Enemy at the Gates

Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland

Everybody's talkin' 'bout
Revolution, Evolution, Masturbation, Flagellation, Regulation,
Integrations, mediations, United Nations, congratulations
All we are saying is give peace a chance
--Give Peace a Chance, John Lennon

I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
--Paint it Black, Rolling Stones

They did not take me in the Army.
I was, um, interestingly enough, I was, I was 4-P.
Yes. In the, in the event of war, I'm a hostage
--Annie Hall (1977)
_____________

I am including this political cartoon only because it is so peculiar, and the whole German aesthetic escapes me. Here we have the Siegessaule-as-phallus, Obama poised as Playgirl spread, sporting Michael Jackson shoes, bidding the reader, "Yes!" Is this pro- or con?

In Ranger's recent travels through the Ohio Valley, he spotted a number of Obama campaign messages featuring the slogan, "Give Peace a Chance." What can this possibly mean in the face of reports that Obama intends to ramp up troop presence in Afghanistan should he be elected in November?

This message doesn't vary much from John McCain's ads which say Islamic terrorists want to kill us and destroy our way of life. Victory is our only option, but his ads never define what that liberty would look like. Presumably the current corrupt form, with our Constitution flapping in the breeze.

The recent RAND Corporation report which said the chance of terrorists taking over any state is about ZERO would seem to allay any such fears, and remove justification for continued military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but facts rarely have come into play in the world of politics where emotions run the game.

But to proclaim, as Obama's associate the rapper Ludacris does in his recent homage "Politics," "the world is ready for change 'cause Obama is here" is disingenuous as the messianic message doesn't bear itself out. Obama is ready for more war. Nothing new there.

For all the shocked allegations of race-baiting from the Obama side, the change Ludacris talks of is a simple one: "painting the White House black." Surely there is no other movement beyond the status quo either he or Mr. Obama can cite. A color change is not a sea change.

What I find ludicrous is the pantywaist coverage of things which might cause offense -- preemptive censorship from your illiberal news media. Of Ludacris's rap, a New York Times blog (The Caucus) says Sen. Clinton is called a "nasty name." BBC News calls it a "misogynistic" term.

What it is, is the ubiquitous rapper term for women: bitch. I guess they could have gone third grade rather than milquetoast and said Ludacris had used the "b" word (as opposed to the "h" word. That would be "ho," the other term for women in the rapper lexicon.)

It is not delicate, not nuanced, not clever or subtle, but it is stock in trade for rappers referring to members of the female gender. If we can't even say the word "bitch" for fear of making the rappers seem base, then how do we expect any honest dialog on any topic?

Doing requisite damage control, Obama's staff responded, "While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics" (Obama rejects Ludacris Rap Lyrics.) That is Ludicrous.

Aside from the typically crude messages any listener of Hannity would be proud of (should they be employed in the service of their candidate), Ludacris directs black people to get off their duffs and vote Obama. A brilliant PSA for Obama should it animate Ludacris's listening audience.

Like Rev. Wright said, Obama has to say that now -- he's a politician (Obama camp condemns song: Ludacris 'should be ashamed.)

In another recent move into the Republican camp, Obama disingenuously says let's drill off the coasts to give taxpayers some economic relief (Obama Signals Support for Wider Offshore Drilling.) Two weeks earlier Obama had said opening up offshore drilling "would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years" (Exploring Realities of Offshore Drilling.)

But oh, what a difference two weeks and political expediency can make. Of course, these reserves would only come onto the market in 2017, and would have little if any effect upon the price of gas at the pump. As a politician, if you see a drowning man you throw him a life raft, even if it's leaky and you've launched it in the opposite direction.

Mr. Obama's "War is Peace" is a slogan written 70 years ago by George Orwell in his Nineteen Eighty-Four. There is nothing new here in such dissembling. Islamic terrorists are to 2008 what the Yellow Peril was to 1903 or 1921. There is still a lot of steam left in that train, and neither side will relinquish what may well be a perpetual motion machine.

What it means is, Obama is not messiah; Obama is politician.

--Jim and Lisa

Enemies -- A Love Story

Now, now my good man,
this is no time for making enemies
--Voltaire
______________

A recent National Public Radio analysis explored a key difference between Presidential candidates McCain and Obama -- the question of how they would negotiate with the Forces of Evil.

Obama gave his shtick that he would negotiate with our enemies, and went on to identify Iran as one of those enemies.

This is truly disturbing. It is not disturbing that we would talk with Iran, but rather that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is labeling Iran as the enemy. Don't we have enough enemies of our own creation without preemptively elevating Iran to the enemy level?

Why would Iran want to open discussions with the U.S. -- what would they gain? Whatever they do or say our idiot leaders will tag them as enemies.

Maybe America really does need a few good enemies in the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©). Since we are taking such a screwing from our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, it will be refreshing to call someone enemy. We can not afford the friends we have, who we are moving forward as we daily lose ground.

At least we won't be beholden to float a good, old-fashioned enemy. It will help remove the ambiguity from this messy thing called democracy.

The Rest of the Story

Now all you sucker. D.J.’s
Who think you’re fly
There’s got to be a reason
And we know the reason why
--Word Up, Cameo
_________

The above militantly cited pre-Korn, in honor of Ms. Ehrenreich.

I cannot understand how the press and the people get so hung up on minutiae when events of great moment hang like a damoclean sword centimeters above our heads. Talk about living in a spin zone.

The latest tempest in a teapot swirls around Hillary's impudence to suggest that a white man, Lyndon Baines Johnson at that, was instrumental in passing Civil Rights legislation. Everyone has had their say, but I will address Barbara Ehrenreich's post at HuffPo. She should know better, yet has hopped on the p.c. soapbox like everyone else.

She even manages to wangle in Bo Derek's cornrows, dating herself a tad. Following her logic, a black student who excels at Harvard Law School is appropriating the white paradigm of corporate success, and therefore, an oreo. This is really not cool and hip analysis.

She has told half of the truth: that any great societal shift can only occur following mass protest from the people. The change starts with you. Truth.

Then this:

". . .Clinton's LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness - a theory of social change that's as elitist as it is inaccurate. Black civil rights weren't won by suited men (or women) sitting at desks."

Huh? Ehrenreich's statement, like the rest of the blather out there, is sophistry. This is not an either-or proposition.

Mass movements alone do not shift policy. That change does not come without the backing of the courts and/or the legislators. How was Hillary lying by stating a fact?

Civil Rights was not a spontaneous movement. Great organization was required to marshal the boots on the ground. Ehrenreich mentions a few of the black foot soldiers; she mentions none of the whites. This movement would not have been successful in changing the status quo had not members from many divergent strata joined in unison.

The civil rights workers in the 50's and 60's knew it was a multi-pronged war in which the press must be harnessed to garner sympathy. It was not a good day for the movement if the attack dogs or the fire hydrants were not turned on.

In addition to the pressure of the protests, the assassination of John F. Kennedy was instrumental in allowing for the speedy passage of a large number of initiatives which had languished in committee prior to his death.

In homage to Kennedy, these were railroaded through following his death. One need only look at JFK's voting record to see this. Change would have come, but at a much more gradual pace. His assassination was not essential, but catalytic.

Going back further, JFK might not even have been elected had it not been for the one-woman campaigning of former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, a great friend of the black community, on his behalf.

After securing Kennedy's promise prior to the elections that he would advocate for equal housing rights, Roosevelt executed a coast-to-coast lecture circuit of black churches, sans Secret Service protection. A dicey undertaking at best, and one performed out of sheer moral convection.

"'Change' is this year's Democratic battle cry, but if you don't know how it happens, you're not likely to make it happen yourself. A case in point is Clinton's 1993 "health reform" plan. She didn't do any "listening tour" for that, no televised town meetings with heart-rending grassroots testimonies. Instead, she gathered up a cadre of wonks for months of closed-door meetings. . ."

Ehrenreich goes on the criticize Hillary's herculean efforts to change health care during Bill Clinton's administration. But she was not president then, so criticizing her lack of success is moot. That Hillary attempted to contribute to a change is laudatory, for having 49 million citizens without health care is a great disgrace for such a mighty country, and I see no commensurate efforts on behalf of the Bush's.

Are we so afraid -- so politically correct out of some latent residual hypocrisy and bigotry -- that we can't speak frankly and fully about these things? To disallow the acknowledgment of the instrumental presence of whites and politicians in writing and enacting the legislation of the civil rights movement is to feign historical blindness.

To call Hillary's acknowledgment of the fact of the necessity of coalition "most unfortunate" is disingenuous.

To what avail? This is another moment where we need solidarity to resuscitate the U.S. Unfortunately, the ego spectacle that is our electioneering process threatens to fragment and distract us from the real ills that presently afflict us.

Perhaps the flap just reaffirms the fragmentation that is our society.