John Lennon struck a chord when he sang, “you may say I’m a dreamer, well, I’m not the only one”. And he was right. To be human is to dream — and to want to bring our dreams to life. Dreamers, though, have gotten a bad rap. Our antagonists would have the world believe that those who imagine a better, more inclusive and peaceful world are ethereal beings, idle wanderers, and lost souls.

It’s a myth that dreamers are incapable of rationality and lost in the elusive. Both rationality and imagination are behind every brush stroke of Mona Lisa’s smile, and Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel. They have connected – beautifully – in the pen strokes of Shakespeare, in the musical notes of Mozart, and in the inventive genius of men like Isaac Newton and Bill Gates. Every human being has the potential to share this duality. We are, as a species, gifted with complexity, and a desire to know the divine.

It’s a new election season in America, and on the heels of disaster, the possibility of change sparks both our imaginations and our desire for a more rational world. Is it possible, we ask, to heal the wounds of people and the rift between nations? Is it possible to overcome the well-oiled machine that has sanctioned the rule of morally bankrupt and intellectually empty leaders? Can the voices of reason and possibility rise above the rallying cries of war and more war?

Despite those who would suggest otherwise, it was dissent against rigid dogmas, and not religious fervor, that informed every word of our Declaration of Independence. And then, as now, the authors of a new age seek both a dream and an absolute. The dream is peaceful progress and the building of a nation where every human being has the opportunity to reach their highest potential. The absolute is never again. Never again can we allow the want of revenge to override reason. Never again can we stand idly while politicians and big corporations sink our country into the morass of corruption and the swamp of endless debt.

When our highest dreams and most rational actions are joined, we may overcome not just the stalemate of political divisions, but other social issues.

Presently, over 500,000 children live in the limbo of foster care. I can imagine a day when the most innocent and vulnerable among us are truly protected, not just in a time of crisis, but for the duration of their childhoods. When the “best interests of the child” is a promise fulfilled, and where a child’s right to live in safety, without fear, is considered paramount.

I imagine a world in which every child is given multiple and varied opportunities to find, nurture, and expand their potential, and where doing so is not a luxury, but a given. I believe that if we were truly motivated to nurture the best within our children, we would find many more Galileos in our midst. Einsteins and Kings, Van Goghs and O’Keefes, and yes, Barack Obamas.

In a country that sought to revitalize the rational-imaginative minds of its people, we might see a final end to discrimination. We might see a day when false limitations are universally known and believed to be false – and where character really is the ultimate determinant of one’s opportunities.

I can envision a time when rational tolerance is practiced. When the steady progression of humankind is the goal of all cultures, including the cultures of the traditionalists and the devoutly religious.

Religion and tradition should not be used as justification for stunting the evolution of humanity, or as an excuse for denying the inherent right of others to liberty and freedom. No God or other high-minded entity would have us mutilate the genitals of little girls, rape women, or slay, torture, or starve thousands of people in order to advance a political, religious, or cultural agenda. To live in a world where even one act of such violence is considered unavoidable, or par for the course, is to have twisted the noble concept of tolerance into soulless apathy.

Humanity is not soulless, but our challenges are many, our divisions are great, and recent years have discouraged our ideals. So many, reeling from tragedy, or facing a time of personal struggle, are feeling the weight of despair. They may even be afraid to hope for better days, particularly in a climate that has traded rational dreams for ever-deepening political divides – a climate in which war, torture, and death was marketed as a rational response, and those who sought answers and accountability were derided as “bleeding hearts”.

There’s a saying – “we all want to change the world.” Actually, we know that some, particularly those who profit in a time of war and destruction, would like to see it not change at all. Others find change threatening in some fashion.

The dreamers among us move forward, past our fears, because our minds recognize them as unnecessary limitations, and our imagination longs to see what is on the other side. We long to expand the boundaries and break the unnecessary barriers. We long to fill our individual selves with the light of possibility, and then carry that torch to the outside world. We long to create a legion of united individualists, who will stand together and usher in a new age of revitalization, and the reconciliation of our ideals with our everyday realities.

If we can dream it, it is possible. A battle to revitalize the human spirit requires no enemies, and a revolution of peace requires no violence.

If we were to each follow our highest ideals, we would likely find ourselves not divided, but united. Not alone in our idealism, but joined. Not lost in idle dreams, but wholly invested in making them come true. 2009 is only our beginning. Our end is nowhere yet in sight.

Share this:

Prig
n.
1. A person who demonstrates an exaggerated conformity or propriety, especially in an irritatingly arrogant or smug manner.

I don’t believe that a Caucasian person could have given a speech like the one Barack Obama did on March 18th.

In fact, it is almost certain that a white person could not have even given a similar speech on race, or any subject pertaining to race in this country without being bent over the social and political knees of the liberal Prigs. I’m speaking of those within the Democratic party who have spent years framing the constitution of “political correctness,” not as a method to enhance dialogue, but as a way to inject fear and panic into the hearts of those not-of-color people who might speak openly and honestly of race and relations in this country.

The Prigs in our party seem to lie in wait for any mention of race made by a politician, nominee, or supporter and then jump dramatically, and often en masse, upon any comment they can twist into an accusation of racism.

The politics of language for white America has become drenched in fear and trepidation, and the political correctness that was meant to cleanse our speech of worn out, bedraggled stereotypes has itself become a ridiculous stereotype.

Witness this exchange between two Huffington post readers, one of whom did not support Barack Obama:

SERFIE: I gave a contrary view to what was expressed in this blog submission and you say that I have no intellect and not heart. Welcome to Obama’s Thugocracy. . .

LOSTONECHAMPION: Serfie, I think the criticism of you is well deserved. You refer to Obama and his supporters as Thugs? Is that supposed to be some comparison to Tupac? Maybe subconciously you are trying to get across that you think that Thugocracy is the political equivalent of Thug Life gansta rap? . . .

The Huffington Post, which has not exactly been subtle in their support of Barack Obama, gave the comment referencing Tupac a seal of approval by making it a “HuffPo Pick“, which only encourages others to use race as bait.

Yes, the Tupac comment may have been employing exaggeration to get (some) point across, but that would only work if the first commenter’s words had contained some reference to Tupac, or rap music, or linked the word thug to race. Instead, this was what “Serfie” wrote (in its entirety) that caused the small firestorm:

SERFIE: Funny, I was sitting in a Starbucks when I heard three old white guys almost go to blows over that speech. Two of the white guys liked the speech, another didn’t. The two guys were ridiculing and mocking the third guy just for having a different opinion. Hmm, just like the bullies at the Huffington Post. Welcome to Obama’s Thugocracy.

Unlike the word “lynch” which has clear and historical ties to racism, the word “thug” has no connection to color outside of the world of the fading and faddish genre of music known as “gangsta rap”. Mafia members, corrupt politicians, and aggressors of all colors, from here to the Middle East have all been called thugs. To say that Obama’s supporters are bullies, and that an Obama presidency would be a “thugocracy” may not be an accurate or even intelligent comment– but it hardly constitutes racism.

Internet posters seem to be following the lead of the professional, major league Prigs, who have used race as a tool of convenience, to stir up a ready-made dispute, freeze dialogue, or to outright silence those they oppose on other fronts.

For instance, let’s look at what Hillary Clinton actually said about Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson:

“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried,but it took a president to get it done.”

Incredibly, even this simple, factual sentence of Clinton’s was misquoted, truncated, misused, and — yes, purposely distorted — in order to taint her with the toxic brush of racism. The critics, according to the Washington Post, “read (Clinton’s remarks) as playing down King’s importance in the civil rights movement.” Obama, reacting to those Prigs, (black, white, and other), called Clinton’s comments “unfortunate” and “ill-advised.” Yet he also told ABC News that he didn’t believe what Clinton said was “in any way a racial comment,” and that only the way it “played out in the press” made it appear so.

The unavoidable and absolute fact is that as visionary, inspiring, and intelligent as Martin Luther King Jr. was, he did not stand alone. He did not, and could not have, effected changes in federal law on his own. It did, in fact, take a President — and the consensus of a diverse America — to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To accuse someone of diminishing King’s leadership and contributions by pointing out the obvious is ludicrous in itself, but adding the accusation of racism is reprehensible.

According to the Prigs, though, what Hillary Clinton was really saying was that “it took a white politician to fulfill a black man’s dream.” Never mind that it was not just one politician, or one social activist who shared that dream, some for decades prior to its realization — and never mind that the majority of the country, including Hillary Clinton, was invested in that dream — it’s more poisonous and deadly to the opponent to create a political wrecking machine out of one sentence. The kind that got Clinton, who has a long history of supporting civil rights and equal opportunity, booed at an MLK rally.

Edith Childs, a fervent Obama supporter who gave his campaign the slogan “Fired Up! Ready to Go!”, took her complaints of Clinton “racism” to the London Daily Telegraph, where she accused both Hillary and Bill Clinton of making racist statements — Hillary for “downplaying the role” of King in the passage of civil rights legislation, and Bill for his remarks about “a fairytale” when discussing the Obama campaign.

For those who have not seen Bill Clinton’s talk about the “fairytale”, here is the You Tube link.

It defies all logic to imply Bill Clinton’s remarks about a fairytale were racist — they had absolutely nothing to do with race at all. “Fairytale” isn’t in any way a racially charged word. Yet, according to Mrs. Childs, “They (the Clintons) could both have been less racist. It’s not a nice word but there you go.” Childs’ illogical, “not nice” accusations were echoed by Obama’s supporters, black and white.

Asked to respond to the flap, Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones, an Obama supporter, said “They (the Clintons) owe the African-American community — not the reverse,” he said. “Maybe Hillary and Bill should get behind Sen. Barack Obama.”

Jesse Jackson said, “”Regrettably, (the Clintons) have resorted to distasteful and condescending language that appeals to our fears rather than our hopes. I sincerely hope that they’ll turn away from such reactionary, disparaging rhetoric.”

This is how one gets from point A to lockstep racial dogma. By distortion, poor logic, charged responses, and bad intent. It is how Geraldine Ferraro, who has given this country an impressive three-decades of political service, becomes an overnight enemy of so many she has faithfully served.

When Ferraro said “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color he would not be in this position,” she clearly was not opining on the superiority or inferiority of any race, but on America’s readiness for a change away from the traditional white male hierarchy. “He happens to be very lucky to be who he is,” Ferraro continued. “And the country is caught up in the concept.” And in fact, aren’t they?

A March 9th article in the New York Times illustrates Obama’s lack of experience, and goes so far as to detail the strategy that led Obama to begin planning for a Presidential run before he had even completed his first year in the U.S. Senate. According to the NYT:

Early on in his tenure in Washington, he (Obama) concluded that it would be hard to have much of an impact inside the Senate, where partisan conflict increasingly provoked filibuster threats, nomination fights and near gridlock even on routine spending bills.

“I think it’s very possible to have a Senate career here that is not particularly useful,” (Obama) said in an interview, reflecting on his first year. And it would be better for his political prospects not to become a Senate insider, which could saddle him with the kind of voting record that has tripped up so many senators who would be president.

Behind the insubstantial voting record was not just a charismatic idealist, but a long-term strategy which involved making the fewest enemies and most friends possible in Washington.

“Hillary and McCain are the perfect examples of this,” Tom Daschle (D) said, “the longer you are here, you take on enemies. And these enemies don’t forget.” Obama has not been in the Senate long enough to earn those enemies — he has not faced any great opposition, or gone head-to-head with the entrenched politicians he often rails about. He has not had to make any life or death decisions on behalf of this country, nor has he been in the Senate long enough to rally for the massive changes he says he wants to make as President. Instead, he spent much of his time in the Senate raising money for other Democrats, garnering support, and grooming himself as a Presidential candidate.

Ferraro, who has said that her own nomination as Vice President was largely due to her gender, is no stranger to the American desire for social progress. When she pointed out that Obama’s lofty place in politics at the moment would not be if he were white or female, she was not speaking as either a sexist or racist, but as a career politician whose finger is very much on the pulse of society.

Ferraro knows that the “Obama = change” equation is very much at play in this election, and that the change goes beyond Obama’s soaring rhetoric and inspirational speeches. It is his combination of hope-filled messages, along with his sex, his race, his “clean slate” in Washington, and his diverse multi-cultural background that has helped generate excitement over his candidacy. It is not — and even his most avid supporters cannot convincingly claim — about Obama’s political experience and readiness to lead.

Obama’s speech on race was eloquent and moving, but I was surprised by the florid overreaction it stirred among Democrats, who hailed it as being on par with Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and called it “magic” and “a monumental moment.” Jon Robin Baitz, in a Huffington post article, said “We are finally talking about race. . . Someone running for the highest office in the land finally talked about it — the dark and secret swamp that we Americans dodge at every possible opportunity.”

I do not believe white Americans would dodge the issue of race if the political Prigs were not so intent on poisoning the discussion pool with irrational and scarring accusations of racism when white politicians or speakers so much as dip a toe into the water.

White silence is not caused by a lack of interest in social progress or equal opportunity, or a lack of desire to engage in discussion and be “part of the solution.” Instead, it’s a silence caused by the fear of saying the “wrong” thing in an atmosphere where even a common word like “fairytale” is whipped up to racist proportions, and where even those with sterling records on civil rights are ridiculed in order to create politically expedient and damaging racial tension.

Share this:

I once worked for a company where the unpublished motto was “let’s just move forward.” In theory, the goal may have seemed admirable, but practically speaking it was a disaster. Moving forward without addressing past issues only leads to the snowball effect. Sooner or later, the problems and failures of yesterday that weren’t fixed will catch up with the present day, looming all the larger for having been ignored or repeated.

While most of America is ready to move forward from the Bush administration, there seems to be a division over what “moving forward” should entail. A substantial number of people would like to see Bush and company held accountable for the sins of their administration. The call for impeachment, even at this late date, is still very much alive, at least on the left. Barring that, and crossing ideological lines, many want this administration held accountable for what they believe were purposeful lies foisted on the American public, abuses of power and privilege, and an unlawful usurping of Congressional authority.

Beyond that, they want the doors flung open to what they believe was Cheney-sanctioned war profiteering by companies like Halliburton, which has yet to account for millions of missing tax dollars, despite the damning evidence discovered during DNC hearings held several years ago.

Yet we also want out of the middle East. We want to distance ourselves from the sanctioned torture of Cheney and Bush, and repair the global rift caused by our seven year lapse into democratic imperialism. We want to make sure that our future leaders cannot perpetrate a run-end around the Geneva Convention or our Constitution again.

We’re desperate to lower the nine-trillion dollar debt that the Bush administration has left us with. We need to stave off the worst of the recession we’re now in — we need to save our jobs, and save our homes from foreclosure. Many of us are lacking health insurance, and support a universal health coverage plan. There are immigration issues that need better solutions. Our infrastructure is in need of repair. Our educational system continues to be toppled by other countries.

America is in a crisis, globally and domestically, and all the issues have become urgent. The question facing us in 2009 will be one of priorities. There’s no doubt that the next administration will be responsible for an almost total rehaul of government. This is not, unfortunately, a time when the main function of a President will be to maintain the status quo or keep us on an even keel — this is a time calling for major repairs, steady rebuilds, complete tear-downs, and making anew.

And if the worst should happen — if America is attacked while in the vulnerable position of new leadership — what then? What issues would we move to the back burner while addressing our defense, and at what price?

The next President is going to face some of the most daunting challenges in the history of government. There is virtually nothing in our present day sphere that does not need to be urgently addressed by Congress and the next administration.

However, can we really move forward without holding the past administration accountable? Even if we could, should we?

I don’t believe that any move towards rebuilding our tattered government will be complete or effective without holding the present administration accountable for the damages they have caused. I believe Congress and the next administration should move swiftly and precisely in launching investigations, and not only hold the appropriate feet to the fire, but create policies to ensure that no future administration can run roughshod over the checks and balances of democracy under the guise of privilege and Presidential authority.

Without addressing the excesses, abuses, and misuses of power of the Bush administration, America places itself in danger of a repeat. Next time, it could cost us more than 4000 lives and nine trillion dollars. That possibility, even if slim, is not acceptable to me, or to the thousands of other Americans who believe that no elected officials should be immune from accountability, including the President.

The next administration has almost too much to do. Whoever our next President is will likely be one of the hardest working Presidents in history, and the pressures they will bear will be weighted not only with the hubris of the past, but with the fervent hopes of a better future.

I support Hillary Rodham Clinton because I believe she has the fortitude, experience and knowledge to not only move this country forward, but to protect it from further assault, both from inside and outside our own borders. I believe that Barack Obama lacks both the national and domestic experience this country needs in a time of crisis, and that John McCain will only prolong the agony of the Bush administration.

I see the three candidates as a choice between substance, mystique, or more of the same. Substance, for me, is the only rational choice. In my opinion, Hillary Rodham Clinton should be the 44th President of the United States.

Share this: