(Cross-posted here.)

“Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing", written first as a poem by James Weldon Johnson, is known largely as the "Black National Anthem" and moves me like no other song.

Traditionally, I heard it in February, at my church's Black History Month celebrations. Every now and then on MLK Day, and sometimes even in the standard church program. (You weren't going to hear much of it at private school during the week.) Always, I associated it with celebration, honor and the best about us as a people. Sadly, it was used as a tool last week, and not for the benefit of the many.

Rene Marie, a jazz singer based in Bloomfield, Colorado, was invited to perform The Star-Spangled Banner before the Denver mayor's annual state of the city address. Here is what happened.

I admit that when I heard about this, my reflex was to support the sister in her expression of...well, whatever point she was trying to get across. But then I read this:

"I pulled a switcheroonie on them."

Huh? That sounds childish. At the very least, unprofessional. What else?

"I am an artist," she wrote. "If I wait until I am asked to express myself artistically, or if I must ask permission to do it, it would never get done. I knew that if I asked to do my version of the national anthem, the answer would be 'no.'"

Ya think?

But the point wasn't whether or not she sought permission. They did ask her to express her artistic gift - her voice, which is undeniable - to sing a song: The Star-Spangled Banner. If Marie was so dead-set on not singing it and replacing it instead with "Lift Ev'ry Voice", one might think she would have refused the invitation. Instead, she commanded the stage to sing her version of both songs.

While I certainly agree that the SSB is a violent and frankly inappropriate song to be our national anthem, Marie's attempt to marry the song with "Lift Ev'ry Voice" is wrong-headed at best. She insults the purity of Johnson's poem by braiding the melody from the SSB into a song of protest and of liberation from the very society that the SSB celebrates.

So the song that she sang was strange enough. But so are the reasons she remains unrepentant:

"As for offending others with my music, I cannot apologize for that. It goes with the risky territory of being an artist," she wrote.

I respect this sister's ability to express her gift, but that line is such self-aggrandizing crap. She was asked to perform a certain song, she agreed to, and then pulled a "switcheroonie" that, yes, has invited vitriol that she doesn't deserve, but has also garnered her more attention than any cause she may have been drawing attention to.

Oh, yes, that.

In the NPR interview, and in every article I've perused about the topic, she hasn't mentioned anything to justify this other than her being an artist, and flowery language that makes it sound as if her art simply cannot - CANNOT! - be contained within her.

I feel that. As a professional filmmaker who writes a blog in his spare time, I truly do. But, really now.

Let's say I'm asked to cut a film about, for the sake of argument, the patriotic aspects of the sport I principally cover. Instead (because, well, I feel like it), I produce a film that a) is 100% not what we agreed I would do and b) is about something that affects me deeply. That might be all well and good, but I haven't done my job. Marie may be an artist, but in that capacity, she was a professional.

Also, they asked her to sing the national anthem before a mayoral speech that most folks in Denver, let alone America, would've paid attention to. She picks that forum to share her art? Why not a concert? Why not on a radio station? A political rally, perhaps? There are so many more arenas that she could have done this in that would have had greater artistic and political impact. Why choose this time and place?

Well, because it's about her. I agree with Cheryl Contee of Jack & Jill:

I suppose I’d be more sympathetic if her decision to hijack Denver’s annual state of the city meeting was promoting awareness for a specific injustice happening in America or locally Colorado perhaps. Then perhaps it might be construed as a courageous act. As it is though, it seems deceptive — she wasn’t contracted to sing the black national anthem (which is a gorgeous inspirational song). They asked her to sing the National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, which all African-Americans recognize and sing as our nation’s official anthem.

Part of what I hate about gestures like this in today's America is that they seem so self-serving. I mean, when Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised their fists 40 years ago, they did so to draw attention to a particular issue and at great risk to their professional futures. All Marie likely risked here was another chance to her (and likely, other African-American artists) to sing for the city ever again. And all she had to do was pimp out James Weldon Johnson's classic while pulling her "switcheroonie".

And for what? Attention to Black urban plight? Poor city schools? Racism in city politics? I'd love to know how Marie planned for weeks to do this and seemingly had little time to wonder why she was doing it.

Other than for the sake of art, that is. Other than for herself.

(Cross-posted here.)

Guess who wants a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq? Obama? Clinton? Feingold? Some other godless Marxist, er, Democrat?

No, Rush. Sorry, Sean. Wrong again, Bill-O.

Try the Iraqi prime minister:

Prime Minister Nouiri al-Maliki tossed a bombshell today. In a news conference about the still-secret US-Iraqi talks, which began in March, Maliki for the first time said that the chances of securing the pact are just about nil, and instead he said Iraq will seek a limited, ad hoc renewal of the US authority to remain in Iraq, rather than a broad-based accord. More important, Maliki and his top security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie added that Iraq intends to link even a limited accord to a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces."

But this isn't necessarily good news. While this says that Maliki and company want Americans to get out, this may not be the case. It's someone else that does:

Don't think for a minute that Maliki, or his Shiite allies, want the US forces to leave. But they are under a lot of pressure. First of all, they are under pressure from Iran, whose regime remains the chief ally of the ruling alliance of Shiites, including Maliki's Dawa party and the powerful Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. Iran's goal is to neutralize Iraq as a possible threat to Iran, and Iran's leaders are pressuring Maliki and Hakim to loosen their reliance on the United States.

Bush foreign policy has manipulated Iraq into a situation where Iran is pulling the strings of Iraq's government. It's partially due to the fact that Bush never understood the country he was invading. How could they not know that Sunni and Shiite was more important than Iranian and Iraqi? How could they not have seen religious factions as the true ties that bind?

Well, as McCain says, perhaps that's not too important.

(Cross-posted from my blog.)

It's an American reflex action by now. Someone famous dies, and regardless of what they are famous for - acting, charity, racism, etc. - they are lionized beyond any kind of recognition.

"Lionizing - it's like Martinizing, but for public personas!" 

The person who we all knew they were is obfuscated by glowing praise and pardons for past offenses, as if simply dying earned them some sort of medal for character.

Apparently that is earned no matter how reprehensible you actually were in life. What I feared would happen is apparently taking place: conservatives are lionizing Jesse Helms.

I'm not concerned that condolences are being issued by people like President Bush; that's unsurprising and at some level ceremonious. But the language being used insults the intelligence of every one who really knew what this cat was up to:

Jesse Helms was a kind, decent, and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called "the Miracle of America." So it is fitting that this great patriot left us on the Fourth of July. He was once asked if he had any ambitions beyond the United States Senate. He replied: "The only thing I am running for is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Barf.

Are you kidding? "Kind, decent and humble"? This for a man who actively inflamed racial resentment in America to benefit politically and to service his own bigotry. Those three words would be about the last I'd pick, running just behind "soul brother", "humanitarian" and "courageous". The last one's unavailable, anyway, since Senate Minority (heh) Leader Mitch McConnell used it to describe Helms:

“Today we lost a Senator whose stature in Congress had few equals. Senator Jesse Helms was a leading voice and courageous champion for the many causes he believed in.”

Well, he did champion many causes he believed in, true enough. Such as opposition to federal funding to research an AIDS cure, refusing to speak to Ryan White's mother, even when they were alone in an elevator. (He then tried to block its re-funding years later, deeming that every case of AIDS stemmed from an instance of sodomy committed at some point. Because Jesse Helms knew that for certain.) He also championed pretty much anything that demeaned the African-American populace, including any chance to celebrate our struggle for civil rights. Take, for instance, the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, which he filibustered against, seemingly for both political gain and personal satisfaction. When running for re-election, he embodied the "Southern" strategy, inflaming the fears of Whites with "warnings" about Black voter drives.

All this can be found in an incisive critique of Helms written by David Broder of the Washington Post:

All year, Peterson reported, "Helms campaign literature sounded a drumbeat of warnings about black voter-registration drives. . . . On election eve, he accused Hunt of being supported by 'homosexuals, the labor union bosses and the crooks' and said he feared a large 'bloc vote.' What did he mean? 'The black vote,' Helms said." He won, 52 percent to 48 percent.

In 1990, locked in a tight race with an African American Democrat, former Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, Helms aired a final-week TV ad that showed a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter, while an announcer said, "You needed that job and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota." Once again, he pulled through.

That is not a history to be sanitized.

Couldn't agree more. But what's sad is that Broder said this seven years ago
when Helms retired from the Senate, after similar lionizing had taken place.



This Mother Jones piece was published in 1995, and it was titled
appropriately:

His agenda is driven by a lifelong opposition to democracy and diversity. In his first months as Foreign Relations chair, Helms called for tougher sanctions against Cuba, accused Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide of unleashing "vigilance committees," and moved to gut support for developing nations. On the home front, he introduced a bill to eliminate all affirmative action programs, which he denounced as "reverse discrimination at the hands of ruthless bureaucrats."

How did someone so mean-spirited end up in a position to act on his divisive politics? For the most part, Helms wins political battles by keeping the spotlight on the morality plays he stages. To hear conservatives tell it, Helms is a personal friend of Jesus Christ, a populist defender of the little guy, and a bitter opponent of big government.

When you write your own legacy, inevitably, something will get messed up. When
others try to rewrite it in the face of so much evidence, forget it - those of
us reading it will just be insulted.



Or maybe
not:

Many white North Carolinians are no doubt motivated to vote for Helms because of the almost primal fears he fans. "The principles we're espousing have been around for thousands of years," former aide James Lucier once explained, citing the "prepolitical" themes of God, family, property, and national pride.

But some voters are also attracted to Helms by the personal qualities that make him a rarity among politicians. He brings genuine passion and a sense of moral purpose to what he does. He stands on principle and refuses to compromise. He stands by his friends, and he forces opponents to vote on issues they would rather ignore.

This is the kind of thinking that has America in the mess it's in.



The Republican Party celebrates this kind of thinking because it helps get them
elected; conservatives at large (not
all, mind you) celebrate Helms because he embodies the "good ol'
boy" politics that has allowed for the principles they believe in to be
made real. (Or worse, made law.)



(So I ask Black Republicans: what the hell are you thinking? This
is the party you want to associate yourself with? The fact that these folks
lionize a man who thought you were inferior to him because of your melanin and
the culture from which you originate should be sickening to you. It sure as
hell is to me. Why would you want to traffic with such folk?)



I know that I said last week that I needed to pray
on this. And I did. I still am. But the praise for this man is too much for
me to bear. I say that knowing full well that your estimation of me may take a
hit over this.



Let me simply refer to Broder once again:

To the best of my knowledge, Helms has never done what the late George Wallace did well before his death -- recant and apologize for his use of racial issues. And that use was blatant.

And he never did. Weep not for Jesse Helms.

UPDATE: Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings gives you a list of laudatory remarks, criticisms of such and Helms' own damning words. (And I mean "damning" as literally as possible.)

(Cross-posted here.)

I've seldom been more tempted to actually delight in a man's
death as I am right now.

Jesse Helms is dead.

As recently as April, this deeply bigoted man was still at it, this time targeting
Barack Obama:

The North Carolina Republican Party -- forged by the hand of Dixiecrat segregationists like Jesse ("White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories?") Helms -- has never been cautious about playing the race card. When North Carolina Democrats nominated Harvey Gantt, an exceptionally-qualified moderate African-American candidate against Helms in a 1990 U.S. Senate race, the North Carolina Republican machine countered with a series of ads that emphasized Gantt's race and played on fears and prejudices.

Because the media tends to be afraid of calling racists out, Helms and the North Carolina Republicans had no trouble running a blatantly racist campaign. And, when Helms was reelected over Gantt, a powerful lesson was learned.

Under the guise of opposing the a pair of Democratic gubernatorial candidates who have endorsed Barack Obama for the party's presidential nomination, the state party is airing a commercial designed to do exactly what the Helms campaign's anti-Gantt ad did back in 1990: scare white voters away from an African-American candidate they might otherwise support.

If the material in the current ad was accurate in its portrayal of Obama, the North Carolina Republicans might have a defense. But it's not.

Sigh. This about sums it up:

Unlike many of his Republican counterparts, Helms has changed little over the past 50 years. Long before Rush Limbaugh, Helms pioneered the use of television to rally public sentiment. While Ronald Reagan was losing primaries to Gerald Ford, Helms mobilized the religious right and built one of the most profitable political fundraising machines ever. And long after die-hard segregationists like George Wallace and Strom Thurmond began courting black voters, Helms fueled white fears by opposing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., whistling "Dixie" while standing next to Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, and supporting apartheid in South Africa.

"His racial politics are deeply held convictions, not simply politics of convenience," says Christopher Scott. "He has a view of a fundamentalist Christian society in which everyone is not welcome. If you could pick up the South Africa of 20 years ago and transplant it to America, that's what he would do."

I need to pray on this. No one should be cursed in their death.

But that doesn't exactly mean anyone should be shedding tears, either.

As I said, I need to pray on this.

(Cross-posted here.)

I'm normally no conspiracy theorist (save JFK), but the Associated Press' brazen PR effort for John McCain seems to finally be getting some notice.

While the AP's been serving McCain donuts (literally), they've taken a sharp turn against Obama, hammering him in the vein of McCain's PR sycophants. I've gone on about it as recently as yesterday, and this is only the second time (first was Jed) I've seen something similar ripping them for their obvious bias:

Since then, I can’t help but notice that the AP hasn’t exactly been neutral. A month ago, the AP ran an article about the “people who might complicate Obama’s campaign,” including Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright. The piece not only read like a slam job, it actually resembled an RNC oppo dump, which for all I know, it was.

Two weeks ago, the same reporter who made sure McCain had coffee to go with his donuts wrote a scathing, 900-word reprimand of Obama’s decision to bypass the public financing system in the general election. It was filled with errors of fact and judgment, and ignored the fact that McCain has illegally played fast and loose with the public-financing system this year.

And just to add insult to injury, the AP praises McCain’s record of bipartisanship on issues like tobacco and immigration reform, without noting that McCain completely reversed course and no longer believes in the position the AP is touting.

The Associated Press is one of the most widely read, if not the most read, sources of news in print journalism in the U.S. If it could at least pretend to be objective in the presidential campaign, I’m sure we’d all appreciate it.

It might be nice if we knew the Associated Press weren't either in the tank for one candidate, or trying to manipulate it to service their readership totals. One of the two is happening. It's time that folks got wise to this.

Let me say right off the bat: this is not "swiftboating".

Here's what Gen. Wesley Clark (Ret.), the former supreme commander of NATO (and a guy who took four bullets in Vietnam himself), said yesterday on "Face the Nation":

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

It may have been brusque, or even somewhat beside the point. But this statement is 100% correct.

Look, when the McCain campaign puts his prisoner-of-war footage in his advertisements, presumably to both garner sympathy and to bolster his foreign policy bonafides, it's fair game. It's a kind of non-sequitur for McCain, really - while his military record is worthy of respect, it's also inviting voters to inspect something that has a lot less to do with how he would perform in the job than McCain would have us believe. (Especially since he echoes the doctrine of a President and V.P. and promises to maintain the status quo - even if it goes against what he suffered through.)

And though I disagree with Clark's dismissive tone - it could've been phrased better, shall we say - I agree with the sentiment.

And why isn't it the same kind of treatment Kerry received in '04? Here's why: the pond scum that made themselves famous in the "Swift Boat" ads were making stuff up about Kerry's record that wasn't true. They were rumormongers, and they didn't seem to care that the vast majority of the 250 or so of them hadn't even served with Kerry in Vietnam. The ads were proven to be so blatantly false that even John McCain came out to defend Kerry against the attacks. (The White House didn't, of course.)

In Clark's case, he's not questioning the veracity of McCain's experiences in Vietnam, either as a pilot or as a P.O.W. In fact, he prefaced his remarks with effusive praise of McCain's service and sacrifice. What he is doing is simply making it clear that that incident does not qualify John McCain, in and of itself, for the Presidency. I really don't see how that is controversial - but in an America in which service to the military is (rightly) unimpeachable evidence of heroism, folks can get carried away and think that just because a man fought a war 40 years ago as a soldier, that means he's qualified to handle the military challenges of today. Folks need to re-examine that line of thinking.

Now, I don't care about McCain's standing in his Navy graduating class, and I certainly don't fault McCain for participating in any propaganda films while in captivity. The very same left-wing bloggers who are making these sorts of criticism would be wetting themselves if they even dreamt of enduring the hell McCain did for even one of the thousands of days he spent in that P.O.W. camp. Those folks really need to have a Coke and a smile.

However, Clark can't be lumped in with that group based upon what he said yesterday. I think that if a man with the record of military leadership, sacrifice and judgment that Clark makes this statement, it should be taken in its proper context and how it was very obviously meant. He simply said that McCain should not be hired for the most important job (arguably) in the world because he was shot down in wartime.

Sullivan thinks Clark was out of line:

This kind of personal attack was repulsive coming against Kerry from the far right. And it's repulsive the other way round. Both Kerry and McCain served their country honorably; and their records should be revered, period. You can make an argument against McCain's foreign policy experience and judgment on its merits. Do it and leave this crap out of it.

Clark did revere McCain's record. But when McCain puts the issue on the table as a means of proving his worthiness for the Presidency, Clark is well within his rights to question the wisdom of that strategy. That's all he was doing, and those in such a rush to be outraged need to slow down, and think about what was said. Give Clark that honor - I'm quite sure he's earned it.

(The Obama camp later kowtowed to McCain and repudiated the Clark statement. Honestly, this is really discouraging. Greg Sargent makes a great point: by rejecting the perfectly sensible Clark statement, the Obama folks encourage McCain to use his service as a qualification for the job. Americans need to be trusted to be smarter than this, and they need someone to challenge them to see through MSM storylines and talking points.)

Think Republicans have cornered the market on God? The GOP's "Southern strategy" has only managed to alienate the most consistently religious demographic in this nation: African-Americans.

Blacks are often lampooned as the Democrats' lapdogs, voters that the party simply takes for granted every election season and ignored thereafter. There may be some truth in that. But that hardly means that in choosing to vote for Democrats, we aren't also repudiating those who have ignored us the most.

Witness today's criticism of Barack Obama by James Dobson.

Dr. Dobson (not a doctor of theology, mind you - his degree's in child development) is mistaking his influence within the American church for a license to be an attack dog for the Right. Worst of all - he's not being very Christian when he does this:

What angers me most about Dobson is the same thing that angers me about every self-righteously pious jerk whose real agenda is supporting the Republican Party: He claims to know God's will better than the rest of us. And that, of course, means the rest of us should shut up, sit down and let him run our world.

Dobson's misunderstanding of the Bible strikes at the very core of Christianity and identifies him as distinctly un-Christian. His reckoning of the faith bears little resemblance to the one founded by the humble Nazarean who washed the feet of the tax collector, found worth in the wayward woman about to be stoned and breathed forgiveness at His last to a thief. The Gospel According to Dobson is a testament to a vindictive, swaggering Christianity that constructs a cross of lies upon which to crucify its enemies.

Perhaps Dr. Dobson should be reminded of Matthew 7, verses 21-23 before he proceeds
deeper into the hole he's digging for himself:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Opposition has risen up via a new site with whose name echoes my sentiments, and Obama has said that Dobson's "making stuff up". I'd urge him to be much stronger in his response. I think that people need to be woken up here, and this is a prime opportunity to help America understand his very intelligent point in a straightforward manner (honestly, I'd forgotten that Obama even said it):

What he’s trying to say is that it’d be unfair and unconstitutional to make policy based on the ipse dixits of some religion’s God. You’re fully entitled to fight for what you believe, but if you’re going to turn it into law, you need a better justification as a legal matter than “Because God says so.” Otherwise, the only people who will understand it — not agree with it, necessarily, but understand it (i.e. who’ll find it “accessible”) — are people of your own faith.

Sullivan linked this same excerpt, and proclaimed the attack a veritable, ahem, godsend for the Senator from Illinois:

What Obama is doing is to ratchet back the bad use of faith in the public square, while insisting on the validity of people of faith in the public square. He's still too willing to invoke faith himself - his own version - to justify public policy. But this pushback against the extreme of the right is an enormously important project - central to Obama's promise to get us past the hideous cultural deadlock of the past two decades. Obama is as productive to this debate as Bush was toxic. And what Obama is doing - whether he intends to or not - is to open space within conservatism for the kind of reasoned, limited government, pragmatic conservatism that we badly need to revive.

Now Obama has to take this head-on. He can't simply say that Dobson's "making stuff up" in a dismissive manner. He has to show these fake Christians how things are done where he comes from, and now.

I say to Obama: don't dodge the abortion issue. With McCain threatening to overturn Roe v. Wade if he's elected, it needs to be talked about more than ever (and not simply for cynical reasons, like winning women's votes). And while there may not have been a (direct) racial element to Dr. Dobson's smear today, rest assured the Christians he's trying to turn against you aren't African-American.

Shout it from the mountaintop, Senator. A nation has its attention turned to you. Use your new pulpit wisely.

(Cross-posted here.)

John McCain seems never to tire of insulting Americans' intelligence.

He's now proposing a $300 million prize ($1 for every human being in the country - cute until you realize it's taxpayer money) for whomever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology - and at 30% of current costs.

Are we so cynical that we need to bribe Americans for their ingenuity? Or, more likely, does McCain think we don't see what a naked pander this is?

What's next? Join the military and get the chance to win a Buick?

Robert Mugabe's atrocities have cost Zimbabwe the slim chance it had at change. Morgan Tsvangirai, the man who defeated Mugabe in a March 26 election, said Sunday that he was pulling out of the scheduled run-off election.

The run-off was made necessary when Tsvangirai and his opposition Movement for Democratic Change did not win the absolute majority required to avoid such an event. Knowing the June 27 run-off could conceivably end Mugabe's nearly 21-year totalitarian reign as "President", his ZANU-PF thugs have been intimidating, torturing, killing and maiming Zimbabweans in ways that I defy anyone to find appropriate words for when they view them. (Extremely graphic images of the severely wounded can be found here.)

For those unable to stomach the photos, a Zimbabwean farmer named Ben Freeth details the horror:

Last weekend we had a big pungwe - a political indoctrination meeting - on the farm. It was after Mugabe had come to our little town of Chegutu, southwest of Harare, and addressed the crowd with threats of “war”. A pungwe starts when the shadows lengthen and the sun goes down and darkness falls over the land. It does not stop till after the sun has risen again.

All our workers had to go, as well as all their wives with babies and any children over the age of 12. Some of them didn't go; so the mob sent little bands of chanting youth militia with sticks to fetch the absentees, drag them out of their houses and beat them for non-attendance. Through the night we heard the chanting and the slogans and the re-education speeches ringing out into the cold darkness for hour after hour after hour. On and on it went, striking fear into my heart. I got up and paced around in the cold night, listening.

When the first birds began to sing, I thought: “How can these birds sing after such a night as this?” Then the birdsong was drowned out. There was a terrible noise like a swarm of bees. I knew the beatings had begun again and I listened helpless, tormented, in fear but praying fervently...

I learnt that the MDC polling agents were made to put their forehead on the ground and lift their whole bodies up on their toes and then hold the position as they shook in the cold. After some time they were given sticks and had to beat each other.

The Major then said: “You say we beat you! We don't beat you! You are the ones that beat!”

Here we have a people's democratic processes being openly and unsympathetically
thwarted, the world knows the culprit, and as Satan's designate in his
homeland, that culprit is killing his own people.



So my only question is: when is the United States military going to
invade?



I mean, aren't those some of the very same reasons why we invaded Iraq?



(Wait...just in...Zimbabwe's
in Africa? No oil? Never mind, then.)



Mr. Mugabe, run amuck. We're apparently too worried about $4 gas to care. As
that farmer says:

None of us knows what will happen next. Dictators like Mugabe do not step down. Like Hitler, they go on till their country is in ruins and their people are in rags. World leaders tut-tut as the crimes against humanity go on unhindered; but their perpetrators live on and travel the world with impunity.

(Track the story here. Props to Sullivan.)

Five years is apparently the length of the 21st-century American when it comes to wars.

Over $547 billion spent (as of this post). Over 4,100 United States servicemen and servicewomen dead. Many, many more Iraqi citizens dead. Tens of thousands on both sides whose lives will never be the same due to physical and/or mental injury. No real solution for long-term peace, stability or American military exodus.

But strangely, foreign correspondents are having a harder time than ever getting their stories on the air and in print. (CBS' Lara Logan touched on this last week in an interview for the ages.)

But Americans are changing the channel. That reality show's boring, man.

They much prefer the one starring Barack Obama and John McCain. Survivor: Washington, D.C. is nearing Tribal Council. No immunity idols here. Two men enter, one man leaves.

This is a problem for Obama, as his 2002 stance against the Iraq war is his most potent arrow in his "judgment to lead" quiver, and that argument is central to his theme of change. Though the Surge hasn't succeeded by the political standards set up for it before it began, the decrease in American casualties and increase in the peace in certain Iraqi cities has McCain and company calling it an unvarnished success. So brazen are they that they've tried to make a campaign issue of Obama's continued assertions that the Surge hasn't changed the fact that we should get the hell out of dodge, even though over 70% of Americans thinks it's time to bounce.

In true Republican tradition, an instance of failure is being used as a strength as they try to make the Democratic candidate appear like some cut-and-running little coward. (What's funny here, also, is that McCain is slamming Obama for not changing his mind, even though the Republicans of late have taken a sick pride in being hard-headed. They're dissing Obama for not flip-flopping.)

How does Obama keep Iraq on the front page without seemingly disregarding the "gains" the Republicans are selling to the American people?

By doing what he's best at. Making a speech.

At least that's what Fareed Zakaria says. Some recommendations for the text of said speech:

In 2006, when levels of violence were horrifyingly high, President Bush and Senator McCain said that things were going so badly that if we left, the consequences would be tragic. Today they say that things are going so well that if we leave, the consequences would be tragic. Whatever the conditions, the answer is the same — keep doing what we're doing. How does one say 'Catch-22' in Arabic?...

The surge has produced a considerable decline in violence in Iraq. General Petraeus has accomplished this by using more troops and fighting differently. Perhaps more crucially, he reached out and made a strategic accommodation with many Sunni groups that had once fought U.S. troops. To put it bluntly, he talked to our enemies...

My objective remains to end American combat involvement in Iraq and to do so expeditiously. At some point we are going to have to take off the training wheels in Iraq. I believe that we must have a serious plan that defines when that point is reached. If we define success as an Iraq that looks like France or Holland, we will have to stay indefinitely, continue spending $10 billion a month and keep 140,000 troops in combat. And that is neither acceptable nor sustainable. We will have to accept as success a muddy middle ground — an Iraq that is a functioning, federal democracy with a central government and an army able to tackle the bulk of challenges they face...

The president of the United States is responsible not just for Iraq, not just for the Middle East and West Asia, but for America's interests across the globe. We must make our commitment in Iraq one that is limited, temporary and thus sustainable. And we must also be aware that there is a much larger world out there, with the Taliban in Afghanistan, with Iran's growing ambitions, a rising China, a resurgent Russia, an obstructionist Venezuela. All these require attention. The test of a commander in chief is not to focus obsessively on one battlefield but to keep all of them in view and to use resources and tactics in a way that creates an overall grand strategy, one that keeps the American people safe and the world at peace.

I sincerely hope Obama lures Zakaria away from Newsweek and CNN when he's elected.

He makes four essential points in these excerpts: that the status quo only keeps American soldiers in harm's way; that real progress in Iraq is not built around a month's worth of declining casualty stats and that the solution must address matters that go beyond the military; that "talking to our enemies" is actually how we make progress, both towards Iraqi peace and American extrication; and that plainly put, Iraq cannot be viewed in a vacuum.

Contrast that with what McCain would do.

No, Obama's not going to pull a Kucinich and make some grandstanding appeal to end the war yesterday so as to satisfy the netroots and the far left. Countering in that fashion would be playing directly into the hands of the Republicans. No, Obama's smarter than that. While he may not deliver Zakaria's speech word for word, he needs to take its sentiment to heart. America needs to hear these words from Obama before the GOP stuffs more in his mouth for him.

(Cross-posted here.)

In Darfur, it can be said that those caught in the crossfire of the current crisis lost their innocence a long time ago. But a new problem is coming to light - the systematic rape of women and children:

They say the situation has now become so bad that many women are now resigned to rape as a way of life and men are unwilling to accompany them because they fear that they will be killed if they try to defend them.

Although few aid workers dispute the extent of the attacks against women, they say survivors are unwilling to come forward. But the victims that do reveal shocking levels of abuse.

"She said they removed their scarves and used it to tie them up and were taking turns to rape them. One is 13 years old; the other one is 16 years," said Ajayi Funmi of the UNAMID police, who is trying to educate women, said after talking to two girls.

Workers like Funmi are working actively to combat the problem with education - but in the face of brute force, what are these women to do, really? Especially when the government says that "there is no rape in Darfur"? It pains me deeply that the world is standing idly by, relatively, while this transpires.

It's not just the children who are assaulted that are the victims. So are those conceived in these evil acts:

Making matters worse, aid workers say scores of babies conceived through rape are being dumped by their mothers.

"Abandoned babies are reported, but because of the stigma attached to it, there is no detailed report, because the women don't come forward," said Dr Naqib Safi of the U.N. children's body UNICEF.

As many as 20 babies a month are being dumped in one camp of 22,000 people.

When the Right claims they value life, remind them how little our current administration has done in Darfur. I applaud Mr. Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa, but that is not enough.

I will be making the genocide a focus of what I write on my blog.  There, I use the alias "Invisible Man", a tribute to my favorite novel and to the concept of "invisibility" Ellison explores in it.

Today, there is no one more invisible right now than the women and children of Darfur. I know that I need to point my lightbulbs in their direction, so to speak, and I hope you all do the same.

I've said before that I never cease to be amazed at how frightened America can be of an angry Black man. That statement, as it turns out, was incomplete.

Despite her husband's insistence that spouses should not be fair game, Michelle Obama has become a principal target of the Right. Condi, she ain't - and boy, does that get under their skin. I don't have to link to their sexist and racist garbage here to remind all of you of the ridiculousness that has circulated about her: that she carries an abnormal level of resentment for a Black person (which is to say, any at all) despite her high level of achievement. The Right seems to think that every educated and financially successful Black American (and/or woman, for that matter) should simply walk around thanking White folks, and saying "What, me worry?"

This is the perception in which Michelle Obama has been living for the greater part of her life, ever since the mother of a Princeton freshman threatened to withdraw her daughter from the university if Michelle LaVaughn Robinson remained her roommate. But even in that last sentence, I fall victim to what the MSM at large has been indulging in like so many turkeys at Thanksgiving - a desire to feed us lazy accounts of Internet rumors (without debunking the obviously false), scant actual reporting and the repetitive pundit commentary that has been the tryptophan of this election season.

I don't know Michelle Obama. And likely, neither do you.

The Obamas are doing their best to change that perception, and help America get to know the "real Michelle". (You know, the one that actually seems to exist, not the Fox News "baby mama".) Today, Michelle was a guest-host on ABC's The View. (Some poor souls actually live-blogged her performance here and here.) She got the front-page treatment from the New York Times. Mrs. Obama will begin using a stump speech that will emphasize her roots on the South Side with a hardworking, MS-afflicted father. She'll be the subject of a cover story in the celebrity mag Us. Michelle Obama seems to be in the throes of a full image makeover.

The question is, why?

We live in a society in which people can't stand to be made uncomfortable. This applies to all of us, but sadly, the majority of our social conventions, at least, are geared towards comforting people with a Eurocentric perspective on American life. (Or "All-American" - pick your favorite code word.  And these people I refer to are not all White.) This is not necessarily intentional - many folks don't even know that they're asking people of a different culture to capitulate to their norms. But here's the thing - Michelle Obama has done everything possible to adhere to those norms, exceeding within their boundaries and yet, remaining a strong individual, wife, mother and professional that seems satisfied with her own self-image and readily identifies with her African-American culture.

So really, this is all to make certain White people feel comfortable with putting a Black woman in the White House. (Imagine if she were actually running for the job in question.) When America saw hints of a woman not completely mollified by her lofty education and elevated station in life, folks couldn't deal. A woman whose femininity America can't handle and whose honesty they refuse to recognize is worrisome to a lot of people. I mean, "does she love her country"?

Could she be blamed, despite her Ivy League education, for not being completely in love with a country that within her lifetime, treated Blacks as second-class citizens under the law? Could she be blamed, as the only descendant of African slaves in her marriage, for carrying that cultural burden as she seeks a higher plane of life? Because you're American, because your successful, because you're happy on many levels - that doesn't mean you can't carry the scars of your ancestors. I do, and I know many brothers and sisters that do. Some let it hold us back, some don't. Some are victims, some are not.

I think it's safe to say that Michelle Obama and her husband are not victims, nor do they play the role. But again, we don't know her. While this revision of her public identity may or may not serve the campaign's political purposes, let's take the opportunity to get familiar with Michelle Obama. Let's use that knowledge, and wipe clean the stink of racism and sexism that the Right seeks to spread through our culture solely in the service of Republican victory.

Any impact on America be damned.

We all know Fox News went there. I can't say it any better than this:

To everybody who cares about Obama’s racial identity, either positively or negatively, the man is a black man, married to a black woman, who has black children. Black black black black black black black black.

It sure as hell matters to Fox News, which is why it’s dog whistling about Barack so loudly that it’s vibrating the windows.

Calling Michelle Obama a “baby mama” isn’t just Fox News having a happy casual larf; it’s using urban slang to

a) remind you the Obamas are black,

b) belittle a woman of considerable personal accomplishment, and

c) frame Barack Obama’s relationship to his wife and children in a way that insults him, minimizes his love for and commitment to his family, and reinforces stereotypes about black men.

Someone at Fox News just ought to call Barack Obama “boy” at some point so we can have all the cards right out there on the table.

Or the N-word, perhaps. It really is quite curious.

Racist is as racist does.

Still, there's one question I'd like answered.

Will all the White women who hollered about the sexism thrown at Hillary please stand up for Michelle Obama?

Hey, Geraldine! I'm hearing crickets!

In America, very few men and women are considered to be "trusted" by an entire populace. But the fact that the moniker "the most trusted man in America" fell upon a TV newsman is no accident. That man was Walter Cronkite, and we're fortunate to still benefit from his wisdom today. Sadly, we cannot say the same for one of the true heirs to his legacy.

Tim Russert passed away today from a heart attack. He was 58. Two days before Father's Day.

I've only known Russert as two things: the moderator of the longest-running TV news program in American history, Meet the Press, a show I watched religiously; and as the most famous Buffalo Bills fan anyone knew. As both, he inspired me to value the art of interviewing, both in his good and less-than-artful moments and to remain true to your roots. But regardless what person sat across from him at that iconic table, the nation listened with rapt attention.

I'm not in the business of lionizing men after they've died, filling their legacies with flowery words of praise. But what can you be expected to do when you held a man in such high regard while he was here?

An excerpt from his final interview:

I remember being in Indianapolis covering the Indiana primary and a man came up to me and said he wasn’t going to vote for Senator Obama because he was very concerned about the comments made by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor. I said, “That’s interesting. As a reporter, I’m curious what comments particularly bothered you?”

He said, “Well, I can’t think of any that come to mind, but I also read on the Internet that he’s a Muslim.” And I said, “Now wait a minute. You can’t have both. You can’t be offended by his Christian minister and then say he’s a Muslim. You’ve got to pick one.”

That's what American journalism will miss. A desire to understand paired with an unwillingness to let ignorance pass unquestioned.

Mr. Russert, may your celestial influence bring your Bills a title soon. God bless. You will be missed.

(Cross-posted at 1,369 lightbulbs.)

Remember when Bill O'Reilly couldn't believe his eyes when he saw that Black patrons in Harlem soul-food staple Sylvia's actually ate with real cutlery and didn't need to use profanity to place an order?

Evidently the backlash didn't convince him that Black folks actually have sense.

Seven 9th-graders at a New Jersey high school have been suspended for distributing topless photos of middle-school girls via text message and computers that belong to the school. Dumb, right? Offensive, too?

Well, Bill tried to top those kids anyway:

O'REILLY: But it's an amazing amount of kids involved with this -- 20 -- in an affluent school district. This isn't, you know, the inner city; you would think that these kids would have some kind of a values system. It's not that it's so horrendous. You know, it's not murder or rape. But it's so stupid.

Yeah, Bill. It's stupid.

Most people with a pulse have to know by now that this man is a bigot - but does he have to make it so easy for us to figure it out?