We know we’re in trouble when even David Brooks’ heart is all aflutter at the (mere) prospect of a black man in the White House. So much for that reactionary Martin Luther King, who told us to ignore skin color for character.

This is progress? Tribal identity trumps everything else? Take a look at Kenya.

Middle is onto something. If Barack, and more importantly, perhaps, his supporters, stick with the theme of bringing us together and tearing down divides– great (though I reserve my right to vote for someone who’s actually qualified for the job). But if the theme’s voting for a black guy ’cause it’s his turn– sounds like Jesse Jackson’s campaign to me.

And how about this one: electing Barack erases the shame of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib…..

contentious-ce...

From the most recent “Washington Diarist” column by Leon Weiseltier in the New Republic, entitled “Miracle Man”:

“I hear a lot about Obama as a “post-racial” candidate, and I am not sure what this means. I understand that he is a hybridity idol, Kansas and Kenya and all that–”our first Benetton candidate,” as a friend admiringly remarked. But Obama cannot make history as the first black candidate for president, or as the first black president, and be post-racial. Last week he was not post-racial: Iowa was post-racial, and so was New Hampshire, and so may our improving country continue to be. Obama is certainly not regarded post-racially by the post-racialists. “When an African American man is leading a juggernaut to the White House,” a vibrating David Brooks asked, “do you want to be the one to stand up and say No?” Well, yes, if “no” needs to be said, and if we are in a place beyond race. This condescension is not Obama’s fault; it is hard to balance one’s elation at the possibility of such an American apotheosis with one’s refusal to regard Obama as the representative of his race. We should vote for him because of “his face,” Andrew Sullivan has hotly advised, which would effect “a re-branding of America.” But a president is not a logo and America is not a brand. If the consideration of race, disguised as postracialism, has the effect of abrogating the discussion of Obama’s fitness for what he seeks, then we will have mistaken a good feeling for a real change, which is a characteristic American error. All this adoring talk has the consequence of making Obama stand for little more than his own identity.”.

Pretty astute, I think.

And I always had a feeling that Andrew Sullivan was shallow, sort of like a gay Thomas Friedman (not that there’s anything wrong wioth that), all sufrace flash and no thought deeper than a sidewlak puddle.

“We should vote for Obama because of his face”? “Rebranding America”?

What? This kind of insipid drivel is what passes for politcal analysis now?

G-d save us.

The “Benneton candidate” quip is hilarious, but only if it’s meant to be a joke. But I have a feeling that it was meant to be serious. If enough people actually vote for Obama because of that, we’re screwed.

I understand there are, in Norway, regulations requiring a certain percentage of female board members in all publicly traded companies. Is that practiced in other Euro/Scandinavian countries?

Ramon, I wanted to add that there are many women in politics over here. The quota-regulations have led to a situation where women are elected into positions within the party platforms mostly just to fulfil the fixed quota. From then on, it’s a way up, as there usually are only few – if any – female competitors. From my experiences on both sides of the big pond, I think that gender relations are more relaxed over here. Women are more emancipated in public life without getting ridiculed for their second X-chromosome, and a woman that knows how to drive a nail into a wall or check the oil in her car isn’t inevitably branded a lesbian. On the other hand though, there’s no (post-)industrialized nation where women are more likely to do all the housework (70%) than Germany. Then again, people here are rather peculiar about the appearances of their houses, and freshly cooked meals are common.

Too bad you’re in Germany– I’d enlist you to help me out with Confirmation class one of these Sundays. It’d be pretty cool to expose the kids to Catholic and Jewish perspectives (though they live in a majority Jewish community here in suburban Boston).

And Tom’s right; it couldn’t hurt to also read Nostra Aetate, chapter 4. (In response to which ‘Dabru Emet’ was published.) You should be more concerned about anything born-again.

With all due respect, your comment displays a profound ignorance of Christianity.

Ephraim, I had a similar (though not as ear-curling) an experience some years ago with a Nigerian immigrant client. She took a harsh view of her black neighbors here in Boston, and had a classic immigrant’s belief in hard work, the American dream, etc.

J.F.K. was indeed assassinated (didn’t mean to hint at yet another rancid conspiracy theory).

Oh, and Ha’Filipinim have had 2 female Democratically-elected Presidents all ready. We’re officially over it.

I’ve got a hunch the Giant She-Hulk Ninja, China will finally wake up and annex The Philippines, peacefully of course. Then there’d be noodles and Yen-Shekalim to go all around=)

Presidential Candidates and Their Faith

They all espouse to be christian. However, let’s break-it-down. Doctrinally, they can simply be categorized into one of two Jesus Camps: Pro-Israel-as-a-sovereign-nation or Pro-Church-that-has-replaced-Israel; there’s also an extension to this one larger camp (denominations that are not officially recognized by the Church fold ala Messianic Judaism and the Neturei Karta). All the demoninations in the Pro-Israel-Replacement camp have or are in the process of divesting from Israel. I’ll put them in those camps literally for ya’ll:

1). Pro-Israel Camp – [Huckabee/S. Baptist, McCain/Baptist, Hunter/S. Baptist, Paul/Baptist];

2). Pro-Replacement Theology Camp [Obama/United Church of Christ, Clinton/United Methodist, Edwards/United Methodist, Thompson/Church of Christ, Richardson/Roman Catholic, Guiliani/Roman Catholic; the "Cultist" (Romney/Mormon)].

The ramifications for this difference in interpretation can be major and I really do believe a President’s demoninational background explains their policies while in the Anglo House. btw, President Bush is a member of the United Methodist demonination (he got voted in prior to the demonination’s approval of divestment).

The mystical reason why the Pro-Replacement Theology camp is so dangerous is, well, yah, it would accelerate a doomsday confrontation. That’s why there hasn’t been a Pro-Vatican President and explains why J.F.K. was prolly assassinated (despite his “charismatic” facade).

Ron Paul intrigues me cause he’s independent; voting for Hillary is tempting (based on the doomsday scenario and the empire’s inevitable downfall); but I’m not about to officially endorse a candidate – until I have my ticket booked out of Babylon.

I knew this Jamaican guy who said things about American blacks that would curl your hair. It was like he was quoting from a Klan catechism. I had never heard anything like it. He did not have what most people would consider a Jamaican accent, so in the course of the conversation I must have said something that made it plain I assumed he was an American. He told me in no uncertain terms that he didn’t want to be mistaken for one of the lazy, shiftless, whining entitlement-mongers he apparently felt American blacks to be.

I absolutely could not believe my ears. (Needless to say I had absolutely no idea how the hell I was supposed to respond.) It was easily one of the strangest and most uncomfortable conversations I have ever had.

I don’t know how to find it, but Stephen Colbert had a devastating interview with a woman (whose name escapes me) who apparently is some sort of spokesperson for the “African-American community”. She was of the opinion that Obama could not really be considered an African-American because his father was an African immigrant and that since Obama therefore did not come from a slave background he didn’t have the necessary qualifications to represent black Americans. Colbert was just merciless and had her so discombobulated by the end that she was literally speechless (she didn’t appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer). He really confused her by saying that he was planning on voting for Obama because he always wanted to vote for a black man, but since this was not possible since Obama was not sufficiently black, would it be OK for him to vote for Obama as a white man? You could actually see her mental gears noisily grinding to a halt. It was priceless.

If I knew how to search the Colbert report better I might be able to find the video, but if anyone can find it I highly recommend it. It’s brilliant stuff.

Tom – that’s some pork even us Jews can stomach!

TM – I’m sure you already know this, but the backstory is (until the Midway “upgrade”) the Humphrey Terminal is to Midway what the Lindbergh Terminal is to O’Hare. I just don’t know where Mr. O’Hare stood on Jews. Well, kind of like that but not exactly.