Maybe it was just a nightmare after all!

This morning I went to fill up my gas tank and to my astonishment the total came to $19.01. A couple of months ago it would’ve cost me over $40 for the same gas. I looked at the price on the pump and still more astonishment came to me as I noticed that the price read $1.95 and 9/10. I had been so used to paying over $4.00 a gallon I had trained my eyes not to look upon the pump. “Just fill ‘er up and tell me how much I owe you,” was my stance. As Doctor Smith from “Lost in Space” would’ve said, “Oh the pain, the pain!”

But frankly, the price for gas has been plummeting for the last two months now. CNN announced that the average price for a gallon of gas nationally was $1.76. And that got me thinking. With just over a month to go before Obama takes the oath of office, I thought I would flash back about eight years. Gas was going for about $1.47 a gallon, the economy was strong, there was a budget surplus, and we weren’t at war with anyone. I did a little calculating and at the rate that the price of oil is dropping, I expect it to be near a buck and a half by January 20th.

You know what that means don’t you? Maybe the last eight years didn’t really happen. Maybe it was just a nightmare after all. Yes, that’s it. There’s no Iraq war, the economy is strong, we have a balanced budget, and we don’t need to take out a second mortgage just to put gas in our cars. Isn’t God great? He loves us so much he’s going to turn back time and yell out “Do Over!” No more contempt for the Constitution, no more treating people like they were children, and Joe the Plumber can go back to doing what he was suppose to be doing: fixing clogged pipes. What a country!

I can see it all now. We wake up early on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, only to learn that the real date is Tuesday, January 23, 2001. George Bush isn’t standing at the podium, and no neither is Al Gore. It’s Barack Obama and he takes the oath of office for President of the United States. A proud nation listens as the new president plans on leading our nation in the new century. No scandals, no mortgage meltdown, and at the last minute a threat to destroy the twin towers is narrowly averted as an alert and competent President Obama, upon learning of actionable intelligence from his advisors, acts swiftly and decisively. Three thousand people do not die in a raging inferno and thousands more like them in a senseless war that would cost half a trillion dollars to wage. The world doesn’t necessarily love us, but at least it doesn’t hold us in contempt. We eventually hunt down and kill a man named Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000 and bring to justice dozens of his henchmen. The United States enjoys a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity during the first decade of the 21st century.

OK, I know I’m dreaming, but can those gas pumps really be lying? After all the last eight years have been so painful, is it really that bad to wish it all away? Can’t we just pretend like children do that we could start over? You know cover our eyes count to ten and say, “ready or not, here I come.”

Sadly, we can’t. Like it or not we lived through those eight years. Collectively as a nation we voted for a man who could not have been less ready to lead a nation, and we paid dearly for it. President-elect Obama will have a lot on his plate when he takes office on January 20th. He will not have the luxury of a do-over or even a garbage disposal. The crap that has been building up for the better part of a decade is now his to clean up. He will need every bit of our prayers and support if we are to get out of this nightmare with a whole skin. If it is true that God never gives us more than we can handle, then we can safely say he has given us quite a handful to deal with. I’m not much for new year’s resolutions but I feel that the nation’s health should be the only resolution that we should be focusing on in our prayers this holiday season. We are not children, and now more than ever we can’t hide our eyes from the truths that disturb us. Growing up is painful, but avoiding reality is far more painful. As one who has attended more than his fair share of binges, it is time we clean up our act, sobered up and stopped behaving like juvenile delinquents. Instead of yelling “do-over,” like spoiled brats, we should be all be saying, “Now what?” The former avoids reality; the latter begins to deal with it.

ANOTHER REASON TO BE GRATEFUL THIS HOLIDAY SEASON.

I don't attend Dutch Sheets' church!

Read attached and you'll know why. I could, as I have so often done, go into one of my tirades regarding his sanctimonious preachings, but you know what, I'm going to pass this time.

Besides, THE GOOD GUYS WON! I can afford to be magnanimous.


Happy Turkey Day; gobble, gobble


http://www.dutchsheets.org/index.cfm

WIRED SHUT: Coultergeist Finally Shuts Up. You Are Now Free To Jump Up and Down In the Cabin.

I know it's wrong as a Christian to wish someone ill or to revel or delight in the pain and suffering of another, but the news that right-wing hate monger Ann Coulter recently had her jaw wired shut and for the foreseeable future will be unable to spew any of her hateful barbs has me all warm and fussy. Details on what happened and, more importantly, who we should thank for this momentous event, are sketchy. But whether she broke her jaw on her own, or had it broken for her is irrelevant. The important thing is her mouth will finally be shut! If you need any more evidence that there is a loving God, you need look no further.

This loathsome creature – I’d call her a woman but that would imply that she is human – has now been so marginalized that even right-wingers like Bill O’ Reilly and Laura Ingraham have distanced themselves from her. What is so great about this news is that her new book is due out in January and apparently she will be unable to go out on speaking engagements to promote it.

Everybody please repeat after me. Aahh Shucks!

Nailin’ Palin: Some People Just Don’t Get It!

There are many things for which I am grateful this Thanksgiving season. I have a job, albeit one which will afford me little time to spend with my wife over the next four weeks – it’s called retail, or hell as it is better known to those of us who are in it. Maria and I are both healthy. There don’t appear to be any major household expenses on the horizon, other than an oil contract for home-heating fuel that I foolishly signed back in August before the prices dropped in half. Next time I will be a little more patient and wait before signing with an oil company. Both of our cars are in good shape, and will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. And Maria and I have some money saved in the bank for a rainy day that we both pray will not turn into a monsoon. Given the economic unrest in the country, not to mention the whole planet, things are pretty good here in the Fegan household. And yet there is still one more thing for which I am immensely grateful this season: Sarah Palin will be stayin’ in Alaska next January!

Not to pile it on, as it were, but the prospect of this woman bein’ a heart beat away from runnin’ the world’s number one democracy was sendin’ chills down my spine. It wasn’t just that she was unaware that Africa was a continent and not a country, or that she didn’t know which countries comprised NAFTA, though you would think a major candidate for the office of vice-president of the United States would at least look up that information before talking about it. What continues to appall and frighten me is that the more I learn of this woman’s views and past, the more relieved I am that she will not be any where near the vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, unless that is she buys a ticket for a tour of the place. Apparently though this sentiment is not shared by all. The website http://www.ourcountrypac.org/ is out to not only keep her memory alive and well – as though we could ever forget her comedic contributions on Saturday Night Live – but to run a “Thank You” ad that will run oddly enough right around Thanksgiving. PAC spokesman Sal Russo said they have received $2 million in donations for the ads, which will start running tomorrow in Alaska and will include a national buy. "We wanted to give Sarah Palin the reassurance that despite the critics, Americans by and large appreciated her service and want her to continue to be a voice." “This woman’s reputation is going to be so damaged that she can never be a national political figure,” said Joe Wiezbicki, the PAC’s coordinator. So the goal of the ad is to “preserve her options.”

Not to beat a dead horse, but some people just don’t get it. The reason John McCain lost the election so badly was because his vice-presidential nominee, while unifying her base, alienated many independents and moderate Republicans. So long as the bulk of the Republican party continues to allow the extreme right flank to dictate its agenda, it is going to have an extremely difficult, if impossible, time winning back the Whitehouse. If you take away the Plain states, the Deep South and the Appalachian Trail, the Democratic party routed the Republican party about as badly as any party could expect to get routed. Now is not the time to be obstinate and arrogant. It took the Democrats two more election cycles after their defeat in 1980 before they finally nominated a centrist among their ranks. Bill Clinton, for all his personal flaws was the most effective President the nation has had since Eisenhower, another moderate. It is time the Republicans woke up, stole a page or two from the Democrats and booted the xenophobes and fanatics out of the party. Reagan courted the religious right, but he always kept them at a healthy distance. For the good of the GOP, Sarah Palin needs to be given he walkin’ papers ASAP. Maybe then Tina Fey can go back to her real role on 30 Rock.

Bullet the Blue Sky:

A Nation Embraces Change and a Political Party is Left Wondering What Hit It.

In the end it was the American people who finally got it after all; the American people who collectively stood up and, like that crazy anchorman in the movie “Network”, shouted out loud and clear, “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” More than sixty four million voters pulled the lever for Barack Obama, almost eight million more than John McCain got. Of the 538 possible electoral votes cast in the election 364 went to Obama, 174 went to McCain. It was, for all intents and purposes, a landslide victory, but more importantly it was a resounding repudiation of not only a failed policy, but of a failed politics. If you are a Republican today you are in dire need of some long, overdue soul searching.

For lost in all the hoopla of what is clearly the most significant milestone in American history – that of an African American being elected president of the United States – is the fact that for all the clamor for change that was resonating though out the electorate, and the fear that this eloquent and most statesmanlike of politicians – one part Kennedy, one part Lincoln, one part King, Jr. – might make a serious misstep and, like the last two democratic candidates before him, fumble the ball the one yard line, it was John McCain, the former maverick, who fell on his sword and got routed.

Let’s not forget that it was McCain who was ahead in the most critical demographic: independents. This voter group represents almost a third of the electorate and as early as June, they were expected to vote resoundingly for Obama. Except something was going terribly wrong in Obamaland. With less than a month to go before the Republican National Convention, McCain held a slight lead over Obama among moderates and was within two points of him overall.

So what happened? Pundits continue to blame the economic meltdown for McCain’s undoing. Someone had to take the bullet for the economy and the conventional wisdom is that when things go badly the incumbent party takes the wrap. The other contention is that the McCain campaign never got their ground game going. They had sowed up the nomination a full three months before Obama had clinched, and yet they never got their message out. Obama, meanwhile, had established the most aggressive and well-staffed network of volunteers in decades. The avalanche of support, coupled with a seemingly endless supply of campaign donations, simply overwhelmed McCain.

But while both these explanations are plausible, both are also excuses. The very simple and most salient reason that John McCain lost the presidential election of 2008 was his pick of Sarah Palin for vice president. No doubt her supporters will claim she is being made the scapegoat for a campaign that was never able to define a coherent message that it could market to the nation. There is certainly some truth to that. At what most pundits called the critical juncture of the campaign - the rollout of the proposed $700 billion bailout - the announcement that McCain was suspending his campaign to fly down to Washington, had even his most ardent supporters scratching their heads in amazement. A week before that he boldly stated that the fundamentals of the economy were strong.

But, still, despite the missteps and miscues, the election was still there to be won. And that was because, for all the seeming substantive similarities between him and Bush, there were still enough voters who believed in that maverick image of John McCain. There were still enough people who remembered how he had been savaged in that shameful 2000 Republican primary by the likes of Karl Rove. He had built up a reputation over two and a half decades of irritating his own party just enough to keep them honest. With all of Obama’s millions, the memory of McCain was still alive in the hearts and minds of the electorate. He defeated the likes of Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Mr. 9/11 himself (Rudy Giuliani), not by running to the extreme right flank of his party, but by running to its middle. In doing so he incurred the wrath of all the conservative talking heads like Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, none of whom had any use for McCain. Mary Matalin, wife of Democratic strategist James Carville, publicly supported Fred Thompson and stated that John McCain had virtually no chance of winning the presidency.

And yet with all the backlash of the conservative right, in what was clearly a change year, with the exception of those first few weeks after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination and had jumped out to an early lead, McCain was holding his own. All of the prominent polls showed the race to be a statistical dead heat. And then it happened. The Democrats held their convention in Denver; Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate, not Hillary Clinton like some had foolishly thought, and suddenly McCain was down six points in the polls. He needed something daring, something unexpected, something that could unite the conservative base of his party, and at the same time capitalize on the resentment he felt was still being harbored by many Hillary supporters, angered that their candidate was not on the Democratic ticket. In what can only be described as an act of desperation, he chose Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The base was beside itself with glee. It was the proverbial two birds with one stone moment. A woman and a Christian conservative all in one package. Not only would they unite the party, but they would steal away all the disenfranchised Hillary supporters. Hello Whitehouse.

Initially, the pick proved to be a stroke of genius. Less than a week after the Republican convention, McCain was up two points in the popular vote. Furthermore, and more importantly, he was up in all the battleground states he needed to win the Whitehouse. But something went terribly wrong with the former Wasilla mayor. The more people got a chance to hear her speak, the more they began to realize not only how unready and unprepared she was for the office of vice-president; the more uneasy they became with who she was as a person. There is a golden rule for all vice-presidential picks: do no harm. With each passing day, and each passing interview, Sarah Palin was doing more damage to John McCain than the economic implosion was. The irony was that while conservatives loved her, independents, that demographic that often decides presidential elections, were growing increasingly alarmed at her political stances and he divisive rhetoric. This was particularly troublesome for McCain, since it was this very demographic that got him the nomination in the first place. A full week before the infamous “fundamentals are strong” comment, Obama regained the lead among independents and never looked back. In retrospect the housing market collapse sealed the deal. Obama looked more presidential; McCain looked like someone who was groping for a message to rile up his base. The chants of socialism and terrorists became almost comical in the midst of a historic recession that was ravaging the nation. Sarah Palin may have been appealing to what she thought was the “real” America, but the nation as a whole wasn’t buying it. Her negatives, and those of John McCain’s, rose with each passing day. Not even caricatures such as the likes of Joe the Plumber could stop the hemorrhaging. McCain, like the economy, went south fast.

And now that this election is over, now that the nation has chosen someone with the proper temperament to lead us out of this malaise, the postmortems will begin. It will be a hard pill to swallow, but the Republican party is essentially in the same place the Democratic party was in 1980 when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter: fragmented and politically isolated, with a tired and worn out message no one of consequence wants to hear. If you look carefully at the nation what you will find is astounding. Obama won in every part of the country: the north, the south, the mid-west, the west coast, and the southwest. Only the plain states, the deep south and the Appalachian trail eluded him. The inclusive nation that Reagan had helped to create in the 1980s had left in droves to support not only a Democratic presidential candidate, but both houses of Congress. The Republican party has now become a party in full retreat, at war with itself and unable to come up with a populist message to stir the electorate. Family values, abortion, the war on terror may play well on Fox, but not in the millions of homes across America. When you can’t pay your mortgage, and you don’t know if you’re going to have a job next week, and your 401k looks more like a 201k, you need real leaders who have real solutions. The Republicans never articulated a real message that real Americans could latch onto. What is troubling is that there doesn’t appear to be any body within the party that can reverse its fortunes. Mitt Romney? Mike Huckabee? Please, spare me. What’s worse, if you’re a Republican, is the total denial of what went wrong in the first place. In the halls of conservative talk shows, the bravado is appalling. McCain and Palin weren’t tough enough; they needed to hammer Obama earlier and more often, as though eight weeks of non-stop verbal diarrhea weren’t enough to thoroughly turn off all but the most unabashedly myopic bigoted pinheads. When people like George Will start disowning you, you’ve got problems!

If the Republican party is to ever rise up, dust itself off and, more importantly, become a major player on a national level, it is going to have to do what the Democrats did in 1992: find a centrist who will bring some balance to its ranks. Allowing the James Dobsons and the Rush Limbaughs free reign to kidnap the party has severely damaged its pedigree among independents, and compromised any hope now and in the future of capturing the national stage. The Right loves to tout the conservatism of Reagan, but they forget that he couldn’t have won the presidency without moderate Democrats, any more than Bill Clinton could’ve won the 1992 election without moderate Republicans. The nation is neither conservative nor liberal; it is what it has always been: a collection of independent thinkers who look for leadership from their leaders. If the Republicans are truly serious about winning back the Whitehouse, they need to find someone who can stand up to the right flank of the party and at the same time appeal to the masses. McCain, for all his legendary maverick status, clearly was not up to the task. Too often throughout this campaign he seemed clueless as to what to do or say on the economy, and when it came to going on the attack he seemed uncomfortable resorting to the mudslinging that Bush and Rove did so well against John Kerry in 2004. In the end it was impossible to differentiate who was on top of the ticket: him or Palin. In the end it didn’t seem to matter; he became what he most despised about the very process he once fought against. That, more than anything was what did him in.

No, I’m thinking what the Republicans need most is not another Ronald Reagan, but rather a Dwight D. Eisenhower type; a man who is a true leader and is respected by both parties. If Obama does not pick him for a cabinet post, Colin Powell might be the ideal choice. He incurred the wrath of the ultra right-wing of the party for his endorsement of Obama, which was more a repudiation of McCain and Palin, but he could just be the “right” tonic for a tattered and torn party that desperately needs to be saved from the inmates and nutjobs who are currently running the asylum.

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!

Regardless of whatever political party you may belong to, or even if you’re an independent like me, tomorrow this nation gets a chance to do what many people in the world do not have a right to do: VOTE!

So, no matter how long the line at your polling booth may be, get out and vote. It’s the only thing we can all agree on, that this most precious and God-given right that we get to exercise every four years, is the best way we can show our appreciation for our democracy. Never take for granted what so many have sacrificed so much to preserve.

May God bless this nation!

The Great Crusade To Come: Pluralism vs. Fundamentalism

Below is a transcript from the October 24th edition of MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Obermann in which both Obermann and Richard Wolffe of Newsweek are responding to Sarah Palin’s comments mocking fruit fly research, which has brought about breakthroughs in the treatment of Down Syndrome; a disorder that Palin’s youngest child has.

Obermann: “How could they let Governor Palin go out and mock research that has identified a genetic indicator for autism? Who was stupid enough to let that happen?”

Wolffe: “Keith, I’m going to be as restrained and measured as I possibly can about this. But this is the most mindless, ignorant, uninformed comment that we have seen from Governor Palin, so far. And there’s been a lot of competition for that prize. Fruit flies aren’t just to do with this kind of research. They are a standard scientific model in genetic research along with a whole range of other organisms and cells, including mice, rats. I mean, there’s nothing fluffy or funny about it. It’s scientific and if you deliver your first serious policy speech and you make this kind of basic error, you either don’t have a scientific adviser or you don’t have a speechwriter who knows what they are saying.”

With due respect to both men, neither of them has a true handle on what is really going on here. Because if either or both actually knew the REAL truth about how something like this could happen, both with update their passports and head for the nearest border immediately, if not sooner.

The simple and scary truth about Palin’s comments is that they are neither an indicator of stupidity nor of sloppy and uninformed speech writing. They are indicative of a world-view that is quite prevalent within the fundamentalist Christian community, and thoroughly shared by Palin, that shuns not only science, but the idea that science has anything relevant to say about what ails us. This argument has been going on within Christianity for almost two centuries; in deed probably much longer. But it has taken root in American politics now for several decades. To call it myopic would be way too simple. It strikes at the core of a belief system that, in its own way, is as primitive and violent as its Islamic counterparts. While it is true that Christian fundamentalists aren’t likely to fly planes into buildings or blow up cars in front of shopping malls, like Islamic fundamentalists, the similarities are frighteningly real with respect to how their ideology imparts itself within their respective communities.

In principal, fundamentalist Christians believe in the literalist interpretation of the Bible; particularly Chapter one of the book of Genesis. They shun any suggestion, no matter what the evidence suggests, that the world and the universe around it might be billions of years old, and that the story of Adam and Eve might be more of a parable rather than an actual historic event. Those who dare to suggest otherwise are called heretics; their salvation hanging in the balance.

Likewise, fundamentalists do not believe in global warming, and often refer to it as a lie from Satan meant to distract us from God’s work. The reason for this has nothing to do with doubting the empirical evidence that has now been corroborated by virtually every reputable scientist on the planet; it has to do with the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24:21), which “true” Christians believe will happen either prior to, during, or after Christ’s return to Earth. At that time all “true” believers will be taken up to heaven (referred to as The Rapture), while the remainder will be resigned to an eternity in hell. Depending on whether one is a Pretribulationist, a Prewrath Tribulationist, a Seventh Trumpet Tribulationist (in deference to Rev. 11:15 & Cor. 15:52) or a Posttribulationist, the bottom line is that man’s fate lies not in any scientific modality, but in a select group of scriptural verses that carefully lay out God’s predetermined will for all His people. Since the book of Revelation does not specifically or even remotely mention global warming as a possible end scenario for the human race, for any “true” Christian to refer to it as a legitimate threat is Heresy.

This fundamentalist world-view is not new, as I explained earlier. It was first popularized by John Nelson Darby, the father of Dispensationalism, which places a heavy emphasis on prophecy and eschatology, the study of the "end times." Dispensationalism is a Christian theological view of history and Biblical interpretation that became popular during the 1800s and early 1900s and is held today by many conservative Protestants. The belief hinges on three core tenants:

1. The Bible is to be taken literally. John F. Walvoord, in his book "Prophecy in the New Millennium," provides this explanation:

"History answers the most important question in prophetic interpretation, that is, whether prophecy is to be interpreted literally, by giving five hundred examples of precise literal fulfillments. The commonly held belief that prophecy is not literal and should be interpreted nonliterally has no basis in scriptural revelation. Undoubtedly, a nonliteral viewpoint is one of the major causes of confusion in prophetic interpretation."

2. Dispensationalism teaches that the Church consists of only those saved from the Day of Pentecost until the time of the Rapture. It is held that the Church consists of a small number of Israelites under the election of grace in the present dispensation along with a large number of Gentiles. (see Scofield note on Rom. 11 and The Mac Arthur New Testament Commentary : Romans 9 - 16). During the 70th week of Daniel, God will deal specifically with the nation of Israel to bring it to national salvation, in which Israelites who have faith in Jesus Christ during that time will inherit the promised Theocratic Kingdom and the unconditional Covenants God made with Israel. Israel will fulfill its role as the Theocratic Covenanted Kingdom promised to the nation in Old Testament prophecy.

3. Dispensationalism teaches that Israel in the New Testament refers to saved and unsaved Israelites who will receive the promises made to them in the Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant and New Covenant. (See The Millennial Kingdom by Dr. John F. Walvoord.)

Opponents of Dispensationalism argue that when the Apostle Paul spoke of the dispensation of grace, he was not speaking of an age or period of time but rather he was speaking of stewardship. But conservative Christians do not concern themselves with opponents to their theology. They are certain that theirs is the only viewpoint that is relevant, since it derives directly from the “Word of God.”

What is appallingly dangerous is not how pervasive this belief system still is throughout many Christain churches, but how much political power it still wields throughout the breadbasket of the country; in deed in many affluent, suburban communities in the northeastern and western United States. Many otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people believe profoundly in fundamentalist teachings of the Bible. Though biblical scholars have argued about scripture and its interpretation since the founding of the Roman Catholic Church almost two thousand years ago, conservative Christian preachers have remained steadfast in their denunciation of anything that seeks to challenge their preconceived notions about said scripture. Followers of these conservative evangelicals are encouraged to avoid the trappings of “the world” or the temptation to “doubt the Word of God” as though to evoke even a hint of independent thought would be akin to bringing down a lightning bolt upon one’s head. The ending verse of Revelation is used by these modern day Pharisees to keep the flock in check.

That we are still having this argument more than 1500 years after St. Augustine wrote his thesis, “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” is proof of just how powerful fundamentalism still is in the world. Individuals like James Dobson, Dutch Sheets and Lou Engle are but a few of the more prominent voices of the political landscape that threaten the nation with retreat from common sense and the supposed wisdom that God imparted onto His people in the first place.

In the last two general elections, the Conservative Right was integral in the victories of George W. Bush as President, as well as the election of many other conservative legislators to Washington. These legislators, in concert with the Administration, have led the fight to introduce the teaching of Creationism (AKA Intelligent Design) into the curriculum of America’s public school system. Advocates of Creationism claim they are only interested in presenting “their” side of the argument. Critics claim they are attempting to rewrite the last two hundred years of scientific research because it conflicts with their beliefs and values.

Pastor John Hegee is CEO of Global Evangelism Television (GETV), and is the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries, which telecasts his national radio and television ministry carried in the United States on 160 TV stations, 50 radio stations, and eight networks, including The Inspiration Network (INSP) and Trinity Broadcasting Network. The ministries can be seen and heard weekly in 99 million homes.

Hagee is also the founder and National Chairman of the Christian-Zionist organization Christians United for Israel, incorporated on February 7, 2006 as a "Christian American Israel Public Affairs Committee" (AIPAC) lobbying Congress to support Israel.[3] He has incurred some controversy for his religious beliefs and comments regarding Nazism, Catholicism, Islam, homosexuality, Jews, and Hurricane Katrina.[4] Many prominent politicians often speak at his conventions, not out of any unilateral agreement with his controversial stances, but out of fear of his political influence. In 2007, Hagee stated that he does not believe in global warming, and he also said that he sees the Kyoto Protocol as a conspiracy aimed at manipulating the U.S. economy.[21] Also, Hagee has condemned the Evangelical Climate Initiative, an initiative "signed by 86 evangelical leaders acknowledging the seriousness of global warming and pledging to press for legislation to limit carbon dioxide emissions." Many other prominent conservative religious leaders, such as James Dobson and Tony Perkins have an equal disdain for the Climate Initiative, again not because of a dearth of data that supports it, but because it conflicts with pre-conceived notions about scripture.

What is encouraging is the fact that fundamentalism appears to be nearing its end as a belief system, not only within the United States, but throughout the Middle East, as well. Pluralism, once thought of as the four-letter word of Christians, is taking root within the body politic in ever increasing numbers. Christians have often referred to pluralism in the same manner in which capitalists often refer to socialism, as something abhorrent and ungodly. And yet many of the preconceptions of pluralism have formed the basis of our representative government. The lack of any officially recognized religion is but an example of a pluralistic tendency among the Founding Fathers, which conservative evangelicals still have a hard time swallowing.

I submit that one of the biggest hurdles that Christians need to overcome when it comes to the concept of a pluralistic society is a complete lack of understanding of what the word pluralism actually means. Like so many other belief systems, Christianity has as its core belief the need to make Disciples of others. From a purely philosophical perspective, such a mission statement suggests that those embarking on such quests to “convert” unbelievers to their faith carry two presuppositions with them: first and foremost, that their faith is indeed the one true faith. So far so good. It wouldn’t be much of a conversion process if one didn’t believe his or her faith was the superior one. But then things turn decidedly ugly, for the second presupposition implies not only a condition of superiority, but a fervent belief that to deny the obvious is a sign of demonic beliefs that somehow need to be suppressed or altogether eliminated. And that, in a nutshell is the difference between a fundamentalist and a pluralistic approach to religion. The former seeks not only a strong belief in one’s own convictions, but a total submission of the other side to the inevitable logic of the superior belief; while the latter leaves open the possibility that both are entitled to their own religious convictions, and more importantly, that both have a right to coexist within the same community without fear of retribution .

The Crusades in the first three centuries of the second millennium A.D. underscored brilliantly a fundamentalist belief system that went amok Initially their purpose was to thwart the encroachment of Muslim influence into the Byzantine Empire. However, on a popular level, the first Crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings. As for the Muslims, after he recaptured Jerusalem in the Third Crusade (1187 – 1192), Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt, spared civilians and for the most part left churches and shrines untouched to be able to collect ransom money from the Franks. Saladin is remembered respectfully in both European and Islamic sources as a man who "always stuck to his promise and was loyal." His largess was not rewarded, however, for when Richard I (AKA Richard the Lionhearted) captured the island of Cyprus, he massacred everyone, despite an earlier promise to leave noncombatants unharmed if the city of Acre surrendered. The brutality of this incident is among the darkest pages of Christendom.

One could say that ever since Abraham bedded down with his maidservant Hagar and produced Ishmael, the world has been locked in the horns of a never-ending dilemma as the descendants of both Ishmael and Isaac continue to wage war to determine who is the true and righteous heir of God’s favor. It matters not that in Gen. 21:11-13 God ostensibly settles the question by stating that both sons (Ishmael and Isaac) will be leaders of great nations, the world continues to be consumed by the flames of intolerance that surround the combatants. Both are right, and I’m afraid both are wrong.

This incessant need not only to be right, but to vanquish any and all opinions to the contrary is what is truly wrong with religion. It is not the belief in an all powerful and loving God that has blinded us; it is this persistent drive to stamp out conflicting interpretations of that all powerful and loving God that has blinded the world with the very hatred and venom that are supposedly at odds with just such a God. Small wonder there are still atheists in the world. And even within Christianity itself, there is deep division. Norther Ireland was for centuries a seething cauldron of religious intolerance as Protestants and Catholics killed one another in the name of the same God they proclaimed to worship.

The irony of ironies is that this insanity appears to be going the way of the dinosaur, as more and more people, fed up with the apparent hypocrisy inherent to such narrow and restrictive view points are choosing to divorce themselves from their respective brethren and brake the chains of such fundamentalist and primitive thinking. Whether owed directly to an economy in free fall or simply the result of outward corruption within the ranks of its hierarchy, the Religious Right in the United States is slowly losing its stranglehold on the nation as more and more moderate thinkers are stepping up and being heard. Issues like abortion and gay rights and creationism, while still critical, are now beginning to share the stage with increasingly equal issues like poverty, climate change, disease and world hunger.

In the Middle East, it is not the bullets of American rifles that are beginning to quell the rhetoric of extremist clerics who have historically driven their followers to commit heinous acts of violence, but rather the byproducts of free-market capitalism. Nike, more than Smith and Wesson, is killing the hatred of centuries of intolerance.

The goal of pluralism is not the elimination of God from public discourse, but rather the elimination of the belief that those who do not conform to a majority religious view are not somehow entitled to the same rights and privileges accorded to us all. It is not anti-Christian to allow a Jew or a Muslim to have a contradictory opinion about their God. We have seen all too well what religious intolerance has wrought on this planet. Isn’t it time we put down our guns and picked up our plowshares? Isn’t it time we finally grew up as a race and lived out the true command of God to love one another as He loved us?

I don’t believe I’m waxing too poetically when I say that there will come a day when all the great religions of the world will finally coalesce into one gigantic spiritual community and become the children of God they were originally intended (created?) to be. Pie in the sky? Perhaps, but I can dream can’t I?

This is the Great Crusade that awaits the human race. Not erasing scientific theories that threaten narrow interpretations of scripture, nor beheading non-believers who defy religious clerics. Hatred and ignorance are the dance partners of a dark and troubled world. If evil is to forever be defeated, it must first be sought within the confines of our own hearts. It should be the mission statement of every God-fearing servant who has a heart of gold and a faith that is fearless to expose the lies of an enemy that has thousands of years of history on his side and the blood of millions to show for it!

Change We Can’t Afford Not To Have: The Case For Barack Obama.

On November 4th America will vote for its next president. In this coming election, there are two very distinct individuals for the electorate to choose from. The nation has not been at this crossroads since 1932, when it elected Franklin Roosevelt to the office; and while the nation may not yet be in quite the dire straits it was that year, there are many parallels that are worth noting.

For one thing, like the Crash of 1929, speculation and lack of government regulation were the main culprits in the housing market collapse of 2008. Without a system of checks and balances governing mortgage lenders, a predator environment existed, in which many unsuspecting homeowners were duped into mortgages – many of which were sub-prime – that they could not afford. When these sub-prime mortgages adjusted to high, fixed-rate mortgages, the result was a sudden rise in foreclosures. This, combined with a downward spiral in overall housing values, feeding still more foreclosures as investors saw their equity disappear, has brought the economy to a virtual stand still. We got a taste of this scenario twenty years ago during the S&L scandal, when bad mortgages, written without proper documentation, went belly up. Many prominent banks went under during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Apparently, the near miss taught us nothing. Now we are paying the ultimate price.

Another parallel is the clear choice between both candidates: On the one hand, Herbert Hoover, a fervent believer in a free market economy, who earnestly believed that the economy would right itself so long as the government stayed out of things; on the other hand, Roosevelt, who vehemently argued for government programs and relief to restart the economy. Roosevelt won hands down and, though it took several years for his works programs to take root, by the end of the decade, the U.S. economy was back up and running.

We now stand at another crucible in our nation’s history. John McCain and Barack Obama may not exactly represent Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt to a tee, but their views about how government should be run bare some resemblance to the aforementioned figures. I will do my utmost to stick to those issues that I feel are salient to this election year and compare and contrast what I believe is a fair representation on both candidates’ stated positions.

The Economy: It goes without saying that this is and should be the number one priority for our nation. Both candidates supported the $700 billion bailout and both are offering tax cuts as part of their platform. McCain is seeking to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, while Obama has targeted his tax relief to families earning under $200,000 per year. Families earning over $250,000 per year would see their taxes go up, but only by the difference between both brackets. In essence, Obama is seeking to restore the tax code the nation had under the Clinton years, believing that the middle class is the driving force behind the economy. Both candidates are offering tax relief to small business owners, but so far only Obama is tying corporate tax relief to those companies that do not ship jobs overseas. With respect to government regulation, McCain’s stated position has been consistent. He is an advocate for less regulation of markets. Obama would in all probability be far more likely to increase government oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry, helping to ensure that this nightmarish scenario will not be played out again. Huge advantage: Obama.

Health Care: Both candidates have come up with what they refer to as solutions to the current health care crisis in America, that until the mortgage meltdown this year threatened to become the number one issue for voters this election. McCain is promoting a $5,000 tax credit to households to permit the purchase of health care coverage; however to pay for this tax credit he also proposes taxing those health care benefits for the first time in history, imperiling many employer-based health care plans. Furthermore, while a $5,000 tax credit may seem like a lot, the average cost of a family health care plan is considerably more. McCain says that his plan would give people the choice to purchase coverage in states that do have stringent regulation, thus reducing costs considerably. However, he conveniently leaves out the fact that in many of those states, pre-existing condition clauses exist that would bar patients from getting the treatments they need. Also conveniently missing is the sad fact that the costs for health insurance go up considerably for people in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

In stark contrast Obama’s health care plan proposes to build on existing private and public programs such as employer health insurance, private individual health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. The key components are:
* Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.
* Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.
* An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.
* Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.
* Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.* Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.
To pay for this program, which admittedly is far more costly and ambitious than McCain’s, Obama would use the bulk of the savings from eliminating the Bush tax cuts. While many have questioned his claim that he would save the average family $2500 per year in medical costs, most experts are agreed that a government-sponsored health care plan is needed to ease the burden off a system that is teetering on the brink of collapse and is stifling family and corporate budgets. Advantage: Obama.

The Iraq War and the War on Terror: Of all the Democratic candidates, Barack Obama was the only one who openly questioned the need to go to war with Iraq in the first place, and criticized the decision to invade. His call for a timetable to draw down troops and transfer all power to the Iraqi government came under fire, even from members of his own party; now the Bush Administration is negotiating with Iraqi leaders to initiate a “time horizon” for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Obama was also the first to bring to light that Afghanistan, and not Iraq, was the central front in the war on terror. Now Pentagon officials have confirmed that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating and more troops will be needed to ensure that it does not fall back into the hands of the Taliban. John McCain has been adamant in his claim that the surge in Iraq, which he supported, should be the focal point in any discussions about the conflict, and not how we got there in the first place. While even his staunchest critics concede that the surge has been a success, the political solution that was expected in Iraq still has proven elusive. Violence may be down, but the Iraqi government still has not put to rest the one, overriding concern many in the region still have: can they govern themselves without U.S. troops in place? The question may be moot as well as irrelevant. It seems that the Iraqi government is prepared to kick the training wheels off their bikes and give it a go, whether a President John McCain likes it or not. Huge advantage: Obama.

Family Values & The Supreme Court: Evangelicals may have legitimate concerns over Obama’s stance with respect to abortion and gay rights. Certainly these are important, hot-button issues within the Christian community. While I would never attempt to lecture to a believer what his or her priorities should be, I do feel strongly that before a candidate is eliminated from consideration that a thorough look at all his beliefs be in order. While it is true that Obama supports Roe v. Wade, he has opposed late-term abortions. With respect to gay rights, both he and Joe Biden have stated publicly that they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They both oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution, preferring to let states decide the issue for themselves. Even John McCain opposes this amendment. On other fronts, Obama would be a far better steward of the environment, both locally and globally. He supports green technology and believes the U.S. has a moral obligation to lead the world in this endeavor. John McCain has frankly been a Johnny come lately to this cause; it has only been recently that he has even mentioned alternative fuel sources. Obama’s stance with respect to the economy and the working families of America falls directly in line with the finest tradition of Christian moral values.

The next president will almost certainly be nominating one if not two justices to the Supreme Court. Again, while Roe v. Wade is an important consideration for many Christians, it is not the only issue that the Court will be dealing with. The decades’ old debate between “strict constructionist” and “interpretive” justices is critical here. Simply put, most of the desegregation and anti-pollution decisions that the Court handed down throughout the 1950s and 1960s would not have happened had a more conservative Court been in charge. A prime example of just such a decision was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In his opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “We conclude that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Can you imagine a Chief Justice Roberts writing those words? That decision and others like it will undoubtedly come under review if the Court tilts further to the Right. It is important to consider this when choosing the next president. Advantage: Obama.

Experience and Temperament: Let’s be honest, the moment John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, the issue of experience went out the window. You may not agree with all of their stances, but both Barack Obama and Joe Biden bring far more relevant experience to Washington than McCain and Palin. It has become painfully apparent with each passing day that the governor of Alaska is unqualified and not even remotely ready to assume the duties of the presidency of the United States of America. Worse yet, she has displayed a stunning lack of intellectual curiosity vital to any understanding of the complexities that exist in the world we live in today. Blaming an elite and leftist media for “gotcha” questions is not selling on Main Street. Despite her many charming attributes, the job is clearly beyond her abilities. And her definition of the duties of a vice president are alarmingly familiar to another vice president who also has a problem with understanding what the Constitution says and what it doesn’t say.

With respect to temperament, what has impressed me most about Obama lately has been how steady he has been, even under the stress of an economic crisis and the intense negative ads that the McCain campaign has thrown at him. He has looked far more presidential than his counterpart. Colin Powell’s endorsement of him said it best calling him a "transformational figure" and citing "his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities", in addition to his "style and substance." In contrast, John McCain has seemed eratic and uncertain at times. His campaign has struggled to come up with a coherent and relevent message to the electorate, relying almost exclusively on viscious attack ads that are simply not resonating with the voters. His pick of Sarah Palin has caused many even in his own party to question his judgement. The maverick that John McCain was died and was buried during that 2000 presidnetial bid when he lost to a savagely brutal Bush campaign. Since then he has been far less the maverick and far more the predictable conservative Bush clone. No matter how many times he says he is not Bush, his actions, particularly those of the last eight years are what is relevent. Huge advantage: Obama.

Well there you have it. Five up and five down. I admit I am not very objective in my opinion. You may disagree, which is your prerogative. What is not open to discussion is the fact that this presidential election is among the most important in decades. Men and women on both sides of the political spectrum have passionate views and deservedly so. This election promises to make history; the question that still begs to be answered is, when we look back four years from now, will we be better off than we are now, or further on down the road of despair?

Arrogance, thy name is Dutch Sheets

I recently received this letter, via email from someone in the church. http://www.dutchsheets.org/index.cfm. I am posting it on this blog verbatim, with certain passages italicized by me; it will be those passages that I will respond to in this same entry.

From Dutch Sheets:"Due to IRS rules, this letter is from me personally and is not from any of the ministries I am associated with. (Also because of IRS rules, I cannot send it to my ministry database and therefore need your help in getting it out.) Do with it as you see fit, but my desire is that you forward it to as many praying friends as possible."

October 20, 2008

Dear Praying Friend,In 2000, I wrote the 2nd most important letter of my life—a call to prayer for the elections of that year. I’m now writing what may be my most important letter. I knew the importance of those elections in 2000 was beyond any in my life up to that point and that the spiritual warfare surrounding them would be unlike anything any of us had ever seen. That letter was read by millions of people and I believe millions of them responded by praying. I also believe the prayers turned the tide.

You may question whether President Bush was the right choice; obviously, he has made some blunders in his tenure as president. But two of his decisions alone left no doubt he was God’s choice: Roberts and Alito. These two Supreme Court Justices have proven critical in the process of breaking the hold of humanism, death and anti-God agendas that have ruled the Court for 50 years. I assure you that more devastation—the shedding of innocent blood, immorality, decay of the family and an erosion of our godly heritage—has flowed into our nation through that institution than any other door in America. Many times more. The poison allowed into America through their decisions is beyond any of our abilities to articulate. The reality in America is that you don’t need to control Congress or the White Hose to rule the nation. You only need 5 people – 5 out of 9 on the Supreme Court. And for decades those who disagree with just about everything you and I stand for have been in control!

In Bush’s two terms, the process of turning this around began with the appointments of Roberts and Alito. Now, we win some cases 5-4 and lose some 4-5. (We barely outlawed partial birth abortion. The vote of one judge saved thousands of babies from this horror.) We need one more conservative Justice for a consistent majority, then more to build a strong majority.

In Obama’s own words, "the next president will appoint at least one, perhaps two or more Supreme Court Justices." He’s right. Almost certainly two or more older, liberal Justices are waiting until after the elections to retire, in hopes of Obama winning and appointing more liberals to replace them. And he certainly would. He voted against the confirmation of Roberts and Alito. So did Biden. And Biden led the fight against Justice Thomas several years back, another of the 4 solid conservatives. Make no mistake about it, the two of them do have a litmus test for Supreme Court Justices, and a major part of that test is Roe vs. Wade. McCain and Palin, on the other hand, both have very strong pro-life positions. This alone makes the choice for President simple. To vote for the 2nd and 3rd most liberal senators (Obama and Biden), both of whom are firmly and blatantly proabortion, would be unconscionable. Obama has actually said that if he wins, he would like his first action as president to be the signing of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would eliminate every other law against any aspect of abortion (partial birth abortion, parental notification, etc., etc.). And with a democratic majority in the House and Senate, pretty much any legislation he and Biden want to pass will be a slam-dunk. There are many other unrighteous positions they hold but this position alone makes the choice easy. If they win this election, it will set America back decades in the cause of life and the restoration we seek.

Just as many of you do, I too, want to see a first black President, but not Senator Obama. To allow that noble and godly desire, the economy or one’s position on the war to trump this issue of life and death for the innocent unborn is simply wrong. The scriptures teach that if we choose first to exalt righteousness and turn from evil, God promises to heal our land (see Proverbs 14:34; 2 Chronicles 7:14). It is righteousness that exalts a nation, not wealth, prosperity or armies. If we will finish the process of removing the curses of death and anti-God laws off of America by electing a president that will continue to shift the Court, God will grace us with breakthrough in other areas such as the economy, the war against terrorism, etc. My faith is not in a person, and certainly not a political party, for the healing of America, but I know God’s word and His ways well enough to know that our decisions do move Him to action or inaction.

Now to the heart of my reason for writing this letter (I realize I am "preaching to the choir"—most of you who know or listen to me are conservative enough to vote for McCain and Palin.) I have not written anyappeals for prayer concerning this election because:
1) others have, and
2) I believe our movement has matured to the point that the prayer base of the Church is already praying.

But I now feel the need to raise my voice. I am appealing to you to pray for these elections the next two weeks like you’ve never prayed for any in the past. Faithfully. Passionately. Boldly. Ask God for His mercy and grace.We deserve His judgment for removing His influence and authority from our government, schools, homes and businesses; for the killing of 50 million babies; for leading the world in the consumption and exporting of pornography; for passing laws to reject His; etc. But mercy triumphs over judgment and in His wrath He remembers mercy. In 2000 we actually lost the popular vote and won the election—talk about grace! Please pray for this grace to be released again.

But I am also asking you for something more than normal prayer. For those of you who understand spiritual warfare, I am asking you to also include this aspect of prayer. There is no doubt that we have entered a Daniel 10 moment in time: "Then he said to me, ‘Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your God, your words were heard, I have come in response to your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia’" (Daniel 10: 12-13 NAS). The spiritual warfare in this election is incredibly fierce, and just as it was in Daniel’s day, is all about the restoration of a nation. And also like Daniel, we must keep praying until we win the battle in the heavens.In August of this year I predicted that September would mark a shift in momentum for these elections. This happened with the appointment of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential nominee (who is a true Esther in our generation), but when the economy began its meltdown and the media ramped up their unprecedented attacks on Palin, that momentum wasn’t sustained. But we can see it turn again if we approach this battle as the spiritual warfare it truly is and bind the evil forces involved (see Matthew 16:18-19). The reality is that this election can be the breakthrough we need to fully shift the Court (and ultimately our nation) or it will be an immeasurable setback that could take many years to reverse—if ever.

Please understand what I am saying: if we engage in this battle and do what I am asking—in mass—we will win; if we do not, we will lose. I, for one, don’t intend to allow the latter. I am in Washington, D.C. now (October 20-22) with Lou Engle and a team of prayer leaders from around the nation to war for this election. Join us! Lose some sleep, miss some meals—pray! Pray like never before for these elections. And as you do, involve yourself not only in petitioning prayer but also in spiritual warfare. Use your God-given authority over the plans and strategies of satan’s kingdom. Bind all witchcraft that is working to control the outcome, including occultic powers that are suppressing truth. Release Christ’s Kingdom rule in every way the Holy Spirit leads you. Don’t be deceived and don’t lose hope (if you have to, turn off the TV.) It is not too late to turn these elections. God is plenty powerful enough to do so. The real question is will we rise to the level of prayer and spiritual warfare necessary to release that power. And remember, we don’t need a majority of Christians who are willing and able to do this—only a praying remnant. We can do it! Here are some practical suggestions to consider:

1) Fast (a meal a day; a day a week; a Daniel fast; 3 days; 10 days; TV; etc.) and spend the time praying.

2) Agree in prayer with someone everyday for God’s will to be done.

3) Form/participate in prayer groups regularly. Churches could pray everyday.

4) Take time in every gathering to pray. (Take 15 minutes in every service to pray for the elections. Turn an entire service to harp and bowl style intercession—worship and prayer combined.)

5) Join 2 or more on a conference call and pray for 15, 20, or 30 minutes.

6) Pray on the way to work (and on the way home).

7) Pray before you go to sleep.

8) Pray before church services.

9) Ask God to give you His strategy—He will!

In His grip,

Dutch Sheets


And now for my responses to each point.

President Bush has made some blunders? His whole administration has been one long blunder, which began the day the Supreme Court - that liberal, humanist Supreme Court you spoke about – saddled the nation with his presence. Where were the strict constructionists when we needed them most?

“The reality in America is that you don’t need to control Congress or the White Hose to rule the nation. You only need 5 people – 5 out of 9 on the Supreme Court.” I can’t begin to tell you how nightmarish a concept that is for me, that the only thing standing in your way of re-writing the Constitution – and that means ALL of it – is appointing one or more justices of your ilk to the Bench. This isn’t about Roe v. Wade anymore; it’s about undoing all of the morally courageous accomplishments of the last “50 years” of “humanist decay” that you speak about so flippantly. Segregation, pollution? Was there nothing of the ‘60s your kind can’t trash?


You are “preaching to the choir” and that most of us are conservative enough to vote for McCain and Palin you say? How dare you presume that? Since when does my denomination predetermine my voting habits? You’ve got a lot of gall to pull that rank and file crap!

Sarah Palin is a “true Esther” who has suffered “unprecedented” attacks? ARE YOU ON DRUGS?! Have you paid any attention to some, if not all, of the attacks that this “Esther” has made on the Democratic ticket? “Socialist”, “Terrorists”, are only a few of the more colorful metaphors in her vocabulary. The only thing more unprecedented than her indecency is her ineptitude. Really now, when Katie Couric is the “gotcha” reporter than you’ve got “real” problems.

“Lose some sleep, miss some meals - pray.” Yes, pray I will, that you and Lou Engle get lost somewhere and don’t come back for a VERY long time!

“Bind all witchcraft that is working to control the outcome, including occultic powers that are suppressing truth. Release Christ’s Kingdom rule in every way the Holy Spirit leads you.” Why is it that whenever you guys want to call out a political opponent you always resort to the old standard witchcraft, occult and satanic themes? So long as we are “releasing” Christ’s Kingdom, which I thought was our job regardless of who is in power, here is a question for you: Did Jesus CARE who the worldly leaders were of His time? Funny, I don’t remember any parable or sermon in any of the Gospels that spoke about how corrupt Caesar was. In fact isn’t Christianity supposed to be an inside out job? Wasn’t Christ far more concerned about the state of our hearts than the state of our government? You needn’t reply; I already know your heart, and so does God.

“Agree in prayer with someone everyday for God’s will to be done.” On this critical point, I’m afraid I will NOT be able to even remotely agree with you, but I do agree on one thing: God’s will will be done!

Please feel free to respond to my opinion, and don’t worry, I don’t think the I.R.S. will care one bit about your proselytizing. As far as your soul goes, that’s another thing altogether.

P.S. Nice name, Dutch!

The Protestant Ethic, the Spirit of Capitalism and the Inherent Flaw in the American Dream and Why It Has Become a National Nightmare. (Part Three)

“That’s the problem with the American dream; it makes everyone concerned about the day they’re going to be rich.” – President Bartlett from The West Wing.

Being in sales, I often attend sales training seminars: boot camp as I often call it. The purpose of these seminars, officially, is to reacquaint the sales staff with the benefits and features of a particular product or group of products so as to be better able to explain said benefits and features to potential customers thereby increasing sales and profit. The unofficial reason for attending these seminars, and the one you will never see publicly admitted to, is to drum in to the sales staff’s collective heads that you can make as much money as you wish; that ours is the only profession where there are no limits on our income, and that if we weren’t making enough money, then there was something we were doing wrong that needed correction; hence the need for a seminar.

Now, while there is an element of truth in that “unofficial” statement, what is left out is the very real and profound fact that despite every possible advantage that these seminars provide underachievers, the hard truth is that of all the people currently in sales, a handful – say 10 percent – do VERY well; another 25% are doing OK; and the remaining 65% run the gamut from barely making it to just flat out falling flat on their faces. Like the bulk of the American people, the ultimate goal is rarely reached, and the majority toil on, desperately believing that one day they will be in that top bracket. Like Joe the Plumber, they talk optimistically about a day when they can drink from the fountain of success, unfettered by the disadvantages they left behind in another lifetime in a galaxy far, far away. For them, the American dream is real, not because they have a realistic chance at living it out, but because they are terrified that the life they have is as good as it will ever get. They are the ultimate Republican wet dream, because each election cycle they eagerly line up and buy into another faulty notion that the wealthy have their backs, and that with a little more effort on their part, they will soon reach the summit of the mountain they have been climbing all their lives. The Democrats are Socialist kill-joys, they say, looking to rob them of the fortune they still do not have but earnestly believe they will one day achieve. Never mind that they are losing their homes, or are about to lose their jobs, or can’t afford to send their kids to college, or that their 401K just turned into a 201K, or that they don’t have quite enough money to both heat their homes and put food on the table. All that is just negative speak, not to be tolerated. It runs counter to an ethic that goes back centuries and is as deeply embedded into our collective psyches as the faith we profess to believe in. It is as old, it seems, as the printed word itself.

This Protestant ethic that Weber spoke of, whether you completely buy into all his conclusions – and I admit he does not explain all the inherent problems that exist – or not, has been primarily responsible for fostering a system that holds at its core a belief that success was evidence of God’s blessing, and there was something evil or contemptuous about those who could not fend for themselves or who needed assistance. Such people were to be scorned and those who “enabled” them shunned. Words like Socialist are code for non-conformists to an ideology that needs to reinforce a nation’s belief in its hegemony as evidence of God’s pre-determined favor, just as its peoples’ success within its borders were predicated squarely on how well they strived for it. It is an ethic that is self-fulfilling in its totality.

The truth is that for all the rhetoric that gets tossed about in this country, most of the “real” Americans that the Right seems to want to champion, would do well to wake up and smell the caffeine. Far from helping them realize their dreams, the Right has made their lives a living nightmare, a nightmare from which they are reluctant to wake up from. This Joe the Plumber guy is a case in point. Like so many other gullible individuals this “unlicensed” plumber, who can’t even pay his taxes, and is nowhere near being able to afford to buy his boss’s company, if he stopped and gave it some thought, would actually come to the realization that he would come out ahead under an Obama Administration. But John McCain whispers in his ear what he has always wanted to hear: that one day he will be rich enough to buy that business, and that when that happens he will be penalized for being prosperous. McCain has told him what he wanted to hear; Obama told him the truth. In politics the truth is mocked; in real life, however, the truth hurts.

The nation is hurting, more now than at any time since The Great Depression. Maybe now some of this painful truth will seep into the fabric of our society and we will finally be able to emerge if not totally from the nightmarish existence which is our history, then at least partially from it. Self-reliance, along with the arrogance that runs parallel to it, will never be completely exorcized from our collective conscious – they are too deeply embedded for that. But, maybe, we can all come to a fuller understanding that while there is nothing wrong with a little hard work and breaking a sweat for one’s wages, not everyone can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. As Children of God, we are called to help those less fortunate than ourselves, not from a posture of pride and self-righteousness, but from the humility of knowing that while we were still lost in sin, Jesus gave up His own life to save us. He fed the hungry, healed the sick and tended to those less fortunate. As His Disciples, we are no less obligated to return the favor in His name.

Crimes & Misdemeanors: McCarthyism revisited in Michelle Bachmann.

I pulled this from YouTube. It is the interview Michelle Bachmann made on Chris Matthews’ Hardball show on MSNBC last Friday. I’ll let her words do the talking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_pN2IPAw6E


It is still shocking to me that no matter how much we seem to progress as a society and how distant we seem to get from those painful and embarrassing years in our nation’s history, we can still fall right back into the garbage disposal of accusations and shameful name baiting that epitomized the McCarthy era. If this woman were the only example of such despicable acts, I would just chalk her up to a lunatic who had escaped from the asylum. Unfortunately, Michelle Bachmann is only one of a great many conservative Republicans who collectively, it seems, have lost all moral bearings as they desperately try anything that will resonate with the electorate. Fortunately for the country, the vast majority of those “real” Americans that Bachmann keeps referring to have chosen to ignore her vicious attacks, along with the Bill Ayers and Acorn cheap shots.

As the nation continues to reel from a deepening recession and looks for answers from the candidates as to how they will pull us out of it, the McCain campaign talks about socialism, terrorists and Joe the Plumber. The number one topic of discussion on Fox News is “Voter Fraud and the Obama/Acorn Connection.” Predictable as dirt, you might say. Hopefully, this time it won’t work. Obama seems to be comfortably out in front; the country seems poised to make history. In the next twelve days we will have to endure assault after assault by the Right on our common sense. Good thing McCain brought that plumber guy with him on his campaign trail. We’re all going to need a few drain pipes cleared before this is all over!

P.S. I donated $25 to Michelle Bachmann's opponent. Just an FYI

The Protestant Ethic, the Spirit of Capitalism and the Inherent Flaw in the American Dream and Why It Has Become a National Nightmare. (Part Two)

Now that we’ve studied the early histories of the United States and France, I thought I would bring us up to the late 20th century. Remember both these countries were Republics in the strictest sense of the word, born out of revolutions, yet different in philosophical bents. Whether you buy into the Weberian and Marxist theories that explain their divergent paths or not, it is clear that both countries were radically different when it came to their internal and external affairs. In Part Two I wanted to concentrate on the U.S. from the 1970s up to the ‘90s. Part Three will conclude this series.



The 1970s had not been kind to the United States. In America, the country was still reeling from the embarrassment of Watergate and the shame of Vietnam. The Carter Administration was viewed by many as impotent, especially during the Iran-hostage crisis which gripped the nation for more than a year before the 1980 election. Add to that the rising rate of inflation and a general feeling of malaise within the populace and it is not so surprising that Ronald Reagan won handily over a beaten and badly demoralized Jimmy Carter.

More than any other economist of his era, John Maynard Keynes understood that workers were more than just a drain on corporate profits; they were also the consumers who would purchase those products, which were being manufactured by them. If these consumers could not afford to consume the goods they were producing, then the businesses that hired them, faced with a loss of revenue, would have to reduce their overhead, which usually meant layoffs for the workers. Those unemployed workers would represent still more consumers unable to consume, which would necessitate the letting go of still more workers. This vicious cycle would go on until the country would inevitably be plunged into recession or depression. The only antidote for this calamity, according to Keynes, was high wages, which would lead to increases in production as consumers purchased more goods. While inflation was always a risk, it was a risk Keynes considered acceptable. At the conclusion of the 1960s the United States was enjoying the fruits of Keynesian economics.

Then things fell apart. Most commentators agree on the list of factors that pulled the system down: export rivalry from newly industrialized nations where labor unions were weak or outlawed; inflation exported around the world by the United States as it tried to pay for the Vietnam War; slackened commitment to full employment because of that inflation; weakening of the U.S. dollar and, consequently, of U.S. hegemony. Instead of carrying out a Keynesian mission to facilitate growth, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund became the international debt police. They squeezed second and third world economies, constricting global demand. In 1973, the Nixon administration threw out the fixed exchange rates - established at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 - and over the next few years, the United States pressured other countries to decontrol their financial systems. U.S. elites believed that given complete freedom in international finance, they could reestablish their hegemony. Instead they made instability a key characteristic of the period.[1]

Supply-side Economics and the American War on the Poor

The Reagan revolution - as it was called then - swept the United States in 1980. It was, for all intents and purposes, a direct response to the general malaise, which had been gripping the nation for over a year and a half. Many have singled out the ineptness of the Carter Administration as the impetus behind the movement. The reality, however, was that the origins of Reaganomics (a.k.a. supply-side economics) went back much farther, all the way back to the 1960s. The welfare state of Keynes had, according to conservatives, gone too far. Instead of helping the poor and underprivileged of American society, welfare had robbed them of their self-respect and dignity. As early as the late 1960s and early 1970s, conservative politicians were calling for an end to the "Great Society" as it was known to Americans. By the late 1970s, with the country in the middle of an economic downturn that saw interest rates hovering at just over 22 percent and inflation almost as high, the conservative wave had turned into a tidal surge of unprecedented momentum.

Supply-side economics rests on two underlying principles. The first of these is that government is not the answer to our problems, government is our problem. All we have to do is reduce - or eliminate altogether - the government and allow the capitalist system to do what it does best - provide jobs for everyone. The second principle was that since the rich within this system were the ones who created jobs through their investments, the government should do all that it can to ensure their continued good fortune, including, but not limited to, reducing the maximum tax rate on them. On both counts did the Reagan administration make good its promise. Welfare spending was cut and the richest one percent of the country received a tax break which increased their real income by 73.9 percent, while the bottom fifth of the country suffered a 4.4 percent decline.[2]

Additionally, that top one percent owned and controlled 41.8 percent of the wealth; 35.1 percent in the first half percent alone. That figure was up from 1963, where the top half percent of the population controlled 25.4 percent of the wealth. As if that were not bad enough, data shows that the middle class shrank as a result of the movement of capital from the working poor to the super rich. From 1963 to 1983 the percentage of wealth in the remaining 99 percentile went from 67.2 percent to 58.1. Not since 1929, when it was estimated that the richest one percent owned almost 43 percent of all wealth, has there been such a gap between the rich and the poor.[3] While not all of this can be attributable to Reagan administration policy - the Kennedy administration actually began the process in 1962 when it cut the top tax rate from 88 percent to 70 percent[4]- most of the damage was done during its watch.

Those most victimized by the Reagan Administration cuts in welfare and social spending were African Americans. Traditionally blacks had been a highly class homogenous group, first as slaves, then as sharecroppers and domestics in the South, and then, in the first generation of migration to the North, as workers in the menial services, domestic labor, and lowest level industrial jobs. Out of this traditionally class homogenous group three distinct and qualitatively different black social classes appeared to be crystallizing: a privileged black petty bourgeoisie, a black industrial proletariat, and a black urban underclass.[5] The latter two of these classes would be at the focal point of race relations in the 1960s.


In 1947, the median income of non-white families was 51 percent that of white families; in 1957, it was 54 percent.[6] The economic deprivation, social isolation, and psychological alienation produced by decades of segregation bore bitter fruit in a series of violent urban riots during the 1960s.[7] Between 1963 and 1968, riots broke out in sixty U.S. cities, among them Birmingham and Los Angeles. In the case of the latter, which occurred in the summer of 1965, the city suffered 35 million dollars in damages, and there were 4,000 injured and 34 dead. Riots in Chicago, in 1968, followed the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in April of that year.

Unlike the communal race riots of the early 1900s, these disturbances arose from within the black community itself and were "commodity riots," directed at property rather than people. Attacks were confined largely to the ghetto and were directed at white property, institutions, or authority symbols. The participants did not express a racial hatred of whites per se, but an anger with the conditions of racial oppression and economic deprivation that had been allowed to fester in the ghetto for sixty years.[8] The country was in the grips of a racial meltdown, the likes of which threatened to tear asunder the economic order of those who had both the most power and the most to lose. Clearly, a response was dictated to restore order and stability within the black underclass.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial discrimination in employment, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which banned discrimination in housing, were touted as emblematic of the commitment of the United States to justice and equality for all its citizens. In truth, however, both were little more than paper tigers designed to appease the discontented. America had passed anti-discriminatory legislation in the past - the 1866 Civil Rights Act stands as a monument to deceit and chicanery - but in spite of the legislative initiative, blacks were still victims of its perverse grip.

The inherent problems in both acts lied not in their intent, but in their almost complete impotence in matters of enforcement. To put it bluntly, they had been stripped of every ounce of their testicular fortitude. For example, under Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), established in the 1950s during the Eisenhower administration, was authorized only to investigate complaints of housing discrimination made to the Secretary by "aggrieved persons;" it then had thirty days to decide whether to pursue or dismiss the allegations. If it decided to pursue, it was empowered only to engage in "conference, conciliation, and persuasion" to resolve the problem. Moreover, if the alleged violation occurred in a state where a "substantial equivalent" fair housing statute existed, HUD was not required to pursue the case at all - it was instructed to refer the complaint to state authorities.[9] Without any way to force compliance with the law or to assess damages, HUD was reduced to the role of ostensibly slapping the wrist of offenders.

The same was true with the Civil Rights Act. Though Title VII specifically prohibited employment discrimination in the private and public sectors on the basis of race, color, religion or sex, it could not provide high-paying jobs to poorly educated minorities when there were no jobs to give out. Thus, complaints by blacks of discriminatory hiring practices by employers were met by the obligatory "applicant not qualified for this job" retorts. As a result, the class structure of the black community bifurcated into an affluent class whose fortunes were improving and a poverty class whose position was deteriorating.[10]

No decade was more cruel to African Americans than the 1980s. The Reagan administration sought, with the help of a Republican controlled Congress, to turn back what little progress had been made by the Civil Rights and Fair Housing Acts. It also worked closely with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) to undermine HUD's already limited enforcement authority.[11] But the cruelty did not end there. Even when the mood of the country towards the end of the decade began to swing closer to the center, opposition to ending discrimination remained fervent. Each time that a legislative or judicial action was undertaken to ameliorate segregation, it was fought tenaciously by a powerful array of people who benefited from the status quo (realtors, bankers, politicians); and these actors, in turn, relied on the broader indifference and hostility of most white Americans.[12]

Growing up in these impoverished ghettos severely hindered employment opportunities for African Americans. Those who did manage to find work, continued to be hampered by vast inequities in the rate of pay. In 1967, the median black family income stood at $16,595 in 1987 dollars, compared to $28,029 for whites, which meant that black families had about 59 percent of the median income of white families. In 1977, it was 57 percent and in 1987, it was 56 percent.[13] Not only had the condition of black families not improved since the 1960s, it had actually worsened.

In earlier times, the elder statesmen of urban ghettos acted as a kind of "guidance counselor," admonishing the young to stay out of trouble. The latter readily deferred to the former's age and "worldly experience." In contrast, today, as economic and social circumstances of the urban ghetto have changed, the traditional old head has been losing prestige and credibility as a role model. When gainful employment and its rewards are not forthcoming, boys (and girls for that matter) easily conclude that the moral lessons of the old head concerning the work ethic, punctuality, and honesty do not fit their own circumstances.[14]

Over time, as intense racial isolation and acutely concentrated poverty have continued, ghetto attitudes, values, and ideals have become progressively less connected to those prevailing elsewhere in the United States. As conditions worsen, and the social environment grows more hostile, the original connection of ghetto culture to the broader values of American society - even if only in opposition - has faded. The new culture of the ghetto rejects the values of American society as a farce and a sham, and traits that were once clearly oppositional and therefore somehow linked to the rest of American society have become ends in themselves, esteemed in their own right and disconnected from their relationship to the surrounding "white" society.[15]

The story of Rodney King was a case in point. What happened in Los Angeles in April of 1992 was neither a race riot nor a class rebellion. Rather, this monumental upheaval was a multiracial, trans-class, and largely male display of justified social rage. For all its ugly, xenophobic resentment . . . and its downright barbaric behavior, it signified the sense of powerlessness in American society.[16] It transcended the mere verdict of the case completely. What we witnessed in Los Angeles was the consequence of a lethal linkage of economic decline, cultural decay, and political lethargy in American life. Race was the visible catalyst, not the underlying cause.[17]

At the heart of the matter was a prevailing attitude among African Americans that regardless of which political wing was in power, they would always be on the outside looking in. To liberals, blacks had to be "helped," "encouraged," and "integrated" into white society; to conservatives, they must be "well behaved" and "worthy of acceptance" into it. Of crucial importance, however, was the fact that it was a "white" society after all, and that blacks represented the problem in it. Worse, yet, black politicians fell victim to this creed. Though they continued to call for more government relief, believing as they did in the benefit of such programs, they avoided both any attempt at serious dialogue on the causal factors of racism and, to a greater degree, any public criticism of one another over it.

To talk about the depressing statistics of unemployment, infant mortality, incarceration, teenage pregnancy, and violent crime was one thing. But to face up to the monumental eclipse of hope, the unprecedented collapse of meaning, the incredible disregard for human (especially black) life and property in much of black America was something else.[18]

Because all people, especially those who are oppressed, hunger for a sense of self-worth, as well as for food, no discussion of inequity can transpire without both spheres, mind and body, being present. Liberals excuse black acts of transgression as emblematic of a people deficient in values and work ethic. By throwing money at the problem, they enable the symptoms without finding a cure for the disease. Conservatives are worse still; they blame the victim for the disease, refuse even to acknowledge the symptoms and, like the proverbial ostrich, hide their heads in the sands of ignorance, believing as they do that the problem of poverty is a matter of self-will, or lack thereof.

Black people have always been in America's wilderness in search of a promised land. Yet many blacks now reside in a jungle ruled by cut-throat market morality devoid of any faith in deliverance or hope for freedom. Contrary to the superficial claims of conservative behaviorists, these jungles are not primarily the result of pathological behavior. Rather, this behavior is the tragic response of a people bereft of resources in confronting the workings of U.S. capitalist society.[19]

Like all Americans, blacks are influenced greatly by the images of comfort, convenience, machismo, femininity, violence, and sexual stimulation that bombard consumers. These seductive images contribute to the predominance of the market-inspired way of life over all others and thereby edge out non-market values - love, care, service to others - handed down by preceding generations. The predominance of this way of life among those living in poverty-ridden conditions, with a limited capacity to ward off self-contempt and self-hatred, results in the possible triumph of a nihilistic threat in black America.[20]

In place of traditional mores that assign value to steady work, family life, the church, and respect for others, a drug culture and its economy have arisen, with profound effects on community well being. The proliferation of the drug culture within the ghetto has exacerbated the problems caused by segregation and its concentration of poverty, adding a powerful impetus to the cycle of decline.[21]

Disillusioned young blacks, who see little hope for improvement through the conventional methods of hard work, education, or staying out of trouble, employ the same "aggressive" marketing strategies as their "legitimate" white counterparts to get over on society. With the potential for a young black man to earn in a day what most people, white and black, earn in a month, it is a small wonder that the crime rate in urban America has skyrocketed over the last twenty-five years. Here, the lyrics to Ice-T's song, New Jack Hustler are alarmingly prophetic:

"I had nothin' and I wanted it;
You had everything and you flaunted it. Turned the needy into the greedy;
With cocaine, my success came speedy!".


This song, and others like it, epitomize the ghetto world of the 1980s and '90s. Rap culture depicts the demise of conventional family values in black America. Its rage is the rage of its listeners. It embodies the hopelessness and frustration of being black in a "white" America. From a sociological point of view, the specific content of these works is less important than what they illustrate about the state of race relations in America. By confining large numbers of black people to an environment within which failure is endemic, negative role models abound, and adherence to conventional values is nearly impossible, segregation has helped to create a violent counterculture sharply at odds with the basic values and goals of a democratic society.[22]

If the Great Society, at least on paper, waged war on poverty, the 1980s and '90s have witnessed a war on the impoverished. To be poor in the United States is to be without hope. The law of supply-side economics targeted for elimination the great welfare state Keynes envisioned more than forty years earlier. Unfortunately, neither conservative nor liberal politicians put in place any viable alternative to take its place. The poor today, both black and white, have become the scourge of contemporary society. We have become frightened not only of who and what they are, but of what they represent. Like our worst nightmare come true, the impoverished remind us of how much farther we must go to achieve a civilized society.

In the early twentieth century, racist sentiment in the United States was heightened by the Eugenics Movement, which had at the center of its argument the belief that the white race, specifically the native, mostly Protestant, white race, was being overrun by inferior blacks from the South and immigrants from Southern Europe (Italians, Spanish, etc.). This unsubstantiated fear was fueled mostly by the rising flood of migration from the South and immigration from Europe of lower-class workers desperate for the employment opportunities afforded them in the industrialized North. It also served as the impetus behind the race riots of that era.

In the 1920s, anthropologist Franz Boas spoke out forcefully against the racialist theories being propagated at the time, and by the 1930s and '40s, other important scientists joined him in attacking the idea that blacks were inferior to whites.[23] By the 1930s, the Eugenics Movement had all but run out of steam. Though discrimination continued thereafter, the majority of scientists and political pundits had little use for it as a theory.

Today, however, Eugenics has returned with a vengeance. Though its proponents skillfully avoid mentioning it by name, the dialogue of such demagogues carefully reveals their covert, racist agenda. Fueled by centuries of mistrust, and the white ruling-class controlled media, conservative politicians today capitalize on the fear of millions of white Americans with race-baiting statements concerning crime and welfare.

During the 1988 Presidential campaign, Republican organizations supporting George Bush put out advertisements about a black murderer who, while on furlough from a Massachusetts prison, raped and brutalized a white wife and husband. The "Willie Horton" ads became infamous for exploiting white fear of black criminals for political gain.[24] The fact that most violent crime is committed, not by blacks, but by whites, or that white-collar crime is by far more prevalent in America, was deliberately omitted from campaign coverage.

The depiction of "welfare mothers" in the media is still another example of Eugenics revisited. Welfare is an easy target for both racial and non-racial smears because it has come to symbolize a sort of anti-American Dream, a complete lack of work ethic and responsibility.[25] This symbol of work ethic was precisely what Max Weber was referring to in his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. It is here that Weber first distinguished the deep-seated belief that to work hard and be successful was a sign from God that one was chosen to be saved. One served God through one's works. This ethic eventually became secularized in contemporary beliefs and mores. Today, it is no longer God that capitalists serve, but the image of success.

Thus, disadvantaged blacks suffer the pains of two stigmas. First, they have none of the signs of success - status, esteem - needed to attain respectability in the eyes of most Americans; then, as if to add insult to injury, they must seek help from those who do, providing proof of their lack of pride and responsibility. The image is thus cemented in the white populace's consciousness that black people are lazy and irresponsible. When this image is allowed to cultivate still further, it expresses itself in the usual forms of myths and propaganda that are the stuff of contemporary journalism in the United States today.


The misrepresentations do not end simply with assaults on welfare recipients. They go right at the heart of race in general. More than a hundred years after they were granted their freedom, and more than thirty years after the first legislation was passed to end discrimination against them, African Americans are, once more, having to prove they are worthy of the same rights accorded whites. The latest trend of discrimination concerns the "gains" blacks have made at the "expense" of whites.

Affirmative Action is now being targeted by conservative whites (and, sadly, conservative blacks) as being discriminatory to white Americans. The argument goes like this: Discrimination may have been a problem once in this country, but now it has been rooted out. The only victims of it are whites, predominantly white males, who are locked out of positions of employment to accommodate a quota of minorities and women who are not nearly as qualified as the white male applicants.

This twisted logic has become a paradigm for populist thought in America and poses the greatest threat to any hope of an equitable sharing of the land by whites and blacks. It makes two thunderous, yet calculated, lies. First, by suggesting that discrimination "may have been a problem in the past," it dares to imply that racism was more a figment of reactionary bleeding hearts than an economic and social fact. This yarn is spun by countless white-supremacist groups throughout the country, particularly the American Nazi Party, which has vehemently maintained that the holocaust never happened. Secondly, the contention that discrimination has been "rooted out," is offensive to both the researchers who continue to document its presence and, more importantly, those of African American decent who are still caught in its grip.

In The Case for Affirmative Action, Roger Wilkens illustrates perfectly what is really at work here:
"In a society so conceived and so dedicated, it is understandable that white males would take their preferences as a matter of natural right and consider any alteration of that a primal offense. But a nation that operates in that way abandons its soul and its economic strength, and will remain mired in ugliness and moral squalor because so many people are excluded from the possibility of decent lives and from forming any sense of community with the rest of society."[26]


The perception that welfare increases dependency of minorities on the state under-scores the cyclical nature of politics in this country. A look at the last sixty years will be revealing. During the 1930s, large-scale federal relief programs were established to ward off the deleterious effects of the Great Depression. The 1940s and '50s saw cutbacks to these programs, once it was deemed that the crisis had subsided. However, as a response to the civil unrest of the 1960s, federal legislation and programs, once more, were stepped up. By the 1970s, this trend began to be reversed yet again; it was accelerated mercilessly during the Reagan and Bush years. We are now witnessing the implementation of punitive workfare programs at the same time that relief and other programs for the poor are being cut back.[27]

We are living in dangerous times these days. Polarizing elements abound everywhere. In a time when we should be looking to forge relationships of common interest and mutual respect, we are, instead, heading backwards in time. We have witnessed but only a harbinger of things to come. The riots of Los Angeles should serve as a reminder of the fuel of discontent awaiting the spark of opportunity to ignite it.

As Cornel West so eloquently put it, "Whoever our leaders will be as we approach the twenty-first century, their challenge will be to help Americans determine whether a genuine multiracial democracy can be created and sustained in an era of global economy and a moment of xenophobic frenzy. Let us hope and pray that the vast intelligence, imagination, humor, and courage of Americans will not fail us. Either we learn a new language of empathy and compassion, or the fire this time will consume us all!"[28]


[1]Barkan, p. 72.
[2]Kelly, p. 38.
[3]Hurst, p. 28.
[4]op. cit., p. 38.
[5]Szymanski, p. 451.
[6]Hurst, p. 93.
[7]Massey and Denton, p. 58.
[8]ibid., p. 59.
[9]ibid., p. 196.
[10]ibid., p. 219.
[11]Massey and Denton, p. 208.
[12]ibid., p. 212.
[13]Hurst, p. 93.
[14]op. cit., p. 173.
[15]ibid., p. 172.
[16]West, pp 3-4.
[17]ibid., p. 4.
[18]ibid., p. 19.
[19]ibid., p. 25.
[20]ibid., pp. 26-27.
[21]Massey and Denton, p. 174.
[22]ibid., p. 177.
[23]Hurst, p. 91.
[24]Chideya, p. 6.
[25]ibid., p. 36.
[26]Wilkens, p. 416.
[27]Schram and Mandell, p. 478.
[28]West, p. 13.