Disqus - Latest Comments for ptcruiser

Re: http://siditty.blogspot.com/2008/06/contract-killing-of-daughter-in-law-she.html

ptcruiser — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:04:00 -0000

I have a question: were the people hired to kill this young woman black?

Re: Dr. Maya Angelou Endorses Hillary

ptcruiser — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:38:00 -0000

Maya Angelou's endorsement of Hillary Clinton did not come as a surprise to me. There is a large network of affluent, well educated and prominent black women who became acquainted with Hillary Clinton during her tenure as a lawyer and a board member of the Children's Defense Fund. Marian Wright Edelman, who is the Fund's founder and leader, has spent years building and cultivating relationships with these women. I would not describe any of these women as acolytes of Mrs. Edelman but they are part of the formal and informal network she uses to promote the Fund's work. Hillary Clinton is a beneficiary of these relationships.

One of the women who has been and is still a key operative in this process is Margaret "Maggie" Ann Williams. Ms. Williams is a former Communications Director at the Children's Defense Fund and is still a close confidant and adviser to Mrs. Edelman. She was also Hillary Clinton's first chief of staff in the White House and was or is a consultant to her presidential campaign.

We can expect to see more endorsements of Hillary Clinton from local and nationally prominent black women over the next year. These endorsements will be spread out and released over time to give the impression that there is a growing groundswell of support among black women for Hillary Clinton.

There is nothing wrong or untoward about this process but those of us down here on the ground need to recognize this move and provide our people with a contextual framework for understanding this process. The ground for many of these endorsements was fixed some time ago.

What we need to always be mindful of is that what they represent, in part, is the transfer of black political capital to entities and individuals who may not have done much for the black community, as a whole, to have earned the use of this capital. In this respect these sisters are not acting markedly different from what the so-called brothers did for decades. Black political capital is seen as a fungible commodity by the black elite regardless of which public restroom its members may use.

Re: Hollywood And The Civil Rights Movement

ptcruiser — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 13:55:00 -0000

I understand your point about Hollywood, although I don't share your view about the industry's so-called failure to award Denzel Washington an Oscar for his portrayal of Malcolm X. My point is that Washington's failure to receive an Oscar is probably not indicative of anything at all given how and why members of the Academy cast their ballots. If Spike Lee and Denzel Washington were expecting a higher degree of rationality from their colleagues than what has been shown in the previous history of the Academy Awards they should have opted for another line of work.

It is not possible, or perhaps, even desirable, for Hollywood to craft the quintessential epic about the Civil Rights Movement. Hollywood has never crafted a quintessential epic about any era of human endeavor and struggle. Hollywood can occasionally produce works of art but that is seldom by design or intention.

Telling the history of the Civil Rights Movement is something that Hollywood is probably incapable of doing for reasons that are patently and not so patently clear. Movies don't tell history. They tell stories about history, which is not the same thing.

Re: I Thought All Injustice Was SUPPOSED To Be Equal

ptcruiser — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:42:00 -0000

Joe "The Animal" Barboza

I became friends with Joe Barboza during the summer of 1969. We met at the Marine Cooks and Stewards' Training School, which was located several miles east of Santa Rosa, California on Mark West Spring Road in Sonoma County. The school's name had nothing to do with the Marine Corps. It was the name of the west coast maritime union that had jurisdiction over the work of the steward's department. Joe and I were being trained by European chefs to cook on passenger ships and freighters.

I did not know it at the time but he was in the government's secret witness protection program. The name he was using was Joe Bentley. Joe and I got along extremely well, although I was only 20 years old at the time. In fact, we got along so well that I took him with me to my parents' house a few times that summer and introduced him to my mom and dad.

He was quite a character but I had no idea at the time that he had killed people for a living and was hiding out because he had turned state's evidence against his don. The leader of Barboza's crime family was the notorious Raymond Patriarca of the New England-based Patriarca crime family. The FBI had secretly taped a telephone conversation between Patriaca and his underboss in which Patriarca and the underboss had referred to Barboza in some very unflattering terms.

The world is a small place.

Re: Dianne Feinstein’s Betrayal on Southwick Nomination

ptcruiser — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:52:00 -0000

Folks on the east coast and in other parts of America have a misconception about Dianne Feinstein's political career and political views. The only reason that she is a member of the United States Senate is because Danny White, a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, assassinated George Moscone who was San Francisco's mayor.

Feinstein, who was president of the Board of Supervisors at the time, had failed on two previous occasions to be elected the mayor and whose political career was effectively dead because the city's voters were not going to elect her to higher office, was appointed to fill out the remainder of Moscone's term. The visibility that she gained as mayor of San Francisco is what provided her with the cachet to run for statewide office and then for the U.S. Senate.

Feinstein was at best a part of the city's moderate to conservative wing of the Democratic Party. She was always the candidate and ally of the downtown business community. She was an ardent opponent of the district election of supervisors and other progressive efforts to reform city government.

Feinstein was never a friend or ally of the late Phil Burton, his brother John Burton or Willie Brown. If she had lived in a city where the number of Democratic and Republican voters had been more evenly divided then she would probably have been a Republican. Look. for example, at the record of the African Americans who have been on her staff since she was elected to the Senate. None of them have worked in a policy role in her office.

I am not surprised at all by her support of Southwick. Not at all.

Re: Andrew Young - go somewhere and sit down

ptcruiser — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:42:00 -0000

I was not aware of Andrew Young's remarks regarding Senator Obama and his race for the Democratic Party's nomination until reading them here a few minutes ago. I am simply stunned and at a loss for words.

Andy, please wake me up and tell me that you did not say the things that you were quoted as saying. Please, Andy, please!

Re: Andrew Young - go somewhere and sit down

ptcruiser — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 14:22:00 -0000

Webber -

I am so slow on the uptake sometimes that I am still trying to digest Toni Morrison's comment about Bill Clinton being America's first black president. I still do not understand where she was coming from and, worse, I cannot reconcile the author whose novels I have read with the person who believes that Bill Clinton's life experiences qualifies him as a honorary black man.

Young is on the wrong side of history, IMHO, not because he favors Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama but, rather, because his views of contemporary events are not anchored to an understanding of the historical period that he himself lived through and helped to create. He now seems more bewildered by change than understanding and accepting its inevitability.

Young believes, I suspect, that as an elder he should have the authority to guide and, yes, let us admit it, dictate African American political developments and public policy issues. What he is failing to understand or, perhaps better yet, too see is that the roots of the movement that brought him to national prominence were the result of thousands of seeds planted all over this country.

The black college students in North Carolina who staged the first public sit-in demonstrations at a segregated lunch counter would have never done so if they had listened only to their black elders and leaders. If Senator Obama had waited to be blessed by what remains of Kneegrow leadership in this country before launching his bid for the presidency he would have been left standing at the station while the train disappeared into the distance.

It would have been far better and more honorable for Young to have drawn on the real lessons of his own history and applauded Obama's decision. After all, it is, in part, due to the good fight that Young and countless others (e.g., the late Harold Washington) fought that made it possible for the junior senator from Illinois to be elected and to run for president. Young could still explain his support for Clinton as being the wisest choice in his opinion and retain our respect. He chose instead to belittle our candidate and us as well. We have to thank him for his honorable past service and then show him the door.

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:22:00 -0000

RE: Obama and South Carolina

"Black people in America don't suffer from a lack of accomplishment. They suffer from a lack of recognition of their accomplishments."

Albert Murray

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:01:00 -0000

Mickey Kaus over at Slate seriously proposes that Obama should prove his worthiness to white voters by publicly condemning affirmative action. In other words, Obama should work against the interests of black folks as a way to demonstrate his worthiness to white voters.

Conservatives and neo-liberals are a good source of entertainment.

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:34:00 -0000

What percentage of the black electorate do you suppose intended or intends to vote for Obama because he is black? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Forty percent? Do you have any data or polling data to support this assertion on your part?

Your assertion is a classic example of begging the question. That is, assuming facts that are not in evidence.

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:39:00 -0000

Addendum: If a significant percentage of the black electorate are voting for Obama because he is black then it would stand to reason that in years past these same voters voted for white presidential candidates because they were white.

This is the logical conclusion of your claim.

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:48:00 -0000

Your guess doesn't mean jack in this context even if we are just largely trading opinions here. You don't offer any evidence to support your claim about the intended behavior of black voters and when challenged you fall back on a claim to secret knowledge of their behavior.

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:07:00 -0000

I am not lying to myself about anything at all. Anything at all.

What I'm questioning is your broad assertion regarding black voters and Obama. Yes, there are black voters who are going to vote for Obama because he is black but so what? Do these voters comprise a large part of the black electorate or not?

Re: The Media’s Three-Fifth’s Compromise

ptcruiser — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:58:00 -0000

Obama does not face a generational divide within the black electorate. He may be facing a generational divide within elements of traditional kneegrow leadership but not among ordinary, everyday black folks (Drylongso). Most of them were concerned about whether he could become a credible candidate or not. Now that he has shown himself to be one these voters can focus on where he stands on the issues.

Re: Obama Ba-Rocks Clinton Out of South Carolina 55-27-18

ptcruiser — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:24:00 -0000

It is now time for folkjs to stop buying into and repeating the canard that there is a generational divide in the black electorate. There is a divide to be sure but it was never generational.

Re: That’s Gotta Hurt

ptcruiser — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:00:00 -0000

Toni Morrison's reference to Bil Clinton being America's "first black president" demonstrates, again, why writers of fiction should keep their political opinions to themselves if they really do not understand electoral politics. Ms. Morrison's comment, in my opinion, was appalling at the time it was made and the magnitude of its inappropriateness has only grown over time.

We need to speak truth here. Ms. Morrison's observation was a snide

put down of black men. Many of my male friends and I don't share Bill Clinton's family experiences and that includes many of our fathers and grandfathers as well. Yes, there are a large number of black men who have had similar upbringings as Bill Clinton and the effect of their raising is manifested by them engaging in the same kind of inappropriate behavior , too. Their personal family narratives and subsequent behavior do not reflect the vast totality of black family life and black male behavior in America.

Shame on Toni Morrison for saddling us with this luggage about Bill Clinton. Black men have enough weight to carry in this country.

Re: Obama & Wright: Another Perspective

ptcruiser — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:31:00 -0000

Since I wrote the piece that folks here are, in part, responding to I feel an obligation, if that is the appropriate term, to state that, in my opinion, the postings from "Anonymous" are way off point, irrelevant and a classic example of work avoidance. These and other baseless charges made by this poster are actually intended to sidetrack and undermine the thrust of Obama's points about his personal relationship with his maternal grandmother and Rev. Wright.

To argue that Rev. Wright has somehow undermined the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement is simply ridiculous. The moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement is not what is at issue here.

Re: Today’s Handkerchief Head for Hillary - Emmanuel Cleaver

ptcruiser — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:49:00 -0000

I think the remarks of Rep. Cleaver and a slew of other so-called brothers can be chalked up to plain old garden variety jealousy. Their remarks reveal a level of ignorance that should be embarrassing to any reasonably reflective person who holds public office. There is no hope for these kneegrows. We need to retire them and their lame double vented suits.

Re: Tuesday Open Thread: What’s Up, People?

ptcruiser — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:48:00 -0000

Rik -

Did you see Bob Johnson's latest kneegrow eruption about Obama in the Charlotte Observer?

Re: Toni Morrison Says What I’ve Been Saying For Years

ptcruiser — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:52:00 -0000

Toni Morrison is lying. That is, she knows that her intention at the time she described Bill Clinton as "the first black president" is different from what she is now declaring as her meaning now. I resented Ms. Morrison's description at the time and nothing has happened in the interval to change my mind. I come from black men who got up everyday to take care of their families.

Bill Clinton's bizarre sexual escapades while in the White House could only be likened to the behavior of black men by people who have axes to grind, whether justified or not, against black men. Only a fool could think that he could carry on a sexual dalliance with a 20 year old intern in the Oval Office and not be discovered. I don't think Bill should have been impeached even if he did lie but I knew he was lying the moment the story came out. And so did Hillary.

Re: THAT’S THE WAY TO DEFEND YOUR WOMAN

ptcruiser — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:06:00 -0000

I am with Obama all the way but Michelle Obama is a legitimate political target if she is making political speeches on her husband's behalf. He can't have it both ways. If he wants her out of the line of fire, then she has to play another role in the campaign. All spouses are legitimate targets if they are part of the campaign. That's why Cindy McCain, for example, has to give up her tax records. She is part of her husband's campaign for president.

Re: Business as Usual? Benjamin Jealous Chosen As NAACP President

ptcruiser — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:19:00 -0000

There are several things that bother me about this latest controversy at the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People. The first is that it is long overdue for the NAACP to be be headed by a black woman. I find it difficult to believe that the search firm could not find a black woman who would have been among the finalists. As a black man who has a daughter and nieces, I am tired of seeing black woman continually being placed in subordinate or supportive roles when it comes to black institutions. Black women are the keystones to many of our organizations and institutions and we are doing ourselves a disservice by not recognizing their talents and abilities.

The second item that annoys me is that I find it odd that a San Francisco-based executive search firm that presumably was charged to conduct a national search managed to produce two of three finalists with deep ties to the City of San Francisco and the Bay Area. Rev. Haynes' grandfather, F.D. Haynes, Sr., was the founder of Third Baptist Church in San Francisco and was the first black person in the modern era to run for political office in the city. Ben Jealous was the CEO of the Rosenburg Foundation which was founded in San Francisco in 1935 and is headquartered on Steuart Street in the city. I find it hard to believe that the search for a new NAACP leader was really national in scope.

The third item is that a vote of 34 to 21 to ratify Mr. Jealous' appointment is really not a vote of confidence and signifies a degree of resistance to his becoming the CEO that is counter-productive and portends trouble for him and the NAACP. If nearly two-fifths of a board are opposed to hiring a candidate whose very success is highly dependent on an ability to create consensus, then that candidate's tenure is not off to a good start. At the very least, the board should have voted, if only for symbolic reasons, to make its choice unanimous. This is poor process management on the part of the board's officers and it will come back to haunt the organization.

Re: Hillary, The Susan B. Anthony, John Brown And Fannie Lou Hamer Of The Florida Primary?

ptcruiser — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:40:00 -0000

I thought I was the only one who thought that Jonathan Capeheart was a sycophantic dullard too afraid of losing his job with Fred Hiatt and the Washington Post to say something real. If this so-called brother had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

Re: February 10, 2007 -When It All Began

ptcruiser — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:12:00 -0000

I always thought that Obama could pull it off. The time seemed right and the Clintonians and their acolytes were too complacent and arrogant.

Re: The Crabby McCrab Show, Starring Juan Williams

ptcruiser — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:58:00 -0000

I think that we need to push back hard on Juan Williams and we should direct our ire not at Fox News but at National Public Radio, which continually uses Williams as a commentator and an alleged knowledgeable party about the black electorate. Several weeks ago, for example, I complained to NPR about using Williams as an authoritative voice on the black church when he is, in point of fact, not. There are literally dozens of black theologians, historians and philosophers who are much more qualified to discuss the black church than Williams is or ever will be. I never received any response other than an acknowledgement that my email had been received.

It is a serious tactical error on our part to allow people like Williams and people like him to define the black electorate and what is the acceptable universe of universe within our community. Williams' obsession about what Obama needs to do to satisfy Williams and Williams' paymasters is a bullet aimed at the heart of the black community.

We should not fool ourselves on this issue. There is no evidence or social science survey findings showing that black folks attribute all or even most of their problems simply to racism. Williams and people like him have a vested interests in promoting this meme because it guarantees their role as paid interpreters.

In addition, and this is a personal note, if I hear Obama make one more damn apology for Rev. Wright or make a speech even moderately close to the nonsense that Williams is suggesting, I will write in Nader's name and withdraw as a volunteer and financial contributor to his campaign. Enough of this b.s.

Williams, Bob Johnson and the Clintons need to get over themselves and appreciate the fact that they can't cash loser's tickets at the winner's window.

Re: The Crabby McCrab Show, Starring Juan Williams

ptcruiser — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:00:00 -0000

I had intended to write "universe of discourse within the black community" not "universe of universe."

Re: The Crabby McCrab Show, Starring Juan Williams

ptcruiser — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:04:00 -0000

"I agree that black Americans need an internal debate concerning their behavior and strategies for progress."

There has never been a moment or a period since our arrival in this strange land that we have not discussed and debated this and other related issues. Never.

Senator Obama has no moral or ethical responsibility or right to lead black folks or this country in such a discussion. I am supporting him for president because I believe that he is far and away the best candidate and he has a civic vision that I would like to see implemented.

I am not supporting Obama to tell me what it means for me to be black or because I believe that he will provide any special guidance to black folks. We are quite capable of doing that for ourselves and his participation in this discussion would have to be as a peer, not as our president.

In any case, black people do not need to have this discussion within the context of a presidential election especially when one of the candidates is black. In truth, we do not need to have this discussion with white Americans if the issues are about our own internal affairs.

Re: The "Whitey" Video

ptcruiser — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:14:00 -0000

I saw this at Oliver Wills' site much earlier today and did not realize it was a joke. I viewed the video twice and thought somehow the "incriminating" statements had somehow not been captured. So when I came here a few minutes ago and read Jack's comments my heart sunk. Then I clicked on the video and after a few seconds I began laughing because I knew I had been had by Jack. Whew!

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:26:00 -0000

I believe that being magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat are virtues but I'm not quite ready to give Sr. Hillary any props right along through here. Maybe in a few weeks or a few months but not today or tomorrow. She was not gracious in defeat or during the campaign. Senator Obama can let her slide but I think I'm going to hold a grudge for a little bit.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:10:00 -0000

Chris Matthews was right when he implied that Republicans fall in line but Democrats need to fall in love. Having people like Joan Walsh representing the Democrats' or Obama's positions on any topic is a joke at best. Salon.com, which is run by Walsh, actually used the word "uppity" to describe Obama a few months ago or longer. Obama can win this election but he is going to have to continue to rely on the Apache strategy: spread wide, keep running low to the ground and live off of the land.

Re: The Crabby McCrab Show, Starring Juan Williams

ptcruiser — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:21:00 -0000

Juan Williams forgot that he was supposed to afflict the comforted and comfort the afflicted. If he criticized right-wing politicians with the same passion and cry for candor that he demands from those to the left of him, then his woofing and barking might be tolerable. There are no tests that the Obamas could pass that would satisfy someone like Juan Williams. He is beginning to sound like a crank.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:19:00 -0000

"You guys are a very entertaining yet ignorant group of people."

We are neither entertaining or ignorant. If you have a different opinion then express that opinion. Please refrain from trying to denigrate people or question their intelligence.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:33:00 -0000

"Is this really a pro McCain website in disguise? With the purpose to stoke the fires of division within the ranks of progressives?"

I find it difficult to believe that you are seriously arguing that the Democratic party candidate who several weeks ago declared that she was supported by "hard working Americans, white Americans" belongs to the progressive cohort that you refer to? We all understand that we have to do business with Sr. Hillary and her acolytes but that does not mean that we have to trust or like them. And it certainly does not mean that we have to deny the reality of who they are and what they feel with respect to African Americans.

We will continue to do what the Obama campaign needs us to do to support Senator Obama. He is in charge of his campaign but we are are free citizens of a democratic republic. Within the context of his campaign we will play by and obey his rules, but within the context of us exercising our rights as citizens we will speak and write freely as we please.

As for Sr. Hillary and her acolytes, I refuse to fatten any frogs for snakes. You can do whatever you please.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 01:20:00 -0000

"I don't exactly see Barack as the ride or die type for black issues anyway. Though I know you all think that is because he "transcends race" and "does what he needs to do" to win."

Sister - this is not about Obama. We cannot allow any white politician, especially one who claims to be a Democrat and whose political career is owed to the black electorate, to play the race card and traffic in racially coded phrases. It is a mistake to conflate or attempt to bend our responses to the demands and needs of Obama's campaign. He is not running to be president of Black America. We have to look out for ourselves and remain vigilant.

I don't find any fault with Obama and his campaign making peace with the Clintonians. That's part of what they have to do to win. When I am working as a volunteer in his campaign I will do my utmost to respect his wishes. Elsewhere, I will say and write what I please.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:42:00 -0000

"Danielle, I could have told you about this ignorant crowd. What really scares me is the fact that there are Hillary supporters who are just as ignorant and stupid enough not to support Obama, just as these morons would have not supported Clinton if she had won. It is up to people like you, and I to help win this election for the Democratic Party in November."

Just remember, Danielle, that any time you lay down with dogs you will always get up with fleas. Anybody who tells you on the one hand that it is important to elect a Democrat, nay, more important than anything to elect a Democrat while referring other people as "ignorant" and "morons" is a strange political bedfellow. Has it escaped your attention that none of us who disagree with you have called you any names or questioned your brain power?

This "Anonymous" character wants you join with him or her to build a political party but fails to display any signs of having been raised in a home where good manners and civility were stressed. You don't need to join our side but beware of folks like "Anonymous." If you disagree with people like that they will cut off your head. That's no way to build a new world.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 02:56:00 -0000

Danielle,

The question doesn't make sense. There is no president of Black America and if Obama didn't get any votes out of certain Harlem precincts it because of folks like "Anonymous" who despise him and feel that God appointed them to serve as gatekeepers for black folk. In short, somebody tampered with the machines and the roll of registered voters and it wasn't Obama and his supporters.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:53:00 -0000

"What is ignorant (myopic, shortsighted, whatever adjective you might perfer) is the reluctance to work together, when we all clearly need each other to enact the change that we discuss."

Please spare me, Danielle. You and "Anonymous" continue to claim that you want to work with people with whom you disagree but it is our fault if you call us ignorant and moronic. If you want to discuss our differences then go ahead but stop the name calling.

Re: The Clinton Legacy with Black Voters

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:47:00 -0000

Amen, Jelana, amen. Although this point is never mentioned by the mainstream, even by black reporters and columnists, black folks were aware of its importance and they did not care for being slighted and taken for granted.

Re: How Obama Won: That $10,000/year job pays dividends

ptcruiser — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:44:00 -0000

I will have to elaborate on this point later because I am on a deadline right now. I am extremely glad, however, to see a discussion about Obama's roots as a community organizer because an understanding of the importance of community organizing will, I believe, lead to a deeper and richer understanding of the roots of the Civil Rights Movement.

In addition, it will help to undermine the specious lie that there is a generational gap between Obama's younger followers and the so-called Civil Rights Movement of older blacks. The truth is that this split is not between older blacks who saw themselves as community-based activists during the heyday of Civil Rights Movement. The split is between those born mainly after this critical period and an older group of blacks that I have labeled as being "second line inheritors" of the legacy of the Ciil Rights Movement.

It is my contention that older blacks who put themselves on the line during the Civil Rights Movement have, in the main, never had a problem with Obama running for president. Many of them may not have thought he could win but they were not resistant or opposed to his candidacy. The "second line inheritors", who have mistakenly been misidentified and over-identified as the faces of the Civil Rights Movement, are the ones opposed to Obama's candidacy because it threatens their relationships with the centers of established institutional powers.

What is little understood or noted is that these "second line inheritors" have expropriated the political capital that the black electorate created partially as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and they have used it principally to benefit themselves, not the black community. It is their refusal to make a place for younger blacks that is a problem. Those of us who have retained an allegiance to the principles and beliefs of our activists days and the Civil Rights Movement have never had a problem creating and reserving some space for those who we knew would come later.

Re: How Obama Won: That $10,000/year job pays dividends

ptcruiser — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 01:34:00 -0000

Michelle,

I agree with you completely about the Alinsky model. In my hometown during the 1970s we often clashed with folks who were affiliated with Tom Hayden and the Alinsky model. We felt that they lacked any undergirding principles and events over the past 30 years or so have supported those assumptions.

Re: How Obama Won: That $10,000/year job pays dividends

ptcruiser — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:20:00 -0000

"And for quite a while it was routinely sneered at by a lot of the "progressive" blogosphere, even those who should have understood it..."

There is profound difference between armchair progressives and progressives who are actively involved in a cause or causes. Too many folks who are considered progressives have not tested their ideas, concepts and theories down on the ground. Far too much of what is considered progressive in the blogosphere is just cliched conventional wisdom but from the left side of the aisle.

Re: Am I the only One Sick of the NAACP?

ptcruiser — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:27:00 -0000

"Haynes' grandfather pastored Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, the largest Black church in the city, which is now pastored by Rev. Amos Brown, a NAACP Board Member who would know Freddie Haynes personally."

I am not a member of Third Baptist Church of San Francisco. I don't do church and, frankly, even if I did I would not belong to a church pastored by "Famous Amos" Brown. If Willie Brown was backing Benjamin Jealous, the likelihood of Amos Brown supporting the grandson of the founder of Third Baptist was next door to nil.

I do want to point out, however, that Rev. Haynes' grandfather, Rev. Frederick D. Haynes, Sr., occupied a larger place in local San Francisco history than just being the founder of Third Baptist. He was, for example, the first black person to run for political office in the city when he ran for the Board of Supervisors in 1948. Rev. Haynes probably would been elected if the city was still using the district method that so-called "progressives" had persuaded it to abandon 12 years earlier. He was also the first black person to be appointed to any city commission when he was placed on the Library Commission in 1954.

Re: Am I the only One Sick of the NAACP?

ptcruiser — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:40:00 -0000

"Whether or not they agreed with Shannon's political ideology, the fact is, the man was treated disrespectfully, and the NAACP should have raised hell, if, for nothing else, embarrassment quotient and additional early warning signs of the GOP's bigotry."

CPL - I am on board with you about the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People but I slightly disagree with you about the NAACP's response to Shannon Reeves' complaints. I don't think it should have used any of its dwindling supply of Black people's political capital to lodge a protest or complaint against the GOP.

I find it hard to believe that Reeves was not aware of how he would be received when he attended any of its events. Didn't his elders tell him about how black GOP delegates were treated in 1964 when the party held its convention in San Francisco? I know a sister whose mother was a national committeewoman. She told her daughter that she had never felt so unwanted and coldly treated in all the time she had been in the Republican party until she attended the convention that nominated Barry Goldwater.

Re: Am I the only One Sick of the NAACP?

ptcruiser — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:09:00 -0000

DuBois bears some responsibility for what the NAACP has become today. Granted, he left or was pushed out depending on whose story line you accept but he played a major role in setting its direction and then was helpless to correct its course.

Re: John McCain — Not Too Important for Troops to Come Home

ptcruiser — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:53:00 -0000

I really believe that we are not far from a rebellion on the part of the officer corps and some elements of the enlisted personnel, particularly those who are in the National Guard, as a result of this illegal invasion and occupation. Our country is being placed in mortal danger as a result of this war and the Bush Administration's continuing misuse and abuse of our soldiers. Bush and Company are laying the groundwork for an attempted military coup in this country.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:04:00 -0000

I have a confession to make: I am angry to the point of nearly shaking after reading a news story earlier about Barack Obama making a speech in a Chicago church assailing black men who are absent from their children's lives. I am sure that the senator will receive more than his fair share of high fives and praise for having addressed this topic in what will be described over and over again as a "honest, forthright manner."

Black folks will be told once again that this is a discussion that we need to have and Obama will be thanked by our friends and our enemies too for having the courage to address this sensitive matter. Fine. Let us now praise famous men and give thanks for what we have already got.

I am angry not because I disagree with Obama or because he has the facts ass-backwards. I am angry because I would have much preferred to read about a pulpit stump speech from him that praises all the black men who were not absent from the lives of their children. Black men like my father, my paternal and maternal grandfathers, my paternal and maternal great-grandfathers and my paternal and maternal uncles and my great uncles on both sides of my family. Men who got up everyday in good and bad health and did whatever they needed to do to look after families.

My own father has been dead for four years and there is not a day that goes by that my sisters and I do not miss him and the way that he loved and cared for us all of our lives. I regret that Obama and other black men and women did not have fathers who chose to place them in an honored place in their lives. I grew up with girls and boys, now women and men, who had been abandoned by their fathers and that absence has left a wound that never quite heals.

I wish, however, that Senator Obama had chosen another time and another place to play the role of a Jeremiah. I wish that he had used today to give praise to black men who are not famous and never will be but who did what they could to strengthen the fabric of their communities by loving and caring for their children. Black people, as Albert Murray pointed out, don't suffer from a lack of accomplishment. They suffer from a lack of recognition of their accomplishments. The junior senator from Illinois should keep this fact in mind as he races for the White House.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:26:00 -0000

I don't want to go on an anti-Obama jag but there is no way for that brother to have made such a speech and not know that the media would play up the aspects that I deplore. I am not a happy camper about that speech and I will not accept the MSM's divide, blame and conquer strategy and tactics as an excuse. In my opinion, he should have made a different speech. He did not and that's the way the prune wrinkles when a person of African descent is running for president of these United States.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:59:00 -0000

"On father's day, there could have been an acknowledgment of the many fathers who are present. He could have ignored the stereotype of the absent black father."

That's all I'm saying. No more. I miss my daddy and I miss my grandfathers. I knew both of them quite well and they lived long enough to see me become an adult. Obama could have his speech some other day.

This incident sort of reminds me of the time I went to my in-laws church and the guest minister devoted his whole sermon to talking about people who were living dissolute sinful lives. I looked around the church at the congregation and came to the conclusion that none of the people he was talking about were in that church that day. I got up and went outside to wait until he was done.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:26:00 -0000

"I wish he wouldn't do this at our expense considering the low opinion the world already has of us."

The world's opinion doesn't faze me but black folk are not a fungible commodity to be traded or used to advance a politician's own ambitions. I am with Obama, come rain or shine, but enough of this half-assed truth telling. It will not persuade "hardworking Americans, white Americans" in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania or the folks in Geraldine Ferraro's coming of age neighborhood to vote for him. Juan Williams and Fox News will still be on his case.

Give me and mine a break. We have earned one today.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:08:00 -0000

Note: P6, the owner of the blogsite, Prometheus6.org has decided, in response to Br. Obama's Father's Day speechifying to not post any news about Obama's campaign for the next few weeks. I am in total accord with P6's decision.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:22:00 -0000

Craig Hickman,

This is not much ado about nothing, my brother!

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:55:00 -0000

Craig Hickman,

I have no desire to take away your ability and right to express yourself in whatever manner or style that pleases you. This disagreement, however, is not much ado about nothing. You saying so belittles my viewpoint, but I will accept your offer that we do not see eye to eye on this issue.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:55:00 -0000

I am so tired of me and mine being converted again and again into branches on other folks' learning tree. Tired. Of. It.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:20:00 -0000

"ptcruiser, Let him say what's on his heart. Either receive it or don't receive it. Don't expect 100% perfection from him @ all times. He is a mere mortal trying to get a job against great obstacles. Be mindful that he has personal issues, most likely with both of his parents. There are times in his life where both of them abdicated their responsibility to him."

Then he needs to use his government medical plan and spend a few 50 minute hours with people who are trained to assist people to figure this stuff out. Or, he could give a speech about his own parents. But, in any case, please don't try to tell me that I should be alright with what he did because he needs to get something off of his chest.

The speech was a political speech and it had a political intent. We may disagree about the intent but let's try to avoid giving him a pass because he has suffered. He is running for president of the United States. If he is running for the president of Black America, then we need to have a discussion about what that means. I do not need him to tell me what it means for me to be black nor what I should do to take care of my children.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:28:00 -0000

Let me know when Obama gives a speech about the proliferation of white methamphetamine addicts in the mid-west and the danger to public safety posed by illegal meth labs. Or is that McCain's cross to bear? I'm getting confused here.

Re: Sunday Open Thread - HAPPY FATHER’S DAY

ptcruiser — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:35:00 -0000

"As I've already stated, I wasn't bothered by the speech, and I really don't get why you are."

If you don't understand why I was bothered by Obama's speech then no amount of words we exchange here, regardless of our good intentions, will bridge the gap between us. We'll have to play it as it lays.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 20:51:00 -0000

"bigoted pansies masquerading as political pundits"

Brother CPL -

I can tell that you are angry but we should really refrain from calling folks "pansies." Cal Thomas is a racist bigot but it probably has more to do with his overwhelming sense of white privilege and entitlement than whether he swishes when walks or his sexual preferences.

Let's not let these people drag us into their sewer. We have always been better than that.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:03:00 -0000

What Obama said was not addressed to the black community no matter how much folks want to defend his remarks. It was all calculated triangulation. The issue is not whether he spoke part of the truth or not. All of us are aware of the problem he talked about and none of us who objected to his speech are trying to hide that problem.

Obama is running for the presidency of the United States and if he does not have either enough political courage or mother wit to talk about the problem in a more comprehensive and expansive way than simply referring to "personal responsibility" then he is either too weak or too stupid to be president. I intend to vote for him and I given real money to his campaign and served and continue to serve as a volunteer, but he does not walk on water. He puts his pants on leg at a time like most brothers.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:08:00 -0000

"Barack didn't kill anybody by giving a speech you didn't like."

It doesn't matter whether his speech killed anybody or not, Br. Craig. Some of us, not all of us, did not like it and most of us are expressing our objections in a principled way. I haven't changed my mind one iota about supporting him but I don't like what he said and guess what: I don't have to like what he said.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:00 -0000

"How would you have liked him to frame the conversation in only 30 minutes?"

Why did Obama need to frame the issue at all? He could have, for example, talked about all the fathers who have been killed, maimed or injured as a result of the illegal and unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq. He could have talked about all the fathers who are still stationed there and how anxious they are to see their families again. He could have talked about all the fathers who are worried about providing medical care for their children because they no longer have health coverage.

There were a broad range of critical public issues that Obama could have addressed that is of great concern to fathers (and mothers) that are literally begging for a response from an enlightened president. Obama has no moral or legal authority to address the issue of "deadbeat parents." The issues that he could have addressed he ignored in order to deliver a message to non-black voters that he stands in opposition to so-called Democratic Party orthodoxy. Part of the problem, however, is that this view of Democrats is a myth pushed by the right wing. It is as false as Reagan's stories about "welfare queens."

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:01:00 -0000

"Seriously folks, he will prob make another speech laced with some criticism of the AA community..this is planned and aimed at showing that he will America's prez...not a brother prez"

My entire family will go south on him if he does. Our feet are still hurting.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:16:00 -0000

"there was an enormous amount of applause from the audience when he made some of his most pointed remarks. . . ."

Applause from the amen corner is not proof of the correctness or truthfulness of one's statements. Demagoguery is still demagoguery no matter how long or often the audience claps.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:19:00 -0000

"I was criticizing the hyperbole"

Yes, you did and I agreed as well. What hyperbole are you referring to here?

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:07:00 -0000

"Did any of you who had a problem with the speech, even take the time to read the speech?"

Why do so many of you who disagree with us believe that out disagreement with the speech is based on some "peculiar disposition of our eyes" or a congenital hearing problem? We heard what Senator Obama said and we disagree with him. Let's try to avoid forming a cult of personality around Barack.

Re: Obama Opts Out of Public Financing System

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:47:00 -0000

Rik-

The first sentence in the last paragraph implies that Obama's campaign is opting out of the 50 state strategy. Is that true?

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:58:00 -0000

The speech was, as Truthseeker stated above, lazy and canned. I think that far too many of those who who are just fine with the speech think that those of us who objected to it did so because we have some aversion to the truth. The problem, as we see it, is that Obama is becoming far too selective in his truth speaking.

Several weeks ago, for example, Senator Obama made a speech before the American Israeli Political Action Committee in which he, in effect, promised to employ America's blood and treasure to support the Israelis in their continuing efforts to oppress and deny Palestinians their human rights. He did not mention that the Palestinians are living under conditions that are far worse than what black South Africans endured during the reign of apartheid.

Obama talked about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons but somehow failed to mention that Israel has 250 nuclear weapons and has refused again and again to sign any non-proliferation treaty or to allow inspectors to examine its nuclear facilities. He has joined the chorus of those who are trying to paint Iran as an aggressor nation when the reality is that Iran has not invaded another nation in more than 250 years! The truth is that Saddam Hussein was our ally and we supported him when he launched an unjustified and illegal invasion against Iran that resulted in the deaths of more than 750,000 Iranians.

Over and over again we are beginning to tell ourselves that Obama's selective truth telling is justified because it is what he needs to do to be elected president. This process of rationalization has now reached the point that many of us will give him a free pass for making a speech that we know in our hearts was a play to appease white conservative Democratic and Independent voters. Black folks were not the intended audience of that speech although we, yes, we, served as the backdrop for his speech.

We served collectively as the backdrop because of what Ralph Ellison called the "peculiar disposition of the eyes" of too many white Americans when they look at us. There were so many other issues that Obama could have addressed through the lens of fatherhood that would have resonated well with people all over this country. What he chose to do was to provide a selected narrow version of the truth about the behavior of some black men.

Obama's speech was a dishonest speech. It was dishonest because it did not spring from the sort of impulses and analysis that causes people to come together in a common cause. It was a dishonest speech because it was divisive and hypocritical, but it was revelatory in that it allowed many of us to get a closer look at Senator Obama. I am not happy with what I am seeing.

Yes, I will vote for him and I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My own interest has moved from wanting to see him elected to doing whatever I can to get George Bush and the Republicans out of office. I do not expect Obama to make too many course changes if he is at the helm of this ship.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:48:00 -0000

"And if you're a sorry Negro who was offended, perhaps it's time to step your game up.'

My wife. who is black, and I have adopted three African American children, who were abandoned by their mothers and fathers, at a time in our lives when our friends and relatives are kicking back from child rearing and now we are "sorry Negro(s)" who need to step our games up because we don't like Obama's speech?

This is the kind of argument that signals not exhaustion with an issue but the entrance into the discussion (and it is still a discussion) of people who lack the capacity to think. You are not an average brother because an average brother does not insult people as a way to advance his views.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:41:00 -0000

CPL -

Well, I'm glad that you clarified your use of the word "pansies" but cowardly or some other synonym would probably work better in the future.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:45:00 -0000

"I do still think he is stuck b/t a rock and a hard place with this issues (same as with the Muslim issue)."

Anonymous -

I follow current events fairly closely and I don't recall any developing crisis or current controversy regarding black fathers failing to address their responsibilities. To go further, I certainly was not aware that it had become an issue in this presidential election cycle. I also did not see it raised during the Democratic or Republican primaries.

Obama and his advisors decided to raise this issue on Fathers' Day because he wanted to distinguish himself from the so-called liberal orthodoxy of the Democratic Party as defined by political conservatives and disaffected white Reagan Democrats (despite the fact that these folks began getting their hats in 1968). I know a large number of liberal Democrats, many of them black, and I have never met one who believes that it is okay for black fathers to shirk their parental responsibilities.

This is an issue that Obama and his advisors have publicized as a way to improve his chances of being elected by polishing his image as someone who will call black folks and liberals out on their b.s. I will continue to support his candidacy and contribute money but his stance is as phony as a three dollar bill.

Obama is not running for the presidency of Black America. The black electorate has no such position in its ranks and, given his position on the Palestinians and other issues, he does not, in my opinion, occupy high enough moral ground to publicly rebuke any group of black fathers about their problems and shortcomings. I remain firm in my conviction that he should have used Fathers Day at Apostolic to weave and reinforce black fathers into the fabric of American society. He did not do so.

Let me be clear about something else that bothers me about Obama speech: It was presumptuous because it assumes that because the black electorate has given him its political support we have also granted him the right to serve as our moral and ethical gatekeeper. Maybe some, if not many, of us have granted him this latitude but my family and I have not.

Politicians and comedians making speeches about irresponsible black men has not produced one iota of change in the behavior of these men. Arguing that these politicians and entertainers are speaking the "truth" implies that black folks are not already aware of these "truths" and, like sheep, need these individuals to lead them to gates of wisdom. If Obama wants to play the role of a truthteller, then he will have to play that role in every venue he enters. Authentic prophetic voices always refuse to be silenced, which is why they do not run for political office.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:32:00 -0000

I got it, Anonymous.

Go easy.

Re: Why We Must Challenge Fake Noise

ptcruiser — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:15:00 -0000

I think that the criticisms that I and others here have laid at Senator Obama's doorstep were entirely appropriate and "before this battle is over" (that old Delany and Bonnie Bramlett song) we will set a few more on his doorsteps. Nonetheless, I had to laugh out loud after reading David Brooks' most recent column because Brooks might be the only Republican and the only pundit who understands that Obama is not a rooty-poot. We are dealing with somebody who will do whatever it takes. The senator has got game and sometimes it will be a joy to watch. Like Secretariat winning the Belmont Stakes.

Re: NAACP Spends Half of Jena 6 Money on NAACP

ptcruiser — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:24:00 -0000

Back in the day when I was an undergraduate, many of us said that the letters NAACP stood for the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People.

Not much has changed and I was an undergrad a long time ago.

Re: NAACP Spends Half of Jena 6 Money on NAACP

ptcruiser — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:40:00 -0000

"We need to stop relying on the old guard to display any measure of competency or futility as it relates to civil rights and the overall improvement of the living conditions of black folk. "

I hear you but I disagree. Who folks need to stop relying are those members of the old guard who I have identified as being second line inheritors of the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. These individuals and the class interests they represented were a problem during the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement and they continue to be a problem because they refuse to move on.

The problem is not generational as younger blacks and the MSM, including the black press, so often describe it. There are many, many of us who were active in the movement and we have never lost our sense of idealism or commitment to social change. We cannot and should not be lumped in with those who began to see the movement as a way to advance their own careers. Folks like Bob Moses, Marian Wright Edelman and Phil Hutchings are still fighting the good fight.

Re: NAACP Spends Half of Jena 6 Money on NAACP

ptcruiser — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:53:00 -0000

"That's what the entire Democratic Party is about. The left has been in love with communism/socialism since the 1917(?) revolution. "

You need to stop getting your history lessons from Ayn Rand's novels. I am willing to debate you on the issues but your historical facts are just way off-base. Let me give you just two examples. The infamous Palmer raids, named after the Attorney General Mitchell Palmer, took place when a Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was president of the United States. Secret units of the military at the same time began spying on black civil rights leaders and dissidents all of whom were considered subversives.

Re: Saturday Open Thread - Come on in!

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:35:00 -0000

I sort of love the way that one or two persons on this thread throws around the term "hard left" as if it actually describes anything at all about the political beliefs and inclinations of the people who are tagged with this political epithet. If folks who are nominal Democrats or who describe their politics as being progressive are members of the "hard left" then how would one inclined to use this term describe members of the Sparticist League or the Communist Party of the USA?

Re: Saturday Open Thread - Come on in!

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 10:06:00 -0000

I am still supporting Obama but his position on the FISA bill is indefensible no matter how much he wants to inoculate himself from right-wing charges that he is weak on security issues. People who defend his position on the grounds that political expediency often overrules political principle are overlooking the real stakes in this debate. Maintaining the safeguards provisions of the 4th Amendment are actually more important than electing America's first black president or first woman or achieving any other historic milestone this November.

Obama is flat out wrong on this issue and his position demonstrates not the sort of practical pragmatism that is the stock-in-trade of politicians but a sort of craven cowardice and fear that is generally displayed by politicians with far less talent than he possesses. Getting elected president of the United States is a process of straining for symmetry, that is, trying to bring irregular halves together by occupying the middle. There is not, unfortunately, a middle position on the protections we are afforded under the 4th Amendment. Obama either believes the government can act unlawfully against American citizens or he does not.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:43:00 -0000

"Let's see: you wanna let terrorists challenge their detention in the US, and then reduce the government's ability to monitor their conversations."

They haven't been convicted of engaging in acts of terrorism. If they have committed such acts then they should be tried instead of being locked up for an indeterminate period. Given your willingness to stomp on our Constitution, it will only be a matter of time before you're posting messages on this site defending the government locking some of us for simply exercising our First Amendment rights.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:49:00 -0000

"Now Move-On is demanding that Obama filibuster the FISA bill. How's he supposed to do that in the middle of a campaign?"

Simple. He suspends his campaign due to the grave danger posed to the citizens of the United States and their Constitution by this bill and he spends a day in Washington on the floor of the Senate speaking against the bill. This is not rocket science. Obama either believes this bill poses a threat to our constitutionally protected rights or he does not.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:01:00 -0000

"I think this whole thing is getting crazy and self-destructive."

Yes, but only because the candidate that many of us favored appears to lack political courage. I am deeply disappointed in Obama's response to this bill. After reading his statement, I thought of this excerpt from George Orwell’s great essay “Politics and the English Language”

'AS SOON AS certain topics are raised," George Orwell once wrote, "the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: Prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse."

"Politics and the English Language" April 1946

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:11:00 -0000

"How many of you, prior to 9/11, really gave a damn? And more importantly, how many of you will continue to once Bush leaves office?'

At least since elementary school. My sixth grade teacher Pedro Jose Gonzales (He had to change his name to Peter Joseph to get a teaching job,) had us read the Bill of Rights and discuss what it meant. So did several of my teachers in junior high and high school. I remember all of their names and I still in touch with some of them but I suspect that you are impervious to a certain style of reasoning and belief.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:20:00 -0000

The shoe that you want to use doesn't fit a lot of people. The issue is really not about when that person or this person became concerned about the Constitution. Your line of argument personalizes and trivializes an extremely profound issue: whether we are going to have a government based on laws or a government based on the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.

The fact that many of the founders of this democratic republic were slave owners (Thomas Jefferson) or closeted authoritarians and monarchists (John Adams) does not minimize the importance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that this same document and its protections were more often ignored than implemented to protect the lives and property of black folk does not mean that black people should ignore the dangers of FISA because a black man is running for president.

In my own life I have been harassed and threatened by government officials, FBI agents and the local police. In each instance I had to remind these folks that the Bill of Rights did not permit them to do what they were threatening to do to me. I know for a fact that the FBI spied and ran security checks on me and my neighbors simply because we lived across the street from the Black Panther Free Breakfast Program. It was not and is not a crime to live across the street from a Black Panther program. In addition, it was not illegal to feed hungry children either.

The police agencies of the state and, no, it doesn't matter what country we are talking about, are always trying to expand their reach and control over their citizens' lives. They will lie, cheat, steal, torture, harass, burglarize and, yes, even commit murder if necessary to advance their aims. These are well documented facts and they are not exclusive to the United States.

We have to resist these intrusions into our private spaces. The U.S. government and its police agencies had the necessary authority to prevent the airplane highjackings and subsequent destruction that occurred on September 11, 2001. There were at least two FBI agents, for example who thought it suspicious that foreign nationals with no flying expertise or experience were taking classes in this country to learn how to pilot passenger jets.

These two agents were blocked at every turn when they attempted to get their superiors to play closer attention to their suspicions. No, I don't think that 9/11 was a U.S. government sponsored conspiracy but I think it reveals, in part, that the people who are supposed to be protecting us lack a certain degree of imagination and are not very creative. No legal authority they are demanding over our lives will change this fact.

We live in a period of asymmetric warfare where many of the combatants are not states and they will not rely on the grid to communicate with each other. The argument that the government needs more authority to tap into the communications networks of terrorists is absurd. I am fairly certain that these terrorists are not going to take advantage of the latest price reduction in iPhones so that they can call each other faster and more cheaply.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:29:00 -0000

"It amazes me how liberals can complain about how their freedom is provided, but offer no thanks for being kept safe."

This is a profoundly absurd charge and argument that really does not merit any reasonable response. I am beginning to think that if you had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:35:00 -0000

d -

The president of the United States is commander-in-chief of the United States military services. The president is not commander-in-chief of the American people. No president ever has been not in war or peace. You can still act as if the president is your commander-in-chief but that is something that you choose to do. It is not something that you, me or anyone else not in the military is legally obliged to accept.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:48:00 -0000

"The reason why I view Iraq as part of the larger War on Terror is because when Saddam was given a chance to stand with us and renounce terrorism and extremism, he refused. I lose no sleep now that he's gone."

Since the desire to get rid of Saddam Hussein was a focus of the Bush Administration prior to the events of September 11, 2001 whether he chose to stand with our government or not is hugely irrelevant. In addition, international law and the governing covenants of the United Nations does not recognize or support military action against another sovereign state because that state declines to participate in a global "War on Terror."

What you are actually implying here is that Saddam Hussein and his regime had something to do with the events of September 11, 2001. This canard, which had been promoted by, among others, the Bush Administration has been discredited over and over again. Again, it is not true.

What is true is that more than 800,000 Iraqis have died since our illegal and unjustified invasion of that country. Yes, Hussein was a brutal dictator but the rate of carnage and mayhem that has afflicted that country since our invasion and occupation far exceeds anything that occurred under his rule.

You should lose sleep, if you have any decency, over the deaths of so many Iraqis including women and children.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:01:00 -0000

"Personally, I look for vindication for our cause to come from history, cause it damn sure ain't coming from the majority of this country."

People who are looking for vindication in the future for acts committed here and now are either praying that their side writes all of the history books or hope that they'll be dead when history proves them wrong.

The thing is, however, is that you don't have to wait any longer for an answer. The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:07:00 -0000

"I only lose sleep when I think about the 4100 families in this country who have lost loved ones in Iraq."

I am deeply disturbed about the deaths of Americans and Iraqis but 800,000 people is a hell of a loss. I'm sorry that you don't regard Iraqis as human beings and are too chicken to say so.

"(that's a tempered response. I'm not going to say what I'm really thinking in this forum)"

I already know what you really think on this particular issue. You believe that Iraqis are not human beings and are less entitled to live than Americans. That is exactly what you believe. I have relatives who are retired senior military officers. They would have had someone like you watched very closely if you had been under their command.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:22:00 -0000

"That's easy for someone who probably has no personal tie to the war to say."

Hey, d, check this out:

I am a citizen of a democratic republic. I may take issue with my government's actions but in all respects when my government acts, it is representing me even if I strongly disagree with its actions. Consequently, I have, as citizen of this Republic, a personal tie to any war my government is involved in.

My right to express my opinion is not dependent on whether I have a "personal tie to the war" whatever that odd phrase means. American military personnel who are involved in the American War in Iraq are not serving there because one morning they all woke up and decided to invade that country. They are in Iraq because our government - my government - sent them there. In a democratic republic - presuming you actually believe in such a form of government - public policy issues, and war is a public policy issue par excellence, and their resolution cannot be based on whether one has "personal ties" or not. There is no hierarchy that we are bound to respect with regard to such issues. All of us have a right and a duty to speak and debate about these matters.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:27:00 -0000

"But...fine. Since I'll ultimately spend the next 4-8 years under liberal rule, why don't you tell me what the plan is after we surrender and flee."

Surrender and flee what? The North American continent? What are you referring to here. We have no right to be in Iraq. It is not our country and the Iraqis have never agreed to be one of our colonial possessions.

D - didn't the old folks ever tell you that you can't lose what you ain't never had?

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:02:00 -0000

"Go make the deployments; go walk the blocks in Guantanamo. Then come talk to me about a personal tie to this conflict.

"I think you're a typical liberal: you'll second guess all day, but wouldn't lift a finger to defend this country if needed."

Look, D. in the first place I am not a liberal. You have no idea what a liberal is and you are simply repeating right-wing talking points. In addition, I don't owe you any special deference, as opposed to civility and respect, because you chose to serve in the military or agreed to participate in an illegal invasion of another country.

(The land that Guantanamo sits on, for example, belongs to the people of Cuba not the United States. The Cuban government at the time only agreed to sign a so-called lease because it was the only way to get our government to agree to accept and respect Cuban sovereignty to the small extent it ever did. [You don't really think the Brits owned Hong Kong do you or that the Chinese willingly signed a 99-year lease with England?])

Iraq posed no credible threat to the safety of the United States. The only country that poses a potential threat to this country is Israel because it has 250 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver their payloads to the United States.

If any foreign invaders show up in Puget Sound I will be among the first to confront them. Until that time...

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:42:00 -0000

D -

Re: Credible Threats

There is no country in the world that wants to get into a shooting match with the United States of America. You are arguing that because another nation's leader(s) don't like us we have the right to invade thagt country. Hugo Chavez doesn't like us but are you arguing that we should invade Venezuela? I'm sure that a lot of major league baseball players and their teams would not be happy campers.

My point about Israel is that there are very, very few nations that pose any credible threat to the sovereignty of the United States. In terms of military capability, we are the 1600 pound gorilla. Nobody else comes close. I'm not bragging. This is a fact. We are not, however, invincible. Wars like Iraq will eventually rob us of will; it is already robbing us of blood and treasure. If we follow your prescription, the end won't be a long time coming.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:06:00 -0000

"This war has already killed most of the country's will."

Well, it is kind of hard to get the populace stirred up on a full time basis when the kill ratio is close to 207 to 1 in your favor and the other side shows no signs of throwing up their hands and walking away. Two and half million Vietnamese had to die before we woke up to this reality: folks ain't rolling over anymore in the face of U.S. military power.

We also don't like Iraqis who employ suicide bombings and IEDs. We have some silly notion that folks who fight this way are not fighting fair.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:22:00 -0000

"f, d. represents the mentality of those that are in charge of our government"

What is more alarming, in my opinion, is that far too many Americans because of the incessant propaganda and lies promoted by our government and the MSM have bought into this meme. Look at all of the people who still believe that we could have "won" the war in Vietnam if the politicians had just stayed out of the way. This is crazy. The French have had to go through the same thing about Algeria. Dreams of empire die hard.

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:53:00 -0000

The head of the Iraqi government response to the Iraq Study Group report:

"Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the group's conclusions "very dangerous" to Iraq's sovereignty and constitution, according to CNN. "As a whole, I reject this report," Talabani said.[19]"

So, D, why do you believe that folks need to read a report that has been rejected the Iraqi government? BTW, have you looked at the composition of the Iraqi Study Group?

Re: Find the CBC Member…

ptcruiser — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:34:00 -0000

I Googled "Iraq Survey Group" and found this entry on Wikipedia. I have no idea why D referred us to this report because it appears not to support his arguments.

Interim Progress Report

After six months searching for WMD, the ISG issued an Interim Progress Report on October 3, 2003. The team has found evidence of "WMD-related program activities" but no actual chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. In addition to details of dormant WMD programs, the October 2003 report also includes discoveries of non-WMD programs banned by the U.N. and concealed during the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNMOVIC inspections that began in 2002. Lines of enquiry adopted by the ISG include the examination of sites across Iraq, as well as interviewing scientists, truck drivers and other workers with possible knowledge of WMD. The failure to find any stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons has proved a problem for Washington and London, who used intelligence indicating that Iraq did possess WMD stockpiles as one of the primary justifications for the invasion of Iraq. The British government, in particular, placed very heavy emphasis on this intelligence.

David Kay resigns

On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG, David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." In a briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kay criticized the pre-war WMD intelligence and the agencies that produced it, saying "It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing." [1] Sometime earlier, CIA director George Tenet had asked David Kay to delay his departure: "If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing. That the wheels are coming off."[1]

Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

Kay's team established that the Iraqi regime had the production capacity and know-how to produce chemical and biological weaponry if international economic sanctions were lifted, a policy change which was actively being sought by a number of United Nations member states. Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.

On February 6, 2004, Bush convened the Iraq Intelligence Commission, an independent inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and the failure to find WMD. This was shortly followed by the conclusion of a similar inquiry in the United Kingdom, the Butler Review, which was boycotted by the two main opposition parties due to disagreements on its scope and independence [3].

In 2003, The U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had been budgeted for $400 million, with an additional $600 million added in 2004.

Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, was the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who stated at the time that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq were "close to nil."

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

ptcruiser — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:38:00 -0000

I'm enjoying watching whites, Jews and other non-blacks trying to wrap their minds around this Obama fellow in this post-Civil Rights beyond race epoch of American life. It is fascinating.

Can you imagine how Weisman and others might respond if someone wrote that Joseph Lieberman was more white than Jewish? Like how exactly is that measured?

This is going to be fun.

Re: Bill Clinton’s ‘ Miffed’ At Obama

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:38:00 -0000

I thought Br. Bill understood that it only hurts when its poker.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:45:00 -0000

Nader should not have made this remark in this way. What he should have said was that in his opinion Obama is trying to avoid appearing confrontational and threatening, which is absolutely true. In any case, I think we need to cut Nader a little slack here. He was wrong but he is not our enemy. And, folks, he did not cost Al Gore the election in 2000. Al Gore, the Clintons and the DLC cost Al Gore the election.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:57:00 -0000

Ralph Nader is not part of our enemies and he is most emphatically not our enemy. I don't care for what he said but I understood the point that he was trying to make whether I agree with him or not. Nader is not enemy and we need to keep this in mind as we move forward.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:04:00 -0000

"Obama on Nader: 'He's become a perennial political candidate'..."

Yes, but there is a big difference between Nader and what he represents and, say, the late Harold Stassen, the Republican once known as the "Boy Wonder."

Norman Thomas was a perennial presidential candidate too and I did never saw any harm in him running. In a democracy it is always good to have more than two candidates running for public office. Thomas and Nader always spoke truth to power.

I understand why Obama cannot do the same but I wish that folks took a longer view about this process.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:45:00 -0000

"And that's that."

I don't exactly understand what you mean, Craig. Am I supposed to keep my opinions to myself on this issue or refrain from making any effort to change yours.

If it is the latter, then that is okay. If you mean the former, well, no, that is not that.

Re: Barack & Michelle Obama - AA Run Amok and Ingrate?

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:59:00 -0000

Before this battle is over a whole lot of white folks are going to wig completely out. The prospect of Obama winning is driving them crazy. It will get worse.

Re: Pat Buchanan Award

ptcruiser — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:04:00 -0000

What Nader said was flat-out wrong and he owes Obama an apology but he is not an enemy. Obama's response was appropriate and to the point. Nader has been warned and won't make the same mistake again. Obama put him in his place.

Re: "I Bit My Tongue"

ptcruiser — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:13:00 -0000

"Is anyone on this blog going to put up a post re: Obama caving on FISA or disagreeing with yesterday's SCOTUS decision (he says he believes that people found guilty of raping children should get the death penalty), or are we just going to keep pretending that this is change you can believe in?"

Yes, that would be a good discussion but I fear that too many of us either agree with Obama's positions or don't want to raise a stink about his stance on these matters.

Re: Who Needs the Clintons?

ptcruiser — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:12:00 -0000

Obama needs Clinton and her supporters to win in November. At the very least he needs them to act civil. If he wins in November, I'm sure that he and his people will make damn sure that he doesn't need any of them in 2012.