Metacentricities

The brou-ha-ha around Jesse Jackson’s comments about Obama, and how he would like to excise a part of Obama’s anatomy has been, for me, a very interesting study in the politics race. (When you watch the video, have a look at Jesse Jackson’s right hand, and his face, as he makes his comments.)

Of course, there is no substantive coverage of what the issues exactly are that Jesse Jackson has with Obama’s ideas about reforming Bush’s faith-based initiatives. The most substantial coverage is about the drama, the apologies, the repudiation …

Jim Wallis has a view of the new ideas:

Obama affirmed the idea of a faith-based initiative on the solid foundations of both real partnership and the necessary commitment of government to sound public policy to reduce poverty. Prior to today, the danger was that Democrats might revert to old secular biases and end the faith-based program altogether, preferring only public sector approaches as the remedy to poverty instead of also forging vital partnerships with civil society that include the faith community. It was good to see that the failures of the Bush faith-based initiative have not deterred Obama from proposing a robust vision of his own.

From my perspective, I don’t know that I would necessarily say that it would have been a bad thing to end the faith-based program altogether - I don’t know that it would be from secular bias, but more likely from a healthy appreciation of the separation of church and state, and how difficult it is to have a governmental faith-based initiative, and not run afoul of that in one way or another. On the other hand, it might well be interesting to see what Obama does with this, and whether it really has the kinds of effects he hopes it will.

In terms of the politics of race - Jackson says of Obama “he’s talking down to Black people on this faith based …” What did he mean by that? Obviously, I don’t know, although I could guess. Others have guessed, too. Here’s a comment from Sylvester Brown:

When there are discussions about crime, drug abuse, teen-age sex, divorce or violence, they are presented as “societal problems” in the white community, even though such things permeate all parts of society. Whereas in the black community, these issues are discussed as “black problems.”

We know that Obama isn’t talking down to us. He’s talking around us.

He’s trying to woo white voters who want a president with the juice to tell blacks to clean up their own club.

And there was this comment from David Knowles:

Like Bill Cosby, Obama insists that not all of black America’s modern-day problems can be blamed on the legacy of slavery. The “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” approach is not oblivious to historical factors, but it seeks to shift the emphasis for solving problems away from government and toward the individual and the community itself. And now, thanks to Jackson, Obama gets to highlight this message to white America all the more.

Just as significant, in case there was still any doubt about it, is the re-confirmation that Jesse Jackson is no longer the de facto figure-head of black America. Neither is Al Sharpton. In fact, Obama’s rise may signal an end to the cult-of-personality, hierarchical pecking-order within the African American community that began (quite understandably) with Martin Luther King, Jr.

Both are really interesting, and, I think, pretty right on. Jesse Jackson (and others) have lived their lives, and built their careers around a very specific kind of construction of race - one that is very much, and literally, black and white (and, to some extent, descendants of slaves and descendants of slave-owners), with few shades of grey. Obama lives in the shades of grey. And because of the changes in demographics, economics and culture of the last 30 years, that’s really where we all live, too.

In any event, unlike the Reverend Wright brou-ha-ha, this one can only help Obama.

I was having fun for a while. Interesting crop of candidates on the Democratic side for once, more than one that I really liked. It looked like there was going to be an interesting contest, one that would be about issues, and not flinging daggers back and forth.

I’m not having fun anymore. Hillary Clinton is playing dirty. She is more interested in being President than in rising above the fray, and being honest. Between the extremely problematic comments of Geraldine Ferraro (I am finding it hard to believe that I was really proud of having been to a rally during the ‘84 election and that I shook her hand,) and the fear-mongering “3am telephone call” commercial, I’m saddened by the whole thing.

Keith Olbermann, as usual, has an amazing Special Commentary on the Geraldine Ferraro mess. I could not have said it better.

Of course, in this post 9/11 climate, the fear-mongering over the possibility that Barack Obama is a Muslim, which, as he said, is both an insult to him, as a Christian, and an insult to Muslims, plays so well with the fears of many Americans of anyone that might be considered “other”, whether it be because of race, national origin, or religion.

An interesting poll just came out. Faith in Public Life suggests that since 13% of the people say in the poll that Obama is a Muslim, and that is up from 8% in December, that the rumors are having an effect. I’m not so sure. What’s also true is that 37% know he is Protestant, over 18% who knew in December. That’s actually a much bigger jump. So I think in some quarters, yes, the rumors are settling in. But a lot of people are learning more about Obama.

What true is that even at the same time as we have two historic candidates for the Democratic nomination, all the old crap is still evident. And I’m not sure we’ve gotten any better at dealing with that crap. And, of course, no matter which one of them wins, because of all of this, it will be that much harder for the Democrats to win in November.

It has become somewhat of a meme, that phrase, taken from reports about the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota. Of course, like many things for us, it takes a big disaster like this to wake us up to the realities: twenty seven years of fiscally conservative, largely trickle-down economics (Clinton didn’t significantly change anything), and the focus on the military-industrial complex has meant that our entire infrastructure, the things that we depend on every day, like roads and bridges and schools and hospitals are all full of structural deficiencies, and are ready to collapse.

But, of course there is more. Our American society as a whole is full of structural deficiencies. Structural deficiencies in priorities, in compassion, and in awareness. We all fiddling while our Rome burns. It is, of course, burning. It’s been burning for a while now.  I think we’re finally beginning to really feel the heat.

In a pessimistic moment, I hear people say “here’s a wake up call,” and I think “how many of these do we need?” We’ve had a gazillion already. But then, I think perhaps it’s like those mornings when you don’t want to get up, and you hit the snooze button over and over, until, at some point, you realize it really is time to wake up.

This July 4th it seems that the way people are responding to the Bush presidency is to refer back to the Declaration of Independence. And, if you read it, thinking instead of our “king” George, instead of the old King George, it is actually rather striking. First Draft has done the work for us - by linking to news stories that connect to the things he’s done.

Keith Olbermann has a wonderful special commentary about the commutation of the sentence of Scooter Libby.

I hate to think about what’s next. Especially since it seems that the new Democratic congress doesn’t seem to really be flexing its muscle.

I’ve been at the Social Forum now for a few days, and I have some observations. I haven’t been to a huge number of sessions (3 so far, I expect to get to a few more before the close.) And, two of those sessions I was involved in, so it’s hard to make much of a pattern out of that. But there have been some very interesting conversations, and I do feel like people are looking for some new avenues and strategies for change. Which feels good.

I gave a short talk about my own experience with blogging - I was on a panel about blogging with Brad Friedman (of BradBlog), BobFitrakis (of the Columbus Free Press), and Matthew Cardinale (from the Atlanta Progressive News.) They were, of course, real investigative journalists. My perspective was that primarily as a progressive faith blogger, and a techie.

It was interesting to talk a bit about being a “progressive faith blogger” (am I that?) and the organization of progressive faith bloggers. I got lots of blank stares, and a few perky looks. I would not quite say that part of the conversation went over like a lead balloon, but I got the definite impression that it was something that hadn’t been on most people’s radar. It would be interesting to have been able to talk to people perhaps more in depth about their perspectives on that whole thing.

In talking afterwards with people, I talked with someone who had her own blog (the christian environmentalist).

In general, the crowd here at the social forum is, well, familiar. It’s that interesting mix of people with garish t-shirts that have outrageous (or not so outrageous) slogans, aging dyed-in-the-wool activists, and professional activists and union organizers. There is a very large contingent of people from Atlanta, especially African Americans. It is a very, very diverse crowd, which I know was the point - the primary organizers of this forum are part of organizations that primarily focus their work on communities of color.

It is also pretty chaotic. Sometimes, here at the Westin where I’m staying, between sessions, it can take 10 or more minutes before an elevator that isn’t full arrives to take you up or down floors. Things are spread out enormously.  But in the chaos, there is, it seems some comraderie, and shared sense of purpose, which feels nice.

Jerry Falwell died today. The progressive religious blogosphere is full of Christian kindness.

But, of course, he did not share this Christian kindness towards people like us. This is the man who blamed gays for AIDS, who said “”I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’“ and ”[Homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.“

This is a man who, at the same time as he professed to be a spokesperson for Christianity, certainly didn’t really ask the question WWJD (what would Jesus do?) I just finished reading The Last Week by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg. In it, based upon the Gospel of Mark, Borg and Crossan make it so clear that Jesus was a religious and political activist, working to upend the Roman domination system that was actively supported by the temple hierarchy, and that’s why he was executed. And Falwell was working on erecting a Christian theocracy which would be the kind of domination system Jesus would have fought against.

We didn’t just disagree with him. We are willing, because of our philosophy of life and governance, to allow people like him to speak. In fact, we would fight so that he could speak. Meanwhile, he would have rather wiped us off the map. I don’t really ever know what to do with that disparity.

Christian kindness is a good thing, but I would rather the progressive religious blogosphere had decided to have some moments of silence, instead.

Technorati Tags: jerryfalwell, religion

I’ve been a reader of The Nation on and off over the past 20 years or so. I’ve subscribed several times. These days, I pick it up once a month or so at newstands to read it (because I can’t keep up with it weekly.) I picked up this week’s Nation, and Alexander Cockburn had a column, called “Is Global Warming a Sin?” It was such an atrocious article, I felt I needed to write a letter to them.

Here’s my letter:

So I’m assuming Alexander Cockburn’s column on carbon credits is mostly a joke. Certainly, the part about the carbon credit trade was serious. Buying carbon credits does certainly serve to make people feel better, without a whole lot of evidence yet that it works. It might work, but it probably won’t.

However, I’m assuming the rest of the column, suggesting that human-caused global climate change is a hoax, is a joke. The same kind of joke that one might play on April fool’s - suggesting, for instance, that the theory of evolution is a hoax. Or, perhaps, that the world is flat (really, it is, if you look all the way out to the horizon, you don’t see any curvature! How can it be round?)

It’s not worth spending my effort to describe in detail the mass of data that shows the role of human activity on the climate. Others perhaps have done that. Scientists have reached a consensus that human beings have caused the current change in climate and CO2. Picking out one single graph, to suggest that this graph invalidates the huge mountain of other data is absurd. Suggesting scientific expertise by his discussion of CO2 and the atmosphere doesn’t make a difference. Alexander Cockburn isn’t a scientist, and there are virtually no reputable scientists left who don’t think that human activities have caused current increases in CO2 and temperature.

Human caused global climate change is, in many scientists’ opinions, a threat to the very survival of human beings on the planet, at worst. At best, it will kill, and disrupt the lives of millions of people, mostly poor, in all parts of the world. And this is mostly due to the lifestyles of us here in the United States. If you are going to continue to print Alexander Cockburn’s series suggesting that the idea that humans are changing the climate is a hoax, I’m going to stop reading The Nation. It no longer counts as a reliable progressive voice.

Technorati Tags: globalclimate, thenation

As you’ve probably noticed - I’ve not been posting much, here. Mostly, it’s because I’ve been very busy continuing to settle in, and to start my new technology advising practice, called MetaCentric Technology Advising. I’ve been blooging up a storm on Zen and the Art of Nonprofit Technology.

I’ve been thinking a lot about what’s happening in the world, at the same time as I’m thinking a lot about my own spiritual journey, and looking to find a spiritual community. There will be more on those things in a while, I’m sure. In the meanwhile, I thought I’d share some links today.

• The National Coalition Against the Death Penalty issued a report that seems to definitively prove what we’ve known all along: innocent people get executed.
• The Governor of Oregon spent a week on food stamps
• Keith Olbermann delivers a stinging rebuke (in his inimical style) to Rudy Juliani, who used fearmongering in a campaign speech.
• Stephen Colbert digs Bush on global warming
• The Evangelical Ecologist has their Carnival celebrating Earth Day
• The National Council of Churches has resources and such for “Earth Day Sunday.” This year’s theme: “The Food that Sustains Us”
• Also in honor of Earth Day: get a toolbar for your computer that helps you save CO2.
• Hugh talks to God.
• The Archdruid talks about the religion of progress and peak oil

So, it appears there is a bit of new juice coming out of the Venus Magazine story that I blogged about last month. I noticed this because the search terms “Venus Magazine” jumped up in my stats when I looked today, and that blog entry became the second most popular. Also, I was interviewed yesterday by someone who writes for Curve magazine. She’s writing a story about the change in Venus Magazine.

Some new coverage in the internet world has come out since I wrote about this. Ex-gay watch, a blog I’d not known about before, had a story, with some more information in it that is pretty interesting (like an organization getting 200 unsolicited copies of the magazine.) LifeSite News, a Canadian pro-life, pro-Christian news site, has a very positive story about the change in the magazine. Southern Voice, a gay website from Atlanta, has a story which fills in some of the history of Venus Magazine that I hadn’t known (the mag was named after a lesbian who was murdered.)

There are quite a number of blog posts about it - it seems mostly in the category of “see what God can do!” There seems to be a lot of chatter in the conservative Christian blogosphere about this. (By the way, there is another Venus magazine - a women’s indie music/culture magazine - so don’t get too confused)

I don’t know what the fallout of this will be, eventually. Ex-gay watch has a question about “whether Cothran has received new funding as a result of her new-found ex-gay identity…” That’s something to ponder.

Technorati Tags: africanamerican, exgay, glbt, religion, venusmagazine

• Antioxidant supplements may not be all that good for you. Hmmm, might be time to trim the doses of Vitamin A.
• Most Americans want universal health care. Looks like accusations of “socialized medicine” that conservatives throw about aren’t going to work.
• Michael Jackson converted to Islam.
• Republican candidates who governed left-leaning constituencies (Guliani and Romney) try their best to convince conservatives that they are on their side.
• A new magazine, called “Conserve” is launched, which proposes to be a voice of “doing more with less.” Um, a new magazine? Don’t magazines make their money with advertising? Don’t advertisers expect people to buy stuff? What’s wrong with this picture? (It reminds me of the magazine “Real Simple.” Why do people need to buy a magazine to make their lives simpler, or do more with less?)
• The graphs are a bit eye-bending, but check out this post in the Oil Drum about the decrease in Saudi Arabian oil production last year. By the way, Saudi Arabia has 1/4 of the world’s oil reserves. Looks like we’re at Peak Oil. There are, by the way, some very interesting comments in that post.
• The USDA preliminarily approved the production of rice engineered with human genes, which are hoped to help treat diarrheal infections in the developing world, but could have completely unpredictable effects. In addition, the genes won’t stay in the rice fields they originally put them in.