HERE’S TO THE UNDERDOG

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

.

TO THE

HARD WORKING AND COURAGEOUS

MEN AND WOMEN OF LITTLE CLOUT

WHOSE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS BUILT

AND DEFINES THE CHARACTER  

OF THIS GREAT NATION

*

HERE’S TO THE UNDERDOG

.

Here's

to the magnificent underdog,

majestic--just look at that face;

who struggle each mile, yet, manages a smile,

while the powerful spits in his face.

.

Yes,

a toast!

To the illustrious underdog,

whose courage holds chaos at bay;

for the unshakable steel, which makes up his will,

to stand-up through yet one more day.

.

Let’s hear

a cheer!

For the tireless underdog.

His heart firmly girdered in place;

who finds just enough to survive when life's tough,

while the "powerful" stands in disgrace.
.

Let us

cherish

the heroic underdog,

who walks water routinely each day;

who braves lion Jaws and shun all applause,

then quietly goes on his way.

.

.

*

*

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare: Why Can’t We Get the Congressional Option?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option? There's at least one thing that Republicans do much better than Democrats, and that's marketing their initiatives. It doesn't matter how regressive the idea, Republicans manage to frame it in a way that if you oppose it you look like you're either degenerate, or at the very least, un-American. For example, instead of accurately calling themselves "The Order of Religious Bigots Dedicated to Shoving Our Version of God Down America's Throat," they market their insanity as "The Moral Majority," and instead of being honest and calling themselves "The Public Vagina Brigade," they call themselves "The Right to Life" proponents (even though they're willing to let that very same life starve to death after it's born). Conservatives get a lot of milage out of their creativity in this area, and progressives would do well to follow suit. The initiative to legalize same-sex marriage would have been much more marketable, for example, if it had been dubbed "The Right to Love." And the same is true of healthcare reform. Proponents of a public option for healthcare could make life a lot more difficult for opponents in congress if instead of calling it "The Public Option" they simply dubbed it "The Congressional Option" - that way the issue would be self-explanatory. It would force every member of congress who placed the interest of the insurance industry over the welfare of his or her constituents to explain why they want to deny the American people the opportunity to opt into the exact same plan that congress and their families enjoy. But I only bring this issue up as an introduction to a much more serious problem - demagoguery. All of the public manipulation above is symptomatic of a system that's out of control. It's a clear example of how politicians who are suppose to represent the people, are using marketing and public manipulation to feather their own nests. The vast majority of politicians could care less about abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, or national healthcare reform. The only thing these people truly care about is being reelected - and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. The mere fact that these people, who we sent to congress to represent our interests, are willing to undermine our most fundamental right to long and healthy lives in order to ingratiate themselves with the insurance industry and feather their own nests, clearly demonstrates that our system is broken, and it requires our immediate attention. With our economy in the worst shape that it's ever been since the Great Depression, let there be no doubt about the fact that we're involved in a class war. But the only way that America is going to come out whole is if we come to grips with an objective truth - we're either going to win together, or we're all going to lose together. That makes it all the more important that we have statesmen and women in office, rather than self-serving demagogues who can't see beyond the next election, but the latter is exactly what we've created. We now have an entirely new class of people among us - the political class. With the exception of a handful of legislators, these people don't care about the rich, the poor, or the middle class - all they care about is who's in the best position to get them reelected in the next election cycle. They are totally self-serving, and America is suffering for it. The abject selfishness of these people have either created or contributed to every single problem that we have in America today. But Americans are beginning to recognize that fact, that's why congress is either at, or close to, its lowest point ever in the polls. It's becoming increasingly clear that these politicians have become so arrogant and self-serving that they've lost touch with the people that they're suppose to represent. They've completely forgotten that they're public servants, our employees, not America's aristocracy. The political class has, literally, come to think of themselves as royalty. Hyperbole? Let's look at the facts: During the Great Depression the House of Representatives voted to cut their own salary from $9,000 to $8,500 per year. In contrast, today a regular member of the house makes $174,000 a year. They've given themselves $16,000 in raises over the past five years. In addition to that, while their constituents are losing their jobs, their homes, and struggling to make ends meet, earlier this year congress gave itself an additional $93,000 (in addition to their salary) in "petty cash." Then, at the very same time that they were lavishing themselves in this unconscionable orgy of largess, they were coming up with countless excuses why our children shouldn't receive the same medical coverage as their own. First they tried to cloud the issue by claiming that providing the American people with a congressional option for healthcare was a form of socialism, but then, so is social security. They then claimed that a congressional option would lead to government bureaucrats stepping between patients and their doctors, yet, they don't seem to have any problem in that regard, nor do their families. The truth is, most of the members of congress could care less about any of that. All they really care about is their bottom line - being reelected. Thus, in this case, the best interests of their constituents have to take a backseat while they follow the money - money which is in the hands of large insurance companies that are determined to avoid having to either amend their business practices or lower their rates in order to compete with a government option. These politicians try to cover themselves by touting the virtues of the free market, but they know full well that while there are certain things that the business community can do much better than government, like marketing, manufacturing, and selling, there are other things that business is lousy at, like providing public service. Most of us have an innate understanding of that fact, that's why very few citizens would opt for a private military, police, or fire department. And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so. So what should we do about these demagogues? The only way the people can regain control of the system is by completely cleaning house. We need to use our primary system to vote most our sitting politicians out of office - both Democratic and Republican. That will send an unequivocal message to everyone holding public office who's running things. Thereafter, we need do away with all congressional perks, and instruct the newly elected politicians to vote themselves a salary and compensation package that reflects the median income of a middle class American, and salaries should be capped at an agreed upon percentage above the minimum wage. Only then will we be able to establish and maintain a representative body that is truly reflective of the people. In short, we need representatives who actually feel our pain - those who can only imagine it, just won't do.  Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com If you really want to be hip, hop into a book.

Sphere: Related Content

CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT? . Anyone who can't answer the above question in the affirmative couldn't have been raised in the Black community. As ashamed as I am to have to admit it, it is clear to anyone with eyeballs that the African American culture is matriarchal by it's very nature. That said, now I'm supposed to start explaining all of the conditions beyond the Black man's control that led to this state of affairs, but the fact is, I'm not predisposed to lying, so I refer you to Black Entertainment Television (BET) and you can be the judge. . Ok, had enough? Now that you've viewed the misogynistic subculture that has all but seized the soul of the young Black male, it has to be clear that any woman who can manage to raise well rounded, productive, and stable children--by herself--in such an environment can do anything. . So, of course a woman can be a good, even great, president. But I don't count Hillary Clinton among those women. Hillary, and many other so-called "feminists" of her generation, suffer from seriously misguided views on what it truly means to be a strong and independent woman. They actually diminish the meaning of womanhood by embracing the position that the only way a woman can truly be strong and independent is by being more like a man. . She, and many other modern women have dedicated their entire lives to the proposition that the traditional role that women have played in society is something less than what a modern woman should aspire to. I firmly disagree with that position. While I think that a woman should be free to compete with a man in any and every area in this society, I also think the role of the traditional "housewife" has been severely undervalued in this society. What our society looks upon as a "mere housewife" is actually a mother, a psychologist, a nurse, a chef, an economist, an interior designer, and in many cases, a sex therapist for a philandering husband--and society has been going downhill every since these women were convinced that what they did wasn't worthwhile. . Remember Donna Reed? Women of Hillary's ilk tend to look down their nose at women like that, but consider this--there was no such thing as a drive-by on Donna's watch. She created a stable home environment that served to stablize society as a whole. She did more for society from her family's house, than a Hillary clone could ever do as president from the White House. The problem with the Hillary kind of women is that they fail to recognize that fact. They see women like Donna as "quaint", and completely fail to realize that women like Donna are directly responsible for who, and where they are today. So it's not Hillary that I dislike, or her chosen path in life; it's the condescending attitude of Hillary-type women towards homemakers--and I don't think I'm alone. Hillary hasn't personally done a thing to deserve the hostility that she engenders in many Americans. While much hostility is directed at her, it's not about her, it's about what she represents--the degradation of America. . The American people don't have a problem with women seizing the opportunity to express their creativity and potential as human beings, but what they do resent is a handful of abitious women attempting to further their personal goals by convincing a generation of housewives that they're being less than productive by not entering the workforce to take up arms against men. Prior to these women entering the workforce, one income was sufficient to comfortably support a family. Now, a woman must work whether she wants to or not just for most families to survive, because once working women put more money into circulation, the business community simply doubled the cost of living. So what we're left with as a result of this mass exodus of housewives into the workforce is a rise in the of the cost of living, women being forced to juggle family and a fulltime job, latchkey children, a hoard of incorrigible teenagers, a rise in workplace indiscretions, failed marriages, and skyrocketing crime--a net loss anyway you look at it. . But of course, now I'm going to be accused of wanting women to remain barefoot and pregnant, but that's not at all the case. Women should be free to go into whatever profession they choose, but if they choose homemaker as their chosen profession, they shouldn't be denigrated as "barefoot and pregnant", because as our current situation clearly demonstrates, they are actually the backbone of this society. . This country is falling apart because we allowed the "feminists" of the sixties to sell us a bill of goods. When these women chose to pursue professions and then ran into sexism in the workplace, instead of addressing the problem within the workplace itself, they decided to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement in order to sop up some of the gravy that the eloquence of Martin Luther King had stirred. But in order for these White, middle and upper class women to make an effective case--many of whom, living comfortably, and supported by husbands--they had to convince all of the housewives across America that they, as a class, were just as victimized as Black civil rights activists, who were not allowed to vote, couldn't find jobs, and were being attacked by police dogs. . So while these women did have a just cause, they addressed that cause in a fraudulent manner--and in the process, convinced women across this land that raising a family and laying the foundation that everything else in our society is built upon was something less than a desirable pursuit. They also convinced many women that the only things that are of value in this world are those things that men do--in fact, focusing on being a lady, in itself, was a frivolous pursuit. The message was, the only way to compete with men was on a man's terms--a message that places women at a gross disadvantage. . I have a good friend who happens to be an Asian. She's so beautiful she doesn't look real--she looks like someone drew her. In addition, she's brilliant, and one of the sexiest women I've ever laid eyes on--and she knows it. Her only shortcoming is she's bought into the nonsense that it's against the rules to use her femininity to help her get ahead. She told me one day that her boss wouldn't allow her to move up any farther in management. When I asked why, she said, her boss always tries to flirt with her and she doesn't want to play that game. So I asked her, doesn't your boss use his deep voice and intimidating personality to get what he wants? And she told me that he did. I then asked, so why shouldn't you use your beauty and feminine wiles to get what you want? You don't have to give in to your boss, just make him think you might--right after the next promotion, then the next, and the next. You don't have to give up a thing. Just keep hope alive. There's nothing immoral about that.  You're simply manipulating him with your feminine beauty in the same way that he manipulates you with his masculine ability to intimidate. . So, absolutely a woman can be good president--and quite possibly, one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. But I don't want one who thinks she has to act like a man to be successful. I want to vote for a female who's intelligent, charismatic, and well educated, yet, not afraid to stick her hands in dishwater. Yes, I want her to be professional and dignified, yet, also know the value of a short skirt and silk shiny stockings. I don't want any president who's going to try to be effective with one hand tied behind his or her back. A president should be prepared to bring every resource to bear. So if the president happens to be a woman, sure I want her to know how to be firm when she needs to be, but she should also know how to work it like it's hot. .  If a man's strong suit is intimidation, the illusion of power, and brute force, a woman's is insight, subtlety, and finesse. Once a woman loses sight of that fact, she's tying one hand behind her back. . Eric L. Wattree Http://wattree.blogspot.com Ewattree@Gmail.com Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA) Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHEN I LOOK AT BARACK OBAMA When I look at Barack Obama, I not only wonder why every Black person in America isn't supporting him, but why they aren't jumping up and down with glee at the opportunity. I've had many people tell me--both Black and White--that I'm just supporting Obama because he's Black. True, I am supporting Obama because he's Black, but not ONLY because he's Black. I'm supporting Barack Obama because in spite of being blessed with Black skin, and all the disadvantages that entails, this brother has managed to rise head and shoulders above the very best this society has to offer. That not only empowers him, but it also allows Black youth to embrace their Blackness with a lot more genuine pride. It allows them say, and more importantly, think, "Yes, I'm Black, and you're damn right I am somebody! I'm the product of a great and resilient people. That's very important for young people, because as the Bible points out, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." So, no, I don't support Obama just because he's Black–I support him because he's Black, on top of all his other fine qualities. Both Jesse and Sharpton are also Black, and I didn't support either of them. But this is different. When Barack Obama stepped upon the world stage, I could feel a change in the air, like something important had just happened, or a significant presence had just entered the room. I felt like, for the briefest moment the world stood still, then I looked up to see a lone figure standing on the horizon. And I wasn't alone--White folks across this land also felt it. When the change started to take hold, I noticed that in places that would have met Martin with attack dogs and fire hoses, White people were jumping up and down, smiling and singing--some of them with tears in their eyes--straining just to touch this young Black man. That's when I knew it was happening--I knew a change was coming eventually, but not like this. He came fast, and out of nowhere like a thief in the night–far from the Messiah, but like a man who knew his time had come. Then, like in that Phil Collins song, I could feel it comin' in the air, oh Lord! It was clear there was something different going on here--something that's been in the cards every since that first slave looked to the sky and said, "Please help us, dear Lord." Now, I not a religious fanatic, so I'm not about to sit here and preach you a sermon. But I am spiritual, and I'm telling you, Obama's arrival is not an accident. I don't know why, but some things are just meant to be–and if you look at them in hindsight, you can see it! When you look back on Martin and Malcolm, it's clear they were meant to be. I don't know why, but some men are just put on Earth to fulfil a plan. You can laugh at me if you want to, but I'm telling you, Obama is one of those people. Think about it. This brother is the complete opposite of everything nasty that racists have ever said about Black people. They said that we were ignorant, nasty, lazy, and didn't have any class--then this brother pops up out of nowhere. If God had handpicked somebody to show that everything racists said about Black people was a lie, we couldn't have done any better than Barack Obama. He's such a clean-cut brother that Senator Joe Biden got himself in trouble for commenting on it. His intellect and academic credentials are beyond dispute–Hillary went to Yale Law School and then got out and couldn't pass the bar; but Obama was the very first Black president and editor of the Harvard Law Review. When he becomes president, he'll easily be one of the smartest presidents in the history of this country. Think about what that's going to do to the argument of those who want to say that Black people are intellectually inferior–and more importantly, think about what it's going to do for the self-esteem of Black children all over this country, all over the world. So looking at Obama is like looking into a crystal ball–he's a perfect reflection of everything the future holds for us as a people. Even his personal heritage is a perfect metaphor for the African American people as a whole–he's the product of a marriage between Africa and America. That's what we are. Barack Obama is the walking, breathing, personification of who we are as a people. He represents the future of Black people as a whole. Many brothers like to refer back to antiquity to cite the past greatness of our people as something for us to hold on to, but while I recognize and appreciate our great contribution to the past, I'm convinced that it is the future that will define our true greatness. As African Americans, we are a brand new culture that's in the infancy of our development as a people. We're a people who were conceived in pain, born into struggle, and baptized in adversity. But adversity is experience, and experience is the source of knowledge, so we are uniquely suited to create a new, better, and more compassionate world. Thus, our history lies before us, and I'm convinced, that history will someday reflect that Barack Obama was the first step in our emergence as a people. All of us who are sitting here today, are blessed to be living at this moment in time. We are a witness to history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. And someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, young Black people will be able to look back on our contribution to that history and say, I now stand firm: I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance. I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep. I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less; and the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve and a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast. I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts; no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, Just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land. Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness. I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people. Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free. That's why I support Obama. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

WHY HILLARY'S DOG DON'T HUNT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHY HILLARY'S DOG DON'T HUNT Hillary managed to pull her carcass out of the fire in the New Hampshire Primary. But her 39 to 36 percent victory over Senator Obama seems rather shallow when you consider that she was seen as the presumptive Commander-in-Chief in waiting just prior to the Iowa caucuses. In just a few short weeks Hillary has gone from the anointed one to a woman who was, literally, brought to tears over concern for her political career—and those very tears points out an issue that begs to be examined. If Hillary's tears were genuine (and that's a big IF), we need to ask ourselves whether or not she has the emotional strength to handle the job of President of the United States. If she breaks down into tears under the stress of simply running for the job, what can we expect from her under the awesome responsibility of actually doing the job? Some may say that's a cheap shot that's only being leveled at her because she's a woman, but actually, it's a sword that cuts both ways. If Barack Obama would have broken down under similar circumstances, his candidacy would have been over. So when we're discussing the most powerful job in the world, we can't think in terms of whether the candidate is a man or a woman, we must look at their character, strength, and stability alone—and that's exactly what my question seeks to address. The fact is, we know very little about Hillary Clinton, other than she's married to Bill. She projects the image of a strong and independent woman, but how independent is she? Truly independent women are indeed something to behold, because they rely solely on their own resources under tremendous odds. No old boys club for them–it's just one women against the world. But Hillary seems to fall short in that regard–she tends to have no problem at all with embracing her husband's accomplishments as her own. With all of her talk about experience, for example—it's not her experience, it's her husband's. The only experience she has is that she slept next to power for eight years. If you take that experience away, Obama is more experienced, hands down. Hillary's claim of vast experience is completely analogous to if Mamie Eisenhower suggested that she was qualified to take over as commander of the allied command simply because she was married to General Eisenhower. Of course, I'm being facetious--but only slightly. Because the point is, just as Mamie Eisenhower would be basing her claim on her marital status, Hillary Clinton actually seems to consider the office of the president community property. One can see it in her irrational anger towards Senator Obama. She seems to look upon the senator as a young interloper seeking to take away something that is rightfully hers. That's why she can't resist attacking him every chance she gets. Even when she became "tearful", she just couldn't resist implying that Barack didn't know what he was doing: "Some of us know what we will do day one, and other's haven't thought it through." How does she know what Obama has "thought through", and what makes her such an expert on the presidency—other than she slept with one?" While Hillary tearfully claimed that her primary reason for wanting to become president was so she could bring change, and move the country in a different direction, her combative, calculating , and mean-spirited behavior clearly belies such altruistic motives. Everything she's done since she made that statement embraces the old-style approach to politics. Rather than emphasizing what she has to offer that would make her the best choice for president, she's chosen to use the old, Rovian, attack-dog style of campaigning in an attempt to undermine Obama's appeal–and history shows that appeal is a president's most valuable asset. She campaigned in South Carolina with Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, in order to appeal to the Black voters, for example. Then Johnson immediately went on stage to attack Senator Obama, and serve Hillary's purpose well–or did he? Hillary showed very poor judgement in using Johnson, and judgement is another important presidential quality. One would think that if Hillary truly had the best interest of the Black community at heart, she wouldn't have even wanted to appear on the same stage with Johnson. While, granted, Johnson is a highly successful Black entrepreneur, he's also responsible for spreading more pernicious dysfunction and cultural degradation among more Black youth than any Black man who's ever lived. This man's thoughtless greed has contributed directly to the destruction of life, and the functional viability of, literally, millions of Black kids. If Hillary didn't know that, she's out of touch with the Black experience; if she did, she simply didn't care. It was the height of irony that she would send Johnson on stage to criticize Senator Obama. The senator has spent his entire adult life trying to create a better life for the people in the Black community. On the other hand, what has Johnson done? After building the perfect tool to educate Black youth and introduce them to a better way of life, what did he do with it? He made a fortune by spreading a culture of gangster rap–with its glorification of murder, disrespect for women, saggin' pants, and the perpetuation of a dysfunctional vocabulary that all but ensures that countless young Black people will never be able to get through a job interview. Then Hillary brings this man up to criticize Obama?! If you call that love for the Black community, that's a love I can do without. On the other hand, let us look at Obama's background. After high school Obama moved to Los Angeles and attended Occidental College for two years. Thereafter he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He majored in political science and specialized in international relations, receiving his B.A. in 1983. Thereafter he worked for Business International Corporation, and later, the New York Public Interest Research Group. After moving to Chicago he became a community organizer–he worked with low-income residents in Chicago's Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing project. He went on to Harvard in 1988, and in 1990 became the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review in 104 years. After obtaing his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1991, he returned to Chicago to direct a voter registration drive. He then became an associate attorney in the law firm of Miner, Barnhil l & Galland, representing community organizers, doing discrimination and voter rights claims. He then went on to become a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. In 1996 Barack was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he represented the 13th District on the south-side of Chicago. While a state senator he worked with both Democrats and Republicans to draft successful legislation on ethics, health care reform, tax credits for low-income workers, welfare reform, subsidies for child care, a law monitoring racial profiling, and led the passage of legislation requiring the videotaping of homicide interrogations. Yet, he still managed to win the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police. 1 But while I'd be less than honest to contend that Hillary hasn't demonstrated some compassion for the plight of the average American, her tendency to discount Obama's experience, competence, and qualifications to be president is grossly disingenuous, and the Johnson affair clearly demonstrates that her judgement under fire is highly suspect. What is also clear is that Obama's preparation for the highest office far exceeds her own. After all, while she, and her healthcare plan, was being soundly trounced by her Republican opponents, Republicans were working with Barack in Illinois to get his passed. And while she was giving tea parties in the White House to help the poor, Barack was in the trenches, and public housing projects, directly involved in the struggle. So while both senators have challenged the opposition to "bring it on", Barack was on the ground, while Hillary, was on the phone. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

I CAN FEEL THE QUIET HUM OF GREATNESS

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

I can feel the quiet hum of greatness, in the air. Can you feel it, America—that roaring silence that befalls the land just prior to a significant event; the way the birds fall silent and a gentle breeze rustles the leaves just as a lone figure appears on the horizon?

“I wouldn't be running for president today without the women in my life . . .” My grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who raised me, while rejecting the bigotry that might have torn other families apart . . . my mother, Ann Dunham, "the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known," who died of ovarian cancer while she was in the "prime of her life," acquainting me with "what it's like to see a loved one suffer because of a broken health care system"-- between jobs when diagnosed, and uncertain of her health care coverage. And my wife, Michelle--"balancing her role as a mother with her responsibilities at work."

It sounds like Obama is pullin’ out all the stops, and if he pulls it off in Iowa, then New Hampshire, it’s no longer a race—it’s a strut down Broadway, confetti and all.

This is an exciting moment in our history, and we’re extremely fortunate to be alive to witness it. It’s a moment in American history where the wisdom, integrity, and honorable itent of this nation’s forefathers has allowed them to, literally, reached back from the grave before the entire world, to rescue this nation from tyranny, on the very eve of its destruction.

Can you feel it, America? I can literally, feel, the strength of this young man’s greatness . . . in the air.

Remember, you heard it here, first.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

WHY DO WE FIGHT THE N-WORD THEN SUPPORT AMERICAN GANGSTER?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WHY DO WE FIGHT THE N-WORD THEN SUPPORT AMERICAN GANGSTER? THEY'RE BOTH SAYING THE SAME THING--NIGGER . Why are we flocking to the movies and spending our hard-earned money to support American Gangster? And why did Denzel Washington, a brother that has brought so much pride to our community, even agree to make such a movie? We could ask the same question about Training Day as well. Both of those movies, along with much of the fare that's regurgitated over BET, are not only primers for dysfunction among Black youth, but they also serve as lucrative commercials being broadcasted throughout the world advertising the gross stupidity of Black people. Then after we've received all of that negative publicity–publicity that would cost a corporation billions of dollars to purchase-- we don't understand why we can't get any respect, and why the police stop us whenever they see us anywhere near "civilized people." . It's hard to understand how a brother of Denzel's character could even be involved in a project that reflects so badly on the Black community. But after giving it careful thought, I think I've come up with an answer: Black people, including Denzel, have become so accepting of this kind of character assassination that it has become routine, so he never gave it a second thought. That is the very reason I had a problem with the campaign against use of the n-word. The Black community has been so brainwashed over the past 40 years that we've developed a mindset that is hyper-sensitive to the superficial, while the status quo is left carefully unmolested (the source of that brainwashing is grist for another time–at book length). While we're being distracted, and jumping up and down over the n-word, people are being paid zillions of dollars to produce commercials in the form of movies being broadcasted around the world that say, "Look at how these in**as live"–and we're supporting it! Come on, people, wake up! . While I generally defer to the sensibilities of brothers and sisters who have an aversion to the "n-word", it's not a happy concession ("N-word"--I feel silly even writing such a foolish euphemism). As a writer, words are simply tools to me, and every tool has its purpose. Like a mechanic, I select whatever tool is necessary to best express the concept I'm trying to get across, so I feel like I'm being robbed of a valuable tool of my trade–and for what? From my point of view, the word "nigga" represents any person, of any race, who takes pride in his stupidity. So as I see it, as long as we allow ourselves to get all worked up over a word, while at the same time, we all but ignore our kids killing kids in the street, grown men turning twelve year olds into whores, and half the community flocking to the movies, and PAYING, to watch commercials about our stupidity, the word "nigga" is being prolifically under-utilized. . The best way to avoid being called a nigga is to rise above the definition. You don't hear anyone calling Barack Obama, Colin Powell, or the late Johnnie Cochran a nigga. There's a reason for that. You see, any racist who would call any of these brothers a nigga is then faced with the task of demonstrating that he's superior to them, and very few people can meet that standard. If some racist pointed to Obama and told his son, "You see that guy over there–he's a nigga." His son would probably look at Obama, then look at his dad, and say, "Daddy, I think I want to be a nigga when I grow up." . So we need to shake off our brainwashing, and start focusing on the substantive issues in our community, because our behavior indicates that our most tenacious shackle is attached to our mind. We in the Black community need to ask ourselves a series of very simple questions, and answer them honestly. We need to ask ourselves, do we truly want to elevate our community out of its current condition, or not? Do we want to bring an end to the epidemic of kids killing kids in the street, or not? Do we want our community to become known for producing excellence, or not? If we're satisfied with producing misery, dysfunction, and crime, then fine—we're doing an excellent job of that. But if it's truly important to us to produce doctors, lawyers, scientists, and scholars, our current behavior indicates that we're either lying to ourselves, or living in a deep state of denial. . What we're doing to our children is comparable to holding a sirloin stake up before a starving man, then telling him to just say no. How can we expect our young people, many of whom have known nothing but deprivation all of their lives, to make the necessary sacrifices to become scholars, while we flock to the movies in droves to applaud a guy who literally soaked himself in riches by way of crime? Why should our young people waste their time in the pursuit of excellence, when they can fake it with the flamboyance of wealth derived from crime? After all, their mothers, who they sincerely want to impress, can't seem to tell the difference, and their fathers would be walking on air, because they're wearing their caps sideways themselves. . So our community is sending out a grossly inconsistent message. On the one hand, we become insulted when we get on an elevator and ladies pull their purses close, yet we wholeheartedly support our community being portrayed as a cesspool of crime to people all around the world; and while we say that we're Black and we're proud, instead of addressing those issues that allow people to call us niggas, we'd rather take the shortcut of trying to abolish the word–which makes us look even more ridiculous, since the more we say we hate it, the more useful the word becomes. And finally, with our starstruck attitude towards crime, criminals, and criminal behavior, how can we tell our young people to "just say no" to a fantasy that we can't resist ourselves? So we need to sit down and get our priorities together–and fast. . I want to end this tirade by pointing out that while I mentioned Denzel, it is not my intent to drop all of this in his lap. The brother has always been, and I'm sure he always will be, one of the bright spots in the Black community. But I hope he'll recognize in his future endeavors that he's got too much clout and believability to do movies like Training Day and American Gangster without having an impact on our community. He should be doing movies that lift up the community and inspire our young people to excellence, like Great Debaters, the other movie he did this year.  . In that movie he tells young Black students to "Do what you've got to do so you can do what you want to do." That's the message that young people need to hear. But it'll be interesting to see which one of the two movies will do best in the Black community. Unfortunately, my money is on American Gangster–and that's a damn shame. . Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

KNOWLEDGE IS FREE

. BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. WE CAN'T BLAME A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON THE WHITE MAN, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE IS FREE A lady told me that I contradicted myself in last week's article. She said I indicated that if we learned to think more efficiently, we could resolve our own problems, and we wouldn't need the government. She then pointed out that efficient thinking requires education, and education requires government assistance. I asked her to think about what she had said—that education requires government. I then suggested that she's laboring under an erroneous assumption—knowledge is free, so we're capable of educating ourselves. All we have to do is want it. I went on to tell her that it would be nice if government would educate us, but at best, our current system is a taxpayer subsidized babysitting service, and at worst, a tool used to indoctrinate Black youth into thinking that they're useless. But as I listened to my words coming from her mouth, I didn't like their sound. I came off sounding like one of those Larry Elder-type turncoats who make a living by calling Black people whiners for expecting the services they deserve from our government. So I want to clarify any misimpression that I might have left in that regard right now. The fact is, our government should help to educate our children, and Black people, or any other citizen for that matter--have a right to get everything they can get from this government. The government is a pie that we all contribute to, and the political process is about is getting as much of that pie as we can manage to obtain. Therefore, if Black people tend to whine (the rich also whine, but they call it lobbying), it's only because we've traditionally found ourselves pushed to the side while everybody else eats the filling from the pie, and we're left with crumbs. So last week's article was about becoming bakers, and making our own pie, instead of depending on others to negotiate how many crumbs we're allowed to have. So the difference between my position and Larry Elder's is, where Larry says that Black people should be ashamed of asking for what they rightfully deserve, I say, tell 'em to go to hell--we have enough potential in the community to tell them to keep their crumbs. There's a big difference between our two points of view--one will have you looking down at your feet, while the other allows you to look out over the horizon. We're much too vibrant and creative as a people to have to live the way we're living, and we don't have the time to wait for the government's help. We've gotten caught up in a lifestyle where we're simply existing from day to day instead of engaging the tremendous talents that would allow us to rise to the very top of this society. Our problem is not about what the White man is doing, or not doing for us—our biggest problem is about our mindset, and how we think of ourselves. I've previously discussed how whenever scientists measure intelligence in man, or any other species, the very first thing they look for is creativity, and Black people are clearly among the most creative people on this planet. The very same creative eloquence that Martin used to ignite a yearning for justice among men all over the world, and Charlie Parker, Ray Charles, and a host of others used to develop a Black musical tradition that went from playing washboards and beating on trash cans on the side of the road, to creating the most complex and universally embraced form of music in the world, can very easily be focused to not only resolve our problems, but resolve the problems of all mankind. We've got to recognize our creativity as a cultural treasure that can be used to cure cancer, help man to explore the universe, and resolve world disputes. We've got to recognize that we are the people of the future—a people that God has groomed to know pain and suffering, in order to make us uniquely qualified to relieve pain and suffering. That is our destiny, and we must embrace it. We're currently using our creativity to mask the pain that we've suffered in this society—and after what we've been through, we were due a few years of partying, rest, and relaxation. But now it's time to suck it up, to slow down and contemplate who we are as a people, and assume our rightful place in the world community. And the first step in doing that is to redefine our cultural mores. We've got to replace being cool, with being knowledgeable—and the only way we're going to do that is by changing the values for which we reward our children. What children want more than anything else is to get the approval of their parents, so we've got to teach them early in life that what impresses us most is what they know, not how closely they can mimic adult behavior. Instead of waking little Johnny up to show Uncle Willie how well he can "break it down", we need to wake him up to show his uncle how well he can do an algebra problem—and Uncle Willie should always have a dollar or two to give him once he gets that problem right. That way Little Johnny learns early in life that knowledge is the key to success. I've said this to people before, and I've been told, "Why set Little Johnny up for disappointment? His school is not going to prepare him to go to college—and even if it does, where am I going to get the money to pay for it?" But that's the least of our problems. Our major focus should be to get our young people to fall in love with the pursuit of knowledge. Once we've done that, nothing can stop them from obtaining it. The opportunity to go to a top university is a wonderful thing, but it's not everything. Knowledge is free, and there's just as much knowledge in the corner library as there is at Harvard University. It was my experience in college that I did most of my learning at home anyway. When I went to school, all they did was told me what books to read, and what chapters, and thereafter I was tested to see what I'd learned. But in any event, it's the knowledge that's important, the degree is secondary. Granted, a degree is necessary to get a job–unless you have the knowledge to create one. But that said, I'm sure that if we make a commitment to come together as a community to promote excellence, we'll find a way to get our young scholars educated. I'm convinced that we have enough churches, civic organizations, and rich entertainers who are in need of Black dollars to remain rich, to get our young people educated–degrees and all. Our community will also benefit in a less obvious way from this endeavor. Knowledge is contagious. Those parents who don't have the education to help their kids with their homework, can allow their kids to educate them. Helping our children with their homework is not only an excellent way to bond, but an excellent way to help re-educate ourselves. It gives us an opportunity to go all the way from elementary school through college all over again, or, for the very first time. And with the right mindset, it can be fun. I've learned to look at algebra problems are actually puzzles, and my kids and I use to have a ball spending hours trying figuring them out. Try figuring this out with your kid: There's 3000 miles between Los Angeles and New York. Train A left L.A. going to N.Y. at 8 a.m. traveling 65 mph. Train B left N.Y. coming to L.A. at 10:45 traveling 85 mph. Where will they meet, and at what time? I want to interact with you, so when you figure it out, I'd like to hear from you so I can discuss your experience in a future article. Let's stop talking, and start doing. Who knows, your child may be an engineer or mathematician, just waiting to be inspired. Wouldn't that be something? It would sure make my life worthwhile. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

LET’S RING OUT 2007 WITH A LITTLE TRUTH

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. LET'S RING OUT 2007 WITH A LITTLE TRUTH If I had to choose just one issue that I thought would do most to improve the Black condition, it wouldn't be more jobs, or more government assistance, or any of the other things that we generally hear our so-called leaders shouting into deaf ears. Thanks to Bush, the days of a benevolent government are over--we'll be lucky to just get social security. So we've got to be practical at this point, and recognize that the most important thing we can do to improve our condition is to become more independent and efficient thinkers. Once we do that, many of our other problems will resolve themselves. What identifies this need as being so pressing is the tendency for so many of us to accept propositions simply because they sound witty, catchy, or fit conveniently into our comfort zone. When faced with such propositions, we tend to accept them at face value, rather than looking beneath the surface to see whether or not they standup to the test of logic. As a result, we often accept positions that seriously undermine our ability to move forward. I was faced with a glaring example of that problem this morning during a casual conversation with one of my co-workers. He told me that he wasn't going to waste his vote on Senator Obama. When I asked him what made him think a vote for Obama would be wasted, he said, the Senator could never win the Democratic nomination due to America's tradition of White supremacy. I was quick to point out to him that while his theory might be true, Hillary is certainly not gaining much comfort from it. When one considers the history of Black people in this country, my friend's position almost sounds reasonable on the surface, but when you look at the facts beneath the surface, it doesn't stand up to logical examination. His point of view assumes that all of White America is monolithic, and that's clearly not the case. Whites are no more monolithic in their point of view than Black people. In fact, just to hold such a position adopts the very point of view that is the cornerstone of racism. Isn't that the exact proposition that Black people have been fighting to disprove for generations? When we use the phrase "driving while Black", aren't we criticizing what we contend is the White tendency to think that all Blacks are criminals? So why embrace the very same racist philosophy that has caused Black people so much pain over the years. How can we, on the one hand, insist on not being prejudged, then on the other, casually hang the label of racist on every White, man, woman, and child in America? The fact is, we can't--at least, if we want to remain logically consistent. Therefore, while it is true that a Black man has never been elected president of the United States, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that a Black man never will. The only way that would hold true is if all members of any given race are, indeed, the same--in which case, we would also have to hold that the police are justified in stopping anyone who is Black. The statement above is simple syllogistic Logic. If we hold that all members of any given race are the same, and some Whites are racists, therefore, it follows that all Whites are racists, we must also accept the proposition that since all people of a given race are the same, and some Blacks are criminals, that all Blacks are criminals. There's no way around it. The fact that a Black man has never been elected president is due to thinking precisely like my friend's--flawed, racist, and inefficient. Yet, in spite of his racist ideas, he's not a bad guy, he's simply misinformed. The same is true in the White community. For the most part, people aren't bad, they're simply ignorant. But people grow, and attitudes change over time. In just my lifetime, there were places across this land where a Black man couldn't even sit down to eat anywhere near a White man--not to even mention a White woman. But now we have multiracial families all over America. And when I was a kid, my grandfather, who was from Louisiana, told me he wouldn't take me anywhere south of San Diego if his life depended on it. He said I wouldn't know how to act, and I'd probably get us both killed. But just like attitudes change, conditions also change. Today, Senator Obama is being cheered in some of the same locations that met Martin with attack dogs. Today's Americans are simply trying to survive and protect the ones they love. They've become frightened over an America that's become unfamiliar to them, so they're ready to reach out to anyone that they think can restore their confidence in the country, and turn America into the kind of nation in which we can all truly be proud. And a great many of those people see Obama as the man who can do that, because his message is pro America, he inspires the soul, and his very life ratifies the promise envisioned by our founding fathers. He seems to be the right man, at the perfect time--and the American people feel a visceral connection to him. That's why this young Black man is being embraced by people across all ethnic, racial, political, and social lines. In addition, the one service that George Bush and the Republican Party has provided the American people is giving them a glimpse of what an unguarded America could become. The Bush years have given the American people the opportunity to look over the precipice, and they didn't like what they saw. So now that America has truly been given a choice, the American people have chosen the forward-looking vision that Thomas Jefferson had for the nation, over the ugliness that George Bush has brought to these shores. So win or loose, Obama's message is beginning to resonate, and his very presence as a political force in this country speaks volumes about the basic character and political intent of the American people. But ironically, what most threatens Obama's success is not White people, it's the twisted, slave-related mentality, of many Black people, and we've got to address that issue immediately. We simply must modify the way we think, and we don't have a lot of time to do it. In that regard, I'd like to address another dumb concept that many of us embrace--the ridiculous belief that Black people can't be racist. According to this theory, in order to be a racist one must also control the political and social power to commit racist acts. Therefore, the theory goes, since Blacks don't control power in this country, it's impossible for them to be racist. It is nothing short of horrifying that so many people are so gullible that they can be persuaded to accept such an ignorant and self-serving position. Not only is it possible for Black people to be racist, but a strong argument can be made that many Black people are some of the most racist people in America against other Blacks! Racism is a state of mind, nothing else--and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with one's color, ethnicity, economic, or social position. The only thing that's required to be a racist is a narrow mind, and a limited ability to think. While it is true that a racist with power is in a better position to wield racist policies, a poor man with a gun and hatred in his heart can be just as racist, and to a victim, just as powerful. Even though he may be poor, that gun gives him power--the ultimate power--the power over life and death. So, if that man uses his gun to take the life of another based on race, isn't that a racist act? Of course it is--it's the racist act of a racist personality, regardless of what color he is. And unfortunately, much too often, Black people are turning that gun on themselves, both figuratively and literally, and the attitude of many Black people towards Obama is derived from that very same mindset. And finally, there's yet another catchy little non-truism that serves to hold Black people back. It goes something like this--"You can't know where you're going unless you know where you've been." That sounds like the most profound kind of wisdom on the surface, but my only objection to it--besides the fact that it's not true--is the fact that it's generally used as a refuge for people who aren't interested in going anywhere in the first place. Many Black people tend to use this statement as an excuse to wallow in the past, and it also serves to distract our young people from keeping their eye on the ball. After all, how much knowledge of abuse is required before we're ready to move forward? By my count, we've been in deep "contemplation" for close to forty years now. When is it time to say, ok, enough is enough--let's get this train rollin'! Granted, it's always good to know your history--in fact, all knowledge is good knowledge. But you can't allow yourself to live there. Many people who live by this philosophy depend on the accomplishments of "kings and queens" in Black history to boost their own self-esteem (and in many cases while passing a blunt). They also dwell on it to the exclusion of looking to the future. But they're being disingenuous. Many of these very same people who claim that royalty is an integral part of Black heritage, will also say that a Black man can never become president of the United States. Royalty doesn't think like that. While there's nothing wrong with taking pride in Black history, one's primary focus should always be on what you're doing now, and what you intend to do in the future. Reminiscing about days of glory is not going to feed your kids, or get you anywhere. Let us look at it in a more graphic way--if you had only ten seconds on Earth to get as far as you could go, how many of those seconds would you use looking backward? That may seem like a ridiculous way of looking at the problem, but the fact is, our time on Earth is, in fact, limited. So asking ourselves how much of that precious time we want to waste looking backwards is a valid question. And if you're a sports fan, you might also want to ask yourself, how much time does a football player spend looking back at the one yard line? Most concepts that seem complicated are actually quite simple when you break them down into analogous situations that you face on a daily basis. For example, when you get in your car in the morning, after starting your motor you glance over your shoulder to look for any obstructions. Then once you find that everything is clear and pull out into the street, you put your car into drive and focus on where you're going. If you tried to drive the twenty miles to work by looking over your shoulder, you'd never reach your destination. That's also true in life, and it's a problem that too many of us have in the Black community--we're so busy looking behind us that we can't see the beautiful vista that lies ahead. And that's exactly how we're undermining ourselves with respect to Senator Obama--we're so fixated on how things look behind us, that we can't see the possibilities of what lies before us. So again, if we intend to remain a viable community, instead of just talking about it, we've got to start training ourselves to look forward. And the very first step in doing that is to stop allowing--in fact, depending--on other people to think for us. Many of those who would love to do our thinking for us have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Therefore, we should strive to become critical and independent thinkers in our own right. Critical thinking involves thoroughly examining and probing for holes in the logic of anything presented to us as fact. Thereafter, if what you're told stands up to the rigors of scrutiny, then, and only then, should you allow it to past through your firewall--and it should be constantly subjected to reviewed every time new information becomes available. If we learn to routinely examine everything we're told in that manner, we'll never have to worry about people like Bush telling us, "All dogs have teeth, and cats have teeth. Therefore, your cat is a dog." Wait--before you laugh, consider the following: "The enemy is from the Middle East. Iraq is in the Middle East. Therefore, Iraq is the enemy." Sound familiar? The failure to recognize flawed logic can kill you--and more often than not, it does. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

JESUS WAS A LIBERAL

BENEATH THE SPIN * ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. It never ceases to amaze me how Democrats can allow conservative Republicans--a group whose only reason for being is to undermine the poor--to co-opt the love of God as a political issue. I once read a bumper sticker that said, "The Christian Right is neither Christian, nor Right." I remember thinking at the time, what a profoundly concise statement of fact--Shakespeare couldn't have said it any better. It's unbelievable what these thugs have done--they not only stole Christmas, they stole the Messiah himself. So instead of caving in to the conservative theft of Christianity, every Democrat in America should drive the truth about these demagogues home every time they opened their mouths to address the Christian community. They should use every opportunity to educate the people to the facts, and the fact is, Jesus Christ was a liberal--and according to his teachings, to be anything else, is less than Christian. Ok, I know--that sounds like a ridiculously partisan statement, and admittedly, I'm far from a Biblical scholar. In fact, I'm not even truly what most people would call a Christian--that is, unless they examined my heart. But I can read, and all the supernatural stuff notwithstanding, I am a great admirer of Jesus as a progressive, a teacher, and philosopher. So I stand by my position--Jesus Christ was a liberal, and I challenge any Biblical scholar in the world to prove me wrong. Let's take a look at the facts. The American Heritage Dictionary defines liberal as follows: Lib-ER-al adj. Abbr. Lib. 1. A. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. B. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. The only thing missing from that definition is a picture of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was broad minded, free of bigotry, and tolerant of the ideas of others. He was also good-natured, and like any true liberal, he had compassion for the poor and an eye towards reforming the status quo. On the other hand, the Christian Right tends to base their theology on the condemnation of those with whom they disagree. Where Jesus' position was what can we do to make this a better world, the conservative position is what can we do to destroy those who refuse to love our world or leave it; and where Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", Pat Robertson says, pass me a rock. Jesus was focused on feeding the hungry and heeling the sick, where Bush, on the other hand, vetoed child healthcare in one breath, while demanding $192 billion for his war machine in the next. Christians? I don't think so. True Christians recognize that Jesus is interested in how we treat our fellow man. He could care less about whether we put "In God We Trust" on our money, or whether or not we put a nativity scene on the town square. That has nothing to do with Christianity. God doesn't need commercials--that's more about hypocrites trying to fool God, and man, into believing that they're Christians. But while they may fool man, they can't fool God, because he knows them by their deeds, or lack thereof. True Christians recognize that. They also recognize that the issue of prayer in school is also a non-issue--an issue promoted by chauvinistic personalities trying to force their will down the throats of others. After all, how can you prevent a person from praying in school? In addition, any thinking Christian knows that while they may not agree with same-sex unions, it is God, not they, who will judge whether or not gays have the right to love. True Christians recognize that all of these issues are designed to promote anger, dissension, and division, the very antithesis of Jesus' message to "Love thy neighbor." The people who promote these sort of issues are mean-spirited personalities who have become expert at hiding their bigoted proclivities within the Christian community. They pretend to be Christians so they can hide their prejudice, and penchant for demonizing others within a protective cocoon of spirituality. Claiming to be Christians allow them to say, "Oh, it's not me who hates Blacks, liberals, gays, Democrats, and everybody from Hollywood, Berkeley, and San Francisco, it's God. I can't help it if God hates everybody who don't look and think like I do." These kind of people have absolutely saturated the Christian community-- that's why the very same part of the country we refer to as the Bible Belt, just happens to also be the most racist, narrow-minded, and under-educated area in the entire United States. These are the people who refer to those who want to think for themselves as secular elitist--and if there's any doubt about my contention, just ask yourself, how was it at all possible for Christianity and rabid racism to exist in the very same environment. Then ask yourself, what group is most supportive of the murder and mayhem currently taking place in Iraq, and whether or not you think Jesus would join them in their frenzy. Thus, the Democrats should point out to the Christian community at every opportunity that there are demons among them. And liberals shouldn't be at all shy about pointing out that while the Christian Right are thumping their Bibles, they're simultaneously preaching and promoting policies that would be repulsive to Jesus Christ. Liberals also shouldn't be shy about pointing out any scandal that show these people for what they are, because the Christian community needs to recognize that these demons among them are undermining their mission, and everything that Jesus Christ stood for. They're giving all Christians a bad name. Many who might otherwise come to church are embarrassed to be seen in the company of these demagogues. In preparing this article it became immediately clear why conservatives are less than supportive of funding public education. Just a cursory glance through the Bible by any educated person--at least, any educated person who hasn't been brainwashed into to believing that he'll go to hell for thinking--will show that the Bible has but one theme, a theme that it repeats over and over again. The Ten Commandments says just about everything the Bible has to say—try to live a loving and honorable life. The demagogues take its many verses, however, and twist them out of context to make them say whatever they want them to say. But for anyone who wants the definitive word on how to be embraced by God, simply turn to Matthew 25:34--it lays it all out, plain and simple: "Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me." They then asked Jesus, When did we do all of that for you? And he replied, when you did it for the least of my brothers, you did it for me. Then he turned to the conservatives at his left hand and said: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." Then the conservatives asked, When did we refuse to feed, clothe, or visit you in the joint? He then pointed to the people on his right and said, when you failed to help the least of these, you failed to help me. Now the righteous will go into life eternal, and you will go into everlasting punishment. So I guess that just about says it all, Brother Bush. You may be able to live in comfort after vetoing child healthcare in the shadow of Christmas, but let's see if you can die in comfort, in the shadow of our Lord. Thank you, Lord--it's been my pleasure. I would say, forgive him, Lord, for he knew not Mary's donkey was blue. But as I said at the outset, Dear Lord, I'm far less than the perfect Christian. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

PELOSI BRIEFED ON TORTURE IN 2002

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR.

PELOSI BRIEFED ON TORTURE IN 2002?
NO WONDER IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE

On Sunday, December 9, 2007, the Washington Post reported that in September 2002 four members of congress were briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” (sweet talk for methods of torture) by the CIA. According to the report, the CIA provided a second briefing the following month, and 28 additional briefings over the following five years. Among the congressional delegation that was briefed was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif). Other members of congress briefed by the CIA were Jane Harman (D-Calif), who replaced Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV(D-W. Va.), Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).

Among the “techniques” that the legislators were briefed on was the infamous form of torture known as “waterboarding”—a method of torture that simulates drowning. In waterboarding, the victim is strapped to a board with his feet above his head. A clothe is placed over his mouth and nose, then water is poured over his face. This causes the victim to have the sensation of drowning, and is intensely horrifying.

According to the report, “Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history's worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War.”
In spite of the fact that waterboarding has been clearly recognized as torture the world over, witnesses to the congressional briefings reported that at least two of the legislators asked if more severe measures could be taken. Pelosi refused to respond to her reaction to the briefing, but the only clear objection to the methods being used came from Rep. Jane Harman. Ms. Harman, who replaced Rep. Pelosi in the briefings in January 2003, filed a classified letter protesting the interrogation program. She was unable to protest publicly because the program was classified. "When you serve on [the] intelligence committee you sign a second oath -- one of secrecy," she said. "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

This report goes a long way towards explaining Pelosi’s insistence that “impeachment is off the table.” In my article DEMOCRATS FIGHT OFF REPUBLICAN VOTE TO IMPEACH CHENEY, I ask the following questions:

“If Pelosi is willing to be dragged through the mud for bucking the will of the American people to protect Bush and Cheney, whose agenda is she conforming to? One might say she's afraid of a possible backlash as a result of pursuing impeachment. But shouldn't she be even more afraid of angering her constituents? So if she doesn't fear the wrath of her constituents, the most liberal constituency in the country, whose wrath does she fear more?”

Now we can answer that question decisively—she was afraid that if she pursued Bush and Cheney’s impeachment, her quiet acquiescence to a blatant war crime would be revealed. Her actions, or lack thereof, renders her just short of a co-conspirator—if not a co-conspirator, in fact.

This is yet another example of how the politicians, on both sides of the isle, are betraying the American people. It is clear that Bush and Cheney must be impeached to vindicate the American people before the world. As I’ve pointed out previously, Bush and Cheney must be impeached in order to restore the dignity and respect that the United States once enjoyed in the world community. By allowing these two to get away scot-free with all of the death, destruction, and mayhem that they've unleashed on the world, we're, in effect, ratifying their behavior. We'd be telling the world that we approve of what they've done in our name--and if we do that, America is through as a purveyor of justice and democracy in this world.

If the United States is ever to regain its former stature in the world, it behooves the American to distance themselves from these monsters. We must impeach, arrest, and thereafter, offer them up to the world community for war crimes. And once that’s done, we should extend our most sincere apology to the people of this planet for all of the destruction we've allowed the Bush administration to commit in our name. That is the one and only way that the United States will ever again be safe from terrorism, and the only way it will ever regain its former stature in the world community.

But now, it seems, we have two other tasks—we must get rid of Pelosi, and find out how in the hell the fourth estate allowed this story die in just one day.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE, SR. AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BLACK COMMUNITY I was both embarrassed and conflicted by a CBS News poll that showed Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 52% to 28% among Black voters. I was conflicted because my emotions seemed to directly contradict my long held position that the new struggle in this country is no longer about race, but class, and I stand by that position. Nevertheless, it is extremely embarrassing to know that the rest of the world has simply got to being snickering over the Black tendency towards self-hatred--and let there be no doubt about it, that's exactly what the numbers above reflect. It is both contrary to my character and antithetical to everything that I believe to suggest that anyone should cast a vote based on race alone--after all, if White people voted race alone, Black politicians would never win an election outside the Black community. But it seems to me that this election, and Senator Barack Obama in particular, represents a very special circumstance. It's a confluence of factors coming together that demand Black people to unite and assure we're on the right side of history. Senator Barack Obama is not just another Black politician--he's intelligent, he's personable, and his political instincts are flawless. In fact, his sense of class, dignity, and propriety places him so high above the rest of the pack that the other politicians don't know what to do with him. He is so well thought of by the American people--Democrat, Republican, and Independents alike—that it is clear that he possesses that very special, JFK-like quality that could bring this nation together. I see the candidacy of Senator Obama as an opportunity—and quite possibly our last opportunity--to recapture the best of what America is as a nation, and we are as a people. I'd say, that alone, speaks volumes. Admittedly, I'm far from one who's qualified to speak for God, but it seems to me that considering all that Black people have suffered in this country--including being called ignorant, classless, and untrustworthy--if God handpicked the kind of man that he thought should represent our people in this country, Senator Obama would be that man. He is the walking personification of everything we know our people to be--even his heritage, the marriage of Africa and America, is a metaphor for who we are as a people. Yet he trails in the polls, among our own people, by 24%. What's up with that? I have no problem with Hillary. In fact, if she wins this nomination I'll be right out there supporting her enthusiastically, right along side Barack, I'm sure. But what makes Hillary so special that we would support her over a dream that goes back as far as the African-American culture itself? The numbers mentioned above can reflect nothing less than a flaw in our character. Think about it--what do we actually know about Hillary other than she's married to Bill? I was married to a wonderful woman for thirty-three years, yet we were as different as night and day. So, just because the name is Clinton, doesn't mean we're gonna get Bill. And even if Hillary is identical to Bill, who's to say that a President Barack Obama wouldn't stand head and shoulders above even Bill Clinton himself? Bill was an excellent president, but he was far from the Messiah. We've simply got to have faith in ourselves. If we don't, who will? If Black people don't have faith in the fact that we are capable of producing a leader with the capacity to lead our people and this nation to a higher level of humanity and leadership in the world, why should anyone else believe in us? And if Barack Obama is not that man--with his background as the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review, his demonstrated courage to stand up against invading Iraq during a time when it was unpopular to do so, and the flawless political judgment that has propelled him to the very apex of power in a nation where all the cards were stacked against him--then what Black man (or woman, for that matter) among us is? Some Black people seem to be actively seeking a reason not to support this man. For the lack of any other excuse, they say he lacks experience--but experience at what? Where has experience gotten us so far? Hillary Clinton has experience that goes all the way back to the Nixon era, but that didn't prevent her from voting to give George Bush the power to take us into the most foolhardy war that this country has ever been involved. Then, after conceding that she'd made an error, she repeated the error in voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment against Iran. On the other hand, Obama, this "political novice", had the wisdom to tell America, once again, that we were giving a man who can't be trusted, a free hand to be foolhardy--once again. And now, recent revelations in the news tell us he was right--once again. So I'd say, inexperience notwithstanding, Senator Obama seems to be batting a thousand. The inexperienced Senator Obama also stands poised to hand control of political power back to the American people. He's demonstrated single-handedly that the people can come together and more than compete with big business as a source of political funding. Obama has raised more money through small donations from average Americans than the "more experienced" politicians have managed to raise through their corporate masters. That means that Americans now have a fighting chance of electing politicians that are more beholding to them than they are to big business (and mark my word--you can look for big business to sponsor some sort of legislation in the future to try to close that egregious loophole). Thus, regardless to how this campaign turns out, whether Obama wins or falls short in his effort, he's already performed an immeasurable service to the American people by demonstrating that politicians don't have to be beholding to big business. Someday, when all of this is looked back upon, Obama's contribution is going to be recognized as one of the most valuable gifts to America in modern history. I'd say, that alone is a pretty impressive accomplishment for a guy with no experience. Now I ask you, what have any of the more "experienced" politicians done to change the face of American politics lately? So the bottom line is, considering Senator Obama's Character, political savvy, and the fact that he's the very first viable Black presidential candidate in the history of this nation, to contend that he's not ready to be president is to say that no Black person is ready to be president of the United States. If you happen to be Black and not willing to take that position, in order to be logically consistent, you have to be prepared to come up with the name of a Black person who you consider more viable and qualified to be president. If you can't do that, you're in denial, and on the wrong side of history. It's hard to understand the Black community. Never in my most horrific nightmare did I ever think I'd have to mount such a self-evident argument to my own people regarding a viable Black candidate. As I sit here I imagine Martin, Malcolm, and a million slaves spinning in their graves, saying, "I died for this! What's wrong with those idiots?" I also imagine racists of the past taunting these great men, saying, "We told you--y'all were fools." But as sad as this situation is, it brings to mind an old joke--a very old but profound joke, so bear with me: There was a guy stranded on his roof during a flood, and the water was rising fast. In an attempt to try to save him, a group of people wanted to throw him a life preserver, but he turned it down, saying, "That's ok. God will provide." Then they tried to save him in a boat, and later with a helicopter, but in each case he turned them down, saying, "That's ok. The Lord will provide." Finally the water overtook him and he drowned. Then, as the Devil was dragging him off to Hell, he looked up to God and said, "My Lord, why have you forsaken me, and why am I going to Hell?" And God replied, "Man, I sent you a life preserver, a boat, and even a helicopter, and you refused them. You're going to Hell because you committed suicide." That joke is a perfect example of what's currently happening in the Black community. We're being given the opportunity to bring Martin's dream, and the prayers that our people have whispered for hundreds of years into reality; the opportunity for Black children to say for the first time, and with conviction, that "I'm going to be president someday." For the first time, a Black child will be able to go through life knowing that he is the master of his own destiny. And just as important as all of the things mentioned above, finally, the losers and deadbeats in the Black community won't be able to convince Black youth that failure is acceptable, because "it's the White man's fault." But in spite of all of that, some of us are so consumed with self-hatred that we'd rather cut our own throats before supporting one of our own for president. That is the reality, but if we allow this opportunity to pass us by, God would be completely justified in telling us to stop complaining and just shut-up and suffer. After all, God helps those who help themselves. Eric L. Wattree, Sr. ewattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content