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.

Tuesday is SuperDuper Tuesday, where a bunch of states vote in primaries. One of those states is my own, Massachusetts. For a while, I was, ironically, supporting Edwards. Mostly because I really, really don’t like Hillary, and I felt like Obama is young, could use more seasoning before being president, and Edwards would have made a great president. (Actually, my dream ticket was Edwards/Obama - 16 years of bliss.) Anyway, now that Edwards has dropped out, I’m going to support Obama wholeheartedly.

One thing, though. It appears that some people feel that you can’t really be a feminist and be against Hillary. The New York chapter of NOW (National Organization for Women) had this to say about the Kennedy endorsement of Obama:

… And now the greatest betrayal!  We are repaid with his abandonment!  He’s picked the new guy over us.  He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one).

… This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.

Huh? I see, so Kennedy is not endorsing what he feels is the best candidate. No, no, he’s betraying women! Puleeze!

Would they even think of saying such a thing if Elizabeth Dole were running?

Hillary Clinton believes in “coercive diplomacy” (if there ever was a contradiction, that is one.) She voted to give the president the authority to go to war in Iraq. She has been completely bought out by the health care industry, and basically no longer believes in universal, single-payer health coverage. She voted for the 700 mile fence along the Mexican border. She voted for the Patriot Act. Twice. I can’t, in good conscience, vote for her in the primary.

NY NOW’s unfortunate perspective (feminist=must be for Clinton) is problematic on its face.  And the truth is, this election isn’t about either gender or race. It is a historic occasion that the Democratic party will nominate someone who will be the first in history. That is significant enough. NY NOW’s stance (National NOW has been conciliatory) is divisive, at a time that divisiveness is destructive. We are in deep, deep shit as a country, and we need to find a way out of it. If you think Clinton is best (and not just because she has a vagina) then great. And if you think Obama is best (not just because he has dark skin) that’s great too. Do we need to add identity politics to an already challenging time?

It’s interesting to think about the press, and the bias the press has, especially in this time. What the press says, and how it says it, is pretty darned important - it’s the way that most people get their information about politics, and the presidential campaigns.

I’ve been thinking some about the Obama/Huckabee victories in Iowa, and what people are saying about it. In particular, I’ve been interested in the whole issue of how faith is playing out - Obama’s faith, Huckabee’s faith, and the faith of voters. Faith in Public life had this recent post about what was missing.  Two separate polls of Democrats and Republican caucus-goers asked different questions of the Dems and the Republicans. They asked Republicans whether or not they were evangelical, but didn’t ask that of the Democrats. Was that because they didn’t want to know? Or didn’t think it was important? Or didn’t care?

Faith in Public Life says:

So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus. That’s some serious institutional bias.

It is, indeed. Especially given the fact that progressive evangelicals have been getting a higher profile lately.

The results from Iowa are in: Obama wins big, as does Huckabee. Edwards comes in second among dems. Hillary Clinton does really badly.

I’m happy. I’m not a Clinton fan, honestly (she’s too hawkish, too corporate-friendly.) And, as far as I am concerned, Mike Huckabee is probably the republican to beat.

Hat tip to Cranky/Happy Cindy for what coverage to follow.

• Ron Paul is a Republican candidate I almost can support. Almost, but, utlimately, not. He’s right on so many issues, like getting out of the empire business entirely, and on limiting the government’s ability to spy on us. But he’s anti-choice, seems like he wants to eliminate the social safety net, and has some other stands that I have a hard time with. There is so much to like … and so much to dislike. Sigh.
• Pat Robertson endorsed Rudi Guliani. Huh? One of the prime spokespeople for the radical right is endorsing the cross-dressing pro-choice, pro-gay rights ex-mayor of New York? Triple huh?
• Who the ^*&^ is Duncan Hunter? Doesn’t really matter, I’m not voting for him. But the way he talks about the blogosphere sounds like he’s never actually been here.
• John Edwards has a great comeback to the haircut thing.

I’m at the US Social Forum in Atlanta, GA right now. I arrived on Tuesday, and have spent the last couple of days as part of the tech team, helping work on the technology infrastructure. For the next few days (I’m leaving on Sunday,) I’ll be doing my sessions, and going to others. It will be definitely a different pace than earlier.

One of the things I’m noticing is how although this forum, which is the first of its kind, is meant to be a kind of coming together of many different people doing many different kinds of work, it has a feeling that is so familiar to me about lefty gatherings - a lot of people who are so caught up and invested in the ways they are different, that it’s difficult for people to work together for common goals.

It does seem, from looking at the workshop listings, that some folks are trying to bridge some interesting gaps. But there also seems to be a lot of the same-old identity politics (<insert snoring sound here>). What I’m looking for is some consciousness of people’s own reactivities and attitudes, and a willingness to own stuff that’s their own. It’s only a process of that sort that will allow a real coming together of people with different priorities and perspectives for common good.

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

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

• 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.