Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Ferguson Part One: On Rioting.

On Rioting.

So, before I dive into this let’s stipulate that white people riot all the time, for almost any reason: pumpkins, football, basketball, almost any sporting event.
Riot in NH over a pumpkin fest
A few years back a large group of white students in Pennsylvania rioted because a football coach, who had turned a blind eye to child molestation, was fired. I live near East Lansing, there is a annual riot called Cedar Fest that goes on like clockwork. There is an unofficial motto among the students during football season “if we lose we riot, if we win, we riot”. The rioting here is so normal that local furniture outlets have sales on couches and mattresses because they know students are going to burn their own… (true story). But google that on your own time, and then re-think about how we view the “rioters” in Ferguson (who aren't angry over a sporting event, or produce, but over the loss of life)

Ok, with that preamble out of the way let’s dive into this idea that the riots are counterproductive and that violence is not the answer.  So first for something to be counter-productive there has to first be some productive activity going on. By all reports the people of Ferguson have had long standing issues with their police department and its treatment of black citizens, but those problems were never addressed, rather they were ignored and allowed to fester like an open wound.
It wasn't until after the first riots occurred that state, local and federal agencies got involved with the community. It wasn't until the community,  fed up with years of police malfeasance coupled with inaction from their local and state representatives rose up in rebellion, it wasn't until the smoke began to rise and buildings began to burn that they started to see the government scramble to hear their cries and offer them relief. And even then it took gross multiple violations of the fourth estate by the police, to really bring the spotlight on Ferguson.

So when you sit smugly behind your television set and ask “why they are rioting”, I have a better question. Why aren't we all rioting? If years of begging and pleading led to no action, and one week of riots lead to DOJ investigations, 40 FBI agents scouring the area & renewed efforts from the mayor and governor to look at racial profiling why aren't we all using the template that Ferguson provided? It is abundantly clear that when minorities engage in peaceful protest after police malfeasance, when minorities march and sing and link hands, that those actions by themselves are ignored. The system has no impetus to act. The system can ignore hand holding and marching; those actions are: non-threatening, quaint and dated and thus provide no incentive to the system to act. It is not in the interest of the system to disturb the status quo.


There have been (at least) five high profile cases in the last 5 months where unarmed black men were killed by police officers. Most of us only know about Ferguson and Mike Brown, the names of the others are already starting to fade into Sean Bell like obscurity. They are quietly being added to the list of the slain and forgotten. Ferguson however, has refused to go quietly into the night, in part because the people, through their direct action in the form of an uprising FORCED the system to engage, they made it so that it was in the best interest of the local, state and federal governments to do so. The lesson learned, it’s hard to ignore your downtown being razed. 

But still, some will gnash their teeth, rend their garments and say "violence isn't the answer". The idea that "violence isn't the answer" seems more like a tired cliche, than an actual argument backed up by facts and examples. If violence isn't the answer why does Cliven Bundy still have his ranch? If violence isn't the answer why is every NeoCon everywhere always itching to go to war, if violence isn't the answer why are we in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc?  If violence isn't the answer then why are police departments equipped better than some infantry units?

So while we may argue about the morality of rioting, it is quite hard to argue about the results of rioting. The fact that Michael Brown’s name is known from Portland to Palestine, while Darren Hunt’s name rarely rings a bell is part of the problem. When you back a community into a corner, ignore their cries but then move quickly once the destruction begins you are telling that community that you only respect force, that you only respect flame, that you only respect fire. So don’t be surprised when you see the torches being lit. 

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Philosophizing with Fred Phelps.


One of the biggest problems I have with my faith, is the knowledge that this man too is eligible for grace..at least in my limited understanding....it bothers me knowing that racists, and homophobes, and supremacists, and maybe even people who have instigated, violence against people I care about may find themselves in the grace of god... (whatever that means to each individual)

This guy, I really don't like this guy, as a Christian, when I look at him I feel a anger about how he represents my faith,  how he distorted that faiths teachings and potentially helped to lead  hundreds of thousands away from Christ because... lets face it, if I weren't a Christian, and he was what I saw as Christian"eske"..why would I want to be a part of that? I feel anger because of the harm he has placed my friends and loved ones with his cherry picked bastardized version of Christianity and God's Holy word.

It's a very introspective place I find myself in on what could be the eve of this mans death, part of me wants to celebrate as he leaves this earth because he will no longer be here to cause harm. Another part of me feels bad about feeling joy in the death of another, even one so vile as Phelps.

I have much internal conflict going on because I find it disheartening at the level of satisfaction that I am feeling, I can only describe it as schadenfreude on steroids. That almost pleasurable experience one gets whenever someone who has caused immense harm to people we love dies. It's a weird place to be in....I am trying to find the proper stance between relief, joy, smug satisfaction, revenge, and anger. All while trying to desperately remember that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 Dr. Dre had a great line.. "I ain't thug, how much Tupac in you, you got?" So I ask my fellow Christians, during these final days of Fred Phelps. How much Phelps in you, you got? I wonder how many good people have intellectualized themselves away from Phelps actions, but yet share his same beliefs. How many people have we driven away from a faith and a God we claim to love because of our actions, thoughts and deeds. If God is love and our duty as Christians is to show, share and reflect God's love to the world in an effort to bring more people to HIM. Then I fear there are a lot of Fred Phelps out there masquerading  as compassionate Christians.

 Maybe that's something we as Christians can take from this moment, an internal systems check. While we sit back and convince ourselves that we are better than Phelps because we didn't hold signs, or picket funerals, or scream GOD HATES FAGS, were we really? Even if we don't do those things have we been silent accomplices, have we provided an atmosphere where vile types of laws could be passed, are we silently complicit in the imprisonment of homosexuals in Uganda, are we silently gleeful when states pass laws that amount to an LGBTQ version of Jim Crow? Are we really better than Fred Phelps? We (Christians) love to point to as him as the "bad guy" because if nothing else his brand of hate and almost comical bigotry makes our own intolerance look so cuddly and acceptable.

 Fred Phelps makes a most convenient villain, because if nothing else it's so easy to see his hate and it make ours look so much more palatable. What is it the Good Book says about eyes, specks and beams? Maybe this is part of where my conflict comes in, a conflict with the church and the knowledge how its adherents have treated those outside it's walls.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Ted Nugent, Black on Black Crime & The Failure of the Fourth Estate

"I will pray for Stevie Wonder and all these other numbnuts who think that Trayvon Martin's life is more important than the tens of thousands of slaughtered blacks at the hands of blacks? I don't even know what to do with that information."
-Ted Nugent


     Ted Nugent has been one small part of a larger concerted effort to bait and switch the entire country. Instead of talking about how a 17 year old was killed for no other reason than he looked like a scary negro to a guy with a gun, the conversation has shifted. Whether it's Geraldo Rivera's preoccupation with fashion, or the Fox News attempts at character assassination or Rush Limbaugh having an on-air orgasm as he said the word nigga because he had somehow convinced himself that he received implicit permission from Rachel Jeantel. Right wingers have jumped all over themselves painting Trayvon as a thug and painting mourners as hypocritical race baiters.
  
  The Right has perfected a method that allows them say and sprout almost anything with impunity. It's the incredible repetitive talking point. It's ingenious insomuch as it allows for a lie or fabrication to be repeated as often as possible and as loudly as possible without any type of due diligence or vetting. They repeat a point over and over and quote each other using the same talking point in a circle of inscestuous sourcing thus creating an echo chamber, that at first glance seems substantive, but which quickly falls apart with even the briefest of appraisals.

     The media, whose job it is to vet and investigate these statements for authenticity, veracity,or at least some semblance of truth have instead shucked their responsibilities, regurgitating the talking point without even pretending to challenge it. I can only guess that it's easier to get someone to tune in, or read your OP-ED if you have Ted Nugent calling a child a "dope smoking hoodlum"  and  calling Stevie Wonder soulless, than it is to see if Ted's underlining points are even valid. I guess fact checking isn't sexy now-a-days. So to all the media outlets who have gladly reiterated the lie, or some version of the lie that Mr. Nugent and others have gleefully repeated let me say this. 

     It is at best a fraudulent fiction and at worse a pattern of intentional vilification to say, or insinuate that Black America and its leaders do not, or have not cared about black on black crime. Those who say that the Black community hypocritically focused on George Zimmerman while ignoring inner city violence either haven't been listening or are intentionally engaging in slanderous deceit. So I, a blogger with no investigative journalism training , offer as my proof this small timeline of articles that took me 15 minutes compile using Google. In it you will see leaders from then Senator Obama, to Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson to Russell Simmons all talking about inner city crime, Chicago murder rate, and the need for a reduction in violence in urban communities. 

Please feel free to copy and paste this link whenever needed. Mr. Nugent, maybe you and others of your ilk can figure out what to do with this information, because besides lining the bottom of a bird cage, I have no idea what to do with yours.

Free Thinkers are Dangerous. 
-The Scholarly Hooligan
_______________________________

1993-NAACP President talking about urban violence specifically Chicago & LA)http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-10-31/news/1993304022_1_chavis-gang-naacp


2007- Obama taking about urban violence in http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2007-07-13/news/0707120591_1_gun-violence-lewis-scooter-libby-virginia-tech


2009-Attorny General Eric Holder's Chicago youth violence remarks.http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/10/eric_holders_chicago_youth_vio.html

2010 –Jesse Jackson-Chicago is in a state of emergency http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-jesse-jackson/chicago-is-in-a-state-of_b_554075.html


2012- Obama Talks Chicago Violence: “I Live On The Southside…Murders Happening Blocks From Home http://newsone.com/2068715/obama-talks-chicago-violence/


2012- -Russell Simmons –I am present for Peace MARCHhttp://globalgrind.com/news/russell-simmons-i-am-present-for-peace-march-jamaica-queens-photos


Jan 2013- Obama On Chicago Gun Violence: President References Hometown Tragedies In Gun Control Addresshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-on-chicago-gun-viol_n_2489361.html


Feb 2013- Russell Simmons Urges Lawmakers to Pass Assault Weapons Banhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/russell-simmons-urges-lawmakers-pass-424786


Feb 2013 - Retired black General Says National Guard Could Help Curb Chicago Violence http://www.amren.com/news/2013/02/retired-general-says-national-guard-could-help-curb-chicago-violence/


Feb 2013 Jesse Jackson and protesters Want Obama to talk more about violence in Chicago http://thegrio.com/2013/02/04/rev-jesse-jackson-protestors-call-on-obama-to-address-chicago-gun-violence/


May 3, 2013 - Obama Campaign Uses Chicago Violence to Push for Gun Controlhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-campaign-uses-chicago-violence-push-gun-control_720602.html


July 4, 2013-Al Sharpton talks about moving to Chicago to deal with the violence inhttp://www.amsterdamnews.com/news/national/rev-al-sharpton-moving-to-chicago-to-deal-with-gun/article_aef778f4-e978-11e2-921b-001a4bcf887a.html



The NAACP position on gun control to help bring down gun violence in Inner citieshttp://www.naacp.org/action-alerts/entry/stopping-gun-violence

Thursday, February 3, 2011

How Christians Should Treat Homosexuals

    





 This should be an  interesting conversation today. But here we go. I come from a strong Christian background, both my parents were deacons, and we attended church up to 3 times a week. I believe that the bible is the word of God, but I also believe that for Christians we should have a particular emphasis on the examples, words, and teachings of Christ. We are not called Leviticans, or Mosesists. We are called Christians due to our belief in the teachings, and saving grace of Jesus Christ. In that vein there are a lot of beliefs thats we as a culture and nation have that are not rooted in scripture, or if they are... they are rooted in Leviticus which is Old Testament LAW. The problem with that as I see it , is Jesus came to save us from sin, and redeem us from THE LAW, because ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and according to Levitical Law we should all be off sacrificing animals or should be somewhere getting stoned to death. 


     Now, before we go on, this is not a defense of "sin" or "sinning" this is me looking at our actions as a society  and seeing how they measure up to the actions, words, and examples of Christ.  Read this with an open spirit, and be careful to read not what you want to read, but what is actually here.


     Whether it was the story of the Samaritan  the adulteress, or the tax collector. Jesus always spoke up for the despised within his community. Samaritans were despised within the Jewish community. Both Samaritan and Jewish leaders forbade contact with one another, so the story of the good Samaritan is not just a story of helping your fellow man, it is a story of Jesus assigning a positive role to one of the despised. Tax collectors were considered sell outs and sinners, in biblical times they were the Uncle Toms of the community. Those who had sold their souls to the Romans to impose taxation on their own people. Yet in still read the story of Zacchaeus, and see how Jesus treated this tax collector who his fellow Jews called "a sinner". He spent the night at his house, he treated him with love and respect.. Lets take a look at the sinner, the adulteress. She lived in sin, and was dragged to Jesus feet, and the crowd was going to stone her. They told Jesus she was caught in the act and by Mosaic Law she should be killed, and they asked Jesus opinion.  He said the famous "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" line, and the crowd dispersed. Then he told the woman... "go and sin no more". His saving the woman was no predicated on the fact that she sin no more. Jesus did not demand that she sin no more before he offered his grace, and mercy. He did not demand proof, or demand that she join a 4 step program. Nor did he issue similar demands on the tax collector. His grace and mercy is not dependent upon our ability to stop sinning. Which is a relief because ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. 

     We, in our sin are redeemed by Christ who through grace saves us, in spite of our sin, not because of our march toward perfection. I would argue that Christ spent more time with sinners, and spent more time talking about how to treat "the worst" of society, than he did hanging around those who were the "purest" according to Mosaic law. We have this idea that certain sins are worse than other sins, and most of that has no scriptural basis, but is more based upon own our moral code. If you examine the bible and see what really ticks off Jesus he mentions treating children badly in Luke 17:2, and when he went "Hulk Hogan" on people who were defiling and scamming in the house of God. So really, if you are one of these fake preachers bilking the congregation, or someone who abuses children, you are more likely to be on the LIST than any other "sinner".


     Jesus never told his disciples to persecute those undesirables or even sinners, or even those who had lied in order to put him to death, when people did gather to stone the adulteress, he stopped them, and then told her to sin no more, he did not make her ceasing of the sin a prerequisite to his grace. So I find it uncomfortable as a black man in western civilization when Christians find reasons to persecute those who we deem as living in sin. Jesus never gave us a mandate to persecute, we need to learn to differentiate between the word of God, and the moral hang ups of western civilization.

     Now, I am not saying I advocate for sin.I am not saying lets have a big Sin-a-Palooza, what I am saying is that through example in word and deed I believe that Jesus gave us a guide on how he wants the "least of us" and the "undesirables" treated in society. I believe that if you call yourself a Christian you can believe that God does not like sin, without feeling as if HE gave you a mandate to be THE HAMMER OF GOD, and go forth an exact his wrath on sinners. I missed that part of the bible, the part where Jesus commanded His disciples that while they were out preaching they should wreak havoc on homosexuals . I missed the part where He told His disciples to not heal the sick if they were gay, or to not feed the poor if they were bi-sexual.

In fact one of the few direct Commandments from the mouth of Jesus are found in the gospel of Mark. Here a teacher of The Law asks Jesus which commandment is the most important. Jesus replies:


29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
 30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
 31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.


Now, if you want. you can go on persecuting, hating and angrily attempting to limit the rights of the LGBT community. But me, my arms to short to box with God, and my closet's got too many skeletons labeled pride, lust, and lies for me to happily throw stones. I'm going to thank God for sending Jesus to save me despite my sins, and love my neighbors the best way I can. 


Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Myth's in Politics Part 2: Black support for Obama


     Welcome Hooligan-istas to the second installment of Political MythBusters. In our first installment we tackled and busted the myth that Republicans advocated small government. Well in this installment I plan on tackling a myth that seems to have become just as accepted into political "common knowledge", one that annoys me even more than the GOP=Small Government Myth. Today's myth:
That Black People Supported Barack Obama because he was Black. This is an insidious myth that undervalues the political intelligence of African-Americans. It makes African-Americans seem as if they will support any black candidate regardless of how terrible or spectacular they are. We know this to be untrue.

     There have been many black political candidates/personalities that African-Americans did not and do not support. Just to name a few: Alan Keys, Armstrong Williams, Clarence Thomas, Condeleezza Rice and Micheal Steele. Black people have an understanding of politics, and do not support candidates they feel do not support their interest, and don't support candidates who they do not think can win. So there is a mature process in which African-Americans respect, and transfer their vote. African-Americans do not want to see it wasted, or misused and being black is no indicator of whether or not you will gain the automatic support of the black community. Black people have been very conscious of those within our community that do not have our communities best interests at heart. There is a plethora of terminology dedicated to naming these people: Toms, Coons, House Negroes, Stepin Fetchit, so on and so forth. So just having common skin color is no indication of cultural support, there also has to be a congruence of interests.

     Additionally, the numbers do not hold this Myth to be true. While it is true that African-Americans did support Barack Obama, the numbers were not statistically overwhelming if you compare them to other Democratic candidates. In 1996 Bill Clinton received 84% of the African-American Vote. In 2000 Al Gore won 90% of the African-American Vote. In 2004 John Kerry received 88% of the black vote, and in 2008 Obama won 95% of the black vote. If you look at the numbers as a trend its clear to see that with the exception of Kerry (as an anomaly who didn't excite the African American base as much as the previous 2 Democratic contenders) the percentage of the African American vote was steadily treading upward for democrats. Clinton received 83% and 84 %, Gore 90% which is a 6% jump. If Kerry would of held the trend the jump to Obama's 95% is true to the trend, as it is, the 5% boost is still not the 6% boost that Gore received after Clinton's term was up.

     Simply put, Black people support democrats, there hasn't been a Presidential Democratic candidate who hasn't received at least 80% since before Jimmy Carter. Three Candidates in the last 7 cycles received 90% plus, Walter Mondale , Al Gore, and Barack Obama. While it is true that black voter turnout rose to a record high 13% of the total voting electorate, there has been a constant trend upward for the part 5 voting cycles. 8% in 1992, 10% in 1996 & 2000, 11% in 2004, and peaking at 13%. That looks like natural growth over time. And yes, I will agree that there was an excitement about Barack Obama because he was black, but that was not the primary factor in him getting support from the black community. Looking at the amount of money the Obama campaign poured into voter registration, I wonder if a similar amount would of been utilized by other candidate would we have seen a similar jump in voter turnout.

     In conclusion, don't underestimate a section of the electorate based on one set of exit poll numbers. People saw that Obama had received 95% of the black vote and some just assumed it was due to race. (which is borderline racist in and of itself) People and pundits didn't take into account trending over time or the fact that black opponents had come and gone in the past with little or no black support. Cynthia McKinney was in the race as a third party candidate and received little attention from black voters. Did some black voters vote for Obama strictly along racial lines, I'm sure they did. Is that number larger than those Catholics who were excited about Kennedy, and voted along religious lines? I think that underestimating the political electorate is a mistake, even that part of the electorate that until recently has been delegated to the margins.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The Biggest Myth in Politics Part 1

   
  I want a new Television Show this spring. I'll be the host, and I will call it Political Myth Busters. Because there are a lot of political myths that become accepted as common knowledge regardless of those pesky things called facts. It is a vicious cycle. A random blogger/pundit/plumber starts a myth, Faux News reports the myth as gospel, Politicians cite the reports, Faux News covers the politician saying the myth, and BOOM it's a fact. It's why people still believe Obama is a Muslim, and 9-11 was carried out by Saddam Hussein.  


     So, to do my part to clean up the political myths out there I will tackle one myth from time to time, and drag it out into the light. Today I will tackle the myth: "Conservatives want small government." I hear this all the time, from the news, from pundits, from liberals, from conservatives, but it's just not true. Their actions do not connect to this purported belief system. Large Enormous Military, large privatized jails, building walls and manning the southern border, invade Iraq, Afghanistan, rattling sabers at Iran, nationwide Supreme Court ban against abortion, No Child Left Behind (which federalize K-12 education NATIONWIDE), the huge growth of the TSA, and the creation of Homeland Security,  the list goes on and on. 


     Republican only want a small government when democrats are in power. They want large government when they are in power, or it's an issue they agree with. What can be more bigger than ensuring that every pregnant woman carries their child to term, the logistics of the enforcement alone would be enormous. The proof is in the pudding the government got to it's largest point under George W. Bush. Conservatives didn't start talking about deficits, and securing a future for our youth, and limiting the scope and size of government until Obama got into office. Need more proof?? Two Words: PATRIOT ACT. It expanded the size of government, the scope of it's powers, and it's ability to intrude into the live of United States Citizens in an unprecedented manner. Due to the courts limiting our ability to sue cell phone carriers, we may never know how many were effected, or the scope of the damage done.


     But this one thing is sure, when the Republicans had control of both the branches of congress, as well as the Presidency, they did not shrink government, or make it more unobtrusive, nor did they "get government out of our way".  Nor were they running around saying "government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS THE PROBLEM", nor were there Tea Parties spouting everywhere, fed up with government waste and spending. They  hid it behind "the war on terrorism" and wrapped it in the Flag. Make no mistake Republicans do not want smaller government, they want smaller "Democratic run" government, they want a smaller "liberal" government, they want a smaller "progressive" government. They want a government that cannot function when a Democrat is in office, hence the filibusters, and the delaying tactics utilized at unprecedented levels, hell they even tried to make the United States Census seem like some shadowy liberal plot.


     A famous quote that many Conservatives pull out when they are discussing "smaller government" is a quip by noted conservative Economist, Grover Norquist. 
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."


Just seems to be whenever the Republicans are in office that bathtub is the size of the Pacific. Don't believe the hype. Do Republicans Really Want a smaller government? This myth.... is BUSTED. 

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Chess Vs. Checkers: How Obama Plays the Game

     
     Sorry for the break, but this Hooligan spent the last week or so being extremely Scholarly. But we have our periscopes up, and torpedoes loaded, so we are back in action. This weeks topic, Chess Vs Checkers. both are board games, the similarity ends there. When playing Chess you have to look long term, imagine what's going to happen 4,5,6 turns later. You have to try to imagine your opponents counters, and how to counter his counters and hey ...did he just put me in check? Checkers, not so much, it only gets compicated when you have a bunch of kings on the board flying around trying to do their own thing.


     If you haven't realized it by now, the President plays chess. He's been at it for years now, every time we think he is on the brink of disaster he proves that he in this game for the long term, for the long gain. He is not interested in wasting time with small change, he is after the mother load. And that takes a bit more planning. And every time he looks like he has painted himself into a corner, and people start weeping and wailing, yelling they wished he were tougher, and stronger ect. ect. ect.  Just the other day Bill Maher said:


"I thought by this time in his presidency I'd be making joke about how President Obama was (death row records co-founder) Suge Knight."


      Really, why? What led you to believe that this President was as clumsy and obvious and thuggish as Suge Knight? Because he's black he has to be a off brand thug, who bullies his way through his presidency? What part of "Harvard educated Senator", screams Suge Knight to you?


     Let do a bit of back tracking, back to the Democratic Primaries, when Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, and Obama supports were scared, and worried  and then Obama came out with one of the best political speeches of all time. As she was going momentum and people were wondering about the Michigan and Florida primaries, Obama was calm and he won that battle as well. When the Jeremiah Wright "scandal" dropped, everyone was up in arms, "how is he going to handle this?", "what is he going to do now?" Well he delivers a keynote address on race, and slowly that scandal faded away as well. Then there was McCain who jumped up in the polls after he plucked Sarah Palin from Wahsilla, the media went crazy, and his supporters went mad with worry about the President. He won that race  by one of the biggest margins since Regan beat Mondale. After that, there was the big fuss about Health Care, oh wait that ended up passing, even after it received 4 or 5 death knells on a weekly basis. Health Care, which every democratic president in memory tried to pass, got passed by President Obama. Then the midterm elections, and once again everyone is up in arms, everyone is worried. Fox news is posting poll after poll saying Obama could be beaten by any republican in a shirt, tea parties are walking around carrying racist signs and touting rifles to political rallies, Glen Beck is frothing at the mouth and John Bohner is crying every chance he gets. Everyone goes politically insane. Except for the comedian who takes a day off  from his comedy show to ask for calm. The media, the pundits, and even some democrats declared the President done, finished, a virtual lame duck to go with this lame duck congress. Then out of nowhere he pushes through the Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal, and he gets the START Treaty passed. BOOM! Just like that a source no less than CONSERVATIVE commentator Charles Krauthammer declares Obama the new "comeback kid" 


     Anyone remember the story of the tortoise and the hare.... slow and steady may not look flashy and exciting, but it gets the job done. We had a fast, reactive President before, I'm glad Obama isn't like that. For his enemies: keep underestimating him, he stands in the brink and snatches victory from the jaws of defeat more often than not. 


     To his supporters:I think he has earned a bit of good will and faith. If he doesn't pass every leftist, liberal item by next Friday, it doesn't mean he is no longer an ally. It doesn't mean he's weak, it means he has a plan of implementation that is not quite ready. It means he's in the laboratory cooking up some new stuff, it means he's working diligently to get his agenda passed. Have faith, and patience, I think he's earned that much at least.