An awesome workout machine I like: Ultimate Body Press.
Real Estate in North Carolina: The Peaks at Wolf Ridge.
Attention Dial-up users! Support corporate-free media by switching to IndyLink for your internet access and hosting needs:
Here's a great CD by RudePundit:
Last week I spoke with with a fellow Democrat about Senator Clinton. He was surprised to learn that I would, under almost no circumstances, vote for her in either the primary or general election.
"Rather extreme viewpoint, don't you think?" he said.
You know the electoral process in the United States is dysfunctional when it's considered "extreme" for a Democrat to refuse to vote for someone with a proven track-record of supporting the Republican agenda.
For those of you who are still thinking of supporting Clinton in the primary, here's an entertaining video from BlueGal which should change your mind. Enjoy:
And for the record - John Edwards is my favorite so far.
Bookmark/Search this post with: 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
I do as Skeptical Brotha did first, and Alternet did second, and offer this letter without comment...
March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959
Dear Jodi:
Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.
For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?
I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.
I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only."
I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.
Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.
As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on...
... Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print?
You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.
I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.
Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography."
Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.
The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth.
I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.
Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!
Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
Earlier this month the airline "jetBlue" inadvertently stranded many passengers during the horrendous weather conditions that hit the Northeast. Although this problem was largely beyond the control of any airline, David Neeleman, jetBlue's CEO, quickly recognized that many of his customers were angry.
Last week, as a previous passenger of jetBlue, I received an email from Neeleman, even though I wasn't one of the stranded passengers. He didn't offer me a sale price to distract me from their mistakes - instead he offered me something I value more - a sincere apology.
David Neeleman gets it - when you make a mistake, you apologize, promptly, straight forwardly, without reservations and without weasel words - and then - you do what you can to make it right.
Most Democrats in the Senate also understand this... especially the ones who voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.
Practically every Democrat who voted for the invasion of Iraq; including John Kerry, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have already apologized. The only two holdouts I know of are Hillary Clinton of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut - who technically isn't a Democrat.
John Edwards was already following the David Neeleman model as far back as 2005 when I saw him speak at the Florida Democratic Party Convention where he publicly apologized for his vote in front of the audience - It was prompt, it was straight forward, without the weasel words of a polished lawyer, and without any reservations. He wanted to do what he could to make it right - he said he would redeploy the troops as President.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, can't bring herself to say those three simple words - "I am sorry".
In many ways this flaw causes her most likely allies - such as Progressives, African Americans and women - to associate her behavior with that of an obstinate Lieberman or "decider" George W. Bush.
Saying "I'm sorry" is simple and profound. Saying it can help redeem an airline after a blunder. Not saying it will be the the reason that Senator Clinton loses in her bid to be the next President of the United States.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: jetBlue - Iraq War - apologise - Hillary Clinton - 2008 Presidential Race
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
One of the penalties of leadership is that the pioneer sometimes gets stuck with an antiquated system that hurts them in the long run. Once a society has invested time, treasure and blood learning how to do something a certain way - it can be difficult to embrace a better idea.
For example, the American music industry, once a cutting-edge leader in innovation, is loathe to accept an open-source DRM; although it's clearly better for artists, consumers, and even corporations in the long-term. It's not that they don't understand that the old way of doing things is obsolete, it's just that they've grown comfortable with the old music formats and legal structure.
Rather than change with the times, they have lowered themselves to suing teens for copyright infringement if they lip-synch a Britney Spears song on YouTube.
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
The reluctance for change can be seen in governmental systems as well. At one time, an absolute monarch must have sounded like an enlightened concept when compared to the feudal-chiefdoms they replaced. However, once representative democracies came along, the old power structure fought tooth and nail against it.
Our own republic here in the USA has components that could use some tweaking. The founding fathers were visionaries for coming up with the electoral college and plurality voting; but let's face it: neither system provides the best way to measure the will of the people.
A far better idea is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), where voters are able to rank their candidates so that spoilers don't allow unpopular people to get into office. (cough **Nader** cough **W Bush** cough cough.)
I hope I live long enough to see IRV happen for national elections. It seems like an issue both conservatives and liberals can get behind. For once, this is a better idea that should be easy for the powers-that-be to embrace.
In the meantime, here's a wonderful, creative video explaining the IRV concept.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Instant runoff voting - elections - A great idea long overdue.
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
Remember the fear mongering about "Pelosi San Fransisco Values"? Well here's one for you - Doing the work which people expect you to do:
Pelosi to Convene House January 4
"Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi will open the House for the first session of the 110th Congress on January 4, and keep it in session for the first several weeks of January.
Congress typically convenes the first week of January after a holiday recess just long enough for new members to be sworn in, and then promptly adjourns until the president's State of the Union Address toward the end of the month.
Pelosi's team apparently figures there's no reason to allow President Bush to set the agenda in January by leaking bits of his speech. Instead the Democratic Congress will immediately plunge into its lengthy to-do list, starting with an ethics reform package, and perhaps have some bills on Bush's desk by the time the State of the Union is ready for delivery." (emphasis mine)
Boo Yah! Way to go! Move fast so that the RW noise machine doesn't even have time to catch its breath.
Pelosi is a woman who clearly knows how to take control of the debate.
I'm still a bit nervous about her plan to push through much-needed reforms within the first 100 hours of congress. I remember what happened to Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" - in which Republicans legislators promptly ignored the commitments they made to pass a balanced-budget amendment, term-limits or be fiscally responsible.
I hope those San Fransisco Values can trump the natural tendency for politicians to get lazy after getting sworn in.
Read counterpoint here.
Tags: Pelosi - San Fransisco Values - Congress - Boo Yah!
Bookmark/Search this post with: | | | | | | |
People who register with Brainshrub.com get the following features:
