Dan Luther's Blog

God endorses Obama

Dan Luther — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:17:27 EDT

Apparently, God wants Barack Obama to be President.

On July 30, Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family posted a video on their website prompting Christians all over America to pray for rain to disrupt Senator Obama's acceptance speech tonight at Invesco Field.

In the video, Shepard called for Christians to pray for "abundant, torrential" rains during the Democratic nominee's acceptance speech in order to disrupt it. He had asked Christians to pray for rain that would create flash flood warnings and "swamp the intersections." In the video, Shepard said he hoped the rain would start "two minutes before the acceptance speech begins."

Naturally, this prompted thousands of people, many of them members of Focus on the Family, to request they pull this ad from their website, which they finally did on August 12. However, this was reported widely, both at the national and local level, and hundreds, possibly thousands of Christians were ardently praying for "abundant rain, torrential rain. Urban and small stream flood advisory rain" to ruin Obama's acceptance speech.

Well, God heard these prayers as he hears all prayers, and instead of a rain of biblical proportions, He decided that today would be the best day possible, with mild temperatures and the only cloudless sky in the week.

So apparently, God has spoken, and He's endorsed Obama.

Offshore Drilling

Dan Luther — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:04:18 EDT

Rita,

First of all, I owe you an apology.

Now, I’m going to tell you why this is actually shrewd, smart politics.

You’re wrong about Americans not favoring offshore drilling – they do, to the tune of 73%. Barack Obama has evidently been seeing the huge public support and the not inconsiderable jump in oil company contributions to McCain’s campaign over the issue of offshore drilling, so when framing the question in terms of how to tap into that market without looking like a chump, here’s his strategy:

Coupling with the coming public backlash over Congress’ inability to visit energy legislation before summer recess with the overwhelming public support for offshore drilling, Senator Obama said he would be willing to support *limited* additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster more fuel-efficient cars and develop alternative energy sources.

So, what are the limits?

Basically, what Senator Obama is proposing is a “win-win” scenario for him and Democrats in Congress. The proposal would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, but retain an environmental “buffer zone” extending 50 miles off Florida's coastline and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if the states agree to the oil and gas development along their coastlines. These states would share in revenues from oil and gas development, but then places the onus for drilling legislation to them instead of Congress. It retains the ban in place along the Pacific coast, but also includes initiatives that Obama has been endorsing, like a $1000 emergency rebate funded by windfall profits on oil companies, repealing tax breaks for oil companies, and a commitment of resources for renewable fuels.

This is legislation that Obama will sponsor as a Senator at the beginning of the fall session, giving him more credibility on several fronts:

Bipartisanship: Five Senators from each party will co-sponsor this proposal to break the impasse over energy legislation.
Senate record: If this legislation is fast-tracked and passed as I believe, it will add to Senator Obama’s legislative record.
Action: Obama could point to this and essentially say “Here’s what I did – I took swift action while all John McCain did was talk.”
Flexibility: This may be the weakest point, but there is something to be said about showing the ability to compromise, especially given President Bush’s obvious inflexibility.

Given the obvious lead Senator Obama has in the likely Presidential win in November, it would be logical that the oil companies will hedge their bets on McCain and support Obama in the form of sizeable campaign contributions.

Now, before everyone accuses me of making lemonade, I have to say that I’m not thrilled about this.

The last thing that Senator Obama needs is to be labeled a “flip-flopper”. However, he has the ability to turn these negatives into positives and frame them in terms of “We the People” and not “I the Candidate”. I earlier sent a message demonstrating the capacity for our existing domestic drilling capabilities, and it is my sincere hope that Senator Obama is cognizant of such a scenario and takes that into account when proposing energy legislation.

It’s not all good. But it’s not all bad, either.

Hope and Fear

Dan Luther — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:03:05 EDT

We can certainly see the lines drawn in this Presidential race along two very powerful undercurrents: hope and fear.

Barack Obama embodies hope, and indeed we can see those who support him drawn to the message of hope: hope for change, hope for prosperity, hope for democracy, hope for freedom.

It's a very powerful current, and it resonates well with those who see their situation not for what it is, but for what it can become. These are the builders, the planners, the visionaries among us who assess the current situation and, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, have a plan for transformation.

Then we have those who are motivated by fear. Republicans have long owned this undercurrent, and it too is powerful, arguably more powerful than hope because fear and despair go hand in hand, and yet it is so easy to give in to the fear. Fear of terrorism, fear of taxes, fear of failure, and most importantly, fear of change. Republicans are masters at using fear to motivate people because fear really requires so little in the way of evidence, and people can be easily led to do nearly anything when you play upon their fears.

Just look at the Bush administration: they played upon the fears of Americans, displaying evidence that was flimsy at best, and led them to renounce a full four of their essential liberties guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, all out of fear. And what did we get in return for this? A color chart telling us how afraid we should be on any given day. Again, two terms of an administration to prove that you can win by telling people who they should be afraid of, and who to blame.

John McCain has also owned this fear, clearly stating in his campaign ads "don't hope for change." What happened here? This was supposed to be a hero, a man of courage and valor, now embracing fear and despair.

We call people who give into fear cowards. And I have to tell you, America was not built by cowards. It was built by the courageous, those who put aside their fears, faced them down and built upon their highest hopes, impossible dreams, and greatest aspirations. I cannot think of any great American who has told us to be afraid. Indeed, the greatest American of the greatest generation, Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously proclaimed that "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

So when you encounter those who tell you to be afraid, remember that they're actually telling you to be a coward.

Be better than that. Vote for hope. Vote for change. Vote for Obama.

Shame on you, John McCain

Dan Luther — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:05:13 EDT

I’ve waited a few days to gather my thoughts on this issue before posting them here. I have found that in all things, reacting tends to have a detrimental effect overshadowing the more wise choice of acting, and so when I find myself outraged over a particular situation, it’s best to take a deep breath and fully evaluate it before diving headfirst into the deep end.

So with that disclaimer…

I am completely outraged at John McCain’s statement that “Barack Obama would rather lose a war to win a political race.” To me, it seems as if this was a direct attack on Senator Obama’s patriotism, an attack I might add, that Barack said in an earlier speech that he would not tolerate.

I’ve always respected Senator McCain – his heroic service to our country as a POW in Vietnam served as a reminder to all of us that sacrifice is sometimes part of service. As a Republican, I voted for John McCain in the 2000 Presidential primaries because I believed then as I do to this day, that on his worst day, John McCain is easily ten times the statesman than George W. Bush is on his best.

But this recent turn of events has cost John McCain my respect for him. All of it.

While I am now and forever grateful for his service to our country, his attribution of such naked, uninhibited ambition to Senator Obama is unnecessary, unconstructive, and to be frank, just plain mean.

Shame on you, John McCain. You of all people should know better.

The Great American Job Interview

Dan Luther — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:42:37 EDT

It seems to have escaped most peoples’ attention that technically, we’re still in the Presidential primary elections. Neither the Republican nor Democratic candidate has won or accepted his party’s nomination; although we are down to the two logical and inevitable candidates for each, neither party has yet placed their official seal of approval on either.

Most people seem divided between Barack Obama and John McCain. Oh sure, there are the fringe groups that will embrace a Bob Barr or a Ralph Nader, but the choices for President in 2008 are from two and only two contenders. Indeed, the ambivalence toward these two candidates has the largest such rift in recent memory of a Presidential election. According to Rasmussen reports, the percentage of undecided likely voters has increased from 6% in early June to 11% in early July, which is amazing when you consider that the number presented is supposed to get lower as the election continues.

The candidates are going to blanket the airwaves with advertising, newspaper opinion pieces will not yield one solitary shred of insight because they are, after all, opinion pieces that have been written years ago with the names left blank for future reference. The Democrats want to shine a light on the total failure of the Bush administration, and the Republicans desperately need to make everyone afraid of the Democrats. So how does an undecided voter determine which candidate will be the better President?

Well as it turns out, I do have an idea about that: why not look at how each candidate has run their campaign to date? Surely, if the President or the Untied States is the most important job in the world, it would probably say a lot about how the person would actually do the job by judging how he goes about getting the job. Employers have been interviewing potential hires since before America was a country, and by and large, the interview process is the final litmus test of employee viability. I see no reason why we cannot view the presidential election process as the “job interview” for the Presidency.

Senator John McCain has not run a good campaign by any measurable standard. He has constantly tried to “reinvent” himself to the point that that an undecided voter simply cannot make up their mind about exactly who John McCain really is. Senator McCain cannot effectively communicate either. Watching him give position speeches is an exercise in frustration, largely because the things that Senator McCain has to say are of the utmost importance, but his delivery is like watching a train wreck in slow motion – you don’t want to watch, but you can’t turn away either.

Additionally, Senator McCain cannot keep his campaign on message. The revolving door which has been that of his highest advisers has gone through six major upheavals since being named the “presumptive nominee”, the latest casualty being Phil Gramm for telling Americans that our troubles are all in our heads and that we’re just a bunch of whiners. This, by the way, is the same Phil Gramm who opened the roads for the disastrous calamity that the Enron collapse inflicted on the American public, nearly claiming Tulsa’s own Williams Energy, and keeping this “Enron loophole” open to for current unregulated oil speculation which has contributed in no small part to the nearly 300% increase in crude oil prices.

Finally, Senator McCain cannot seem to make a single position statement without insulting his rival. Now that he has capitulated to the same campaign managers who managed to write entirely new volumes of dirty tricks to get George Bush elected, it seems his lofty goals of wanting to run a “clean” campaign have fallen along the wayside with his opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts.

For many, this is a great source of contention, because there are those who desperately want to believe in John McCain and his ability to lead our country. But watching his campaign self-destruct at nearly every start, those same people are left in wide-eyed bewilderment at the possibility he will run the country in the exact same manner, and for good reason, it gives them pause.

On the other hand, Senator Obama has run a campaign that is the very model of efficiency and integrity. Even those who openly oppose Barack Obama stand in awe at the deft ease with which he runs a tightly focused campaign, keeping all of his surrogates and advisors on message, and engaging his audiences to the point of involvement. His speeches and town hall meetings have a specific thematic message, and Senator Obama does not let anything distract him from the delivery of that message. And when faced with the various problems that do arise, he deals with them immediately, personally, and with an overwhelming sense of finality.

Senator Obama steadfastly refuses to engage in the personal attacks that have become the hallmark of America’s electoral process; he has not once ever denigrated his opponent, and in fact goes to great lengths to be courteous, respectful, and even complimentary in an environment that is anything but. Senator Obama also manages to keep campaign promises. One particular example is when he vowed that, as the Democratic nominee, he would disavow the DNC of lobbyist, special interest and political action committee money. True to his word, the day after being named the “presumptive nominee”, Senator Obama exerted his new power as leader of his party, and told the Democratic National Committee to eschew all contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

Political candidates say a lot of things, and it may just be a sign of apathy on our part when we allow these statements to go in one ear and out the other, stocking up on the grains salt we’ll surely need to go along with all the rhetoric and promises made every four years.

But the bottom line is that the election process itself gives us an insight into what kind of an official a particular candidate will be just by watching how they conduct themselves and their campaign. Given his performance so far in the Great American Job Interview, it is apparent to me that Barack Obama will make for a wildly successful President.

The Truth about Senator Obama and FISA

Dan Luther — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:44:38 EDT

Barack Obama's "yea" vote on the FISA legislation demonstrates good sense. In fact, I'd say wer were witness to a Presidential candidate acting Presidential.

Government is a balancing act, in this case balancing the necessity to protect Americans from another terrorist attack with the need to protect the privacy of Americans.

Retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies complying with orders from their government would only have hurt the telecom industry by creating a mass of individual and class-action lawsuits, probably winning billions of dollars from the telecom companies, the majority of which would not go to the recipients of the judgment but to the lawyers bringing the suits. And that cost would immediately be passed on to you in the form of higher rates and fees, and remain there as a future source of profit for the telcos.

The compromise was to set up oversight to the FISA court so that all "eavesdropping" has some form of merit, and brings back the necessity to provide some form of accountability which was completely lacking in the draconian Bush system.

Think of the public backlash that Senator Obama would have faced if another terrorist attack on American soil were to occur, and he had not supported legislation that would have enabled authorities to prevent the occurrence.

It also seems to me that President Obama would be in a much better position to mandate specific legislation or modify the current system better than Senator Obama ever could. I have a feeling that he will do so, but he has to be elected first; if he doesn't, whatever is second just doesn't matter.

This is the essential difference between being proactive and reactive, which boils down to which is the more noble approach: preventing a national tragedy, or chasing down and punishing those who commit a national tragedy after the fact.

Both sides of that argument have compelling, valid points. On one side, we have those who believe our government has a fundamental responsibility to do everything in its power to insure the protection and safety of its citizens. On the other, we have those who believe that safety is the price of freedom, and those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.

Hillary Clinton's vote surprised me a bit, given her history of hawkish stances on national security issues. But I don't think Barack Obama will lose any votes by acting in the best interests of American security.

The FISA legislation was a lose-lose situation for Obama. Had he voted against it, he would have been labeled as soft on national security and taken a great deal of criticism from the right. The McCain Campaign and his sycophants don't miss any opportunity to whine and complain, and we'd in that vein we'd hear no end of how Senator Obama is soft on terrorists, supports terrorists, loves terrorists; I can see the commercials in my head even as I type. Not to mention the outrageous comments we'd get in our inboxes, confirming Obama's "secret Islamic terrorist connections"... Well, I'm sure you all have good imaginations around how this would play out in the blogs.

Voting for FISA makes him seem against civil liberties and he takes a great deal of criticism from the left, and yet the worst thing to happen is he gets painted as a "flip flopper", which is a great deal better than "terrorism supporter".

Senator Obama definitely had the Sword of Damocles poised over his head on this issue, but a little bad press is better than a lot of bad press. If he erred, he did so on the side of caution, and that makes him look Presidential in my book.

John McCain didn't even vote on the issue, and regardless of which side of the political spectrum you occupy, this, and the Medicare bill, were vitally important votes. I find it very telling that the last time Senator McCain visited the Senate was April 8. In fact, of the 169 Senate votes so far this year, John McCain has only voted 36 times.

Obama, McCain, and where each stand on the Truth

Dan Luther — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:38:46 EDT

There are some very good sites out there that most people should look at with some regularity.

For those interested in polling, I think the best site is http://fivethirtyeight.com, which is a web site run by baseball stats phenom Nate Silver, who uses his statistics experience from baseball to analyze the presidential elections, gaining national attention when he correctly outperformed every single pollster in America by predicting Hillary Clinton would carry Indiana by two points while losing N. Carolina by 17. Here's a NewsWeek snippet:

"Silver, 30, is already celebrated among ball fans for inventing something called PECOTA. Developed while the University of Chicago econ alum slogged through a post-collegiate consulting gig—"I'm used to not sleeping," he tells NEWSWEEK—PECOTA is now recognized as the most accurate system for forecasting how athletes and teams will perform in the future (down to the number of singles). In 2007, Silver's algorithm enraged at least half of Chicago when it said the White Sox—2005 champs—would post a 72–90 record. Turned out PECOTA was exactly right."

Another site of interest is http://politifact.com. This is maintained by the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. Here's their statement of purpose:

"PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help you find the truth in the presidential campaign. Every day, reporters and researchers from the Times and CQ will analyze the candidates' speeches, TV ads and interviews and determine whether the claims are accurate."

I see a lot of McCain/Obama references with a "Truth-O-Meter" rating, and I started to see some "trends". Just to confirm my suspicions, I performed a bit of analysis of the statements that PolitiFact rates from both candidates, analyzing those as "True" (combining the categories "True" and "Mostly True") and "False" (combining "Barely True, "False" and "Pants on Fire").

Of the 81 statements by Obama and the 73 statements by McCain rated by PolitiFact, Senator Obama is "True" 53.1% of the time, while he is "False" 24.7%. Senator McCain is "True" 45.2% of the time, while he is "False" 39.7% of the time.

I think we're all adult enough to both know and accept that politicians are, by and large, not the most trustworthy bunch.

But which candidate is true more often than he is false? According to one independent source, that person is Senator Obama.

The Last Word on Religion

Dan Luther — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:34:06 EDT

I may surprise you just a little bit here with this statement, but I admire Dr. Dobson. Sure, I think his comments on Barack Obama were a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to discovering he had been tangentally referenced in a speech from a couple of years ago, and the whole controversy over said situation is a tempest in a teapot. But James Dobson is an honorable man, who has devoted his life to instructing and instilling Christian family values in a time where such values are being eroded by a sea of change.

So, because I admire the man and his works, and believe him to be a fundamentally positive influence on those who allow him that latitude, I'm willing to stumble over his political posturing. While Dr. Dobson is a dedicated Christian, he has a tendency to vehemently lash out as violently as his general demeanor will allow at any perceived slight, which is at the root of this issue.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

My own pastor, Willie George, carries some beliefs and makes some statements that I simply do not agree with, but I'm more than willing to accommodate those statements because of his larger message, not to mention the incredible works of his ministry.

Again, ye shall know them by their fruits.

Now, Barack Obama has made a public confession of his faith, claiming his salvation through Jesus Christ. That is not mine, yours, nor anyone else's to question, only God alone can judge His relationships. Yet to the utter shock and dismay of his own base, Barack Obama, the supposed "most liberal Senator in the Senate", has called for not just a continuation, but an expansion of government sponsored faith-based initiatives.

Again, ye shall know them by their fruits.

Jeremiah Wright makes some outrageous and controversial statements, some that absolutely make my blood boil. Well here's a news flash: most preachers do. We don't have to go too far to see men of God making outrageous statements: John Hagee, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have all made outrageous and controversial statements, yet their larger message and their ministries have done undeniably amazing good works and brought forth "good fruit".

Again, ye shall know them by their fruits.

Which is why we can apply that one single biblical litmus test of Christian authenticity and apply it to these men and clearly see the results. There are such "false prophets" as Fred Phelps that fail this litmus test because his ministry does not bring forth good fruit, and therefore must be from a corrupt tree.

It seems to me that we like to get caught up in the minutiae, searching for the devil in the details. Jeremiah Wright has some interesting views, but his ministry has brought forth good fruit, an important distinction most seem to be overlooking.

Again, I won't defend the more controversial statements of Jeremiah Wright; I simply can't. His situation is not shared by all of us, and his perceptions are guided by his own perspective of actual history.

Straight Talk Express?

Dan Luther — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:09:26 EDT

Here are a few choice bits from the "Straight Talk Express":

"But the fact is, I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But any military man worth his salt is going to have to prepare for any contingency, but I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991."
John McCain, September 15, 2002.

"There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators."
John McCain, March 24, 2003.

"I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks."
John McCain, January 28, 2003.

- - -

These quotes aren't taken out of context, misrepresentations, or deliberate obfuscations of John McCain's positions on the Iraq war. And the legitimacy of the actual state of war, whereby Congress is the only body authorized to make such a declaration and has not tacitly done so aside, the simple fact of the matter is that no country can enjoy economic prosperity during a time of war. It is only afterwards that the economy swells as though breathing a huge sigh of relief.

I am not opposed to war; it is an unfortunate necessity when nations reach an impasse that cannot be resolved by any other means. But I am opposed to the Iraq war.

The main problem with the war in Iraq is that nobody ever clearly defines what victory there actually is. Our original goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. We did that. Then the goal was to set up a government. We did that. Then the goal was to get Iraq's new government to set up a constitution. They did that. Then the goal was to get Iraq to field police and military. They did that. Now the goal is to have Iraqi troops "stand up" so we can "stand down", letting Iraq defend itself.

The problem, as I see it, is that everyone is so enamored with the prospect of being at war, either by squabbling over the reasons for being there to begin with, squabbling over the best strategies for victory (which are never clearly defined), squabbling over strategies to achieve these amorphous goals, or squabbling internally amongst those that support and those that oppose the war, that nobody has ever done a careful analysis of the tactical benefits of war itself.

President Bush's tenuous attempts to link Al-Qaida and Iraq have always seemed contrived; the pieces didn't fit, so something else must have been going on. Now that we are fully engaged there, those missing pieces have taken shape.

The Iraq war is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It is the culmination of a plan more than 10 years in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves, like why the Bush administration and John McCain seems so unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq. The real reason for this is because we won't be leaving, ever. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

We only need to look at how the Bush administration completely dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had successfully done with the Soviet Union for 45 years. Even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power.

John McCain was unaware of this expansion plan until 2004, when he radically changed his stance on the American occupation. Now he is fully engaged and wholeheartedly embraces this "Pax Americana", and has given his unwavering and tacit support in statements like "that's not important" when asked how America will withdraw from Iraq, or his "100 years" comments on how long we will stay.

Unfortunately, such an expansion would affect the worldwide price of oil. And to gauge domestic reaction to oil prices, the comfort level whereby Americans would accept such restrictions had to be plumbed, so the "Enron loophole" was allowed to remain in effect as an artificial method to inflate oil prices. And the Bush administration found the threshold where discomfort turns to pain: $3.50 a gallon for gasoline.

The Bush administration made serious tactical blunders in their expansion policy, chiefly that Americans couldn't tolerate an unending war coupled with economic recession. In the hands of a more experienced and committed administration, our economy would be in a far better position than its current state, which would have allowed these global expansion plans to continue unnoticed. But the current pain of America with the dollar greatly devalued in global monetary markets, the housing industry in shambles taking the credit industry down with it, unemployment at high levels, and food and energy costs higher than they have ever been at any other time in our history have caused Americans to begin a revolt, but for the most part they don't even know what it is they're revolting against.

Americans are far too easily distracted. The reasons for this are as numerous as they are varied, but most can be attributed to complacency and blissful ignorance.

Folks, we cannot allow John McCain to continue the Bush administration's reckless global expansion policy. This is essentially war without end, and our economy cannot sustain such an ill-advised policy, and at some point, the debt our nation has incurred to continue this expansion will eventually be so great that we will simply have no way of ever repaying it; imagine the conflict that would incur.

Even if you don't like him, Senator Obama would immediately stop such foolishness and focus on America.

I urge you to consider this, and vote for Obama in '08.

Issues of faith

Dan Luther — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:56:43 EDT

One thing I've been hearing constantly from opposition is that Senator Obama spent twenty years following the teachings of Jeremiah Wright, which bears a bit of clarification: Barack Obama spent twenty years following the teachings of *Jesus Christ*, under the tutelage of Jeremiah Wright. This is an important distinction, and I don't see anyone making it. We are instead made to follow a simplistic supposition that because Jeremiah Wright held some strange beliefs, that somehow invalidates the wonderful works he's done in Christ's name.

I will not defend the statements of Jeremiah Wright, other than to say that maybe he had his reasons. You do some research on "Tuskeegee" and come back to let us know if Reverend Wright's platform, albeit shaky, didn't have any foundation whatsoever.

But let us not sit in our glass houses and contemplate throwing stones; the thousands of Christians led to Christ by Ted Haggard are not all methamphetamine abusing homosexuals, the thousands of Christians led to Christ by Jim Baker are not all adulterous embezzlers, and the thousands of Christians led to Christ by John Hagee probably do not believe that Catholics are going to spend eternity in the fires of Hades.

I have spent my entire life in "Full Gospel" "Evangelical Christian" churches, and I've heard more hatred from the pulpit than I've heard about the love of Jesus. I've heard that homosexuals are going to spirit away my children and indoctrinate them in the ways of the Sodomite. I've heard that all Muslims are following a false God and therefore will roast for all eternity; that Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists who do not believe in the "infilling of the Holy Ghost, with the gift of speaking in tongues" will all accompany Satan because they do not believe the True Holy Word of God.

I've been around supposed Christians all my life, and what I've learned is that nobody gets it right all of the time -- sometimes, pride gets in the way. The other thing I've learned, is that people will believe anything, especially if it's on a television. I've lived long enough to see that in all likelihood, America's greatest problem isn't that Americans refuse to think independently, it's that they're willfully shutting down their capacity for logic and reason.

The bottom line is that only God Himself can judge the faith of another man, and He alone will do so. It is not yours, mine, nor any man's place to make that judgment. I'm willing to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt with regards to his faith, if for no other reason than the Bible itself offers this litmus test: "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

"Flip-flops"?

Dan Luther — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:52:57 EDT

I can think of maybe five total issues that Barack Obama has "flip-flopped" on:

- Public campaign finance
- FISA compromise legislation
- The Cuban embargo
- Crackdown on business that hire illegals
- Decriminalizing marijuana

If anyone can come up with others and cite supporting information, I'll certainly add them.

Here is the list of issues that John McCain has "flip-flopped" on, sometimes twice, and even three times; in a couple of these examples, it was his own legislation that he then refused to support:

- Criticizing Obama on his CAFTA support trip
- Status as an expert on the economy
- Swift Boat Veterans For Truth
- Military service as requirement for Commander-In-Chief (CIC)
- Support of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act
- 21st Century GI Bill
- Terrorist threats helping Republican candidates
- Running a respectful campaign with "no negative attack ads"
- Windfall profits tax on oil companies
- Offshore drilling
- Privatizing Social Security
- Funding National Defense
- Balancing the Federal budget
- Criticizing the media
- Estate Tax
- FISA
- Protecting the Florida Everglades
- Using sanctions as a tool of influencing international policy
- Investigating governmental failures in the aftermath of Katrina
- Disagreeing with President Bush
- Immigration reform
- Tax cuts for the wealthy
- Ethanol
- Respect for wives
- John Hagee
- Rod Parsley
- Jerry Falwell
- Abortion
- Engaging in diplomacy with Hamas
- Engaging in diplomacy with Syria
- The NRA's role in policymaking
- Lobbying reform legislation
- Raising taxes
- Long-term military presence in Iraq
- Mortgage relief
- Waterboarding
- The length of combat operations in Iraq
- Gay marriage
- A holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.
- State promotion of the Confederate flag
- Henry Kissinger
- Indefinite detention of terrorist suspects
- Storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

A few words about Gen. Wesley Clark

Dan Luther — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:50:06 EDT

I have to admit, I'm very conflicted over this whole affair concerning Gen. Wesley Clark. I've been a firm advocate for his status as Senator Obama's running mate, for reasons far too numerous to mention here. And it is with a little more than sadness to see that hope has all but disappeared.

Politics is by design a dirty business, but it's also very tactical, not unlike a chess match. And we should all do well to remember that Sen. Obama has played all of his matches with the grace and skill of a grand master champion; let us not forget that he engaged the "inevitable nominee" using a strategy nobody ever saw coming, and he won decisively without ever having to stoop to the mudslinging and underhanded tricks we've all come to expect from such a campaign. In fact, his personal graciousness and overly fair treatment of other candidates is a hallmark of his platform that ostensibly helped garner him supporters such as myself.

Such was the issue with Gen. Clark. The Obama campaign had to engage their opponent by challenging his strengths instead of exploiting his weaknesses. Senator McCain's major strength is arguably his military service and status as a former POW, which he has been using as a club to drive his national security credentials. Senator Obama could never directly challenge McCain's military service since he himself had none. However, Gen. Clark had more than ample credentials as a military leader, and was uniquely positioned to make such statements as John McCain's military service, though heroic and brave, did not alone qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief.

This scenario could have played out in two different ways. Since Gen. Clark has been making these assertions for some months in such publications as the Huffington Post, the material had already been out there for almost a year without being a source of significant debate, so Gen. Clark's appearance on "Face the Nation" shouldn't yield any stunning revelations. In the first scenario, these statements could have been viewed as an unspoken truth, a source of illumination coming from a battle-tested four-star General, whereby all would have said 'Gosh, I never thought of it that way before - interesting…' The second scenario has Gen. Clark reviled by the right, the press, and even the left for daring to question John McCain's service to America.

Well, we all saw which scenario surfaced.

And make no mistake, Senator Obama's campaign is directly behind that Sunday morning interview; I don't believe for a moment that a campaign who has maintained iron-clad control over their spokespeople enough to silence Oprah Winfrey, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton would ever allow anyone to speak against McCain as an Obama supporter, even though Gen. Clark said exactly that -- which also pretty much lets Obama off the hook for making the attempt.

Now I don't care which side of the aisle you're on, that's world-class politics, and even if it rankles your feathers, you have to admire such a bold, calculated, and brilliant strategic move. But the thing is, even with the buzz surrounding this story, Gen. Clark is right; even John McCain admitted as much when he jokingly said that he successfully intercepted an enemy SAM with his aircraft. People in general seem to only have the capability of understanding 10 second sound bites, but Gen. Clark did not impugn Sen. McCain's service, he tried to drive the point home that McCain's service, although heroic, wasn't a qualifier to be Commander-in-Chief; that's an important distinction that most people don't recognize.

But the really interesting thing in the aftermath of this story is how Sen. McCain has conducted himself. He could have taken the moral high ground and let this fire burn itself out; he had the entire press fighting this battle for him. Instead, he took several cheap shots at the Obama campaign, his entire campaign howled like a wounded banshee, and then gave the Obama campaign the gift that will keep on giving by bringing out Col. Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Constantly seeing the McCain campaign on the defensive and gaging his reactions speaks volumes more on how he would handle himself as President. After all, it is equally, if not more important to see how one handles adversity as a true test of character. Everyone can handle success with grace and dignity, but if one can assess misfortune with that same measure of grace and dignity, then it certainly speaks well of the character.

Unfortunately for John McCain, he does not handle adversity well at all, and ultimately, that will be his undoing.

Big Government

Dan Luther — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:38:28 EDT

Everyone likes to deride "big government" as a lynchpin of the Democratic Party; the Republicans have won many elections by falsely labeling their opponents as "tax and spend liberals" and proponents of "big government", without ever actually defining what "tax and spend" actually means. I find it excruciatingly simple-minded to deride such a term when that's exactly what our government is supposed to do, and further, am simply shocked that the Democrats haven't labeled their opponents "borrow and spend conservatives".

The government's only source of funds is our taxes, and while I certainly see a number of people decrying "big government", these voices are mysteriously silent when things like tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, wildfires, or hurricanes strike. In fact, these same people who want a "smaller" government always manage to show up with hat in hand whenever they are affected by such a disaster, but fail to see the irony.

There has to be a balance. A capitalistic framework with just enough redistribution of wealth to accommodate social functions as basic health care, social security, law enforcement, education and infrastructure cannot be viewed as a dystopian society.

Wars of Religion Return

Dan Luther — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:32:05 EDT

Pat Buchanan authored an editorial entitled "Wars of Religion Return", and in it he asserts that any society that encompasses different religions and cultures must eventually come to conflict. Strong words from a man whose latest book on World War II carries the title "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War".

I would like to point out that our country has not only survived, indeed it has wildly flourished beyond all expectations for over 230 years, a testament in direct opposition to Mr. Buchanan's viewpoint.

Mr. Buchanan misses the message Senator Obama embodies that religious, cultural, ideological, moral, and racial differences can be set aside when working towards a common goal. That the things we hold as absolute truths today may neither absolute nor true tomorrow, which then requires us to judge some long-held beliefs on their own merits. That there is more that unites us than divides us.

Mr. Buchanan's viewpoints are not supported by history. By his logic, Chinese people should have violently revolted after being pressed into slavery to build our railroad network in the west, but we know there is a flourishing Asian population in America that enjoys the freedoms and liberties our great nation affords, as well as the culture and religion from their homelands.

Likewise it is the same with the Dutch, English, French, German, Irish, Scottish, African, Swiss, Russian, Polish... The point is, if Mr. Buchanan's assertion that cultures cannot coexist in peace, that these cultures must clash by sheer virtue of a different sense of morality, then America should not exist, can not exist, and at some point, will not exist.

I beg to differ.

Change

Dan Luther — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:35:06 EDT

Change.

It's a frightening word to Conservatives. After all, the very definition of the word "conservative" is "resistant to change", so it's not surprising then that when a candidate for President from the opposing party hangs his entire platform on the theme of "change", there is significant resistance. And not just change in the White House, change at the most fundamental levels of how business is conducted in Washington. For them, this must be an absolutely terrifying notion, that a fundamental paradigm shift is about to take place, upending the status quo that has existed for nearly forty years.

I've never really seen the logic in resisting change, because for everyone's efforts to the contrary, the one single inevitability we can all look back and see is change. Americans spend billions of dollars every year fighting the changes in our appearance over the years, but eventually the hairline does recede, the colors turn from grey to white, and the lines and creases only get deeper and longer, our midsections become rounder and softer, and those little veins percolate to the surface. It's inevitable, and yet we steadfastly refuse to yield to that constantly evolving process with creams, colors, prayers… Some even go so far as to inject deadly toxins into their faces, or even hire a surgeon to move cellulite from the buttocks to the mouth. I'll just pause here so you can inject whatever humor that must accompany that last statement…

However, the inevitability of change always wins out in the end.

Change is also about to happen in Washington in the form of Barack Obama. Staunch Republican stalwarts see this change and, true to the definition of the word "conservative", they resist. But what does this really say? If these people didn't see Senator Obama as a genuine, ominous threat to their complacency, I somehow doubt they would be reacting so strongly. But as in nature, only a strong catalyst produces a strong reaction. These people see the inevitability of Senator Obama, and they resist with all their might.

They see the polling numbers. They see the general mood of the nation, and they certainly watch the news, so deep in places they generally don't acknowledge, they know that eventually, they will have to say "President Obama", but yet they resist. It's in their nature, because "conservative", by definition, is "resistant to change".

I read the comment postings of my local newspaper, and see some of the ugliest, hateful, slanderous statements from people that might actually be my neighbor or co-worker. And I do tend to get somewhat passionate in my support of Senator Obama, but I take comfort in knowing that the harder one tries to resist change, the more of an acknowledgement that change will happen is implicitly given.

On Faith-based Initiatives

Dan Luther — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:57:46 EDT

I have always been a critic of the Bush administration. I voted for John McCain in the 2000 Republican Presidential primary election, because I simply could not understand how anyone of good conscience could vote for a man who, even after a six-year old girl corrects him, and is surrounded by an army of speechwriters and communications staff continues in the practice of saying "nookyuhler". To me, it underscored what I considered to be his "Achilles heel" - a serious character flaw that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, his stubbornness and pride refused to yield to fact.

In my constant disapproval of President Bush, I was almost never disappointed, and I had to constantly lower my expectations to meet his performance.

But there was one shining moment when President Bush announced a piece of legislation that gave me pause, and for a moment allowed me to think, both to myself and to my friends and family "Hey, maybe this guy isn't all bad after all", and that was his introduction of "faith-based initiatives", whereby the government would help fund critical social programs at the level where they are actually implemented.

For the first time in his administration, I was proud of President Bush.

Well, of course that didn't last. Like most things, President Bush took a great idea and mismanaged it into total irrelevance, using it not as an example of one-half of his "compassionate conservatism", but treating it like a Presidential photo opportunity with which he could point to his domestic agenda.

Again, I had to lower my expectations to meet his performance.

So imagine my delight and surprise to learn that Senator Obama would reach into the ashes of neglect and mismanagement and resurrect the faith-based initiatives.

If all politics is local, so then must be all charity. Food banks, halfway houses, shelters, drug and alcohol programs, family counseling programs, after school programs - all are local to the communities in which they operate, and they are largely run by local churches within these communities. Unfortunately, these must rely on the funding provided by those same churches, which is, in a word, unreliable.

Government sponsored programs similar to those above are also local to the communities in which they operate, but government funding is also woefully inadequate, and in many communities, completely nonexistent.

To me, it only makes perfect sense to combine the two underfunded efforts and provide funding for these programs. Naturally, there will be some common-sense regulation around these programs; that is to be expected, and Senator Obama plainly lays out the ground rules that should satisfy most detractors.

Most of the pushback I see has to do with the separation between church and state, and while I understand some of the arguments, I just don't agree with them. In my opinion, these well-intentioned but misguided individuals are using the letter of the law to subvert its spirit: the homeless man doesn't really care about such lofty ideals - he needs a warm place to sleep on a cold winter's night. The starving man doesn't care that some voters disagree about the source of funding, he needs to feed his children.

The people who oppose Senator Obama's plan to expand faith-based initiatives seem completely oblivious to the fact that such programs will directly and immediately provide help to those who are in desperate need of it, and that such support programs will provide more and better services than either secular or religious organizations alone ever could. Arguments I've heard usually boil down to "I don't want my tax dollars going to religious organizations", which is an asinine statement; we can look at the opposite end of the political spectrum and find people saying "I don't want my tax dollars going to welfare". The irony here is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Like it or not, religion is arguably the singular pillar upon which all communities are built. Look back at the history of any city and see which buildings were the first to go up, and more often than not a church will be on that list. I think faith-based initiatives are logical, common-sense solutions to real problems communities face today. And it is Senator Obama who possesses a unique perspective on this issue.

We've trusted Senator Obama on other issues, why not give him the benefit of the doubt now? Don't slap away the hand that reaches out to help - someday it may reach for you.

Respect

Dan Luther — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:52:05 EDT

During the Bush administration, the respect the world holds for America has gone from historic highs, to the lowest point in our nation's history. But, just the *prospect* of President Obama has the entire world looking at us with renewed respect and hope. Think about that before you completely close your mind on general principle: just the *idea* that Americans can put aside their petty differences and prejudices for a little while and elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama as their leader, to elevate him to the status as the most powerful man in the world, has the eyes of all nations looking at us with renewed hope. That's a very powerful testament to the American dream, because Senator Obama singularly represents the ideal that any American, through hard work, determination and perseverance alone, can accomplish anything, even become President of the United States. That's a singularly American idea, and Senator Obama is on the cusp of making that long-held dream an American reality.

If for no other reason than that, I support Barack Obama for the 44th President of the United States of America.

Adopt-a-voter

Dan Luther — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:30:52 EDT

One of the things I’ve noticed during the Barack Obama campaign is his ability to energize young, first-time voters. Although I’m not young (42), I am energized, probably for the first time in a long time. But, I also know something about Presidential elections of the past, and the thing that immediately strikes me is that these young, new voters have a bad habit of not voting when it counts.

This is why I propose an “adopt-a-voter” program. Voters take a list of thirty to fifty first time voters, and “foster” them. Send correspondence, tell them why you’re contacting them, and then call them the week before voting, the day before voting, and the day of voting, all to insure that this high-yield resource stays an actual resource.

Comments?

Impeaching President Bush?

Dan Luther — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:02:10 EDT

There has been a great deal of conversation around the impeachment proceedings around Dennis Kucinich's impeachment vote.

There are two schools of thought on this issue.

On one hand, Bush is currently in the last vestiges of his Presidency, but he still has about seven months worth of office time left, during which time he can do something outrageous like bomb Iran for whatever reasons. Don’t think that is a silly comment; he’s done it before with Iraq, and for the past year Bush has been rattling that saber.

On the other hand, there is a fairly long list of “high crimes and misdemeanors” of which Bush stands accused, and some of these charges are fairly serious. And if Clinton can be impeached by lying about a blowjob, it only stands to reason that Bush could be impeached for knowingly lying about the reasons that led to the wasting of half a trillion dollars, and costing over 4,000 American lives.

But probably the strongest support for the impeachment proceedings is to act as a deterrent to other Presidents who will come after. This administration has exercised an unrivaled political power struggle, which with the help of a Republican congress, has tipped the balance of power into the executive branch to the point where 40% of the Bill of Rights is effectively negated. A great deal of this restoration of power will be handled by the Supreme Court, but with that being occupied by a majority of hard line conservative judges that support the Republican agenda, even that may further slow the wheels of justice, which already turn slowly.

The upcoming Presidential election is not even the majority of the problem. Congress has to be filled with a filibuster-proof majority in both houses siding with the President, which will allow a moderate agenda to be pushed through the legislative process, so the entire down-ballot races this year are arguably more important than the Presidential race, which is one reason I don’t support harvesting our Democratic senators to fill positions in the Obama administration; they’re needed exactly where they currently are.

Part of the process of picking up and moving on has to include punishing those who put us in our current situation, for no other reason than otherwise it will happen again. To prevent such a reoccurrence, certain legislation must surely be enacted, which I am confident that it will. Secondarily, we all have to accept some responsibility here in this issue, because it was the overwhelming public sense of fear that allowed the current administration to achieve the goals that has led to our current situation. People in general are easily misled, more so with frightened people. I don’t see any way of instilling a sense of bravery in Americans, so the only thing we can do is to punish those who exploit that ugly facet of America.

The Great Ethanol Lie

Dan Luther — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:56:03 EDT

Keen observers have noticed their cars getting somewhat lower gas mileage over the past year. Some have attributed this to a normal side-effect of ageing vehicles, others with new cars didn’t notice it at all and thought it was the normal state of affairs. However, I have some news, and most of you aren’t going to like it.

Last year, the Bush administration introduced the Renewable Fuel Standards program under the Environmental Protection Agency. This was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was one of the last vestiges of a Republican-controlled Congress that allowed most Republican backed legislation to be enacted with little or no input by the Democrats. What this RFS program does is require that American refineries use a minimum amount of renewable fuel between 2007 and 2012. This “renewable fuel” is ethanol, and most states are now using a minimum of E10 in all their gasoline products, which is 10% ethanol.

Some people see this as A Good Thing, since ethanol is supposed to give us some freedom from imported oil and give us cleaner air, but as I’m going to show you, it ain’t necessarily so.

Going back to my opening statement, some drivers have noticed their automobiles getting lower gas mileage. One particularly keen observer noticed that his gas mileage went from an average of 32 miles per gallon to 29 miles per gallon. This person is very keen on vehicle maintenance and performance, and since he lives very close to the Wisconsin/Minnesota border, he was able to verify his results by recording his average fuel consumption with E10 from Minnesota, and comparing it to straight gasoline (E0) from Wisconsin. His findings showed that the E10 gasoline affected his gas mileage by 10%.

I’m sure that many are thinking the difference between 29MPG and 32MPG really isn’t that much of a difference, but let’s take a theoretical 320 mile trip. Using straight gasoline, that trip would require 10 gallons of fuel. Using E10, that same trip requires 11 gallons of fuel. Now pay attention, because here’s where the numbers start to do interesting things. Since E10 is 10% ethanol, the remaining 90% is gasoline, so this theoretical 320 mile trip still takes 9.9 gallons of gasoline! That means whether we use E10 or E0, we still use nearly the exact same amount of gasoline – the extra ethanol didn’t really do anything for us. And here’s the kicker: E10 costs almost exactly the same as regular gasoline!

Now this is just one example, and one might be inclined to think this might be an anomalous observation, unique to only one person. Luckily, the US Department of Transportation keeps records on the number of miles driven and fuel burned in all 50 states (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/motor_fuel.htm) and these numbers say quite a bit.

Using 2005 data (the latest numbers available), drivers in Minnesota drove 56.6 billion miles and consumed 2.7 billion gallons of fuel, making their fuel average 20.6MPG. Drivers in Wisconsin drove 60.3 billion miles and consumed 2.6 billion gallons of fuel, making their rating 23.3MPG. In other words the E10 state (Minnesota) got 12% less fuel efficiency than the E0 state (Wisconsin).

Wow.

The bottom line here is that ethanol as a fuel additive is a losing game. It doesn’t remove our dependence on foreign oil because we use only a fraction less gasoline to achieve the exact same results.

Today, 46% of all gasoline in the USA is at least a 10% ethanol blend, with that number reaching 100% by 2012 under current guidelines. The problem is that the ethanol is coming from corn; 98% of domestic ethanol is from domestic corn crops. There are currently 158 ethanol refineries online, 51 under construction, and hundreds more pending air quality permits from the various state Environmental Protection Agencies. With that kind of growth, ethanol from corn is likely to be our source of ethanol for many years to come because these plants can only convert corn into ethanol. Not cellulosic ethanol, or algae-bearing ethanol – these plants are essentially huge stills, designed to ferment corn and turn it into alcohol.

The problem of ethanol from corn isn’t that the corn we eat is being used to make fuel – it isn’t. The problem is that farmers are growing less of the food crops we use to make more of the ethanol-producing dent corn. Farmers are planting less sweet corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, and even cotton to make room for the new cash crop: dent corn. When you combine a shortage of feed crops with an all-time high cost for fuel necessary to grow, harvest, and process those crops, you get a huge spike in food prices just like we’re seeing today, and the really bad news is that it’s only going to get worse.

Ethanol is a lie. There are other, more effective methods for turning vegetable matter into fuel, chiefly thermal depolymerization, which mimics the way mother earth converts decaying plant and animal matter into crude oil, except on a radically faster timeline. Think about that – we can take our grass clippings and chicken guts and make a light, sweet crude suitable for refining. I’ll bet you didn’t know about that. Most people don’t. Of course that won’t solve our energy crisis, no single solution will. But a common-sense approach to energy production that combines the best of all available and emerging technologies will certainly get us where we need to be.

It is my sincere hope that President Obama has a full understanding of the emergency situation the current ethanol policy has on the domestic economy, as well as the humanitarian crisis it is causing abroad. Whatever happens, the insane energy policy of the Bush Administration needs to be corrected in the next administration.

The Real Hillary Clinton

Dan Luther — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:04:27 EDT

By virtue of your reading this, you’re already aware of the unfortunate instance where Senator Hillary Clinton mentioned the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy when asked why she hasn’t left the Democratic primaries, even while staring in the face of certain defeat. During this press conference, she appeared haggard, exhausted, and disheveled; her voice was cracking from untold hours of speechmaking, and her general demeanor conveyed an unspoken desire for a hot bath and a soft pillow. The thing of it is it’s under these very circumstances that ones’ true identity gets a chance to peek out from behind the reserved mask of smooth political composure and closely guarded conversation which results from a lifetime spent honing a political persona. So this weekend, we got a good look at what Hillary Clinton is really like behind the mask.

And I didn’t like what I saw.

This isn’t the first time that a racially insensitive comment has slipped out from Hillary’s usually well-composed mouth. Earlier this month, Senator Clinton made the infamous “hard working white Americans” statement, and back in January she snubbed Martin Luther King Jr. when she said his dream was only realized when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And back in March she also mentioned Robert Kennedy’s assassination, but at the time it got relatively little attention.

Hillary Clinton is shrewd enough to know when she’s made a mistake, but she must not have had any sleep or that hot bath, because her hastily cobbled together apology was so blatantly unapologetic, it may have actually hurt her worse than the original comment.

Whatever Hillary’s goals in staying in the game long after it’s lost is anyone’s guess. Perhaps she’s trying to demand her name on the ticket, maybe she’s angling to poison the well for Senator Obama in this election and hope for another run for in 2012 (discounting the inevitability that Senator Obama will only grow in experience). Whatever the goal, a hard race is made even harder when you shoot yourself in the foot, and Hillary seems to have penchant for this particular brand of self-immolation.

But let’s all be clear on this point: Senator Clinton will not attain the Democratic Presidential nomination. There is no shame in admitting defeat when you’re defeated, and one risks looking a fool by ostensibly denying it (see “Baghdad Bob” for reference). However, by dragging this contest on, her ability to exit the race gracefully, and on her own terms is immensely diminished with each passing day. Americans love a winner, and the only thing they hate more than a loser is a sore loser; more than that, Americans hate a sore loser who thinks there’s still a chance for victory.

Hillary Clinton has shown her true self, and on more than one occasion. That she’s losing this contest is not a fluke occurrence; the cream always rises to the top. What Senator Clinton revealed as one of her most glaring character flaws is that she’s a racist. And she’s the worst kind of racist – the kind that thinks it’s not racism because they’ll sit in the same room as a black person.

In Praise of our Veterans

Dan Luther — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:45:54 EDT

Senator Obama backed legislation which expands the GI Bill, allowing for college scholarships to all veterans serving a three year term in military service to our country.

To me, this seems like a wholesome, common sense issue that eveyone of good conscience could rally behind, regardless of political affiliation. Unfortunately, our President did not see it that way, and John McCain was right at his side. Thankfully, more level heads prevailed, and even twenty-five of President Bush’s most reliable Republican Senators abandoned the Commander-In-Chief’s stance that this legislation was somehow being far too generous to our returning war heroes.

Now I don’t know about you, but it seems completely disingenuous for McCain to believe we’re somehow being too generous to our young men and women who have served our country with honor. In fact, these brave young souls are actually serving longer than their terms through “stop loss” measures enacted by the Pentagon, sacrificing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the greater good of America, fighting a war they very well may never agree with. It seems completely outside the realm of possibility that John McCain, himself a war veteran and a former prisoner of war, would conceivably ever support a position to limit the benefits for our honored veterans.

Senator Obama rightly decried Senator McCain’s untenable position on this issue, and yet McCain was most vociferous in his sharp rebuttal, implying that Obama had no right to criticize his stance on veterans’ affairs since Obama did not serve in the military, further saying that Senator Obama was “exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions.” A thoughtful difference of opinion? Hardly.

Well, I’ve got news for John McCain and anyone who believes as he does: we can never be too generous to our veterans. In a time when recruitment for an all-volunteer armed service is at its lowest point in our nation’s history; in a time those armed forces are needed the most to secure our country; and particularly at the time of year when we as a nation give remembrance to our fallen war heroes, we as a country should be serving our veterans without reservation or equivocation, no matter the monetary cost. When you can affix a price to honor and justify that through national interests, then you have already sold your very soul, and shame on you for doing so.

As we observe this Memorial Day weekend and enjoy the freedom to which we have grown so accustomed, take a moment to reflect on what that freedom means to each of you individually, and silently thank a veteran.

We simply can do no less for those that have done so much.

The Stupid White People Network

Dan Luther — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:39:51 EDT

I was first exposed to the Stupid White People Network as a child, when my small, closely-knit Christian church would share “shocking revelations” such as Madeline Murray O’Hair’s attempts to ban public religious programming, NASA discovering a “lost day in time” to validate a bible story of time standing still, secret CIA U2 spy plane images of Noah’s Ark stuck on a mountain in Turkey, or an urgent petition to keep Jesus from being depicted as a homosexual in an upcoming film from that historic bastion of filmmaking known as Illinois (yeah, that’s right: Illinois)… These tidbits of tribal news were then repeated by concerned congregation members who came upon this information in the form of letters or faxes from their various kinfolk scattered across the nation, then made available to other individuals through the miracle of Xerox, and urged to pass along these “prayer requests” or “urgent petitions” to other people who may be even further scattered among the four corners of the earth, you know, to “get the word out”.

One would think that the “information age” would make these a bit easier to come by, but surprisingly, it didn’t. It wasn’t until AOL came along with the “all-you-can-eat” internet service for $9.95 that everyone and his brother got hooked on e-mail. Today, each of us has at least two family members or friends that make you groan whenever you see their address in your inbox, brandishing a subject line that will invariably begin with “Fw:”, knowing you will probably have to click through about 12 embedded attachments to view a small slide show of Jesus or babies or kittens or angels, musically accompanied with a bad rendition of “How Great Thou Art” or “Amazing Grace”, and then be instructed to forward it to twelve of your close friends upon pain of death. Oftentimes it’s a dire warning about the latest deadly computer virus that couldn’t possibly exist, sometimes it’s an “Amber Alert” for some missing girl in Alabama, sometimes it’s an urgent prayer request for a sick child, other times it’s a warning about the latest ‘gang initiation rite’ where brown-skinned youths must to shoot the first white person who smiles at them or some such nonsense. Yep, you know exactly who I’m talking about; heck, God forbid you may actually be that person. And this is the backbone of the Stupid White People Network.

The history of the Stupid White People Network is a long and illustrious one. I have personal experience with it dating back some thirty years, and I suppose if I were to do some serious investigation, I’d find that it is much, much older, and more widespread than any of us had ever imagined possible.

The main problem with the Stupid White People Network is that you can almost guarantee that whatever comes through it will be nearly devoid of truth. Oh sure, there’s the occasional nugget of truth buried in there, but after you’ve had to double-click through the eighth embedded attachment, your double-clicker is worn out so you never actually uncover that gleaming nugget.

The other problem with the Stupid White People Network is that it only runs in one direction. You can try to “debunk the junk” that comes through, but if you’re tactful you’ll do that individually, and invariably get the response that they “didn’t know” and were “just trying to be helpful”. But that message never makes it to the people who originally sent the message, it just goes to your one friend, who will either just take your name out of their “list”, or just ignore your statements and keep forwarding these to you and about seventeen of their closest friends.

We don’t have to look very deeply to find the reasons people perpetuate the Stupid White People Network; they’re as plain as the nose on your face. People want to belong to a community; people want to feel like they’re being helpful in that community and want to do good things with a minimum amount of effort. Also, the people who broker these messages tend to be older, white, deeply religious people who are yearning for that “Closer Walk With Thee”, and thus you become an unwitting participant in a grand pyramid scheme of religious brownie points. And it’s sad to say, but these folks are, for lack of a better term, stupid. Sure, we like to dance around the issue and label them “uneducated”, “blue collar”, and “low income”, but it boils down to just being plain stupid. Not ignorant or misinformed, because knowledge cures those conditions. Nope, holding steadfast to unfounded beliefs in the face of unequivocal evidence to the contrary is the dictionary definition of stupidity. And if it’s not, well, it should be.

Last year, a message from the Stupid White People Network arrived in my inbox, telling me not to vote for Barack Obama because he’s a Muslim that was sworn into the Senate on the Koran, and that essentially I’ll go to Hell if I vote for Obama. It even had the unmitigated gall to say “we checked this out on Snopes and it’s true”… Quite frankly, this brought a smile to my lips as I pondered the irony that almost everyone in the e-mail chain was a Republican and wouldn’t vote in the Democratic primaries. But still, knowing what I know and being the responsible concerned citizen I am, I responded to the person who forwarded it to me, told them the truth, and accompanied the message with a link to the real Snopes pages relevant to the issue. I’m not sure I made any impact on this person, but it really bothered me, and still does to this day.

Then today it occurred to me. We can use the Stupid White People Network!

I know what you’re thinking, but let me explain. Every message you get from the Stupid White People Network has been forwarded at least five times to groups of no less than ten people, which means that every Stupid White People Network message has a minimum of fifty valid e-mail addresses. Think about that for a minute, because I know spammers who would sacrifice their own children for such a rich source of e-mail addresses.

Now I’ve only the beginnings of a real strategy here, which involves composing a message saying that a Brother in Christ is being persecuted, wrongly accused of being a terrorist, and that we need to help, and we need to forward this message to all of your friends to “get the word out”. That this good Christian is on the cusp of fulfilling God’s calling, but agents of Satan are using good people to bring him down.

Here’s the bottom line: I think it’ll work. I don’t think this has ever been tried before in the history of the Stupid White People Network, which means it could become the next Big Thing in internet communications, or it could die on the vine. It has the added benefit of the message being true.

I’ll keep you updated on my progress, and invite you to participate.

Character Assassination

Dan Luther — Tue, 20 May 2008 08:15:44 EDT

In the “Oklahomans for Obama” group, we were asked to comment on a character assassination video being circulated by the Stupid White People Network:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/Public/Video.aspx?rsrcID=2036

The first several minutes are spent playing on people's fear of terrorists, showing images of muslim terrorists, and an image of one holding up the severed head of Paul Johnson. When any piece of blatant propaganda (and this cannot be considered anything but) uses such imagery to stir up fear and terror, one has to immediately wonder what the motivations are. My take on this kind of hatchet job is that fear is a very powerful motivator - for extremely stupid people. And stupid people shouldn't vote, much less spread their fearful seed to another generation because they are easily led to their own destruction.

In this case, the name "Hussein" is mentioned several times, most notably with a picture of Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein (which betrays the true intelligence of the producers). The fact is, "Hussein" is a common name in Islamic communities, kind of like "Jeff" is in America. Then the whole "Barack - Hussein - Obama" with pauses for emphasis on each muslim-sounding name, underscores the thing they don't say - the narrator is frightened of muslim people, and thinks that Barack Obama may be three times a muslim terrorist.

Also, using a vitriolic totalitarian bitch like Ann Coulter to make your talking points gets you bubkis with me. Anyone who says they love America but hates Americans isn't even worthy of my contempt.

Then there's the fact that the "liberal establishment" likes Barack Obama. Let's examine the word "liberal" for a minute:

Noun

S: (n) liberal, liberalist, progressive (a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties)

S: (n) liberal (a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets)

Adjective

S: (adj) broad, large-minded, liberal, tolerant (showing or characterized by broad-mindedness) "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"

S: (adj) liberal (having political or social views favoring reform and progress)

S: (adj) liberal (tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition)

Personally, I don't see any problems with this definition. In fact, in the dictionary sense, I'm a "liberal", and in fact most Americans I know favor reform and progress. John McCain says he believes in reform and progress, but could you imagine his surprise to discover that he’s a liberal?

In a strange twist of irony, the term "liberal establishment" is an oxymoron. So actors and authors like Barack Obama. Wow. Somebody hold a press conference.

Then there was this whole issue of "National Journal" branding Obama as the most liberal senator of 2007. First of all, the National Journal is a conservative political magazine aimed at the far right conservative base. The rankings it made were done on a system of its own devising, and that methodology has been called flawed question by some highly respected political science professors: http://mediamatters.org/items/200805010007 -- who says Obama ranks 10th (actually 10.5)

Now to the [ahem] "facts":

#1) Obama's father was a "radical Muslim"

Barack Hussein Obama (Senator Obama's father) was born on the shores of Lake Victoria in Alego, Kenya. He met and married an American woman, Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas, while they were both attending the University of Hawaii. Their son, also named Barack Hussein Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Although the elder Obama was raised as a Muslim, no evidence supports the claim that he was ever a "radical Muslim," and Senator Obama's family histories note that his father was an atheist or agnostic (i.e., no longer a practicing Muslim) by the time he married the younger Obama's mother. Of his mother's religious views, Senator Obama wrote: For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)

#2) Barack Obama attended a Muslim school in Indonesia

The claim that Obama attended a radical Wahabbist school in Indonesia in the mid-1960s is exceedingly far-fetched, given that:

The large Indonesian community resident in Mecca was a medium through which knowledge about Wahhabism reached Indonesia, but the community itself appears to have remained virtually immune to Wahhabi influences. In reality there was little direct influence of Wahhabism on Indonesian reformist thought until the 1970s.

Insight magazine claimed in a January 2007 article that Barack Obama spent at least four years attending what is variously described as a "madrassa," a "radical Muslim religious school," or a "Muslim seminary" in Indonesia, but CNN has more recently reported that its own investigation found those claims to be false:

Reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.

He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment." (http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp)

#3) Obama has a vague voting record

Although he wasn't a Senator at the time, he would have voted against the Iraq resolution, and really, that's all I care or need to know about Barack Obama’s voting record.

But if you want specifics, he's voted with his Democratic majority 96.7% of the time. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/)

#4) The Che Guevera flag

"This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people." -- Obama Campaign

From Houston Fox News:

"The office featured in this video is funded by volunteers of the Barack Obama Campaign and is not an official headquarters for his campaign."

(http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/02/12/on_reports_of_an_inappropriate.php)

#5) The flag lapel pin

This is easy. If you believe in America, then the symbol of your allegiance and expression of your patriotism has to be more than a trinket, it has to be ingrained into your heart and expressed in your character. A lapel pin doesn't make one patriotic, actions do. However, the past week there has been lots of news coverage of Barack Obama's lapel-pin, in that he's been wearing one for about a week.

Obama's official answer: "You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

#6) The National Anthem

You don't put your hand over your heart during the National Anthem, you do that at the Pledge of Allegiance. Military personnel and the Boy Scouts salute the flag during the National Anthem, you are supposed to stand, and men are supposed to remove their hats during the Anthem and Pledge. Any true American would know this, and those that don't must not be true Americans.

#7) Barack Obama attended the Trinity Church of Christ for 20 years.

Yes, he did. Reverend Jeremiah Wright led a young Barack Obama to salvation through Jesus Christ, where he was subsequently baptized and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Wright officiated at Barack's wedding, and baptized his daughters as well. This also flies in the face of Barack being a Muslim, but still...

Now, you tell me what's wrong with Eternal Salvation through Jesus Christ. Isn't that what our country is supposed to espouse?

#8) Barack Obama's wife isn't patriotic.

Bullshit. And Senator Obama’s wife isn’t running. Next issue…

#9) Reverend Wright is an idiot.

Yeah, tell us something we don't know. Do you agree with everything your pastor says? I don't. But Barack Obama handled the situation with class, refusing to disavow the man who was his spiritual mentor for 20 years, even when it would have been more politically expedient to do so - which says volumes about Barack's character. It was only after Reverend Wright's weeklong meltdown that Barack broke those ties, so it's a non-issue. Bad edits from obviously different sermons strung together to make Reverend Wright look like a raving lunatic. "Tuskeegee" might bear mentioning here, but hey, who's keeping that score.

Obama condemned Don Imus.

Wow, who didn't? Oh yeah, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

"Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology"

Guilt by association. So, Reverend Wright had a segment with Sean Hannity and brought these issues up. Well, here's a news flash folks - Reverend Wright isn't running for office, Barack is, so if you have video of Barack Obama spouting Black Liberation Theology, let's talk about it. Until then, let's get back on track and stop wasting our time.

"Let's Connect The Dots" -

This segment says that "Barack Obama has been discipled in a Racist, Marxist, Quasi-Christian, Anti-Semitic ideology for over 20 years."

Wow. I didn't know Barack Obama was a member of the Ku Klux Klan! What a shockingly stunning revelation!

- - -

If you'll notice, at no time does this propaganda piece produce any offending words by Obama, and the ones chosen aren't really bad. But since there is no direct damning evidence that Barack Obama is anything other than what he says he is, these turds have to bring out the "guilt by association", whether that association is direct or indirect.

Look, this was far-right wing total character assassination at its finest. It has almost no basis in fact, and is motivated by pure, naked, unadulterated fear. It was designed to make normal people afraid, and to make stupid people pissing-their-pants terrified. No self-respecting news media would ever air that, and anyone who actually takes the time to watch it entirely and be convinced by anything contained therein has far more pressing problems. Anyone who uses fear to motivate you does not have your best interests at heart, because no good decision ever came that was based in fear.

Knowledge is power.

How the mighty have fallen

Dan Luther — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:18:28 EDT

As a former Republican, I voted in the Republican primary back in 2000 – for John McCain. He was already labeled a “maverick”, and a great deal of his platform was the promise to take on the PACs, lobbyists, and special interests needed to bring a sense of reform to the Presidency and Washington D.C.

Senator McCain today fired his fifth senior campaign staff advisor, not because they were lobbyists, but because they were lobbyists hired to make some of the most vile dictators and military figures around the world look good. That’s a bitter irony since McCain called a massive amount of press coverage to discredit Senator Obama’s willingness to meet with leaders of hostile countries without precondition.

Senator McCain has since called for a campaign shakeup, having everyone fill out a questionnaire regarding any current or former ties that could be perceived as ‘embarrassing’. Now I don’t know about you, but if I were running a Presidential campaign, I’d want to vet my senior staff *before* they made me look like a hypocritical incompetent.

John McCain made a name for himself fighting the establishment, now he looks like he’s the best candidate money can buy.

Huckabee's Mistake - Part II

Dan Luther — Sat, 17 May 2008 13:29:16 EDT

Well, that certainly didn’t take long.

I’ve had people respond to my earlier blog posting; some responded positively, others not so much. Now I can appreciate that everyone both has and is entitled to their opinions; one of the strengths of our country is the Constitutionally guaranteed right to both have and express ideas and opinions.

Having said that, people are taking issue with what I said. Which really is fine, and under normal circumstances I wouldn’t comment on such response – again everyone is entitled to their opinions, but this issue needs to be discussed a bit more because some people are discussing it for exactly all the wrong reasons.

The “joke” wasn’t a racist joke at all, it was a gun joke, one which would have been directed at anyone standing as the Democratic front-runner; it’s just that in this case, Obama happened to be standing there. Somehow, people have made a mountain out of a molehill and turned this into some huge racial tension issue that’s just not there, except in the deep-rooted fears of what is possible; the same way people see puppies and ponies in the clouds. I’m not a Huckabee defense advocate, but I believe that since we posess the ability to look beyond the petty and focus on the important, that we should do so.

There are two points I’m trying to make here. First point is that Mike Huckabee is not a racist, and he did not make a racist joke. I’m sorry some folks don’t like Huckabee, which is unfortunate because he’s actually a very likeable guy, despite some of the opinions he holds that I just don’t share. If people have some truly legitimate reasons for disliking Mike Huckabee, well that’s fine and I wish them well with that. But don’t use this episode as one of them because it’s simply not. Think about it like this: Senator Obama said that rural white people cling to guns and religion out of frustration. Now, if you’re reading this, then you and I both know that’s not what he meant at all; but the opposition took this to heart, and he’s still fighting this elitist perception to this very day. Is that fair? Hardly. Now, Huckabee’s in that exact same place, except he’s not running for anything.

There are issues we do need to address, and others we need to dismiss; and it's important we have the ability to distinguish between the two. Just because a white guy says something funny at the expense of a black guy, that doesn't make him a racist.

Second point – and this one’s probably going to get lost as well but I’m bringing it up anyway – is this irrational fear that somehow Barack Obama is going to be assassinated. Let me put this in the simplest terms I can: Barack Obama isn’t worried about assassination, so you shouldn’t be either. We need to realize this whole issue comes from a place of fear. I hope we can at least recognize that, and agree that nothing good ever comes from that place.

Huckabee's Mistake

Dan Luther — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:03:33 EDT

Today, Mike Huckabee made a faux-pas during a speech at an NRA gathering, when a loud noise from a falling metal folding chair backstage disrupted him. Huckabee, being the gregarious southern Republican he is, immediately shot a retort about it being Barack Obama.

Now, I’m sure everybody’s heard about this, probably watched in on YouTube or any number of news outlets. But as I watched it, it seemed to play out in slow motion. You can see the complete evolution of how this thought process formed as he paused for only a slightest of moments as he heard the noise and, looking over his shoulder said “… that was Barack Obama – he just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak and …” drawing laughter from the crowd. During this pause, Mike looked at the sea of white Republican faces in front of him, and he he must have noticed the large NRA logos behind him on his 15 foot backdrop. Being quick on the draw, assessing his situation and audience, then said “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he, he dove for the floor.” The laughter after this comment was a bit more subdued – nervous even.

At this point, you can see the words “Oh shit, what did I just do” forming in his mind, as his smile fades and he looks down at his notes. Perhaps it was just me, but I would swear his ears turned red and the blood left his face, just a little.

Then the media erupted into frenzy, letting months of pent-up fear lie naked to the world.

So what am I saying? Well, first of all, I need to be perfectly clear in that of all the Republican candidates that ran this time, Mike Huckabee was far and away my favorite. I like Mike. If I hadn’t switched parties back in August for Senator Obama, I probably would have voted for him. So in all fairness, that may show some prejudice when I say that I believe this to be a completely honest mistake, an impromptu ad-lib, executed poorly.

But the thing is, it was actually funny! It was apropos to the situation, I mean come on, this was a bunch of rich rednecks gathered to talk about guns, hello! Okay, yes it was tasteless, but you know, the funniest jokes always are. And I’ve heard much, much worse, and so have you.

What I’d really like to see is for everybody to just laugh this off and not make this into such a big deal. This wasn’t some evil racist side of Mike Huckabee’s subconscious secretly yearning for a King-style execution of another prominent black leader, this was Mike Huckabee being Mike Huckabee. He would have said the exact same thing about Hillary Clinton or John Edwards if they were in Obama’s position now, but somehow I don’t think the reaction would have been quite the same.

What is truly appalling is the reaction of the press to this “situation”. It was a joke. It wasn’t great, but it wasn’t planned either, so don’t read anything into it that just isn’t there. Instead, let’s all have a laugh and move on, because there really are more important things to talk about than Mike Huckabee’s lack of comedic timing.

Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.

Out of Touch (tm)

Dan Luther — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:30:59 EDT

This morning, President Bush addressed the Israeli Parliament on the occasion of their 60th anniversary celebration of Israel. To be sure, this was an historic moment as President Bush read from prepared notes, that “those who would negotiate with terrorists and radicals” are the same as Nazi appeasers.

Think about that for a moment to let the true gravity of the situation really sink in, because right now, I’m pretty sure that everyone is quietly saying “oh no he did not…”. In one fell swoop, he managed to criticize Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, nearly all of France, nearly every other Middle Eastern nation save Israel, and actually America who, if my history serves me correctly, did not enter World War II until 1941, and even then not by Nazi influence but by Japanese.

President Bush did this deliberately because he read – poorly, I might add – from prepared notes (a teleprompter was unavailable), which means that his entire speechwriting staff, and thus by extension at the very least, the Vice President and Secretary of State were fully aware of the contents of said speech, and they actually agreed with it.

Well, so much for staying out of the race there, George, way to go. Hey, maybe while you’re at it you can insult the rest of the world; the day’s still young…

President Bush says that negotiation is appeasement. Since appeasement is equated with cowardice, Bush is essentially saying that negotiation is cowardice. But again, if my history serves me correctly – and it does – I seem to recall something about a certain young American President named John Kennedy “negotiating” with Nikita Kruschev over Russian missile placement in Cuba. Why yes, come to think of it, that really did happen! And further, I think we can all agree those negotiations were successful.

President Bush is walking a fine line with his branding policy as well, because today’s terrorists are tomorrow’s governments. I guess someone needs to be reminded that it wasn’t but 235 years ago that a band of “terrorists” attacked British interests, military installations, merchants, shipping lanes, and even harassed civilians. These “separatists” took whatever weapons were available and formed militias, and these “freedom fighters” eventually formed their own country, the “traitors” dubbing it “The United States of America”.

The Republicans are making a big deal about who’s “out of touch”. Clearly, for the leader of the free world to make such a petty, divisive, shallow, and pandering statement at such an important occasion, well, I wonder who’s really out of touch.

My Letter to Congressman Dan Boren

Dan Luther — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:59:02 EDT

Congressman Boren,

As one of your constituents in the second congressional district of Oklahoma, it is both appropriate and necessary that I contact you now regarding the Democratic primary election, and your important role therein. With the results of last Tuesday’s primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, the process for selecting the Democratic nominee for America’s next President is essentially over; Senator Obama has, for all intents and purposes, won. Senator Clinton cannot secure the nomination by any practical standard of measure, yet she continues to make a faltering case for her eventual presentation to people such as you to override the will of the American people.

I understand your hesitancy to involve yourself; holding out for the candidate who will do the most for your district and the State of Oklahoma is nothing if not your duty. However, that time has passed. Senator Clinton cannot possibly promise any such considerations as she will not be the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States – that honor will go to Senator Barack Obama; it is as inevitable as it is eventual. Unfortunately, time is a critical resource which is rapidly dwindling.

You, sir, are an elected leader, and now is the time for you to lead. I strongly encourage you, along with 173 other such undeclared Democratic Party officials, to endorse Barack Obama this weekend. This should not come as a surprising request as it has been known for some while this race will eventually be decided by the so-called “superdelegates” such as you. I am simply asking that the process be expedited, allowing Senator Obama to concentrate time and resources on the national election, which is a luxury the Republican presumptive nominee has enjoyed for some months now.

Congressman Boren, we standing at crossroads in arguably the most important Presidential election in decades; but the problem is that we are standing. Senator Obama has the opportunity to fulfill Americans’ desire for change in Washington within sight, but to complete that journey he needs the support of people such as you. I strongly urge you to endorse Senator Obama this weekend, and put an end to the divisive stalemate that is currently the state of the Democratic Party. Allow Senator Obama to make every single available moment count towards a Democratic win in November.

You have the power, and you will eventually have to use it. I urge you to exercise your good judgment and leadership by endorsing Senator Barack Obama this weekend.

I, along with countless thousands of others, anxiously await your decision.

Kind regards,

Dan Luther – Claremore, OK

The Nominee. Now What?

Dan Luther — Wed, 07 May 2008 16:34:41 EDT

It’s Wednesday, May 7, 2008. Yesterday’s primaries in North Carolina and Indiana have propelled Barack Obama to the position of “Presumptive Democratic Nominee for the President of the United States”. That’s quite a mouthful, so from now on in all my postings, I’m just simply going to refer to him in that regard as “The Nominee”.

Hillary Clinton cannot win unless Senator Obama physically cannot stand on his own, and I was fully expecting her to gracefully concede this race to Senator Obama so we could focus on the task of running against John McCain at a national level.

Well, that was simply not to be.

Senator Clinton has pushed ahead with her “nuclear” “scorched earth” policy, whereby if she can’t be the nominee in this race, she so badly damages Senator Obama that he won’t be elected, thus priming her for another run in 2012. Now she’s paid lip-service to support and unity in her victory speech last night by stating that she will support the nominee in every way possible, but evidently there was an unspoken “as long as it’s me” at the end of that sentence.

Which is really a shame. She could do so much more to strengthen her perception by gracefully bowing out in the face of insurmountable opposition; again, she cannot win the nomination through endorsements or popular vote even if she manages to get Florida and Michigan’s delegates seated in her favor. Talk about bitter…

Hey Hillary, here’s a little secret just for you – everyone despises a sore loser.

She could concentrate on her Senate career, focus on becoming the Senate Majority Leader, perhaps even Governor of New York; both of those are very powerful positions. But I think the country has spoken, and it appears that America doesn’t object to a woman President – as long as it’s not Hillary.

In any event, Senator Obama must now focus on the national election, but continue to campaign in the remaining states but to treat them as though they were contests for the national, not the primary.

To accomplish that, Senator Obama must select a running mate. I humbly suggest Gen. Wesley Clark. Yes, Gen. Clark is a firm supporter of Hillary Clinton, but let's not hold that against him too harshly. Senator Obama needs some serious military clout on his team, and Gen. Clark is a 4-star general (retired), was valedictorian of his class at West Point, was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, has several honorary English knighthoods, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I like him a lot.

I’ve heard rumblings about the “dream ticket” of Obama/Clinton, and the source of these is a former aide to the former campaign manager of – you guessed it: Hillary Clinton. More things that make you go ‘hmmm…’ I’m not so sure a Clinton vice-president would be prudent, especially when such an upstanding military person such as Gen. Clark is available to help with the blue-collar white and Jewish vote. General Clark also helps bridge the “Clinton Chasm” by using someone so close to her campaign, it will influence those “Hillary or else” types to vote for Senator Obama.

I mean, The Nominee.

On The Limbaugh Influence

Dan Luther — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:10:58 EDT

Back in March, Rush Limbaugh initiated “Operation Chaos”, whereby Limbaugh urged Republicans to register as Democrats and vote for Hillary Clinton.

Now, just so I can set the record straight, I don’t like Rush Limbaugh. I think he’s a fat, egotistical, misogynistic, narcissistic blow hard who is so narrow minded he can see through a keyhole with both eyes. Nevertheless, people listen to him and value his opinions; okay, people devoid of intelligence to be sure, but people nonetheless.

At this point, devious Republicans have the ability to exert a significant influence on the Democratic primary by following Limbaugh’s advice. And in an interview on Fox News, Howard Dean was actually mentioning how many Republicans are registering as Democrats to vote in these primaries. And it was this “Operation Chaos” that played a significant factor in Clinton’s larger than expected win in Pennsylvania.

I’m sure the Obama campaign must be aware of this issue, but to attribute this to Limbaugh will surely come off to many as bitterness, but it seems to me that Rush Limbaugh has willfully and purposefully conspired to commit federal election fraud at a very large level.

On opinions and trolls

Dan Luther — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:21:00 EDT

Folks, everyone has opinions, and we’re perfectly well entitled to them. I would like to be able to have and express mine – within reason – without fear of reprisal, or God forbid, a visit from the politically correct police; and I do. The level of debate in this country cannot be raised until those who can are not only willing to express their beliefs and opinions, but defend them when challenged, and, with reasonably good judgment, correct them when necessary. That’s one of major the stepping stones on the pathway to social equality.

There was a message from maryaudrakelly4@aol.com in the “OklahomansForObama” group stating that some descriptions of “nascar people” made her switch her vote. If you try to send a message to that e-mail address, you’ll get an auto-response from AOL stating “no more emails”, which indicates an inactive account that has been halted, usually for spam. In other words, this was a troll.

But for matters of real consequence, and I’m speaking only for myself, expressing this opinion: If one of my opinions is all it takes to change your vote, then you probably shouldn’t be voting anyway; perhaps then as a country we should examine basic voter qualifications because frankly, you aren’t qualified to vote.

On the other hand, if you do express an opinion, don’t be so quick to apologize, especially when it’s just not necessary. It seems lately that almost anything is permissible except offending someone’s oh-so delicate sensibilities, and I believe society in general needs thicker skin.

Dubious Endorsements

Dan Luther — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:27:37 EDT

This weekend, Hamas, a militant Palestinian Islamic organization that is most widely regarded by the civilized world as a terrorist organization, endorsed Barack Obama’s presidential bid. Naturally, this was used, potentially to great effect, by both John McCain and Hillary Clinton. If the course of the Democratic primary election plays out as it should with a win by Obama, this will be one of the key shouting points the Republican party will use against Barack Obama; after all, if you can’t tell people why you’re the better choice, make the other guy look like a worse choice – the “lesser of two evils” approach. Of course Senator Obama rejected the endorsement – any sane man would. But that wasn’t the story now, was it? Just as the Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and now Hamas have endorsed Obama, these uniformly detested organizations’ endorsements are being used as weapons against the very people they claim to support. Just remember that Yassir Arafat endorsed John Kerry.

It amazes me how incredibly silly the all these so-called ‘terrorists’ are. Surely by now, they have to know that they are reviled among Americans, and anything they do or say in support of something will automatically be discounted as evil and used to some effect by any opposition. Terrorists need to publicly support Americans they want to lose – not win! So, Osama Bin-Laden or any Al-Qaeda or Hizbollah higher-ups, if you’re reading this – please, pretty please, use some of that grey matter Allah put between your ears, and endorse John McCain.

I for one would be very interested to see what he does with it.

Courting the Jewish Vote

Dan Luther — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:14 EDT

Last week, Barack Obama gave a speech to Jewish leaders where he denounced Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas, saying that as President, he would not talk to the Islamist group until it recognized Israel and renounced terrorism. For me, this is a very disturbing moment, and probably quite pivotal in the Democratic primaries. I see what’s happening here – Senator Obama is aggressively courting the Jewish vote because Florida is one of the keys to the Presidency (just ask Al Gore and John Kerry), and Florida is, well, pretty Jewish. But wasn’t this the candidate who said that he would meet leaders without preconditions? This seemed like a perfect opportunity to put that very principle to the test by telling the Jewish leaders that like it or not, Hamas exists, and whether they want to recognize it or not is simply an exercise in academic futility. He could have said that you don’t change the hearts and minds of people with whom you disagree by telling them they don’t exist, and that you won’t recognize them until they change. He could have said that the only road to peace lies not with escalating vows to ignore the other, but by a process of give and take and most importantly, recognition. And most importantly, he could have said that real, true, and lasting peace only comes when you build bridges, not walls.

Unfortunately, you don’t win elections that way. You have to tell the Hatfields why the McCoys are to be feared and the source of all their troubles, and that as President, you’ll make sure the McCoys suffer and the Hatfields get all their wished granted. Then you turn right around and do the same for the McCoys, and hope nobody notices.

Denouncing Jimmy Carter, at this point in the election, seems to be a calculated risk. On one hand, he’s trying to endear himself to the Jewish community which, for all intents and purposes, simply doesn’t like black people and probably will not vote for a black candidate. On the other hand, alienating a powerful potential ally such as Jimmy Carter can have serious repercussions because all the people lambasting Carter’s Mideast trip don’t have something that Jimmy Carter does: a Nobel Peace Prize, which, by the way, he earned for his tireless efforts to bring peace to war-torn areas of the world. In fact, it would be a fair assessment to say that President Carter is the only United States President whose legacy will have nothing to do with is Presidency. But most importantly, and of particular import to Senator Obama, is that President Carter is very popular with the one demographic he has yet to make serious inroads with: low income, blue collar, uneducated white people. I suppose Senator Obama could have some mega-rally involving catfish, professional wrestling, beer, NASCAR, and guns, but I think my head would just explode if anything like that ever happened.

Probably Barack’s as well.

The Unfortunate Association

Dan Luther — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:12:56 EDT

Last week, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright appeared on PBS to explain some of his more colorful comments and clarify his position, with hardly a word from Barack Obama’s camp. In all fairness to the good reverend, this was really about him, and he stood in good defense of himself because truly, he doesn’t deserve the general sense of vileness that the Republicans (and even some Democrats) have thrown his way just because he knows Barack Obama. This alone wouldn’t have been such an issue, but Reverend Wright perhaps went a bit too far with statements during his speech at the NAACP's 53rd annual “Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner”. Which is why, for now anyway, the two need to distance themselves from each other. This represents a golden opportunity rarely afforded to candidates mired in a controversy: a do-over. This is an opportunity for Barack Obama to publicly divorce himself from Reverend Wright, and completely short-circuit the singularly most glaring thorn in the side of his campaign. And yet, after viewing the Obama interview on “Fox News Sunday”, it appears that Senator Obama hasn’t taken this golden opportunity.

Senator Obama could have said that after some careful consideration, immense soul-searching, prayer and fasting, that he cannot, in good conscience, continue to support a person whose views and opinions so radically differ from his steadfast love of America. That he whishes Reverend Wright well in the future, and praises him for all his good deeds of the past, but he just can’t see eye to eye with a man who harbors and defends such divisive racial sentiments during a time when people of all races and religions should be building bridges, not walls.

It’s not too late for Senator Obama to take action, but the window of opportunity is narrow, and closing. He and Reverend Wright can always “reconcile” after he wins the presidency, but for now, he should seriously consider taking this action, because such an opportunity doesn’t come along very often. I’m sure his campaign advisors are advising him exactly the same way.

Has your pastor...

Dan Luther — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:02:14 EDT

…ever said something you disagree with?

Boy, mine has. But he has said *many* more things that I do agree with than not, and I perceive him to be a fundamentally great man of the Christian faith.

For the record, I attend “Church On The Move” in Tulsa, pastored by Willie George. And as a point of fact, last year around August/September, he specifically denounced Barak Obama, and to my knowledge, that is the only time he has mentioned a presidential candidate from the pulpit.

I don’t see eye to eye on every word spoken by anyone. For example, during tonight’s debate, Senator Obama gave explicit support for Affirmative Action, something which I believe to be a stain on America’s soul. So inasmuch as I am for Barak Obama and believe him to be an inspiring leader, I disagree with this aspect of his beliefs.

The point I’m trying to make is that we’ve all had disagreements with our spiritual leaders. And regardless of the nature of said disagreement, we don’t have to dwell on them and transform them into the divisive issues people tend to make of them. Faith, by definition, can never be proven and as such, arguing points of faith is a futile exercise. And yet some of the most memorable and hotly debated topics revolve around the minutae of articles of faith.

I don’t believe for a second that Willie George is going to seek me out and demand that I change my political views or leave the church, likewise I have no intention of leaving the church because Willie George probably voted for George Bush, and will probably vote for John McCain.

One thing is certain: It is our differences that make us more interesting than our similarities.

On Elitism

Dan Luther — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:22:09 EDT

Were the words Senator Obama used to describe voter apathy ill-chosen? Personally, I don’t think so. I think he hit the nail right squarely on the head, and that little dose of truth hurt, especially to those who simply didn’t know better.

And I have to tell you, that voter apathy is real. It was real back in 2000 for me, and it was equally palpable in 2004 when our choices for President were ‘why bother’ and ‘who cares’. But this year, we actually have a chance at a once in a lifetime leader to step up and seriously raise the level of debate in America, to raise the maturity level, and bring back a sense of pride in being an American.

Senator Obama has class. He manages his campaign smoothly and efficiently; he’s raised millions of dollars more than what has arguably been labeled “the most efficient Democratic fundraising machine in history”, and most importantly – he’s run a clean campaign, focused on the issues and put forth a message of hope and integrity. Senator Clinton has not been so focused in her campaign, and this is a very important distinction, because the way you run your campaign is the way you’re going to run the country.

Both Senators Clinton and McCain called Senator Obama an elitist, out of touch with “real” Americans (as opposed to those “phony” citizens). I don’t necessarily believe that is true, but at the same time even if it were, I’d be okay with it. And honestly, I think I kind of want an elitist. I certainly want an elite President; after all, who wouldn’t want an elite leader presiding over the greatest nation on earth? I don’t want “Average Joe” running the country – I never have; George Bush is about as “Average Joe” as anyone, and look what it’s gotten us. I want a President who not only went to Harvard, but exceeded all expectations excelled to the point his professors remember him. I want a President who can debate issues on economy, energy, and defense equally without breaking out a yellow “…for Dummies” book. I want a President who can speak eloquently and intelligently without a teleprompter. But most of all, when talking to my friends in England and New Zealand, I want to stop silently mouthing the phrase “we’re so sorry” when mentioning the President.

I’m saddened to see Senator Clinton take yet step downward. I was expecting the Republicans to take out the “elitist” offense, after all, it was one of the more effective tools used against Senator Kerry in 2004. But seeing Clinton use “elitism” as a weapon has definitely accomplished one thing; it has solidified my views of her. And of that, I will only say this: If this torpedo job works and Senator Obama is not the Democratic nominee, I’ll not only vote for McCain, I’ll join his campaign, help him raise money, donate money – all the things I’m doing for Senator Obama today.

Is Senator Obama an elitist? I don’t think so, and anyone who’s ever actually listened to the man knows better. But even if he were, he’s pulled himself up by his own bootstraps and not only joined, but moved to the head of the ranks of the elite. If that makes him an “elitist”, well, I’m all for it.

Average White Person

Dan Luther — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:07:21 EDT

Watching CNN today, there was a piece critical of Senator Obama for using the term "average white person", tying racial overtones to that utterance and trying to make political hay out of a non-issue.

First of all, I'm an average white person. If someone calls me that, it's just fine; nobody can make that a disparaging remark because it's simply not disparaging. Those that do are simply fools.

I think this shows some import of things to come after Senator Obama wins the primary.

Tort reform

Dan Luther — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:24:24 EDT

Today, a jury awarded Alcatel-Lucent $367.4 million for infringing on two patents. These two patents, one for handwriting recognition on Microsoft’s tablet PC interface, and another for the way Outlook programs select calendar dates from a menu, represent what I call a fundamental flaw in the patent law process and the overview, administration, and technical merit of patent law. And where did the court find twelve people well-versed enough in software development and patent infringement to make a decision on such technical aspects?

First of all, let’s take the calendar date issue. What happens is a small calendar pops up and you then choose a date. If Alcatel-Lucent patented this interface, I suppose I should have done the same back in 1987 when I wrote a similar interface for a custom application I was contracted to design. The point is, it’s a CALENDAR! Who owns the patent (or worse, the copyright) on the Gregorian calendar, or the method in which it is used? What about the algorithm used to calculate dates, Easter, leap years, or Daylight Savings Time? It’s not that I’m a huge fan of Microsoft or an opponent of Alcatel-Lucent; I’m neither. But to see items like this make me wonder where the patent issue stops.

Tort reform is something our next administration will eventually have to consider. This cannot be a matter done from the bottom-up with the states; it has to be addressed from the top in the federal courts. If not, then tort reform is essentially meaningless as trials would only move to the non-reformed states.

I sincerely hope Senator Obama will consider this during his administration.

On Illegal Immigration

Dan Luther — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:37:33 EDT

I think it’s interesting that the whole issue of illegal immigration came to a head in 2004. Everything was going swimmingly and suddenly everyone is screaming about illegal immigration. It then occurred to me that this was another red herring issue trumped up by the Bush administration to misdirect attention from the Iraq war and the economy. I mean, if we’re running around screaming about illegal immigration and the national security threat they represent, we probably won’t notice so much the fact that the Commander-In-Chief is asleep at the wheel.

But let’s examine this issue, just for the sake of argument. First and foremost, if your last name isn’t “Running Bear” or the like, you really need to have a big bowl of sit down and shut up before going too much further.

Then let’s talk about who you’re really talking about. See, we use the term “illegal immigrant” as a euphemism for Mexicans. We’re not talking about Canadians, Russians, Angolans, Vietnamese, or any number of poor, huddled masses that have come to our gleaming shores yearning to breathe free.

Nope, we’re talking about Mexicans.

Now, let’s talk about what’s really going on. “Illegal immigration” is just a nice, politically correct way to justify racial bigotry in an acceptable format.

These people do the jobs we won’t do, they do them for wages we would never accept, they do them in conditions we would find intolerable, while living in cramped accommodations we would find immensely oppressive.

And with all that, it’s still better than where they came from.

I’m not advocating a completely transparent border where people can come and go unchecked at their leisure, but I am saying to keep our eye on the ball. Sure we should increase security, but there are a lot of important issues we need to address, and immigration simply isn’t one of them.

Republicans: Obama is a Muslim

Dan Luther — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:53:23 EDT

A Gallup poll released today listed what people consider the weaknesses of the candidates. For Senator Obama, 12% of Republican-leaning likely voters said that they believe him to be a Muslim. While I was disappointed in this number, I was neither shocked nor dismayed. I was only surprised to not see a higher number.

Today’s Gallup poll is revealing in that of the people who are leaning Republican, 12% show a complete disregard for truth; it’s as if they intentionally want to stay ignorant of the facts and let their own feelings and opinions guide their hand at the polls. It’s not surprising, since while the Republicans are known for many things, seeking and embracing truth is not one of them.

I wish there was a way to handicap the stupidity of Americans, because Americans tend to do stupid things like elect George Bush to the Presidency. Twice. I’d take that ability to Las Vegas and become a very, very rich man.

Dangers of anonymity

Dan Luther — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:21:16 EDT

If you’re reading this, it’s because you’ve somehow been perusing through the various blog posts on ‘barakobama.com’; to you I offer my sincerest gratitude.

You’ll notice my name clearly in this article: Dan Luther. I live in Claremore, OK, and equipped with that information you can now contact me by phone, send me mail, and even look at my house if you so desire. All of which is the long way around to saying that I’m proud to support Barak Obama.

The internet is a great tool for communication and learning; it has made the world a much smaller place, and will probably be the single greatest invention to help bring about peace in that it facilitates communication by everyone. However, even the greatest tool for good can have deleterious effects if used incorrectly, and in particular I’m speaking about anonymity.

People seem much more comfortable expressing negative sentiments when done so anonymously. It can be argued that anonymity can be a good thing, for example by allowing corporate whistle-blowers a consequence-free environment to report any malfeasance. But anonymity has largely been exploited to egregious effect. Take the recent event where someone posted on “Craigslist” someone was giving away all his possessions free for the taking – the target of this heinous hoax drove up to his house to find dozens of people carting away all his possessions, all through an anonymous posting.

I’m proud to put my name to the things I say, because I have no desire to hide behind a mask of anonymity. I’m not ashamed to be a proud supporter of Barak Obama, and the statements and opinions I express in these “blog” posts are mine, and for them I have neither shame nor regret.

I urge new subscribers to adopt the same policy. After all, if you want your voice to be heard, wouldn’t you want people to know it’s your voice?

Piracy funding global terrorism

Dan Luther — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:52:19 EDT

I read with a growing sense of simultaneous amusement and disgust as U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey today delivered a speech outlining the latest tools to fund terrorism: online piracy.

Yeah, that’s right. The twelve year-old kid downloading “Now That’s What I Call Music 86” for his iPod is funding terrorism. Oh sure, you laugh now, but we all laughed when President Bush said that Saddam Hussein was the root of all evil in the world, and six years later we’re looking at the burning pile of rubble that was our military, scratching our heads and asking what just happened. And suddenly it’s not very funny anymore.

I fully realize that piracy is costing our entertainment industry millions of dollars, but their basic logic is flawed since twelve year-old kids don’t have money to begin with. I’m not at all saying piracy is good or should be tolerated, but I am saying the multi-billion dollar figures being flaunted around by the RIAA and MPAA seem a little disingenuous since they’re equating downloads with revenues lost – and that’s simply not the case.

Identity theft, fraud, and piracy are problems, but they are different kinds of problems that must be resolved with different tactics. The kind of saber-rattling Mr. Mukasey is performing seems to be yet another sure sign of future government invasion of privacy, the result of complete ignorance or indifference to the subject matter.

I’m sure Barak Obama’s presidency will not have these hallmarks, and look forward to a time where people aren’t afraid that a squadron of jack-booted combat troops won’t materialize to dispatch a person to Guantanamo whenever an “unauthorized” cellular ringtone is played.

On race relations in America

Dan Luther — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:17:31 EDT

I’m going to preface this post by being completely up front: I’m white. Take that for what it’s worth, which in an ideal world should be nothing. Nevertheless, Senator Obama’s speech on race relations in America has stirred debate over black versus white, and I for one am saddened to see such vociferous rhetoric on both sides of the issue.

There must come a time when Americans don’t see a black man, but rather a man. However this is a two-way street; there must come a time when Americans don’t see a white man, but just a man. Europeans have largely overcome their prejudices over race, and I don’t believe for a second that it was through “million-man marches” or famous civil rights leaders performing acts of civil disobedience. It was through people working alongside each other to achieve a common task.

Race relations, specifically black and white, all came about at roughly the same time. However, the Europeans seem to have integrated other cultures much more readily than Americans have, and this is really saying something because European countries have largely been governed by monarchies.

So how does a country that professes that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” come to have such deep racial divisions in a modern world that eschews such prejudicial tendencies? If you can answer that, you’re doing better than I.

However, in order to move into a “more perfect union”, we must all make the effort to end this racial divide. We don’t get to choose our color when we’re born, but we can choose to be color blind. And some first steps to attaining and maintaining that equality are going to be hard for some people. The United Negro College Fund needs to be dissolved, as does the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. And probably the hardest part of all is the dissolution of the Black Congressional Caucus and the phasing out of Affirmative Action. These are all examples of what I like to call “equality through separatism”, and even with all the wonderful things these organizations have accomplished, their very existence is only furthering a condition that we are desperately trying to eradicate.

Eventually, we will all proudly call ourselves Americans. We’re not there yet, but every day we are getting closer.

Switching party affiliations

Dan Luther — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:29:51 EDT

Back in August, I switched party affiliations from Republican to Democrat. I did this for two reasons: first, I was just plain sick and tired of being a member of a party that is now synonymous with hatred, intolerance, injustice, ignorance, prejudice and inflexibility. Second, I was very fired up about this new Democrat in the race named Barak Obama; as I read more about him I became convinced that he was the person I wanted to be my President.

This wasn’t a “temporary” switch; I was finished with the Redneck Republicans for good. But a recent news story caught my eye about Republicans “temporarily” switching parties to vote in the Democratic primary, and as I thought about this, the more convinced I am that this is a very, very bad thing.

Why would someone do something “temporary” to vote in a primary election for someone they really don’t want to win? The answer is very simple: they want to vote for the person they want to lose!

There really is a silver lining in all of this, however. These people are being urged to vote for Hillary Clinton!

Read the original article

Superdelegate that secretly wants to endorse Obama

Dan Luther — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:33:49 EDT

Hillary Clinton won Oklahoma’s Democratic primary with 66% of the vote, further cementing the rest of the country’s stereotypical view of “dumb okies.” And it was with that number that the realization came to me – Dan Boren secretly wants to endorse Obama. Follow my logic on this one; if Dan Boren wanted to endorse Clinton, he could have already done so since two thirds of Oklahoma Democrats voted for her. He’d be well within his “comfort zone” and garner no ill will among his constituents (save the one third of Oklahoma Democrats who evidently still have a couple of brain cells left to think with).

Now, an “endorsement” doesn’t necessarily mean a pledge to vote for them during the national convention. As I understand it, the superdelegates (of which Dan Boren is one) can vote for whomever they want during the convention, but would probably face merry hell with their voters if they buck the voting trend back home, placing them in that proverbial position known colloquially as a “rock and a hard place”. So it really makes sense that Rep. Boren has withheld his endorsement.

But how long can he continue to withhold his endorsement? I suppose after the April 22nd elections, a clear leader will emerge, at which point the superdelegates could either say what’s on their mind and vote their conscience, or vote along the party lines from back home. But like I said, if that were the case, they’d already have said so. And this gives me even more cause for optimism that Barak Obama will be the Democratic candidate, and eventually the President of the United States.

Barak Obama can exemplify our exaggerations

Dan Luther — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:32:14 EDT

First of all, if you're not a parent, you should probably move on to other, more substantiative blog posts. If, on the other hand, you are a parent, and you've ever told your children that they can be anything, even President of the United States, then this post is for you.

When we say something like that to our children, we're trying to motivate them to do something they'd rather not. The harsh reality is that in order to even entertain that notion, you have to come from a very wealthy family with a political pedigree.

But Barak Obama has bucked that trend, and is proof that drive and determination sometimes really are enough.