The centuries-old story of Morgan le Fay has evolved over a thousand years, different in each retelling.  The first time she is introduced to us in the Arthurian legend is as a healer, the woman who saves Arthur in his dying days.  Her true roots of course, lie deeper than that, in Celtic myth and tradition and culture.  The Goddess.  Woman as the Giver of Life, the Keeper of Knowledge.  Over time, particularly in light of the spread of Christianity, her character takes on much darker sides.  She betrays Arthur in her own quest for power.  She is an evil sorceress who uses dark magic to try to defeat "great Christian" figures.  Her enchantment of many sexual partners is as a result of deceitful charms.  And yet as all these characters, she is never truly evil.  In many of the renditions, the story of her healing Arthur at the end remains, despite much of her life spent in betrayal of him.  

 

As the legend grows, story lines merge and evolve with the times, but in most of them, one commonality remains: the point of view.  Almost all of the various attempts at recreating the Arthurian legend are the story of man.  King Arthur.  The Knights of the Round Table.  Lancelot.  Galahad.   Merlin.  Marion Zimmer Bradley retells the story from a new perspective: that of the women in the tale.  Her brilliant rendition of the long-told saga is revolutionary in its ability to recapture the essence of the story from a completely different angle.  The women who were once portrayed as the antagonists become protagonists, women who were once portrayed as the essence of virgin-like good become the tale of a weak-minded woman, and she masterfully captures the struggle over divinity as masculine or feminine.  

 

The story of Morgan le Fay, in all its revisions and incarnations, embodies all that women have been perceived as at various points in history: sister, lover, wise, foolish, enchanting, deceiving, warrior, peacemaker, healer, witch, goddess, nymph, mother, mistress, old, young, beautiful, ugly, good, evil.  

 

"For this is the thing the priests do not know, with their One God and One Truth: that there is no such thing as a true tale.  Truth has many faces and the truth is like the old road to Avalon; it depends on your own will, and your own thoughts, whither the road will take you, and whether, at the end, you arrive in the Holy Isle of Eternity or among the priests with their bells and their death and their Satan and Hell and damnation." (Morgan le Fay in Marion Zimmer Bradley’s The Mists of Avalon)

 

And so it is with the legend of woman.  The truth of her story, and of the female legend, exists only as a reflection of an era's perception of women and spirituality and power and sexuality.  As is the case with most legends, the story becomes one of circumstances and eras, and less of an impression of the original truth.

Just as Morgan le Fay has represented the many faces of women, so has Hillary Clinton.  How is it that so many people can have so many different impressions of these women? 

 

What fascinates me is the fascination with everything Clinton that has existed long before her candidacy began and I suspect will long outlast this election, so long as she is a presence on the national scene.  Every great story has female characters that represent the good and the bad.  Perhaps this is why the story between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seemed to garner so much attention and passion.  She is the hero and the villain. 

 

I wonder, 1000 years from now, what the story of Morgan le Fay will look like.  If it will have collected any of the perceptions of now, any of the circumstances of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.  Will they know the truth of it all?  Or will they recognize the many truths of it all?

 

I have no answers.  Only questions.  So I open to you…

Dear Mr. Rove,

    I am writing to thank you.  I owe you a deep debt of gratitude.  In a mere six months, there is an outstanding possibility that a black man or a woman will be voted into the highest office in the land for the first time.  And in part, we have you to thank for that.  

    I believe that it is part because of the enormous dissatisfaction with the current administration and Republican party in general that the Democrats were able to have two history-making candidates as our front-runners.  You have been credited with being "Bush's brain," and "the architect" of the administration and Bush brand.  You did a bang-up job.  You recently wrote:

Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president's approval ratings.

Indeed it does.  Thanks to you, the Republican brand invokes images of corruption, lies, fear-mongering, and incompetence.  So successful were you in creating that brand, it, and with it, your legacy, is likely to outlast the coming elections and perhaps, many years beyond.


I can only imagine what it will feel like to see such a Democrat sworn in in January, making history simply by standing on that stage.  It will be a shining moment in our country's story, a moment that will forever change America.  

No doubt, the Democrats will have to work for it.  But thanks to you, Americans are so yearning for change, that they are literally taking to the streets in support of a new way.  I'm sure that might be slightly terrifying to a man such as yourself, who wins elections by suppressing others through fear and terror.  But take heart.  Next January, as either President Obama or President Clinton takes the stage to speak to America, it will be a day that will live forever.  A day that will represent all that is at the core of the American spirit, the ideals laid out when this country was founded over two hundred years ago.  And in the years to come, you can look back and know that you played a part in that.  

So with those thoughts, I leave you with one final thank you:
Heckuva job.

Just kidding.  But seriously, if you haven't already seen this, it's really worth a look.  I'm not usually one to write a blog only for the purpose of linking to another blog, but this needs to echo across the blogosphere.  (Can we please come up with a better word than that?)

I found it via Sullivan, and it's over on Al Giordano's The Field. He wrote it up after reading Charles Blow's op-ed in the Times today.  

Blow wrote:

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

And from Giordano:

So, to sum up: Look at the damn graphs. You can see that Clinton is in a staggering free-fall among African-American voters, her favorability is down 36 points while 17 percent view her more negatively than before, while Obama’s favorable and negative ratings among whites have paired at five point increases. You can even see the small dip - about two percentage points - in his popularity among whites that can be attributed to the news cycles about his ex-pastor, and see that it has leveled out and is now on a straight horizontal line (meanwhile, Clinton’s numbers among blacks continue on an extreme downward precipice). The greater context is that even including Obama’s slight dip, he’s more popular today among white voters than he ever was prior to February.

Not since Ronald Reagan has an American presidential candidate withstood such an assault in the media and seen his popularity not hurt by it, but, rather, galvanized by it. That’s what is meant, in politics, by the term “Teflon.”

A response to a question on another thread as to why I support Obama: 

1. Health care - I actually like his health care proposal better. I think it has a much better chance of getting passed as is, or as close to "as is" as possible. I think there's not a chance in hell of getting a mandate passed, as seems to be backed up by the latest article from The Hill, so it seems to me, to be better to focus our energy on ensuring portability, cutting costs, and getting rid of the ridiculous "pre-existing condition" crap. Both plans have plans to do this, but I think all the talk of a mandate is really just political-speak b/c I have serious doubts we'll ever get there. Same goes for his mandate on children. In any event, if I was voting only on health care I'd be voting for Nadar, as I think single payer is better than either Obama or Clinton's proposals.


2. Foreign policy - I think the approach of talking to world leaders is the right one to take now. It really bothers me how America is looked on by the rest of the world. I don't think talking about nuclear obliteration and insulting world leaders is the way to fix that. I think he has continually shown better judgement and more understanding of foreign policy nuance. For example, his statement about acting on actionable intelligence in Pakistan that was jumped on by his opponents? He was absolutely right. Actually, I'd like to just direct you to this article, if you haven't read it. It touches on every single reason why I think his foreign policy is superior. And, I might add, his foreign policy is probably the one area where I agree with him on just about every single point.


3. Government Ethics Reform - I think his proposals in this area are much more specific, targeted, and likely to be more effective than Senator Clinton's. I think that using technology to open up government is the only path to take. His proposals include creating databases to shine the light on lobbyists, campaign finance, contracts, earmarks and corporate tax breaks. I have only seen Senator Clinton propose a similar database for contracts only. In an extension of government transparency, he'll open up communications in the WH, release records, require earmarks to be public for 3 days before approval. I really love the idea of putting all non-emergency legislation online and allowing the public to read and comment on it before it is voted on. I think opening up government is the only way to restore any sense of trust in it after what Bush has done. I think Senator Obama's proposals on this area are much more far-reaching and comprehensive than Senator Clinton's, and his legislative record backs up this priority.


4. Government effectiveness - Okay, this gets a little more vague, but you asked why, so this is part of the answer. I think the only way government is going to stop spending so much time on bullshit is if the American people start breathing down their necks. His ethics reform proposals are part of this, but the other part is about those speeches and "inspiration" that his opponents like to criticize. Inspiration motivates. This is not a guarantee. I have no way of knowing for certain whether he can keep the American people involved for the next four years. But I think a great factor in his success has been the simple use of the pronoun "we". I think keeping Americans involved in the political process is a delicate recipe that includes the use of technology and inspiration. It seems to me that he is the candidate most capable of doing this. As Joe Trippi said: 

"Imagine, he says, the next Inaugural Address: The new president “lays down his agenda and says, ‘I need you to be with me.’ ” Millions of the president’s supporters not only watch the speech but also communicate with each other online and join (or launch) efforts to mobilize support for the proposals. The network amplifies the president’s voice, connects and energizes his supporters, and focuses pressure on Congress.“It is possible that … years from now we will look back and say that this was the first interactive president and the change of an era,” Trippi says. “You now have more and more people who understand that they can affect other people by using these tools. That’s growing. And it’s not going to go back into a bottle.”


5. Finally, this is in reference to a trait, which you may find vague, but it is also part of the reason. Senator Obama seems to me to be a person who has the rare ability to actually understand two sides of an argument. This has been a quality that Bush has adamantly not displayed, much to my chagrin. I want a President who is willing to surround themselves with opposing opinions and actually take in what everyone has to say. Here are some of the examples in which I think he has displayed this:


Apparently, in Chicago, police abuse was a big problem, resulting in false confessions by some who were later found to be innocent. He proposed a bill to address the problem, by videotaping the confessions. It was opposed by the police, the prosecutors, most of the state senate and the Governor. Through weekly negotiations with each of these groups, they were able to find common ground and the bill passed unanimously.  

He also helped me to understand the other side on an issue I suppose I had been taking a stubborn view on: gun control. I couldn't understand why anyone would not agree to these measures. In one of his books somewhere, he made a cultural comparison that made me look at it in a new light. He talked about how some views laws restricting guns the way others view laws restricting books. I brought this up with my brother. We were born and raised in Western Pennsylvania, and most of his friends are hunters and gun owners. I told him that I was looking at it in a new light, and he made the point that he didn't think the government had any right to restrict gun ownership. To which I said, "Well, I just want my son to be able to go to school without worrying whether he's going to get shot." My brother then said, "Well, when you put it like that, I guess it's reasonable." Such a simple exchange, I know, but it makes the point that diametrical views can often have some common ground.


An article on Obama and affirmative action that I think again demonstrates this.

I have seen story after story that solidifies this opinion, on everything from abortion to education reform.  

Nothing drives me more crazy than when GW acts like he's standing by his principles while refusing to take in any new information. As far as I'm concerned, refusing to even be willing to change your mind in light of new information doesn't mean he's principled, it means he's an idiot. Conversely, changing your mind does not make you a flip-flopper if you have changed your mind for good reason out of new information. It means you have an open mind.


Also, when I voted for him on Super Tuesday, electability was a factor in my decision. Not only did I find him a better candidate, but I thought he was far and away more electable. The Rev. Wright story has put a major dent in that argument, I acknowledge. I still think he remains more electable than Clinton. But to be sure, there was always some risk in putting either a black man or a woman at the top of the ticket, regardless of who they are. Either way, I think both are far better choices than McCain, and I think the Democrats have the issues on our side for this election. I will vote for Clinton in a heartbeat if she is the nominee. Will I be disappointed? Absolutely. But not to the extent that I am willing to sacrifice my Democratic ideals and perhaps most importantly, any Supreme Court seats.

Earth Day!  

Seriously though, while we all await the PA primary results with bated breath, I'd like to propose a substantive discussion on the actions needed by us, by the government, and by the world to move towards a healthier global environment.  

So, hypothetical.  We get a new President in office (whoever it ends up being) who recognizes that we are facing serious problems with regards to the environment and energy.  He or she appoints you as the person who has to design serious and realistic solutions to these problems.  You don't have to worry about pushing anything through Congress, and the governments of foreign countries have all agreed to follow your recommendations.  You have a free pass to do whatever you think is necessary.  What do you do?  

Breaking it down further:

1. What changes will you advise/require of regular people like us?  

2.  What policies does the U.S. government need to implement to work towards solving these problems? 

3. What actions need to be taken by the global community to address these issues?

For Obama:

Barack Obama: Democrats deserve a nominee for change

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians will have the unusual luxury of voting in a Democratic presidential primary that promises to be truly relevant. Like two opposing armies marching to a new Gettysburg, the forces of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton come to this latest battlefield symbolizing two views of America -- one of the past, one of the future. Pennsylvania Democrats need to rise to the historic moment.

For us it is the candidates' vision and character that loom as the decisive factors in this race. For as dissimilar as they are, the two share much in common. It starts with their mold-breaking candidacies. Whoever wins the nomination will vie for a special place in U.S. history -- to be either the first African-American or the first female commander in chief.

•

Although their backgrounds are different, they have come to the same conclusion, one now shared by many Americans, that the Bush administration has taken the nation on a profoundly wrong course both at home and abroad. The excitement that has animated this primary season -- the surge of new voters, the change of party registrations -- is an expression of the nation's hunger for change.

For as hard as they have run against each other, both candidates are united in running vehemently against President Bush and all his works -- another common theme that came out in their visits to the Post-Gazette editorial board on successive days this week. Sen. Clinton was the more explicit in her disdain: George W. Bush "is one of the worst, if not the worst, president we have ever had."

Not surprisingly, the policies they advocate have much in common and are generally the polar opposites of those espoused by the current administration.

On the domestic front, the prescriptions they offer on issues such as health care, the environment and education declare that government must be an agent of change to benefit the lives of ordinary Americans, not a power that shrinks from regulating or directing for fear of offending a core ideology.

In their expansive plans, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton do have their own emphases and differences -- Sen. Clinton's health-care plan, for example, would cover more Americans than Sen. Obama's, but both would be a vast improvement on the status quo that leaves 47 million Americans uninsured and continues to soar in expense.

On foreign policy, both are united in their desire to bring the troops home from Iraq while improving the strategic situation in Afghanistan, the place of unfinished business where the al-Qaida spiders first spun their deadly web for 9/11 and are coming back thanks to the Iraq diversion.

On Iraq, for those inclined to remember, Sen. Clinton carries more baggage, for she voted to approve the war in the first place. For those inclined to forgive, she would seek to repair relations with allies strained by the Iraq misadventure, as Sen. Obama also would.

There is one last common ground for these candidates: They are both uncommonly smart, thoughtful and very well-versed in the issues. They care about people and they care about the workings of government. They are prepared.

Their strengths promise, in short, the one thing that the Bush administration has so shockingly lacked: competency. There will be no intellectually lazy president in the White House if either succeeded to it, no outsourced thinking to the vice president or the secretary of defense, no cheerfully shallow praise for unqualified political appointments, no enduring cause for embarrassment by the American people.

So forget all the primary skirmishing. Sen. Obama is every bit as prepared to answer the ring of the 3 a.m. phone as Sen. Clinton. Forget this idea that Sen. Obama is all inspiration and no substance. He has detailed positions on the major issues. When the occasion demands it, he can marshal eloquence in the service of making challenging arguments, which he did to great effect in his now-famous speech putting his pastor's remarks in the greater context of race relations in America.

Nor is he any sort of elitist. As he said yesterday in effectively refuting this ridiculous charge in a meeting with Post-Gazette editors, "my life's work has been to get everybody a fair shake."

This editorial began by observing that one candidate is of the past and one of the future. The litany of criticisms heaped on Sen. Obama by the Clinton camp, simultaneously doing the work of the Republicans, is as illustrative as anything of which one is which. These are the cynical responses of the old politics to the new.

Sen. Obama has captured much of the nation's imagination for a reason. He offers real change, a vision of an America that can move past not only racial tensions but also the political partisanship that has so bedeviled it.

•

To be sure, Sen. Clinton carries the aspirations of women in particular, but even in this she is something of a throwback, a woman whose identity and public position are indelibly linked to her husband, her own considerable talents notwithstanding. It does not help that the Clinton brand is seen by many in the country as suspect and shifty, bearing the grimy stamp of political calculation counting as much as principle.

Pennsylvania -- this encrusted, change-averse commonwealth where a state liquor monopoly holds on against all reason and where municipal fiefdoms shrink from sensible consolidation -- needs to take a strong look at the new face and the new hope in this race. Because political business-as-usual is more likely to bring the usual disappointment for the Democrats this fall, the Post-Gazette endorses the nomination of Barack Obama, who has brought an excitement and an electricity to American politics not seen since the days of John F. Kennedy.

I can't wait to see who the Trib (Scaife's paper) endorses.

We can look back at the past and argue about whether we should have gone to war or not, whether we should have invaded or not, and that's a good academic argument.

John McCain, April 15, 2008.

George Washington retired here upon leaving the Presidency, building one of the largest distilleries in the nation on the property upon his retirement.  Thomas Jefferson spoke French and Italian and read in seven languages.  FDR was born into an incredibly wealthy and prominent family, studied at Harvard and began law school at Columbia, and worked on Wall Street in corporate law.  His distant cousin, Teddy Roosevelt, also born into the wealthy Roosevelt family, wrote over 35 books, graduated magna cum laude from Harvard and studied law at Columbia, played polo and spoke French and German.  He was also 42 when he took office.  This is a pretty interesting little piece on him.  Woodrow Wilson served as President of Princeton, went on "cycyling" vacations in Britain, and got a Ph.D from Johns Hopkins.  Reagan, though not raised wealthy, was an actor, and was making what would be a million dollars a year today before he entered politics.  

These are six of the Presidents that consistently appear on the top ten lists ranking all the United States Presidents.  There are of course, high-ranked Presidents who did not come from prominent backgrounds: Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, and Eisenhower.  

I think we can probably agree that the first six would probably be considered "elite."  And apparently, by today's standards, they would not be elected.  What a shame.  They did some pretty decent things.  

I still don't buy the claim that Obama is any more "elite" than the other two candidates, or any of the candidates we've seen in recent years from both parties.  George Bush, the son of a former President?  Can you get any more elite than that?  Obama, Clinton and McCain are a bunch of millionaires throwing around elitist charges.  No absurdity there.  

If we, as a country, choose to again elect someone based on the I-want-to-drink-a-beer-with-you threshold, I will just sit here and bang my head off the wall for four years.  

As usual, Jon Stewart put it better than I can. 

Doesn’t elite mean good? Is that not something we’re looking for in a president anymore?…The job you’re applying for - if you get it, and it goes well, they might carve your head into a mountain.If you don’t actually think you are better than us, then what the f@*k are you doing?…In fact not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarassingly superior to me. I want someone who speaks sixteen languages and sleeps two hours a night hanging upside down in a chamber they themselves designed.

 Of course, he's just another member of the elite celebrity class.

So, can we see McCain's tax returns now?

Some random thoughts.

Bill, supposed master of campaigning:

 "Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter."

But...ABC News reports: 

The strong sentiments were appreciated by the crowd, but were not entirely accurate.  During Clinton's seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no "I'm not bitter" signs.  There was a small assortment of people at his later events wearing stickers with the slogan, but many of those sporting the stickers weren't even sure what they meant. 

And wasn't the campaign passing out the stickers themselves?  I was too young in the 90s to see Bill Clinton's "masterful campaigning" in action.  I have yet to see it in action on this campaign.

Can you really throw around charges of elitism next to a photo of you wearing a bow-tie?

I already tire of Bitter/Cling/Bullshit-gate.  The airways and blogosphere is alit with outrage over these comments.  That's fine, and certainly within people's rights.  But where is the outrage over the fact that we've just learned that our President approved the worst kinds of torture?  That he lied about Abu Ghraib, when he pretended that was some outlier, blamed it on the troops there?  That our country has become one run by those who could be tried for war crimes?  

I have not had to re-login at all today.  

And, On Sunday, Politico helps out the Clinton campaign by telling us all what they really want us to know, about why Obama doesn't stand a shot against those mean-ol' Republicans.  Well, I for one, am sick and tired of worrying about how we're going to take the next beating from the GOP attack machine.  Not this time.  This time, the Democrats should be the ones doing the beating.  We have to stop thinking about how many punches we can take from the bully and instead, do what always needs to be done at one point or another in every bully story: Stand Up To The Bully.  

Gotta love the internet.
http://www.bittervoters.org/

That shining beacon of integrity has a new take on Obama's Racist White Grandmother.  It was actually because his grandfather threw her under the bus first.  Those bus drivers have been incredibly busy.
A few highlights:

As recounted in Obama's autobiography, the only evidence that his grandmother feared black men comes from Obama's good-for-nothing, chronically unemployed white grandfather, who accuses Grandma of racism as his third excuse not to get dressed and drive her to work. 

Even Obama's shiftless grandfather didn't play the race card until pretty far into the argument over whether he would drive Grandma to work. First, the good-for-nothing grandfather told Obama that Grandma was just trying to guilt him into driving her, saying, "(S)he just wants me to feel bad." 

Only after Obama had offered to drive his grandmother to work himself and it was becoming increasingly clear what a selfish lout the grandfather was, did Grandpa produce his trump card. The reason he wouldn't get his lazy butt dressed and drive Grandma to work was ... she was a racist! 

How deranged would you have to be to cite this incident as evidence that your grandmother thought like a "typical white person" -- as opposed to your grandfather being worthless and lazy?

Someone remind me again...she gets paid for these insights?

So I guess the latest Richardson drama is that someone is reporting that he once said he didn't think Obama could win.

Why this is making news is beyond me, but nonetheless, a few things:

If at one point he did say that Obama couldn't win, it's obviously quite possible that he changed his mind.  That's usually what logical people do when presented with new information.

And can we also remember that at some point not really all that long ago, a lot of people also didn't think Obama could come this far in the primary?  

Remember that interview with Katie Couric last November?

If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?" Couric asked. 

“Well, it will be me,” she said.  

Hmm.  No shades of gray there.  Shelby Steele wrote a whole book about why he can't win.  Perhaps even most ominously, George W. predicted Hillary would be the nominee.  Months ago it was practically a foregone conclusion that Hillary would be the nominee.  If there's one thing we should learn from this primary, it's that predicting where the voters will go is a tricky thing.  Polls have been notoriously wrong this season and there's no reason to think that Bill Richardson, even if he did think Obama couldn't win, is some sort of sage who we should all recognize as some "Man of Great Foresight."  After all, it wasn't that long ago that he himself thought he might be President.  

And personally, I always like being the underdog.  It makes the comeback win that much better.

Carmen Van Kerckhove poses the question in her post, “Why Should White People Fight Racism?”

 If we define -- as many activists do -- racism as a system that benefits whites at the expense of people of color, then how do we convince those reaping the benefits to change the system?

 A few things struck me.  First of all, in response to her post, reader dNA responded,

     “She's saying something important, which is that racism affects white people too, particularly in the way they see themselves. Black people aren't the only ones who internalize racism.
     It's much safer for white folks to pretend they don't have a dog in this fight, beyond "fighting racism" on behalf of black people. The scary part is that many people don't realize how deeply race and racism are ingrained into our own personalities, and affects everything from how we talk, behave, and act to the food we eat or music we listen to.
      More importantly, we rarely acknowledge how we use them to define ourselves, especially in relation to those we consider "different."

I was reminded of something I learned about Thomas Jefferson long after I left classrooms.  It is something that is rarely taught in our textbooks.  We all know that he spoke out against slavery, and yet he owned slaves.  When I was in school, that topic was essentially verboten.  Recently, it has made it into textbooks.  Prior to that, it was apparently too awful to acknowledge any fault or hypocrisy of a founding father.  What we never really delve into beyond a superficial level are his motives, his beliefs, his thoughts on slavery and race.  We know that he said, “Under the law of nature, all men are born free.”  We can all recite the words written in the Declaration of Independence.  But in truth, it seems that Jefferson contained within himself the moral struggle representative of the larger argument over slavery and race and racism, a moral struggle that still exists today, although it has evolved.  He believed that blacks were inferior, and writes much on the subject.  An example, after noting political differences between the races, he states:

 To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. - Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of Superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep. A black after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.”

 

In some of his writings it even seems as if he speaks out against slavery not out of the moral wrong of enslaving someone, not out of a condemnation of the unspeakable cruelty slaves endured at the hands of slaveholders, but out of a desire to free himself and other white men from the sin of slavery.  Not to help others, but rather to help oneself.  To view his motives as essentially selfish is certainly a far cry from the Thomas Jefferson we learn of as a hero. It should also be said that we have no real way of ever actually knowing what his motives were, and one would imagine it was a combination of many things.

 

So back to Ms. Van Kerckhove’s question:

 If we define -- as many activists do -- racism as a system that benefits whites at the expense of people of color, then how do we convince those reaping the benefits to change the system?

 I wonder if we don’t have to separate it’s manifestations in order to move forward? What I mean is, if we are going to move forward, I think we have no choice but to begin by combating the manifestations of race rather than the mental state of being racist.  That might sound backward, I know.

The reason I say this is because I am not sure that it is possible to change the hearts and minds of people who have long-held views about race.  I can’t help but wonder if that is something that can only change with the flow of generations.  How can we begin to convince someone who was raised to believe that blacks were inferior and who has believed it for years?  How can we begin to convince someone who experienced Jim Crow and discrimination first hand that not all white people aren't cruel?  I don't mean to generalize here.  I'm not saying that all older Americans hold those views.  I'm also not saying that all young ones don't.   I expect that if we approach trying to end racism by trying to change minds first, we’ll make progress much, much, more slowly.  Minds are a stubborn thing: they are notoriously hard to change. But instead, if we start to fight the ways in which racism manifests itself, then perhaps those who think they were benefiting from racism will see that they have nothing to lose from fighting it, and perhaps something to gain? 

At the advice of a fellow well-known TPM'er, I decided to google "Obama lies."

What I found was no less than astonishing.  

No further than the second result down did I find a website that had this video on it.  It lays bare the evident deceit I had been clearly blinded to before.  Thank God I saw it in time.

This has recently become my pet peeve.

The media consistently refers to itself in the third person.  Last night, while channel-surfing, I landed on O'Reilly for a few moments of self-inflicted misery.  He was complaining about how he has been treated unfairly by "the media."  He then asked his fellow media member if they trusted "the media," to which he replied, "Of course not!"  You can watch it here, at about 6:00 in.  

I really have no idea how these guys keep a straight face.  And they all do it!  It seriously drives me nuts.  

Dan Abrams does it all the time.  Usually after his absurd segment on demerits and cheap shots, or whatever it is, he goes into his "Beat the Press" on which he sticks it to "the media."  Here he asks, "Is the media rooting against Hillary?" Fair question, but seriously?  Just type in "Dan Abrams The Media" into YouTube and you'll get 60 results of him talking about the media in the third person.

Here Fox News kindly informs us that "The Recession is a Media Myth." Well shit, I feel better now.  I'm sure all those people who lost their houses feel an overwhelming sense of relief.

CNN makes it all clear when they tell us about "The Media Lovefest" with Obama.  They even give us examples of themselves doing it!  Brilliant!

Chris Matthews actually gets it right before he realizes he's on air.  

New York Times, The New Republic, and Politico all remind us of "the media's" love for McCain.  

Am I the only one who finds myself shouting at the TV and computer screen, "YOU ARE THE MEDIA!!!"