so i just read this article in the post. Mr Krauthammer not only has a funny name, but also has a problem with the assertion that McCain wants to occupy Iraq for a century.
McCain never clarified hos position. Look at the quotes the he provides.
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
the thing is that Americans are being killed and wounded on a daily basis. another thing is that we were allies from the beginning with South Korea, and Japan submitted and accepted our presence. Iraq neither wanted us there to begin with and isnt submitting in any way. i dont see how you can claim that we will stay in Iraq for any time and expect that no harm will come to our troops.
Krauthammer attacks the Democrats for making the jump from a presence to a war, but with the previous thoughts in mind, its more of a baby step than a jump. and if McCain was thinking something else, wouldnt he have called out Obama and Clinton for distorting his words? has he?
the title of the article is "A Rank Falsehood." what Obama and Clinton claim about McCain is not a falsehood at all. its an interpretation given the statement and the conditions in Iraq. the falsehood is the idea that American troops can remain in Iraq without being harmed. its just not a viable idea. im not saying that some, perhaps many, want us there, and need us there. but there is no way we can stay without casualties. there are enough people there who hate us for being there. who will stop at nothing to make us leave, and it is naive to think that our soldiers could remain there without a threat to their safety. Iraq is not Japan. Iraq is not South Korea.
perhaps this is a misunderstanding. but if McCain misunderstands the situation should he really be president? but i am fairly sure that McCain does understand, which is why you havent heard him decry with the Democrats are saying. but that doesnt stop people like Krauthammer from defending an untenable position. and since McCain hasnt corrected Clinton and Obama, then it must not be that far from the truth. keep that in mind as you choose who to vote for.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
UAW wake up call
Dick Dauch, chairman and CEO of American Axle Mfg said that he can take his production elsewhere if the union is unwilling to make a deal. in the Free Press article on this there are all sorts of union sympathizers saying that the union needs to hang in because AAM will have to cave soon because GM is turning the screws.
well, be careful, UAW, or you may just find out that Dick's bite is as bad as his bark.
do you think he relishes puting people out of work? of course not. but the reality is that he in large part built this company and he is not going to let overpriced union labor ruin his company. you have to look at the reality that in a state with 7% plus unemployment that he can easily go out and find non union guys who would jump at the chance to work at $14/hour. and thats keeping jobs right there in Detroit. just think of the wages that he could get in Mexico or Asia.
the reality is this: the UAW cant call the shots anymore. whether you like it or not you have to face the fact that we live in global economy, and no matter how loud you shout 'BUY AMERICAN!' it means nothing. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have to compete with VW, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and soon Tata and Mahindra. there is no changing that.
US companies theoretically have the advantage of no or minimal shipping costs. but that is squandered on overpriced union labor making a frequently inferior product the same price or more expensive. i must admit that US auto companies have stepped it up recently, especially GM, but the fact is their reputation is still stuck with the late 90s stigma. unfortunately if US companies dont continue to compete making affordable and high quality cars there will be no more 'American' brands.
to help save the industry and your jobs and future American jobs and the economy, you need to take some cuts. if you want the UAW to be relevant, sit down to a real negotiation. you have to recognize that AAM and Dauch are in the power position. he can make AAM American in name only and you cant do a damn thing about it. then that will be one more part in your 'American' cars that will come from south of the border or across the seas.
well, be careful, UAW, or you may just find out that Dick's bite is as bad as his bark.
do you think he relishes puting people out of work? of course not. but the reality is that he in large part built this company and he is not going to let overpriced union labor ruin his company. you have to look at the reality that in a state with 7% plus unemployment that he can easily go out and find non union guys who would jump at the chance to work at $14/hour. and thats keeping jobs right there in Detroit. just think of the wages that he could get in Mexico or Asia.
the reality is this: the UAW cant call the shots anymore. whether you like it or not you have to face the fact that we live in global economy, and no matter how loud you shout 'BUY AMERICAN!' it means nothing. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have to compete with VW, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and soon Tata and Mahindra. there is no changing that.
US companies theoretically have the advantage of no or minimal shipping costs. but that is squandered on overpriced union labor making a frequently inferior product the same price or more expensive. i must admit that US auto companies have stepped it up recently, especially GM, but the fact is their reputation is still stuck with the late 90s stigma. unfortunately if US companies dont continue to compete making affordable and high quality cars there will be no more 'American' brands.
to help save the industry and your jobs and future American jobs and the economy, you need to take some cuts. if you want the UAW to be relevant, sit down to a real negotiation. you have to recognize that AAM and Dauch are in the power position. he can make AAM American in name only and you cant do a damn thing about it. then that will be one more part in your 'American' cars that will come from south of the border or across the seas.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
how about no?
check this out. i caught a snippet on the news, but it almost slipped through the cracks.
ok, so the idea is to get guns and drugs off the streets. thats a fairly noble idea. but the execution of this seemingly good idea shows just how out of touch the policy makers are.
so the premise is that the police come to communities with gun and drug issues and knock on doors. they ask the owner or tenant to sign a form allowing the police to search warrant less and that is also intended to give the signer amnesty. the thing is that cops dont have that much good will to make this work. especially in troubled neighborhoods.
i just dont see how they plan to make this work. sure there may be a few cases where a parent has a bad apple staying with them and they might want to cooperate, but in cases where people know they have guns or drugs, they arent going to let the cops in to take them and possibly prosecute their buddies. and if they knock on my door i would definitely send them away. look, the constitution says i have the right to privacy unless i do something to jeopardize that, which i havent, so why would i let you in? what good could possibly come of it? sorry, coppers, maybe the schmuck next door wants you all up in his business, but i dont.
and here are two seemingly contradictory claims:
"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."
"If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges."
furthermore, guns are currently illegal to most citizens in the district. so even having a gun, legal or not, in your home is against the law. so lets see, turn the officers away, youre suspicious. let them in and they find grandpa Joe's rifle from WWII and they could take it from you. let them in and they find out that you have an illegal gun in your house, youre marked for the future. youre damned if you do, damned if you dont.
look, folks, if you want the down low and want to make places safer, try some old fashioned leg work. start patrolling. put cops on beats. thats right, on foot. (gasp!) get to know the residents, gain their trust, become part of the neighborhood and take an interest in it. then the residents might just come to you with information.
again, the thought is good, but the execution is dead wrong.
ok, so the idea is to get guns and drugs off the streets. thats a fairly noble idea. but the execution of this seemingly good idea shows just how out of touch the policy makers are.
so the premise is that the police come to communities with gun and drug issues and knock on doors. they ask the owner or tenant to sign a form allowing the police to search warrant less and that is also intended to give the signer amnesty. the thing is that cops dont have that much good will to make this work. especially in troubled neighborhoods.
i just dont see how they plan to make this work. sure there may be a few cases where a parent has a bad apple staying with them and they might want to cooperate, but in cases where people know they have guns or drugs, they arent going to let the cops in to take them and possibly prosecute their buddies. and if they knock on my door i would definitely send them away. look, the constitution says i have the right to privacy unless i do something to jeopardize that, which i havent, so why would i let you in? what good could possibly come of it? sorry, coppers, maybe the schmuck next door wants you all up in his business, but i dont.
and here are two seemingly contradictory claims:
"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."
"If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges."
furthermore, guns are currently illegal to most citizens in the district. so even having a gun, legal or not, in your home is against the law. so lets see, turn the officers away, youre suspicious. let them in and they find grandpa Joe's rifle from WWII and they could take it from you. let them in and they find out that you have an illegal gun in your house, youre marked for the future. youre damned if you do, damned if you dont.
look, folks, if you want the down low and want to make places safer, try some old fashioned leg work. start patrolling. put cops on beats. thats right, on foot. (gasp!) get to know the residents, gain their trust, become part of the neighborhood and take an interest in it. then the residents might just come to you with information.
again, the thought is good, but the execution is dead wrong.
i agree with McCain
ive been thinking it for a while now. i havent really said much on it. but, seriously, why are we paying to bail people out of their loans. i feel for you if you got laid off, or your time or pay cut back, but if your just an idiot that signed up for a loan that you now cant afford, why should we as taxpayers bail your stupid ass out.
when you buy a home you should know what youre getting into. you should not buy at the top end of what you can afford. allow a margin of error. you dont know what might come up a month or a year down the line. and if you were stupid enough to sign an ARM and now your payments jump and you cant afford it, i have no sympathy for your dumb ass. you deserve to lose your home. if youre an investor or land lord who cant afford it, then just sell it already. oops, the housing bubble collapsed and youre losing an income property. at least you have your own home. to ask the government and thereby the taxpayers to cover your loss is ridiculous. man up and accept your misjudgment.
so im not all out liberal. im a fiscal conservative. and if youre an idiot who cant manage your money and assets, perhaps you desrve to take a hit, and maybe you and the rest of the world will learn from this and not be so eager to spend spend spend.
Post discussion
when you buy a home you should know what youre getting into. you should not buy at the top end of what you can afford. allow a margin of error. you dont know what might come up a month or a year down the line. and if you were stupid enough to sign an ARM and now your payments jump and you cant afford it, i have no sympathy for your dumb ass. you deserve to lose your home. if youre an investor or land lord who cant afford it, then just sell it already. oops, the housing bubble collapsed and youre losing an income property. at least you have your own home. to ask the government and thereby the taxpayers to cover your loss is ridiculous. man up and accept your misjudgment.
so im not all out liberal. im a fiscal conservative. and if youre an idiot who cant manage your money and assets, perhaps you desrve to take a hit, and maybe you and the rest of the world will learn from this and not be so eager to spend spend spend.
Post discussion
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
hush money
The Commonwealth of Virginia along with Virginia Tech are offering the families of those killed in last year's tragedy $100,000 each. there is so much wrong with all this that i have trouble knowing where to begin.
ok, deep breath.... hows this start? someone is afraid of being sued and usually people respond to money, right? and it is true that 20 families have filed a notice that they may sue over the way the whole thing was handled. mostly that more than 2 hours elapsed between the first murder and the later classroom rampage. and that in this time the University and authorities did nothing to safeguard the campus and community.
ok, so i can see how people would be pissed. i can see that the state and university would want to avoid a long and probably costly suit. but who comes up with $100,000? how can you say to a family that your child, your brother, your sister is worth $100,000? i think that i would be insulted. do these people have no concept of the value of human life? and what do they propose to give the friends and girlfriends and boyfriends?
if i was on the receiving end of this offer i would be more inclined to sue than without the offer. i think the best thing for Gov Tim Kaine to do would be to meet personally with every family and offer his sincerest apologies. that goes for University leaders, police chiefs, sheriffs, anyone involved or in some way responsible for the decision that caused the loss of life. i would be far more like to accept a sincere apology than a cash payout that is essentially a bribe.
ultimately the responsibility for the deaths of those students doesnt fall on the state or the university or law enforcement. the responsiblity falls on Seung-Hui Cho. and if youre looking for a living culprit, look at those who allowed him to buy guns. those who released and obviously troubled person from their care. perhaps the state is responsible in that way, but thats not how this payoff looks, at least to me. it looks like hush money. it looks like a bribe. it looks dirty and cheap.
if my brother was killed in such a tragedy, and the government offered me $100,000 not to sue. i would say 'fuck off unless you can bring my brother back. your piddly cash cant make me feel right again. it cant bring back the brother i lost. and i wont let you clear your conscience by accepting a bribe. live with it. deal with it. i have to with or without your dirty money.'
and finally, arent they admitting that they were wrong by offering this money? isnt that just telling a lawyer that they did something wrong? if you wanted money to make up for your loss wouldnt you want the most you could get? and dont you think that you could get a lot more from a jury than a $100,000?
to those families who have received this offer: i hope that you take the high ground and tell them to fuck off if only to make them twist in the wind and feel like shit. and if you want the money, the fucking take some money. make it really hurt. but remember, when you sue the state, you sue your neighbors, you sue your friends, you sue yourself.
ok, deep breath.... hows this start? someone is afraid of being sued and usually people respond to money, right? and it is true that 20 families have filed a notice that they may sue over the way the whole thing was handled. mostly that more than 2 hours elapsed between the first murder and the later classroom rampage. and that in this time the University and authorities did nothing to safeguard the campus and community.
ok, so i can see how people would be pissed. i can see that the state and university would want to avoid a long and probably costly suit. but who comes up with $100,000? how can you say to a family that your child, your brother, your sister is worth $100,000? i think that i would be insulted. do these people have no concept of the value of human life? and what do they propose to give the friends and girlfriends and boyfriends?
if i was on the receiving end of this offer i would be more inclined to sue than without the offer. i think the best thing for Gov Tim Kaine to do would be to meet personally with every family and offer his sincerest apologies. that goes for University leaders, police chiefs, sheriffs, anyone involved or in some way responsible for the decision that caused the loss of life. i would be far more like to accept a sincere apology than a cash payout that is essentially a bribe.
ultimately the responsibility for the deaths of those students doesnt fall on the state or the university or law enforcement. the responsiblity falls on Seung-Hui Cho. and if youre looking for a living culprit, look at those who allowed him to buy guns. those who released and obviously troubled person from their care. perhaps the state is responsible in that way, but thats not how this payoff looks, at least to me. it looks like hush money. it looks like a bribe. it looks dirty and cheap.
if my brother was killed in such a tragedy, and the government offered me $100,000 not to sue. i would say 'fuck off unless you can bring my brother back. your piddly cash cant make me feel right again. it cant bring back the brother i lost. and i wont let you clear your conscience by accepting a bribe. live with it. deal with it. i have to with or without your dirty money.'
and finally, arent they admitting that they were wrong by offering this money? isnt that just telling a lawyer that they did something wrong? if you wanted money to make up for your loss wouldnt you want the most you could get? and dont you think that you could get a lot more from a jury than a $100,000?
to those families who have received this offer: i hope that you take the high ground and tell them to fuck off if only to make them twist in the wind and feel like shit. and if you want the money, the fucking take some money. make it really hurt. but remember, when you sue the state, you sue your neighbors, you sue your friends, you sue yourself.
Monday, March 24, 2008
good news
something positive is happening in the middle east. Yousaf Raza Gillani has been approved by the Pakistani National Assembly to step into the role of prime minister. and before even being sworn in he ordered the release of judges that Musharraf had ordered under house arrest because they would have stood in the way of his power grab.
the west has largely supported Musharraf, but the Pakistani people overwhelmingly want Mr Gallani as their prime minister. it is elections and self rule that we are supposedly after in Iraq, and perhaps this shows that it can work.
when popular and formerly exiled Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December after some failed attempts many feared that Musharraf's leadership would go unquestioned. instead, Gallani stepped up into a leadership role from his former position as a top aide and carried the election as well as the overwhelming approval of the nation's lawmakers.
its nice to see something work the way it should. to see the people get the leadership that they want. and that the constitution and the rule of law have the final say.
post article.
the west has largely supported Musharraf, but the Pakistani people overwhelmingly want Mr Gallani as their prime minister. it is elections and self rule that we are supposedly after in Iraq, and perhaps this shows that it can work.
when popular and formerly exiled Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December after some failed attempts many feared that Musharraf's leadership would go unquestioned. instead, Gallani stepped up into a leadership role from his former position as a top aide and carried the election as well as the overwhelming approval of the nation's lawmakers.
its nice to see something work the way it should. to see the people get the leadership that they want. and that the constitution and the rule of law have the final say.
post article.
the why
i have figured out, i think, why it is i have never felt like i fit in on the east coast. perhaps the east coast is too broad. its why i dont fit in in DC.
this place is so career oriented. so materially oriented. i am not so much. i have never really worried about doing well professionally and have never been all that driven to be the best. i have always know that i am smart enough to make it work and that i dont need millions to be happy. my happiness has never come from money. i dont discount that you need a modicum of income in order to avoid certain woes. call me a fool, but that has never concerned me. i have never been afraid to work hard, dont mistake that, but i dont feel the need to have a showy house and car.
in my young adult life my dreams have never been of riches, but of love and life. the professional world is a means to an end. money and therefore an occupation are necessary evils, but something that has not been of much trouble. perhaps i am naive, but ive been laid off, ive had troubles finding work, but i have come through. that which eludes me is that which i care most about, but perhaps thats just the way it is. the grass is always greener on the other side, right.
what my life lacks is not money, tho i am not rich. it is love, tho i am not unloved. its that i pick up the phone to find something to do, and find that i lack many good friends (locally) and that i have a knack for finding dead ends in the dating world. i seem to have trouble in this money oriented world finding kindred spirits who care to talk about books or music or politics in a meaningful way. or just to shoot the shit, to ponder people's follies, to drink beer and play darts.
its frustrating to keep coming up empty. its frustrating to write blogs about stuff that captures my interest because i dont have a local friend to talk about it with. and its disappointing when no one argues with me about it or tells me how right i am. an i continue to wonder what it is about michigan that in this place my closest friends all hail from that state. and i continue to hope that things turn around there, and i can find my golden ticket back home. it would be nice to be proven wrong. that there are people here on my wavelength. but if they do exist, i dont know them.
this place is so career oriented. so materially oriented. i am not so much. i have never really worried about doing well professionally and have never been all that driven to be the best. i have always know that i am smart enough to make it work and that i dont need millions to be happy. my happiness has never come from money. i dont discount that you need a modicum of income in order to avoid certain woes. call me a fool, but that has never concerned me. i have never been afraid to work hard, dont mistake that, but i dont feel the need to have a showy house and car.
in my young adult life my dreams have never been of riches, but of love and life. the professional world is a means to an end. money and therefore an occupation are necessary evils, but something that has not been of much trouble. perhaps i am naive, but ive been laid off, ive had troubles finding work, but i have come through. that which eludes me is that which i care most about, but perhaps thats just the way it is. the grass is always greener on the other side, right.
what my life lacks is not money, tho i am not rich. it is love, tho i am not unloved. its that i pick up the phone to find something to do, and find that i lack many good friends (locally) and that i have a knack for finding dead ends in the dating world. i seem to have trouble in this money oriented world finding kindred spirits who care to talk about books or music or politics in a meaningful way. or just to shoot the shit, to ponder people's follies, to drink beer and play darts.
its frustrating to keep coming up empty. its frustrating to write blogs about stuff that captures my interest because i dont have a local friend to talk about it with. and its disappointing when no one argues with me about it or tells me how right i am. an i continue to wonder what it is about michigan that in this place my closest friends all hail from that state. and i continue to hope that things turn around there, and i can find my golden ticket back home. it would be nice to be proven wrong. that there are people here on my wavelength. but if they do exist, i dont know them.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
yikes.
check out this article before you read this. even if you just get the gist.
whether for guns or against them, i dont know how its ever a good idea to allow people to come into restaurants that serve alcohol. i dont know how it is a good idea to have them in any restaurant, really. i had never really thought about this before. i figured its your choice on whether or not to own a gun, but its kinda scary to think that the guy at the next table could be armed.
i dont like that idea one bit. and as a owner or manager of a restaurant, i would not let armed people eat there. i dont care how much the NRA doesnt like it, there are plenty of people who would like to eat in a place and not have to worry about gunfire.
i have always felt like i fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on gun control. i think that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes. i think that people should be able to have the hobbies that they want like hunting and target shooting. i have never understood why any private citizen would need any automatic weapons or any crazy powerful or high powered weapons. and think it would be a terrible mistake to allow anyone with a history of violent crimes to own any firearm.
it mystifies me that a state that has rather tight liquor laws could have such lax gun laws. perhaps what shows my position best is that i live in DC where it is currently illegal to own a gun. i dont think an all out ban is the right answer, but certainly going out to eat armed is a wrong answer. this isnt the wild west. this isnt Iraq. i believe in the second amendment. but there is a time and place for everything. dinner is not the time and restaurants are not the place for guns.
whether for guns or against them, i dont know how its ever a good idea to allow people to come into restaurants that serve alcohol. i dont know how it is a good idea to have them in any restaurant, really. i had never really thought about this before. i figured its your choice on whether or not to own a gun, but its kinda scary to think that the guy at the next table could be armed.
i dont like that idea one bit. and as a owner or manager of a restaurant, i would not let armed people eat there. i dont care how much the NRA doesnt like it, there are plenty of people who would like to eat in a place and not have to worry about gunfire.
i have always felt like i fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on gun control. i think that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes. i think that people should be able to have the hobbies that they want like hunting and target shooting. i have never understood why any private citizen would need any automatic weapons or any crazy powerful or high powered weapons. and think it would be a terrible mistake to allow anyone with a history of violent crimes to own any firearm.
it mystifies me that a state that has rather tight liquor laws could have such lax gun laws. perhaps what shows my position best is that i live in DC where it is currently illegal to own a gun. i dont think an all out ban is the right answer, but certainly going out to eat armed is a wrong answer. this isnt the wild west. this isnt Iraq. i believe in the second amendment. but there is a time and place for everything. dinner is not the time and restaurants are not the place for guns.
Man in Black
today im taking a cue from Johnny Cash. today is the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. im not going to make a comment on the politics, the money, the right or the wrong. i simply want to express my sadness for all those who have lost loved ones. thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis have perished, and no end is in sight. today im wearing the black to mourn the thousands who have died, and who will die. and my heart goes out to those who have lost someone to the war.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
a note
i just wrote the following email to Michael Gerson in response to his opinion piece.
Mr Gerson,
I have read a number of your articles/opinions in the Post.(I have also used them as a jumping off point for my own writings.) I have enjoyed them and found that i like the way that you look at things, even when I don't entirely agree with your opinion. And because it is opinion, I hesitated to write this email, only realize that I don't wish to write to criticize, to ask and try to understand.
I wonder if you think that it is possible to have a mentor who is flawed? Can you live with and learn from a man who is flawed, but in large part exemplifies many of the qualities that we admire most? Do you think that it is possible to see and separate that which is flawed and not only learn from good examples, but also from mistakes?
Our own founding fathers risked everything for their freedom. All the while the enslaved other human beings. They took on the most powerful country in the world and risked their lives to ensure their rights and freedoms while stripping others of their rights and freedom. These are men that we still hold in the utmost regard to this day. I don't think that we should denounce great men like Jefferson and Washington for something they got wrong, when the got some many things right. Rev. Wright has said, no, preached some terrible ideas. But he has united one very troubled community in a very poor area of Chicago. he has done a great deal of good for that community. When other large congregations left for the suburbs, Wright stayed, and built a new church in the community he served. He reached out to bring white congregations to his church to hear his sermons.
While he is not Jefferson or Washington, should we judge him only by that which is negative about him, or should we give him the benefit of the doubt? And beyond Rev Wright, can we not allow Obama to embrace a flawed man? Is it so audacious to believe that he can separate the good from the bad? That he can take Wright's concern and drive to better those in need, and leave his racist feelings behind? If not, what is Obama to do? Can he really renounce a man that helped to shape his life? What would you have him do? We can change from generation to generation, or Barack Obama wouldn't matter at all.
I don't mean this to be accusatory, and I apologize if it seems so.
Dan Davis.
Mr Gerson,
I have read a number of your articles/opinions in the Post.(I have also used them as a jumping off point for my own writings.) I have enjoyed them and found that i like the way that you look at things, even when I don't entirely agree with your opinion. And because it is opinion, I hesitated to write this email, only realize that I don't wish to write to criticize, to ask and try to understand.
I wonder if you think that it is possible to have a mentor who is flawed? Can you live with and learn from a man who is flawed, but in large part exemplifies many of the qualities that we admire most? Do you think that it is possible to see and separate that which is flawed and not only learn from good examples, but also from mistakes?
Our own founding fathers risked everything for their freedom. All the while the enslaved other human beings. They took on the most powerful country in the world and risked their lives to ensure their rights and freedoms while stripping others of their rights and freedom. These are men that we still hold in the utmost regard to this day. I don't think that we should denounce great men like Jefferson and Washington for something they got wrong, when the got some many things right. Rev. Wright has said, no, preached some terrible ideas. But he has united one very troubled community in a very poor area of Chicago. he has done a great deal of good for that community. When other large congregations left for the suburbs, Wright stayed, and built a new church in the community he served. He reached out to bring white congregations to his church to hear his sermons.
While he is not Jefferson or Washington, should we judge him only by that which is negative about him, or should we give him the benefit of the doubt? And beyond Rev Wright, can we not allow Obama to embrace a flawed man? Is it so audacious to believe that he can separate the good from the bad? That he can take Wright's concern and drive to better those in need, and leave his racist feelings behind? If not, what is Obama to do? Can he really renounce a man that helped to shape his life? What would you have him do? We can change from generation to generation, or Barack Obama wouldn't matter at all.
I don't mean this to be accusatory, and I apologize if it seems so.
Dan Davis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
