Not black enough??

The media messages that somehow find their way into the mainstream are truly amazing. Last week we were presented with the idea that Barack Obama is not black enough to win the black vote. This is one of those messages that is planted on solid rock just to see where it will erode.

I guess, in the mindset of Ivy League executives living in a black and white world, black means living hip deep in poverty, or deeper, and not having the education to help yourself, or your country. I cannot help thinking in terms of the contrast of Barack not being black enough. John McCain, even though he lives in sunny AZ, is definitely white enough, but Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney are not white enough and I am not sure if they could garner enough white support.

In fact, now that I begin thinking in this contrasting cycle there are many things that are not enough. Hillary Clinton is not woman enough; we all know she doesn't bake cookies, so she may have trouble acquiring the female vote. As I was walking outside the other day, I looked up at the sky, there were a few clouds, but the blue just did not seem blue enough; and the snow up here in New York just isn't white enough; and today, with a storm forecast, the clouds just don't look black enough; also, we haven't had enough people killed in Iraq yet, we have not had enough tax cuts for the rich and corporations, we haven't spent enough money in Iraq yet, the oil companies haven't made enough money yet.

Okay, I've had enough of my hyperbolic examples. However, it is that kind of logic that questions a persons epidermis when considering a factor of electability for a public office. Of course, by comparing my own comments here to recent past elections, maybe this is why blacks don't turn out to vote, especially in the south. The candidates just are not black enough; not like them.

Maybe we need another John Howard Griffin figure to run on the campaign premise (promise?) of "Black Like Me". I am sure then we would see the validity of a statement like, "Obama isn't black enough." We need to stop the empty rhetoric of this new presidential campaign season that is just getting under way.

Is Barack Obama suited to lead based on his knowledge, reasoning, and logicality? This is the criterion that we need to be accessing to determine his potential presidential administration, and not whether he is dermatologically correct.

Middle East In Chaos

According to Sheldon Alberts of CanWest News Service, the Prime Minister of Australia is “a leading international” figure. Mr. John Howard, Australia’s Prime Minister, is quoted as saying that a Barack Obama presidency would leave the Middle East in crisis.

Mr. Howard went on to state that Mr. Obama’s desire to withdraw all American troops from Iraq within one and a half years would only increase the bloodshed and induce total civil war in Iraq. I am sorry, but I think we are already there, sir.

It is also not surprising that William Kristol of the Weekly Standard labeled Mr. Obama “a dovish candidate”, and Republican presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter, used the criticism to exclaim Mr. Obama’s weakness in foreign policy.

A dovish candidate? Like that is such a bad thing. The next president should understand peace and how to bring it about, not through force and sacrificing the lives of others, but through tactfulness and diplomacy. The next president needs to understand the cultural values and beliefs of our foreign neighbors in all parts of the world, but especially in the Middle East.

Likewise unsurprising was Mr. Kristol’s plug for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton saying that Mrs. Clinton’s continued hawkishness will continue her lead over Mr. Obama. It has been clear now for at least a year and a half that the Republicans want to run a campaign against Mrs. Clinton.

I have nothing against Mrs. Clinton, but Karl Rove called for her campaign for president in August of 2005. I get a sense that the reason for this is to leave in her lap such a magnanimous problem that she (Republican nemesis since Mr. Nixon’s impeachment) goes down in defeat after one term in office. At which time, Jeb Bush will take the “right”ful place as president to extend the Bush Dynasty yet another eight years. Hypothetical, yes; probable, hmmm.

One thing is certain; whoever becomes the next president of the United States will face a Middle East in chaos. The last chance for saving Mr. Bush’s legacy requires leaving the Iraq situation to his successor and his administration is doing well in accomplishing this feat.

We the People...giving up our power

I am sorry that sometimes I have such a suspicious mind. I like what Barack Obama has to say, but one also must understand the bases of power. I think Barack Obama is a force to listen to because he has the legitimate bases of authority, which are, rational-legal; traditional; and charismatic, or does he?

On the basis that the people of Illinois gave him power when they offered him the authority of being their senator, then, the has rational legal authority. However, because he has only been a Senator for two years this authority structure is weak and may not withstand the scrutiny of other candidates.

Through history, United States Senators have made attempts of stepping into the executive branch. Since, therefore, Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator he has traditional authority to seek the office of the President of the United States. Again, with just one-third of his first term as Senator under his belt Barack Obama has diminished experience in which to draw upon. His lack of traditional and rational-legal authority means he must display even more exemplary character if he expects to win the party's nomination for president; let alone the presidency.

The last one is a bit trickier. A person with a charismatic personality does not necessarily have charismatic authority. In order to have true charismatic authority one must possess an exemplary character, or almost a heroism persona. It is this authority that has helped so many generals in this country become president. Also, religious leaders and monarchies derive their leaders predominately from the charisma of the individual.

These are the bases of control for all bureaucratic/organizational power structures. No person will have all three in equal quantities, but in order to lead must understand the need of those they intend to lead to offer them their power to do so.

It is plausible for one to have power, but no authority in which to use the power because of lack of respect for ones authority. This is one reason why politicians say they do not listen to polls, and then live by them, because they know they could, well may, die by them.

I think that one reason most Americans resent presidential elections is this lack of charismatic authority of all candidates. Look at what happened in the 2000 election as a classic example. This election would not have been as close as it was had Mr. Gore, or Mr. Bush accomplished defining their individual character as exemplary.

There will always be negative attacks during political campaigns, especially campaigns for national office, so this argument is no excuse for not winning the battle for charismatic authority. In fact, to enable circumvention of the negative attacks it is imperative to define the candidate’s exemplary qualitities.

It is really sad that because a person decides to seek a political office that we get to scrutinize that person's personal life and that is the purpose of defining charisma. We should rather be defining the candidate's views of happiness, and his ideals of knowledge and reason.

How important is money, and henceforth, making much of it to the candidate? Where does the candidate view him/herself in the context of the universe? How open is the candidate to other viewpoints (include provable examples in their answer)? These are just a sampling of some of the questions we should be asking in analyzing any candidate's charisma.

Diversity

It is difficult to believe that in this country we would have a problem with diversity, the melting pot that we are, but we do. Let’s take a look at some of the areas of concern to better establish why a diverse world is important in more than just regulatory aspects.

I am reminded of God’s final parable with Jesus, that is, the parable of the people choosing Barabbas over Jesus. The people wondered why Jesus chose not to save himself if he was whom he claimed. He, instead, watched innocently as the masses saved the symbol of greed and anguish over the symbol of love and hope.

It is that parable, the last parable of Jesus Christ that has unwittingly guided the masses for the past 2000 years. Through the teachings of Jesus, through the teachings of Muhammad, and still Christians and Moslems choose greed and anguish (Barabbas), over love and hope (God).

What is this Barabbas that Moslems and Christians choose? They choose to induce the pain of poverty upon their followers, while their leaders live lives of extravagance. Their religious leaders choose to thwart out those that do not believe as they in the name of their chosen one. They are the fool’s of the fool’s gold!

The act of thwarting out, of pushing away, is exactly what happened to Jesus, but it was accepted because Jesus chose not the way of the world (Barabbas) to save himself. Muhammad saw this, but again Barabbas was saved and the way to God thwarted out. Even amongst the people of Islam, greed and anguish (Barabbas) win over love and hope (Allah).

What once was a minor disillusionment of learning to live together in peace, the Israel/Palestine infringement, is now a renewed war of ideology—a war of Barabbas against the word of God—
Jesus and Muhammad. Is not that what the Middle East infringement amounts?

God has answered both of these groups of people, but as usual, they choose not to hear. We sit mesmerized by the news of natural disasters and all of the death wrought on such poor people. The Tsunami in Indonesia the day after Christmas in 2004, or the major hurricane that blew into “the richest country in the world”. Both “Acts of God” killing many and leaving thousands of poor people homeless.

We wonder why God would allow such a thing to happen. The barabbas’ contend that surely these people fell away from God’s favor, and further their own initiative of espousing their ownership of God.

Actually, we can see here the parable of Barabbas and Jesus. The poor people, meek, living in God’s great faith were meted out to expose the greed and the anguish that hold them in their life of meagerness: Barabbas. This was as true in Indonesia in 2004, as it was true in the United States in 2005, and it is still true today.

Look at the so-called holy war that we have in the Middle East today. Neither entity of this insufferable faction, or insuffaction, care about the pain or suffering of any people, Christian or Moslem. This war is about maintaining barabbas’ world only! It is only about keeping the people, all people, oppressed under the chosen regimes of barabbas.

Christians view Moslems as attempting to mete out Christianity, while Moslems accuse Christians of not knowing God or, God’s true word. Moslems fighting to their own death mainly because they are tired of living a life of oppression, their leaders using their anguish in a fight that is not theirs in the name of Allah.

Both Jesus and Muhammad teach it is wrong to put sword against sword. Allah and God, as one, will mete out the barabbas of the world. Through our profound strength and faith, we must understand that fact.

God and Allah, as one, will have his way with the barabbas’, and the people that choose the way of love and hope, that is, Jesus and Muhammad, will be saved. For the way of God and Allah is not putting sword against sword and this is not living by God’s word of love and hope.

Diversity. Let us not forget the need of diversity of religion. The need of people from different cultures and countries to worship God, as they so desire, the God of Love and Hope knows diversity because we all his children.

Change in Charge

Changing course!! What does this mean? Is the Democratic Congress now supposed to rule with an iron gavel, and present legislation, and force it's enactment into law? Including forcing the president to sign the legislation.

An organization the size of the United States of America cannot turn on a dime. It takes time, and yes, it takes some domestic diplomacy. Because without which the Democrats do not have the power to change much. Remember, Mr. Bush's remark about Nancy Pelosi changing the curtains in the Congress? Think about that in a context of what the Congress can change on their own.

It has only been a month since the Democratic party took control of the House and divided the Senate. I am already hearing impatient comments that we want everything done yesterday. This is the exact plan from the Republican playbook. Obstruct, obstruct, obstruct and when the infighting begins within the Democratic party start laying blame on the Democrats for the entire mess of the past twelve years.

Stay focused on the Republican obstructionism, and let them know that they will not get away with this in 2008. Keep the medias feet in the fire for reporting misinformation. Let them, the media and the republicans, know that their little coup d'etat is over.

If they get the message then we will not hear about the inability of democrats to lead the government out of the mess of the past 12 years. If they don't get the message within six months we will hear media messages that the democrats failed the electorate by not having a plan to help the countries problems.