Dr. Ron wrote:I hope all of you read this at least a few more times.
Newt was on OReilly last night and said originally he was moved by the honest efforts of the young man......then he said he read the speech and became outraged at his attempts to compare apples to oranges...using the issues of Wright and his white grandmother.
Obama is a true racist and will do horrible damage to this country if elected.
I'm going to be honest with you that I didn't read it that way. I believe he's honest-to-God connected spiritually with this Wright. He honestly sees him differently than we do, and you could expect that to happen. I have somoene that I view in a way that, even though I disagree with some things he's done (disclaimer: ummm, he hasn't done anything wrong, just sort of disagreeably), I wouldn't disown him any sooner than I would my own brother. Now, is the question this: Can someone who has done so much good (giving Obama the benefit of the doubt that Wright has, in fact, done good), do so bad that we toss him on his ear personally?? I'm not sure the presidency is worth that, and I'm even less sure it requires it.
I think Obama views Wright as one who is as integral to his being where he is today as his own grandmother. Both of them influenced him, he says, for the good, and both of them did evil but he's not going to disown either of them for it. Is his grandmother's evil on the same scale as Wright's? I don't know, and neither does Newt, God love him. Obama's description didn't make me think so, however. But, as for its impact on HIM personally, which was the issue being drawn in his speech, it was profound enough that he wanted nothing to do with it even from someone he loves. That's the very idea he expressed about Wright, too. I don't see it as apples and oranges. I see it as a faulty (IMO) judgment of one's character flaw, but then again, I haven't walked in a black man's shoes. Now, this doesn't mean that I think all that mess about the rage of the black man is justifiable. It does mean that he has a point that's being avoided by conservatives, if not made fun of outright, that the black man's experience uniquely colors his perceptions of this country. We can't understand it from the outside. That doesn't consign us to some corner to wait while the heathen rages. But, it does mean that there's a fundamental disconnect between whites and blacks, and no small part of it is demonstrated in the systems that we, the whites, support politically (as in the example of the criminal justice system).
I view Obama's speech as drawing us to those issues, calling us to attend to them in ways that do not contribute to the environment of rage that we are ---- yes, guilty ---- of helping build. It wasn't black tax dollars that declared and implemented a war on drugs. It was white politicians elected by white voters and who used white collar and white blue collar tax money to build jails to house black men. Meanwhile, drug use skyrockets in white communities, rich and poor. You don't see meth raids in the country club homes even though their teenagers are using it in record numbers. You see police posts in black neighborhoods, and they don't stray from them far. Let us live in that kind of occupation for a while and see if we don't develop some deep resentments. But, falling on old, tired and tried-and-failed policies and excuses and cliches and attitudes will not change anything. I don't think Obama's the answer, though. I think what he would do would make it worse.
But, I think it's time we quit retreating behind the familiar lines of blame and look at where the money is going and who benefits from the problems being so bad.
For example, it wasn't black people that put gangster rap in the mainstream of our culture, and glorifies violence and drugs and misogyny and fathering children without strings. That's all white behavior as much as it is black behavior. It is Jewish and white record executives/Hollywood producers (yes, Jews do run Hollywood, and that's not a secret) and black moguls working together to create it. But, we look askance at it and them for consuming what we produce, and for letting it shape their communities. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.
It wasn't black people who asked for a quasi-military police presence in their backyards and to be warehoused in jails built by large companies who make out like bandits on government contracts and who, in turn, make large campaign contributions to the legislators who vote to build new jails. It wasn't black people who funded community bloc grants for 100,000 new policemen to be thrust primarily into urban and black communities. It was a white president named Bill Clinton and a Republican congress headed up by one Newt Gingrich. A fraction of the money spent by Gingrich and Clinton on drug prosecution was spent on drug prevention and treatment.
And, nothing can be done in the hearts of people by the government. That's the biggest hurdle of all. All of the policies mean nothing, really, in the end. That's my big point of separation with Obama. He wants to blame lack of big spending on education in black communities for the lack of black hope. His solution is no different than any other that's been offered. But, the difference is, a black guy's the one in charge of all that money getting thrown around, and the white liberals are apoplectic about it. Then, you've got crazies like this fellow in Harlem whose only complaint is that Obama is not black enough --- sorry, guy, you're as vile as Wright but not nearly as relevant as even old Bill Clinton these days; you've got your 15 minutes of fame, hope you enjoyed it.
The only group with a solution to the problem doesn't even see it. The church. As Obama quoted yesterday and we've all heard ad nauseam, Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America. That's not going to get any better because we've abdicated moral responsibility to the government anyway -- the same government responsible for all this mess. We'll just go to church and let the government sort all that other stuff out. Hallelujah! We're a joke, by and large. And, a tragedy because we're on the cusp of the Answer but unwilling to be changed in ways that matter and unconvinced (if not unconcerned) about the need for it.
Human government bears the same relation to hell as the church bears to heaven. (David Lipscomb, On Civil Government, 72).