaniacs. We also frequently assume that they are all on the take. We even suggest that the system is at fault, and that lobbyists and big corporations ultimately corrupt even the most capable of politicians.

I would suggest something different. They’re not like us; but we, as a country, have put ourselves in a box. (Maybe they really are like us, but we do not allow them to express that quality, since we would immediately attack them as having character flaws.) Let’s take our recent primary experience.

Admittedly, the leader of the free world, or any country for that matter, should be held to a higher standard of conduct and prior achievement. However, this notion of a saint with a perfect success rating, who has never made a mistake, who has never associated with someone who made a mistake, and who has never misspoke about a sensitive subject, and who has never had a business failure, has effectively eliminated all of the people who could really do an effective job.

Every individual citizen’s concept of morality and success becomes a nebulous and amorphous standard, and when compounded, becomes a virtually unattainable one.

Quite frankly, I have often joked that I would like to see a straight-talking candidate, who admitted that he was a philander, a former drug-addict, a former homeless person, a former bankrupt who failed at business, and who had many prior indiscretions, take a stab at the presidency.

That candidate would probably have better skills, and have a better appreciation of the issues affecting the majority of the citizens in our society. (All the perfect, successful people out there, with ideal families really don’t need a leader. Their lives are ideal. They are just afraid of those with non-ideal lives creeping over into their neighborhoods.)

We need a leader to address problems and improve conditions. To address problems, one needs to understand the underlying causes of problems. To address problems, a nation (meaning its citizenry) also needs to accept responsibility for its structural and systemic contribution to the problem.

On the contrary, what we have today is the constant blame game, “The other guy or other party did it. They’re the reason that we are in this condition today.” I don’t know about you; however, I’ve never found that criticizing the conduct of others solved crap. Come up with a suggestion of something different that might work.

There’s another problem with our candidates unrelated to the moral box. Most folks running for our highest office do not have a clue as to who you are. They may have at one point at time, prior to embarking on their road to success. However, you don’t enter the arena of presidential pretenders being an ordinary Joe, nor do you enter that arena with many setbacks under your belt. They’ve fought long and hard. They are generally successful financially and professionally, and they are focused.

They are not your average American with average issues, hopes, and desires. There’s a disconnect. There is thus, also, a class box. (Tangentially, I should note that the political commentators and consultants, on all of the shows dealing with politics, aren’t ordinary Janes or Joes either. Talk about a disconnect from the American public. I just love it when they say, “What the American people want….”

I hope that you do not view me as an apologist for some notion of immoral behavior, or prior personal setbacks. That’s not the argument that I am making. I’m just saying that we have created an unachievable standard. I doubt that anyone is truly “qualified” to be president.

I’m no academic historian; however, my sense is that some of the greatest leaders of this country were not saints, and they were not always successful in every aspect of life. They were not professional speakers and hand shakers. They didn’t always speak in politically correct terms. My suspicion is that all things considered, they had more positive about them than negative.

In a nation where we judge our potential leaders by a superficial, illusive, personal standard which most of us can not attain ourselves, how do we expect to find someone to address the real issues affecting our society, and on which probably most of us can agree. As Wag the Dog showed us, it is too much about “the show.”

Personally, I like doers, not avoiders. I like risk takers, not risk avoiders. I like straight talkers, not talkers about high moral values, when in fact they are just like the rest of us, human, and subject to mistakes and foibles.

Hypocrites, please move aside. And for God’s sake, find me a candidate who will occasionally say, “My fellow Americans, I apologize, but I made a mistake.” Aren’t we capable of accepting apologies in this society, or have we made it too difficult to apologize, resulting in a bunch of deniers? Folks generally know when they messed up.

The continual condemnation, requiring the hypocritical, self-serving painting or characterization of political candidates, does not really advance any societal interests, just short-term, personal ones. It also contributes to the perpetuation of false images on the part of our candidates. (I still have not decided whether it is a good quality in a candidate to be able to ignore or deflect public criticism, and persevere when they believe that they are doing the “right thing.” I used to think that was a good quality, and that thinking in terms of the long term was generally the way to go. Our current president has made me re-evaluate that factor.)

Let’s see if we get beyond this beauty and morality contest. How about a switch to someone who can simply get things done, even if he or she does not fit within the politically correct box in which we currently find ourselves confined? How about a switch to someone whose primary goal is not to get elected? Our denial, or failure to admit that we are not a perfect, successful, moral society, might be our downfall.

By fighting our way out of this restrictive, but amorphous box in which we find ourselves, we might actually get more accomplished as a nation. We can not continue to allow outside forces, and the current world environment, dictate the fate of America, while we sweat the “small stuff.”

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Post No. 4: THIS THING IS BIGGER THAN REV. WRIGHT (ISN’T IT?)

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

This will probably be the shortest article that I will ever write. That’s because I am at an absolute loss for words. One of the reasons that I started writing was because, for virtually all of my fifty plus years, I’ve been saying to myself, “People can’t possibly be concerned about this, or care about that…”

But having some minimal appreciation of reality, I have reluctantly concluded that people do, even thought I may not. Am I really that far out of touch?

In my first article, I revealed my difficulty in comprehending the enormity of the emotion expressed in connection with Michael Vick’s treatment of dogs, as compared to the relative paucity of outrage, almost to the point of indifference, expressed by our citizenry in connection with the treatment, on many levels, of our returning Iraqi war veterans. (We did not even get into the Vietnam discussion.) Folks are serving time for the dogs; yet, as of this date, I am unclear as to whether any charges… Well, I won’t go there.

After receiving numerous comments from you, I ultimately concluded that domesticated dogs were viewed as helpless creatures, which were involuntarily placed in harm’s way. (For those of you who feel that I should have used “who” instead of “which,” immediately after “creatures,” the spell check feature would not allow me to do it.) Additionally, dogs can provide what many consider to be “unconditional love,” or “obedience on demand,” depending on your perspective. I imagine that, in the eyes of many, it’s far more complicated, involved, and thus difficult, to love and care about a human being who is brutally injured and disabled.

To maintain my sanity, I’ve moved on past the public’s response to the dog issue; but I’m still having difficulty with this Jeremiah Wright thing. Of course, I understand how those individuals, with an agenda, might manipulate and place a spin on the issue. What I do not understand is the reaction of those of us, who are not associated with the leadership of either party, and who do not regularly appear in the media. I’m referring to you and me, the regular folks. After all, we’re all caught up in this argument. Everyone has an opinion.

I just heard on the news that the Wright issue is progressively affecting the attitude of more and more voters about Senator Obama, to his detriment. Let’s assume, purely for the sake of analysis, that all of the criticism leveled against Rev. Wright is warranted, and that we, as a society, are in agreement that he is a “really, bad human being.” In fact, let’s pretend that we are dealing with a modern day Rasputin.

Are we, as a populace, really that concerned about the effect or influence of one man on another? Is the Senator so young that we consider him to still be impressionable, and thus subject to the influence of an older individual? I realize that there was a close relationship there, but while in office, I would suspect that any responsible leader would listen to the views and advice of a larger number of advisors. Do we have any evidence to the effect that would not occur? (Eehh, I might concede that perhaps we do.)

Are we concerned that the influence of a spiritual leader might outweigh, not only the influence of the President’s Cabinet, staff, and other advisors, but also the other two branches of government? Is our Constitutional form of government incapable of withstanding the influence of a Rasputin? Should have all the meetings, between the Rev. Billy Graham and our former Presidents, been open to the public, so that interrogations could have been conducted? Should all candidates be required to “disclose” the views of the religious leaders with whom they have been associated during their lives? Should such a disclosure requirement apply to relationships over 10, 20, or 30 years? Should there be a different disclosure requirement for those spiritual relationships formed between ages 6 and 20, as opposed to 21 and 40, as opposed to 41 and 60?

We often judge others by the company that they keep. Should we disqualify, from running for elected office, all individuals who have a relative, close friend, or associate who committed some criminal offense, or engaged in some morally repugnant conduct? (Hmmm, what about adultery? Is that morally repugnant enough?) What about politicians with children who become substance abusers? Should they be required to step down from office? Should we conduct depositions of all individuals, including parents and relatives, who have had a significant influence on any individual desiring to run for office, to ensure that their personal views are in line with what the nation wants? Should this also apply to friends?

Many have argued that the Senator’s continuing relationship with Rev. Wright reflected poor judgment on his part. Let’s say a candidate’s daughter is a “call girl,” and the candidate knows it. Should the candidate (and the candidate’s family) disown her, or simply not run for office? Does the current discussion mean that it should be considered “good judgment” to jettison friends, with whom we have had lengthy relationships, when they make statements with which we disagree? How many statements, with which we disagree, are required for termination of the relationship? 3, 4, 5?…

I don’t know. I’m confused. (I’d appreciate someone admitting that they are just as confused as I am.) I can’t figure out the standard to be applied. You folks have obviously figured it out because the spiritual leader issue is having an effect on your opinion of the candidates. (Did I pluralize that?) However, for the far less sophisticated ones of us, I wish that someone would poll or survey the American people so that we could all get on the same page, and establish a standard. Prospective candidates would then be aware, before they file to run for office, of the standard to be applied, and we would all know how to think about the qualifications for at least the Presidency. Why didn’t someone think of this before the current campaign?

Additionally, I’m still not sure whether this inquiry is also applicable to other federal elected positions, as well as to state and local officials. (I can see how the inquiry would be appropriate for those running for dog catcher.) Despite my protestations, something tells me that a standard is not going to be established.

But I am more concerned about this national paranoia. What has happened to us? I know that these are troubling times, with the economy, terrorism, and all. But is there anyone worthy of being President of the United States? Can anyone pass muster? Maybe we can function without a President. Should our economy deteriorate further, or should the war on terror hit closer to home, should the scrutiny, of the spiritual leaders associated with our candidates, become even more intensive?

“Somebody help me!” I know that I am not particularly bright, but I just don’t understand! Where are we? It has to be something bigger than what I see.

This is wild… I really did think that this was going to be short. Don’t worry. I’m just venting. I know that nothing that I’ve said makes any sense… Later.

Post No. 2: Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Purpose

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

Hold tight, give me a moment while I put on my Kevlar protective vest and body armor. “Racism problematic!,” you say; that’s an understatement. I realize that I’m about to take a journey filled with land mines and sniper fire. As I have often said, sometimes you have to go to a place to appreciate that you don’t want to be there on a regular basis. At least I know that I am going to take some heat on this one. Well, maybe not…

I’ll tell you at this point – my intentions are good. Additionally, it is my hope that by the time that you finish reading this, you will consider at least some of what I have said, and return your weapons to their rightful and appropriate place. I’ll also warn you that this piece should be read while sitting on the toilet seat of your favorite bathroom. It’s a tad labyrinthine in nature. Addressing the entire racial history of humankind requires at least two pages.

You see, I’m 56 years of age, and I’ve never really given much thought to this thing called racism. It is a concept that I recognized from a theoretical perspective, and about which I had read. However, I simply could not imagine spending much of one’s time dwelling on it.

I also was afraid that by visiting the issue, even intellectually, it might have a “bittering” effect. Consequently, I came up with a construct in the 1950’s that worked for me, and I must say reasonably satisfactorily, at least for most of my years.

You will recall the recent furor generated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments during a sermon. In the context of the Obama campaign, many commentators reminded us that “America has never really dealt with the race issue,” or that we “have never had a conversation about race.”

I beg to differ. We’ve dealt with it in many different ways, and during the course of many conversations. The frustration expressed has really come about as a result of our inability to reach some satisfactory resolution, or at least some consensus about the issue.

I would submit that the reason that America has never really come to grips with the issue is because America has always dealt with it in a manner that results in it becoming an emotional issue at the very beginning of the conversation.

It is difficult to come up with an effective way to address a problem if you just focus on the symptoms, and do not really address the underlying sources. Approaching the subject from a little different perspective might enable us to formulate new solutions.

Quite frankly, although I do not have any empirical evidence to support this, it is my suspicion that we really have not made any progress in racial relations over the past fifty years. By relations, I mean how we feel about other races in our hearts and private thoughts.

That’s what really matters.

America has mucked this whole thing up in about as many ways as possible. There is plenty of resentment and seething anger out there, although it may be “inappropriate” to express or display it.

I actually hold my former secretary, Anne, responsible for setting me up on this racial thing. Virtually everyone who knows me knows that it is not a place that I like to go. (I’ve even been accused of denying that racism exists because of my philosophical attitude.)

Anne sent me an e-mail and inquired as to whether I thought that Obama (who I understand is African-American) was “for real.” She said that she was somewhat intrigued by him, but that she had her reservations, as she did with virtually all politicians. She was interested in my take.

I responded by first noting that at a very early age, I remembered someone saying that the most important thing that an elected leader can do is to convey an attitude or feeling to his or her followers. That person went on to describe the attitude that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill both displayed during their terms. They had the hearts and minds of their people. Both made their respective nations feel that certain goals were achievable. Some would say that Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, did the same thing for most of his years in office, whether you agreed or disagreed with his policies.

I continued by proposing to Anne, on a more personal level, that we might take some cues about this leadership thing from our parents. Fortunately, for most of us, when we were kids, we thought that they were the greatest people on earth. When we became adults, particularly when we had to deal with them during difficult times, we realized that they are just people, ordinary people, with all of the human flaws and problems that we see in others, and in ourselves.

However, during the period of time when their “leadership” was most important, and had its most significant impact, namely our developing, childhood years, they did what they needed to do to provide sufficient guidance for us to become decent, thinking, human beings and hopefully positive contributors to society.

Whatever our personal issues with them may be, that is about the best that you can ask where there is no instructional or operational manual, or even agreement as to what is right or wrong. I suggested to Anne that it’s not dramatically different with the Leader of the Free World. Stay with me, I’ll get back to this racial thing.

One other thing: When one observes celebrities and famous people, one person can say or do certain things, and you have some doubts about their sincerity. You’re just not quite sure whether it is about the celebrity and his or her ego, as opposed to their really being interested in doing things for the benefit of society.

On the other hand, you observe others, who might say or do some of the exact same things, and folks will say that he or she is sincere and really means it. Then again, there are some folks in whom you do not have much faith or confidence initially, and then you have to mature, or you see them mature over time, resulting in you having a different view.

I suggested to Anne that she had to follow her heart; feel it in her gut. I told her that if you think too hard, and look too long, you’re bound to find disappointment and flaws. It’s inevitable. They exist in us all – and we know it.

Actually, I had not paid much attention to Obama until Caroline Kennedy endorsed him. I had not even entertained the theoretical possibility that a black man might become President in America at this point in our country’s evolution. However, Caroline crystallized a nebulous uncertainty in my mind. Those few, carefully delivered words did the trick for me.

Paraphrasing, she essentially said that in her youth, she did not appreciate or comprehend what her Father meant to others. However, listening to the expression of feelings by others who were around when she was a youth, Obama instilled in her the same type of inspiration that those folks claimed her Father did for them. It’s obviously not about experience, is it?

Is he more qualified than any of the other candidates? Hell, I don’t know. I’m not sure, contrary to the case of race, that it really matters. (Parenthetically, I wondered whether a person, contemplating the selection of a spouse, might consider whether various potential “candidates” were more qualified than others, and whether experience would be a prime determinant.) But, then it hit me – the realization that race was not the primary, instinctive, instantaneous factor that I processed upon focusing on him.

Kennedy’s comment suggested that (1) he had the potential to inspire something in us to move beyond our personal crap; (2) this certain amorphous quality was rare; and (3) we really haven’t seen it for far too long a period of time, and yearned for it. It reminded me of Jack Nicholson’s comment to Helen Hunt, “You make me want to be a better person.” It draws or tugs on your whole being. For millions, Obama apparently makes a lot of people want to follow him, regardless of his position on issues, and irrespective of his lack of experience.

I told Anne that it was, quite frankly, transcendental, in nature.

It occurred to me that not knowing, or not paying attention to, Obama’s race, like the position that most of you occupy vis-à-vis me at this point, might be a good thing. But it also got me “athinking.” Are there some “good” things about racism? Well, “good” might be too strong a word. Although the academicians would question the appropriateness of this, I use the words “race” and “racism” interchangeably, since, as a practical matter, if you did not have the latter, the former would be a non-issue. Let’s get back to why racism, although problematic, serves a pragmatic and utilitarian function in all societies, and has done so since the beginning of humankind. Are you still angry with me now?

There is analysis, and then there is drawing a line for one’s self. A few years ago, I met this gal of a different race. A number of her friends had met me and said that I was “acceptable.” She was apprehensive and uncomfortable about meeting me, and had to get drunk and show up at 11:00 pm in order to face me alone. She reiterated that she had been brought up in a home in a working class town, where her Father had clearly expressed his disdain for members of other races.

Her Sister in the Navy had married a man of a different race, and they had an interracial child, who her Father refused to acknowledge or even see. The Father disowned his daughter. My friend struggled with our relationship for years. She frequently made reference to her internal conflict in getting to know me better, and what she had been taught by her Father. She also noted that the friend, who was most supportive of her Brother as he was dying of AIDS, was a member of a racial group that her Father despised.

What I told her, and what I have come to accept about folks who hold views with which I disagree, is that people adhere to the principles and values that they think or feel work for them. It does not advance our cause to be angry with them if our view of race is different.

While some might view it as ignorance, or a lack of sophistication, I call it “muddling through.” Some folks do not seek out information, education, or people of other races, because knowing more stuff complicates their thought process and ability to function in everyday life. There is, after all, only so much time in a day.

For some folks, occupying it with trying to understand what is really going on is problematic. If one has the benefit of being around certain groups of people, and the time, interest, and resources that permit you to engage others outside of your group, you will probably not view those new and different as threatening. However, if your position in life is less secure and more tenuous, the threat appears to be more real. That is not to suggest that it should, or that I am an apologist for racists.

However, for certain segments of the population, it is simply more efficient for them to deal with people and cultures that they recognize, and concepts that they understand, or take positions that someone else, or some other institution, controls. Does that sound familiar? I admit that it may not be the most palatable thing to say in certain settings.

There are two phrases that I have begun to use with more frequency now that I have reached my mid-fifties. They are, “Don’t try to make your issues my issues,” and, “It’s not the way that I want to spend my time.” Racism is frequently about efficiency, with respect to conduct, thought, and emotion.

We only have so much time or energy that we are willing to devote to relationships with folks outside of our known realm, or our realm of priorities. Racism is also about probabilities. Arguably, there are fewer complications and unexpected events associated with sticking with our own and what we know. Is it limiting? Perhaps it is, if that is an issue for you. However, for people who subscribe to it, racism “works.”

Additionally, there will always be a need for humans to feel that they are better than some group of people, and a recognition that they are less well off or fortunate than others, even though it might not be accurate, fair, or justified. Are there perhaps other ways, not comparative in nature, to establish one’s place in society and establish self-worth and value? That we are still uncomfortable with the subject of race, during an era when Obama might have a chance, is reflective of its enduring problematic legacy.

Have you ever watched any shows following animals in the wild, and wondered about their applicability to understanding human conduct? Imagine that you are a tiger, amongst other tigers. Let’s assume that there are other, different animals in your vicinity. If you are familiar with them, and have had other experiences with them, then your reaction or attitude will reflect that prior experience, however limited it may have been.

If the new animal in your midst is a total stranger, who you have not encountered before, then you need to size it up, your guard is immediately raised, and you must make a decision fairly quickly as to whether it is friend or foe. You may or may not be able to run away or successfully fight the strange new animal.

As humans, we have advantages over our animal counterparts. We can move to certain parts of town, join certain organizations, place our kids in certain types of schools, and otherwise take steps to reduce certain undesirable events, and to increase the probability or number of those events occurring that we consider positive in nature.

But having a larger and more complex brain, we can also do others things. We can depersonalize acts that might be interpreted as racist acts toward us, and realize that the act is really not about us, but about the actor. We can also try to address those systemic and structural issues or conditions that encourage the practice of racism, or that make it such a useful coping mechanism for so many.

Hope springs eternal. Laughingman, of the Institute for Applied Common Sense, wrote in a recent piece:

“[T]he dilemma that this Nation faces is significantly more apparent amongst us aging baby boomers, than amongst the kids who will be inheriting the future implications of our, and our parent’s, mistakes. Half of our racial perception problem is hard wired genetic preference. Those of our ancestors who sought out their own kind, (and we still do this on the basis of first blush visual similarity), were more likely to enjoy the support and protection of the group. Adherence to group think advanced the chances of finding a desirable mate and passing along one's genes through reproduction.”

“The other half of the boomers’ perceptual problem is environmental. We may have learned to shake off the fear driven prejudice and behavior, acquired as children from our less enlightened parents. However, acting equal and thinking equal are different things. This may help explain why the most libertine, least cautious, generation in recent memory (we were, after all, willing to swallow damn near anything put in front of us) has become the most compulsively concerned, micro-managing, group of parents...ever.”

“The good news is our kids seem to have inherited our best thinking, rather than our worst fears. So, the ground work put in by MLK, Muhammad Ali, Bill Cosby, and Malcolm X, is showing up as a very new irrelevance of the importance of racial background. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the value of Tiger Woods' endorsement contracts, Oprah's audience, Senator Obama's chances to be our next president, or with the extraordinarily talented Lewis Hamilton's probability of being the next Formula One World Racing Champion.”

“I can't think helping that this is a very good thing. As the population continues to divide into ever smaller tribes based primarily on personal interests, those who pick their leaders based on performance, and emulate their behavior by choice, will enjoy more than their fair share of economic prosperity, and the unfair advantage in the genetic crap shoot.”

“Those who limit their learning to conforming to a previous generation’s preferences may go the way of the Dodo.”

Earlier this week, the world witnessed a generational and philosophical chasm between Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama. Rev. Wright has personalized this whole of issue of race, and a result, feels that it is about him.

Obama on the other hand, and this is why he will probably not prevail, has recognized all along that the significance of him even being in the hunt is bigger than the racial factor. However, I don’t think that we are ready for that level of conceptual evaluation yet in this country. (Remember Adlai Stevenson?) That’s why many in the media have turned this into a media circus and resorted to demeaning and demonizing those with whom they disagree.

Yes, America, racism works; and it runs both ways.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense