How So Big, And Why Does This Stuff Matter?

There is a code of conduct here at Contratimes. It is my code, my internal set of standards. It is a code of temperance, of restraint. It is what I have freely chosen to be and to do: I am not given to rants, screeds, and vitriol. Guests are always treated fairly, and with deep and abiding respect. But I do not expect others to behave according to my own rules.

The Imus controversy (largely an American story) and what I have just said are curiously connected, I believe. Here's why.

Did you know that there is a brouhaha across the Internet about the establishment of blogging rules? Perhaps you didn't. And perhaps you did not know that part of the discussion has been around disallowing comment threads on blog sites. Too much freedom, I guess.

Let us step back to November 19, 2004. That was the day John Kerry, who had two weeks earlier lost his bid to become America's president, emailed his supporters. In that electronic missal he wrote the following to his friends:

"You moved voters, helped hold George Bush accountable, and countered the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio."

Note what he intimated -- that his campaign fought against "big news" outlets like Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, AND conservative talk radio. These three things John Kerry listed as the banes of his crusade. Notice that he did not say that his White House bid was thwarted by the Republican National Committee or President Bush or by American voters.

Don Imus, as you all should know, is/was a premiere radio talk-show host with a stellar production team and an A-List guest roster. His show was a veritable Who's Who of American pop iconography; his guests were drawn from all levels of media and political importance. And, as you also must know, Mr. Imus, described by many as a wonderful interviewer, blended his interviews with mockery and scoffing and innuendo. He was constantly baiting guests to indict themselves; he was always looking to create scandal, or some sort of incrimination; or to spot some kind of blunder or tic that he might use against his guest. And he did this almost always in a way that was playful and often not-so-playful. His manner was usually engaging, and very lucrative. But most of all, he was looking for a laugh.

His strength, really, was that he was one of the few members of the media who would say what so many people wished they could say. When he called Vice President Dick Cheney "a war criminal," many people agreed. When he scoffed at John Kerry for bungling an apology for a bungled joke, listeners were screaming at their radios in approval (or, at least, I bet many did). There were few people who had been invited to Imus' show who did not get their persona demystified; and that was Imus' ultimate gift to American culture: he took the mystique and aura and artifice out of celebrity and wealth. He was, and is, an American iconoclast. Pure and simple.

That does not mean you must like him. You need not approve of him or send him flowers. I am merely pointing out what he is, and why he is liked. He is an incredibly smart and shrewd man; he has built something of an empire around demystifying New York's idols and America's broadest pretensions. He is a satirist, a lampoon artist, a crank. He is an H. L. Mencken with a microphone; a misanthrope with a mission. And yet he is a misanthrope who is on the cutting edge of philanthropy and change, and he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for charity, and has increased listeners' awareness of environmental toxins, deficient military death benefits, pediatric cancer treatments and autism (to name a few).

Is it wrong to ask why all the umbrage and outrage, why all the moral high dudgeon, after Mr. Imus' unfortunate use of the word "hos" to describe a college basketball team? Why does it seem that so many people have lost perspective, their sense of proportion? How did this story get so big, and big so quickly?

Let me make a few guesses.

First, it has to do with what is happening in presidential politics. The big new name on everybody's tongue is Barack Obama. No one is thinking Al Sharpton when thinking of the first African-American president (and let it be known that Al Sharpton does not think Barack Obama has done enough for African-Americans to be president). And we all know that John Kerry is out of the picture; his final moment came, really, right after his botched joke last fall, when he appeared on Don Imus' show and utterly made a fool of himself, with Imus hanging up on him. Add to this mix the popular and well-known New York senator, Hillary Clinton, and you've got something really, really interesting.

You see, Imus had/has a lot of clout, and everybody knows it. His show drew considerable media attention; what was said on his show in the morning often became news later in the day. After John Kerry blew his "if-you-don't-do-well-in-school-you-end-up-in-Iraq" joke, the first place he made a public statement was on the Imus show, and everyone was listening. Sen. Chris Dodd announced his 2008 bid for the White House on Imus in the Morning. And let it be observed that Imus was and is a huge supporter of the African-American Tennessee politician Harold Ford, Jr.; Ford has made frequent appearances on that show.

Now, I ask myself this one question: Who would love to work vengeance upon Don Imus? Well, for one, John Kerry, for Imus utterly humiliated him; and this after Imus had said -- repeatedly -- that he was a Kerry supporter in the 2004 elections. It follows logically that nearly anyone else who hoped for Kerry to win in 2004, and run again in 2008, would have it out for Mr. Imus. But the person who most has to gain from Imus' silence is Hillary Clinton, for we all know how much Don Imus despises the Clintons (for, I believe, their essential betrayal of him after his controversial appearance at Radio and TV Correspondents Association Dinner at the White House in 1996). It is evident that Imus would have supported ANYONE but Hillary for the White House; and since he has shown the ability to support African-Americans, it is very likely that he would have lent his support to Barack Obama.

What I am saying is this: Knowing (at least through Imus' own comments over the years) the history of Don Imus and the Clintons, there is ample evidence that the Clintons would love to see Imus suffer, even to slip into silence. It is my guess, and it is only a guess, that the Clintons have played a major part in generating fury over this incident. Remember, this thing went big really quick, and Imus came out in a big, panicky apologetic way in a hurry. How does this happen? How does this happen to a man who is a giant, a legend? And how could he stagger so, and how could he even lose hold of what was the actual context and intent of his offending words?

And you have to ask yourself one more question: How does this happen to a man who uses language that one cannot call right-wing, or conservative, or even religious? No, this is a man who speaks the language of America. This is a man who has asked that charges of war crimes be brought against the President of the United States. This is a man who has called for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This is a man largely secular and even humanistic in speech and behavior. How is it that HE, of all people in the media, is suddenly gone?

Second, related to this is the prominent figure Al Sharpton: He has attached himself to this whole thing for two reasons. The first is to put himself back into play, for he is being out-noticed by Barack Obama. Second, some have used this moment (see "Too Little, Too Late?" here) to force Mr. Obama to play his hand (and he has now played it), to make Mr. Obama prove that he is one of the race-conscious reactionaries that compose much of the Democratic Party. Are you with us? is their question. And, as you can guess, this sort of thing works well into Hillary Clinton's hand: if Obama joins with Sharpton he may look like a race-extortionist, and if he doesn't, he looks weak on racism and insufficiently sensitive to black issues.

So, what does this all have to do with a "code of conduct?" Well, a lot, really. If you have listened at all to Al Sharpton and many of the other chattering chins bewailing Don Imus' remarks, you will hear something like this: Don Imus abused the federally regulated public airwaves. Even the Rutgers University President, Richard L. McCormick, mentioned the public airwaves in his formal statements:

"It is unconscionable for anyone to use the airways to utter such disgraceful, disgusting, and racist remarks and to show such disregard for the dignity of human beings who have accomplished so much and deserve great credit."

That this reference to the public airways/airwaves is so frequent means only one thing: The left in this country is intent on stopping talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio. And, related to this, the left is intent on limiting discussion on blogs. Why the latter? Perhaps because commenters can throw bombs -- with links leading people away (to truth?) or astray -- on others' blogs without being challenged. That, perhaps, is just a small part of it. Yes, these same folks could disable -- like I can -- the comments portion of their blogs, but the rules some are seeking go beyond comments. This is all about control (in the guise of decency).

And it is really, really about suppressing speech. And remember, even if Don Imus is using public airwaves, his critics are suggesting one thing: free speech is guaranteed, but not everywhere, especially on the air.

All in all, this is about fulfilling what John Kerry said needed to be done: Activists need to shut down Fox News (and Fox News is indeed effectively marginalized in many quarters), Sinclair Broadcasting, and talk radio. The assault on talk-radio is now in full swing.

In short, this is about YOU. I don't care whether you are pro or con, left or right, blue or red. This is about a leftist assault on free speech; on discussion, debate and, yes, even the possibility of anarchy. The right-wing in America has never been this aggressive, this righteous, this cocksure of its moral standing. Never. It is the left-wing that is trying to bring about what it believes YOU MUST HAVE TO BE SAFE and COMPLIANT.

Read this article, or this (Google censoring websites for communist governments), if you doubt me; or read Al Sharpton's statement "that this is only the beginning," or Keith Olbermann's interview with Jesse Jackson.

Lastly, let me say this. If Imus, a man in the highest places moving among America's elites, a man who speaks language you would never hear in church, if he is ousted from his job because he said a poor and ugly joke, how much more in jeopardy are those who DO NOT SPEAK the language of this culture, who do not conform? If Imus can be pilloried for saying a pop-culture word like "hos", how much more the person who believes homosexuality is sinful? How much more the person who believes that abortion is murder? How much more the person who believes global-warming theory is scientifically suspect? How much more the person who disagrees with the zeitgeist?

This may be the biggest media story of my lifetime. No kidding. And let me be perfectly clear about my own position on this: I am not an Imus fan. Yes, I have listened to his show -- a lot. Much of what I do here is in response to something I have heard on his show, something I disagreed with on his show. I doubt very much that Mr. Imus would like me; he might very well find me a loser (and, in many ways, I am). And let me be clear about what I think of the phrase "nappy headed hos." I hate it. It is an ugly expression, and, even if it was not racially charged when Imus said it, it now is -- forever. "Nappy" has now become a racist term (and it wasn't last week).

It is infuriating to hear people suggest that this is a "teaching" or "learning" moment in American culture. It is infuriating because it is so token, so shallow, so small-minded. Why is this moment a learning moment, when countless other moments -- from "Hymie Town" to "white niggers" to hip-hop misogyny to the rants of Louis Farrakhan denouncing interracial marriage -- how have these NOT been learning moments?

There is more to all of this Imus stuff than meets the eye, I am afraid to say. And I am, in some way, afraid to say it.

Peace to you, all of you, friend and foe alike. We are supposed to be in this together.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags:
Don Imus, Racism, Rutgers Basketball, Al Sharpton, Language, Censorship, Hillary Clinton, Charles McCord, Bernard McGuirk, Al Sharpton, Sid Rosenberg

On Politics: Even More New Puritanism, Of A Sort

It's all about the First Amendment.

Unless you are listening to a conservative give a speech. Then it's time to turn into a New Puritan. Truly, umbrage has never been so hair-triggered.

You've heard the story: After having agreed to participate in a presidential candidates' debate sponsored by Fox News, the Nevada Democratic Party has withdrawn from the event, leading to the cancellation of the debate. Something was said; the Nevada Democrats instantly turned exceedingly righteous, so righteous in fact that they stopped their ears at the sound of a particular joke. They have taken umbrage. They are full of woe and dismay.

And they are proving that America is being overrun by New Puritans.

Amazingly, the New Puritans in Nevada have come -- or so one would think -- to the defense of George W. Bush.

Take a tour with me through the horrifying joke that led to this new spate of righteousness. Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News Channel, was fêted Thursday at the Radio & TV News Directors Foundations' First Amendment Awards banquet. During his acceptance speech, Chairman Ailes said the following (Warning: Not For The Squeamish!!!):

First of all, I was told I should do some headlines, so I'm only anchoring this, re-reporting.

I think we all need to go very slow on this global warming thing. I realize saving energy is good, but I think it may be a trick to get our anchors to stop using blow dryers.

[Laughter]

A man in France was arrested today for using his car to run down a pedestrian. He said he thought it was Osama bin Laden. OK, it was a mistake, but it still ranks as France's biggest military victory ever.

[Laughter]

John Seigenthaler and I are the same age. Look at how he let himself go.

[Laughter]

It is true that I said Britney Spears looked great at the Academy Awards. And I later found out it was Jack Nicholson.

[Laughter/ooohs]

It is true that just in the last two weeks Hillary Clinton has had over 200 phone calls telling her in order to win the presidency she must stay on the road for the next two years. It is not true they were all from Bill.

[Laughter]

And it is true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said, 'Why can't we catch this guy?'

[Laughter]

Yes, yes. Pretty shameful stuff. In fact, it is the very worst one can imagine. But I am wondering: Could you pick out the joke that has been declared a mortal sin?

Well, in case you didn't catch it, it is the joke wherein Barack Obama's name is mentioned. That's right: The great offense is the joke ridiculing George W. Bush.

I know, I know. It IS hard to understand how the Democrats of Nevada could be so sensitive about jokes mocking the president. I am, indeed, surprised that they should so quickly come to his defense. But I am no doubt prone to committing the fallacy of facetiousness; the Democrats of Nevada are actually SHOCKED that it was jokingly insinuated that a tongue-stumbling president might confuse the name of Barack Obama with Osama bin Laden. That Bush would be prone to this sort of mistake should have given Democrats some pause, as Bush's shibboleth would prove that he was a threat to decency, and a friend of Sen. Edward Kennedy's. After all, who can forget the great outrage when Sen. Kennedy said in 2005 (see YouTube clip here):

"Why don't we just ask Osama bin Laden, Osama Obama, uh, Obama, what his ... since he won by such a big amount."

(Now that's funny! Of course, there was no outrage.)

But the New Puritans in Nevada, led by the chief puritan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have pulled the plug on any Fox News Channel cooperative because, in light of Mr. Ailes' joke given at a banquet honoring free speech:

"We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments."

And what comments might they be, other than ones ridiculing the intellectual and verbal capacities of the President voiced under the constitutional right to free speech? Democrats cannot defend these comments? Since when?

But the real reason the Democrats are backing out of the Fox News-sponsored debate is due to pressure from MoveOn.org; the real reason is hidden in this priggish quip by MoveOn. org, which called Fox News a "mouthpiece of the Republican Party." In other words, the left-leaning MoveOn.org crowd is intimidated and fearful; they are not confident enough in their own convictions to be asked questions by folks allegedly committed to Republican ideals. The Democratic Party -- or so we can hear them say -- is only so strong and convincing: it will gleefully submit to a New York Times-sponsored debate because that medium is a Democratic Party mouthpiece, where the questions will be safe, easy, unthreatening. But Democrats debating in a Republican-biased forum? Impossible!

And to top all this off, journalists rushed to Barack Hussein Obama to ask him whether he was "offended" by a joke that had nothing, really, to do with him. He replied that he was not offended.

'"I didn't take great offense at the joke," Obama said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning in Iowa. "I have been called worse."'

He's been called worse? One might be tempted to tell the Blessed One (Barack means 'blessed') that he was not called any thing in Mr. Ailes' joke, that this had nothing to with him. But who would do such a thing? After all, when it comes to campaigns, presidential candidates probably do think that everything is all about them.

Umbrage!

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

God, Bootlegged

On Saturday morning, just before Barack Hussein Obama stepped out from behind the temple veil to reveal his plan to make each of us happier people, MSNBC's Chris Matthews ejaculated that Abraham Lincoln, the great statesman who once governed in Obama's home state, would be dancing for joy at the familiar site of Springfield, Illinois' capitol building; and how it now served as the backdrop to an "African American" announcing his candidacy for the President of the United States. Remember, Matthews gushed, this is where Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Moments later, deep into his own emancipation proclamation -- calling for an end to poverty, promising resolution in Iraq, and freeing us of our fearful dependence on foreign oil and its attendant destruction of the atmosphere -- Mr. Obama said (in bold) this in a list of wondrous deeds Americans have performed as ONE:

"In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream." [emphasis added]

Of course, the "King" referred to is Martin Luther King, the fallen and iconic civil rights leader.

Perhaps in this age where some do not respect the fences erected around us by the scribes of copyright laws, by the good manners of attribution and the love of one's neighbors' own genius, it is easy to honor the wrong men, the wrong women, even the wrong gods; or to steal for oneself the giftedness of others. Lakes steal from springs and rivers, and rivers abscond with lakes' blue riches, only to find poverty in the sea that robs from the sky as the sky steals back. So great leaders, apparently existing unto themselves where all greatness is apparently shared, are remembered for the great things they have said, even though they did not say them.

Abraham Lincoln may have said, "The house divided against itself cannot stand." And I may have said the same thing in a speech as vice-president of my high school senior class. But I was not quoting Lincoln, and Lincoln was not quoting himself: we were both quoting Jesus Christ the Plagiarized.

And then dear Mr. King, who surely gave the right attribution in his original speech, acknowledging his mentors' gifts to him and their own genius, never did say a thing about "justice rolling down." The Jewish prophet Amos did, a fact Mr. King learned as a Christian in Sunday School.

Clearly Mr. Obama and Chris Matthews have both missed out on these apparent trivialities. Who cares if religious language is stolen for political purposes; who cares if the fullness of genius was found in the prophets who uttered what the world most likely had never before heard? What matters is that it takes a certain amount of genius to plagiarize for political gain; to forget that true justice is rooted in the heart and language of God, and to take His honor for oneself.

(It matters not the source, but the outcome, if you but believe in "destiny.")

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

There Is No Bias:saiB oN sI erehT

George W. Bush is your worst enemy; we all know that W stands for Warmonger, and that hidden in his first name is a slightly twisted ogre. Bush the Menace.

Or so says Newsweek.

Shake your head to clear your eyes, if you must, as you look at Newsweek's newest cover: that is Bush the Bellicose glaring Middle-Eastward, eyes like warheads aimed at the Persian Prince of Peace.

One thing I am certain of is this: that in Iran, Newsweek's headline is not "The Hidden War with Iran." Instead, the Tehran edition is headlined thusly: "The Hidden -- and not so Hidden -- War with America." Wait. No. Scratch that. How foolish of me. Newsweek has it right: 'Tis Bush who has been boasting about his nation's great fate; about the absurdity of the Holocaust and the porcine Jews† who hold the earth enslaved by a mythology that fuels Zionism's many fires. 'Tis Bush who wants to usher in the New Age of the 12th Imam, a caliphate and an Eden somewhere between the Tigris-Euphrates and the edges of the earth. The four angels guarding the ancient gates of Eden are relieved of their weary duty; all through Persia run rivers of gold rhetoric, and there waters are Mahdi: peace is indeed rolling, like the thunder of nuclear detonation. And Bush shall lead us home: he is the Bush that burns with war and never leaves.

Alas, again, I am mistaken, even delirious. My first response to the Newsweek cover was utterly errant. It is not the crazed man to the left who is warring against you, me, the very foundations of Western thought. No, it is Bush. The man on the right. You know, the wrong man on the Right; the Christian Right, all broken and jumbled up, full of petty menace, and all very wrong.

Newsweek and MSNBC, allies under the same Great Peacock, can't expect us to divine -- without their journalistic help -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad, ever speaking in gracious and dulcet tones, is a man of peace with sober eyes and waiting smile.

Perhaps the 12th Imam is that man from Illinois, who has fallen from the sky. His name means "blessed."

Peace.

BG

†This is not to be construed as an anti-Semitic slur on my part. I aim to faithfully and sardonically report Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

And Now The Presentation

"We shall issue in a new birth of freedom on this earth."

Thus concluded Barack Hussein Obama moments ago in his much-anticipated announcement. Talk about audacity!

"We are one people." Indeed.

Consider this a strange observation: Mr. Obama was presented to the temple of his American audience with the music of U2 laving the podium. If there was ever a band that yearns for a messiah, and surely struggles with a messianic impulse itself, it is U2.

Here is Howard Fineman (right now on MSNBC), editor of Newsweek, on Mr. Barack's announcement:

"This is an amazing story. It can't be repeated enough. ... At this point in our history ... this [isn't about just bringing America together], it is about bringing the world together."

And in light of Mr. Obama's multiculturalism, MSNBC's Chris Matthews said,

"To the world this must say, 'America is bigger than we thought.'"

I would point out that Mr. Obama's speech was very similar to an altar call at a Billy Graham tent-meeting: He called his followers to come forward, to follow their destiny, to come together as one people. And that he was hailed into the temple by people holding up his book -- The Audacity of Hope -- a book that looks a lot like a Pope's own volume, is a curiosity one cannot ignore.

He is indeed the savior the Democrats particularly have been praying about: At last, U2 has finally found what they are looking for.

Wow.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Two Annunciations: MSNBC Supports Barack Hussein Obama, And He Is Not Black (or so says someone)

In a matter of minutes from now (30 minutes), Barack Hussein Obama, the handsome and well-spoken senator from Illinois, shall officially announce his candidacy for President of the United States. Assisting him in this proclamation, and no doubt a supporter of his candidacy, is MSNBC, the cable network featuring such notable political wisemen as Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann. My saying that MSNBC is assisting him is due entirely to the fact that MSNBC is hyping its "live coverage" of Mr. Obama's annunciation with undue alacrity at this moment: MSNBC is giddy about this man. Even Mr. Russert's words on an Imus in the Morning program, words replayed during Mr. Russert's testimony in court the other day -- in the Scooter Libby perjury trial -- are perfectly apt: It was "Christmas Eve" in the newsroom when Libby was indicted. No doubt it is Christmas morning today.

Alas, I have proven rather incompetent in my coverage of the Obama story. For I have not properly secured the facts, though, in this digital age of plastic facts, it is not likely that I could ever pin down any fact, for facts vanish in a flash-media second. But please note that on October 24, 2006, in an essay I wrote about Mr. Obama, I noted that his September 2005 essay posted on the Daily Kos, the influential, self-described leftist blog, had as a banner advertisement the following image:



Please note Mr. Obama's placement in this advertisement. Please note that this ad was present at Mr. Obama's Daily Kos essay months before Mr. Obama even announced his exploratory committee for the presidency. Please note that MSNBC not only placed an advertisement for itself on Mr. Obama's Daily Kos diary, but MSNBC placed Mr. Obama's image adjacent to President Bush's, suggesting, perhaps, that both men are in some sort of great struggle. To MSNBC, Obama is a contender, and this MONTHS before he was indeed a contender. Amazingly, MSNBC threw Mr. Obama's hat into the presidential ring before he had himself.

Or so it looks. Or so it feels.

Unfortunately, I only took a screen shot of the actual ad. I failed to take, and preserve, a screen shot of the ad on the actual Obama page. And as you can see, the ad has been removed from Mr. Obama's essay posted, as it was, on the world's largest blog, a blog entirely devoted to political and sociological liberalism.

But who cares, right? This is, after all, the deliverer we are talking about. The great hope. And in just a little less than an hour, there will be a star over the silent little town of Springfield, Illinois. You know, where Abraham Lincoln once lived.

This is all shaping up to be a perfect little fairy tale, the kind America just loves to tell itself.

MY SKIN IS CLEAR (I think)

Curiously related to all of this mythmaking, and jarring our senses, is this essay ("Colorblind") about Mr. Obama (and race in America in general). It is published on Salon. com, and it is written by a "black" woman, Debra J. Dickerson. Perhaps you saw Ms. Dickerson on "The Colbert Report" earlier this week (in a brilliant interview). Ms. Dickerson's thesis, in case you did not know, is that Mr. Obama is NOT BLACK. I kid you not. His mother, apparently, is a white woman from Kansas, while his dad is from Kenya. That Ms. Dickerson defines blackness in political terms is astonishing: to be black in America means, strictly, to be a direct descendant of former African slaves. During Ms. Dickerson's interview with the thoroughly enjoyable Mr. Colbert, she said that Mr. Obama would be better served if he defined himself -- and I am NOT MAKING THIS UP -- as an African African-American. But he is definitely NOT black.

That this woman, who wrote the book, The End of Blackness, is ruining the great idea of a man with dark skin announcing his presidency from Abraham Lincoln's hometown, you know, the town of that great president who clearly made the first great step for the emancipation of slaves so they could become -- eventually -- candidates for President, is a fact too interesting to let pass unnoticed.

But I ask you: if being black is a political-linguistic term denoting only those who are descendants of actual African slaves imported to America, does it NOT FOLLOW that "white" is equally political, denoting only those who have descended from white slaveholders who imported African slaves to America? I think it does. And if that is the case, then, since there were no slaveholders in my ancestral gene pool, I am not white.

There you go then.

I am not white, and Barack Obama, should he become president, will not be America's first black President.

Go figure.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

A Newbie Attitude

It is a very messianic thing to be. One might wonder whether any deliverer would dare to be anything but; for to be something other than a bridge-builder -- a uniter -- is to be something less than a messiah. Messiahs bring people together; they are conciliatory, appeasing; they understand compromise and concession.

But this is not the least a messiah can do. A messiah can also reveal his or her salvific message once every four years or so, at least in America. He (or she) can remind us all -- once again -- what life can truly become -- if we but believe, if we but thrill in the audacity of hope.

Barack Hussein Obama has lifted his head from his pillow and in the silence of the night, he has heard a call, a voice, the voice of the people; and he has responded. His message? He wishes to bring together that which has been torn asunder; to mend the torn veil; to build on those things which unite rather than divide. In other words, he wants to deliver a message of hope, of optimism in the power of the human will when it works in collective concert. Mr. Obama believes that it is not the enormity of the issues before us, but the smallness of our politics in addressing those issues that has failed us all. Such issues can be rendered small, no doubt, by a politics that is larger than anyone has heretofore dreamed possible. It is all about a brighter vision in a darkness deceptively dark: things are not as black as they seem. Nor are they as white. For such simple distinctions betray us when confronting dire challenges: our tried yet failed policies based on categories of good and evil, light and dark, black and white, north and south, have proven themselves tired, myopic, weak; senescent.

And now, in the juvenescence of the year, in the season of Janus (the two-faced deity that guards against war), Barack Obama is a great light in the deep and lonely solstice of Northern Hemispheric politics. He is the newcomer with the right attitude, speaking new beatitudes. His name means blessed. He brings a message.

Two things, really. First, the message Mr. Obama brings is utterly old and not the least bit spry or sprightly. It is what we have heard in the United States from leaders ad infinitum: we have long been given empty promises that there shall be no more empty promises. We are promised an end to partisan bickering, to gridlock, to more of the same. We are promised the "setting of a new tone in Washington," of "forging a new direction for America," of coming together to "take America back" and building anew a "government for the people by the people." We are promised an end to rancor and discord; we are promised unity in a United States on the threshold of disunion. It is time to cease the fearmongering, the backbiting; the good-old-boy backroom favoritism; the special interest plundering of American goodwill and industriousness.

In short, we have heard all of this before, said the same way, at the same time of year, and even for the same reasons.

But what we have not heard enough is that a real messiah -- perfectly presented in the Christ of the Christian faith -- is the only religious figure in history who built a religion on the self-revelation that He came to divide, not unite; to separate, not combine; to winnow out, and not to blend; to cleave asunder and not to mend. Jesus the Christ is indeed exactly the sort of politician we need to hear from, though not on the airwaves or from the podium, or on the breakfast news shows or a podcast from the Jesus 2008 website. We need to hear from Him in our hearts, if for no other reason than to stop this insanity.

The messiah has already come, and He will come again. But He is not a politician from Illinois, or a president from South Africa, or a megalomaniac from Venezuela. He is not a man with a gun, nor is a he man with a Texas swagger. Nor is he a man with a soft, bipartisan voice.

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. ... The poor you shall always have with you. ... I have come to set brother against sister. ... You have no part in me unless ..." This is what a deliverer says; these are the words of a real leader, a real revolutionary. He does not coddle his base, or stroke the hair of those eager to pronounce him god.

Just a few thoughts in this season of Hosanna Politics.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Blazing To The Top Of The Charts

Just a hasty observation, but if I was, let's say, Hillary Clinton, I would be delighted with the early excitement over Senator Barack Obama. In fact, I would be fueling it at every turn. I would even attempt to move the media towards Mr. Obama. Why? Because I would want Mr. Obama to peak too early. And it is, quite likely, exactly what he is going to do. People in New Hampshire gathered on Sunday to see the man, to touch the hem of his garment; and I mean people gathered by the thousands. Over 100 reporters captured his every move and jotted down his every word. And all this -- all this money and hoopla and passion -- for a man who has not even announced he is running for president. The only other phenomenon in New Hampshire's primary history that closely resembles the Obama-Nation† was when John F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for president while standing on Main Street in Nashua.

And all this for a man who is, to be honest, utterly unseasoned, with nary a stitch of experience. That some critics of George W. Bush like to point out that he himself was hardly a fireball of political activity prior to his 2ooo run miss several points, the most salient of which is that many Republicans were utterly aware of Bush's lack of experience. In New Hampshire, at least, George W. Bush was hardly a Republican favorite. But at least Bush had some experience simply by being a President's son. I might have this wrong, but George W. actually worked in nearly every office of the White House during the Reagan-Bush years. This qualifies for something, though it does not entitle any man to have the Oval Office.

But I will not detract from Mr. Obama's popularity by suggesting he is too inexperienced. I will merely point out that those who also seek the office can only be encouraged that Mr. Obama is peaking early.

Or so they hope.

THE CULT OF PERSONALITY

I think it is important to note how many folks are indeed already committed to voting for Mr. Obama should he run. How can this be? He is hardly known, he is hardly seasoned in the public eye. On what are his enthusiasts basing their enthusiasm? I have already heard much about his charm and charisma. Is that it? I have heard Harold Ford Jr. describe Mr. Obama as brilliant. But is that all? And I know Mr. Obama has written a couple of books. But is that enough? Is this, at least right now, merely the cult of personality, the adoration of persona? Surely it is not the cult of substance, or the cult of strong political record, right? It is something other than these things. Is it more hosanna politics?

I wonder.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

†I note the word the term Obama-Nation for a host of reasons. Obviously, no supporter of Mr. Obama could ever refer to his followers as Obama-Nation, largely for its homophonic cousin, abomination. Moreover, yesterday I saw the word "obamanible," penned by an Obama defender upset by criticisms over Mr. Obama's middle name (which is Hussein). But Mr. Obama's name will no doubt lend itself to all sorts of wild headlines in the Daily News or New York Post: "Barack Star!" "Running Out Of Money: Barack's B-roke!" "Obama's Meandering State of the Union Speech: Barack's Baroque!" "Southern Vote is Clear: A'bama Says No To Obama!" "Barack Urges Kids: Obey Ma!" OK. These are foolish and, I dare say, unfortunate. But the reality is not to be denied: Headline writers are going to have a field day. "O-BAM!- A: Barack smashes O'Reilly's fastball in Factor interview."

Technorati tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire, Cult of Personality