Watch the following comments by Idaho Senator Larry Craig and then tell me that Sigmund Freud would not have had a field day analyzing him.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

I’ve said from the start that Barack Obama’s candidacy is good for America if for no other reason than that it gives us a good excuse to have some frank conversations about race in this country. The recent “hot mike” remarks made by Jesse Jackson highlight at least two interesting topics regarding how blacks should conduct themselves in this society.

The first issue is whether or not blacks should castigate other blacks in front of whites. When I watched excerpts of Barack Obama’s “Father’s Day” speech, I must confess to some discomfort. While I fully agreed with Obama’s call for responsibility among black men, I wondered to myself when have we ever seen a white politician telling deadbeat white dads to get their act together on national television? All I could do was picture a bunch of good ‘ole boys watching his speech and saying “yep, even the colored guy knows how lazy and shiftless his colored brothers are. Heck, if he’s saying it, it must be true.” I have struggled with my feelings about this. It smacks of airing dirty laundry outside the “family”. On the other hand, how do we fix problems in any community if we don’t discuss them? When Bill Cosby gave the same message not long ago, I didn’t think twice about it. Perhaps it was because he is an entertainer. Obama is auditioning for leader of the free world, and President of ALL Americans so perhaps I’m upset to see him singling out one group for admonishment? In any case, Jesse’s comments resonated with me on a certain level. Yet I’m not comfortable about it.

The second issue involved Jesse’s use of the “N” word during his whispered comments about Obama’s social perspective. This prompted a heated debate on “The View”, a show that I don’t typically  look to for intellectual stimulation. However the following dialog is worth discussing. (The video is a bit long but ultimately worth it.)

Who should use the “N” word? Absolutely no one! In this face off on The View I was astounded to find myself at first on the same side as the too-young-to-know-better conservative Elizabeth Hasselbeck. Sheree Shepherd and Whoopi Goldberg’s old argument about how “owning” the word somehow disinfects it is just so much horse manure. The word is hateful and has no place in public or private discourse. But the argument does take an interesting turn when Hasselbeck suggests that “we all live in the same world.” To this, Whoopi angrily pointed out that life for blacks and whites in this country is not the same. Hasselbeck, who more often than not comes off like a spoiled brat who lucked into a reality show and a football player husband, was dumbfounded (and outright hurt) by Whoopi’s reaction. Sadly, Hasselbeck naively believes that her Utopian view of the world is reality. For this she badly needed a wake up call from Goldberg. Whoopi’s only mistake is in thinking that the way we deal with our lot in this country is to “take ownership” of words that demean us.

As I expected, Obama’s candidacy is sparking debate among blacks and whites about racial politics in America. More interestingly, a road map is being drawn for how to conduct oneself as a black in 21st century society. Are we truly in a post-racial period? If so, then blacks criticizing blacks in a public forum might be completely appropriate and part of that criticism ought to be the complete and utter rejection of the “N” word.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The folks at JibJab have done it again. What I love is that they are equal opportunity offenders. This clip hits everyone from Bush to Cheney to both Clintons, McCain and Obama.

Enjoy!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Is it just me, or does the new campaign manager for John McCain bear a close resemblance to Dr. Evil? Funny that after calling Obama, Dr. No, McCain would hire Dr. Evil to run his campaign.

Steve Schmidt

Dr. Evil

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The ReplayTV in our kitchen bit the dust this week. (ReplayTV is the Betamax of the DVR world.)  We struggled for a few days and then, despite our tight budget, bought a Tivo to replace it. It’s now one of three Tivo’s in our home.  For reasons not entirely understood by me, the purchase resurrected a thought that plagues me every now and then.

Our country spends millions upon millions of dollars to produce mindless, artless, totally trivial entertainment which we in turn spend millions upon millions of dollars per year to consume. What would happen if the money spent producing and consuming total garbage was redirected toward giving people in this country and others the minimum standards of a decent life, a roof over their heads and food on their table?

Believe me, I am not getting up on my high horse. I am quite selfishly unwilling to part with my six televisions and five DVR’s (not to mention VCR’s and DVD players). However, if the government told me that I would have to do without luxuries until everyone had a minimally decent standard of living, I would begrudgingly give in, knowing it was for the better good of all concerned.

I’d like to know your reaction. What would you say if the next President of the United States called a press conference on the day after his inauguration and said:

Effective immediately, I am ordering the shut down of all TV and movie production studios. I am also ordering the discontinuance of all industry devoted to pure entertainment. The money previously used for these purposes will henceforth be redirected to housing and feeding the poor in this country and all over the world. Luxuries will resume when every American and every world citizen has a home and adequate food to sustain a decent life.

How would you react? I await your comments.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

No long diatribe this evening, just a simple quote that I stumbled upon that succinctly and eloquently expresses the difference between supporting the troops vs supporting the war.

“To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman.” — George Santayana, 20th century philosopher.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

This appears to be an interesting week for coincidences. Two interesting ones come immediately to mind.

First, in the I’m Really Not Gay, Make Me Your Veep department, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has announced he is engaged … to a woman (remember, this is Florida, not California). A confirmed bachelor for the past 29 years, Crist has been the subject of at least some speculation as to his sexual preferences. Now, I’m not saying Charlie is really gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but isn’t the timing just a little too perfect? Certainly makes him a more “acceptable” choice for VP (particularly from a GOP point of view).

Second, in the I Just Happened To Be In The Neighborhood department, John McCain makes a trip to Colombia and many in the media scratch their heads. Why in the world would he go to Colombia when he’s got millions of American voters to win over in less than four months? Ahhh but while he is there a truckload of hostages are rescued from Colombian radicals and he is given the scoop on it before anyone else, thereby confirming his status as a world leader. Hollywood screen writer John Ridley remarked on Thursday’s “Morning Joe” that the timing seemed awfully odd. I have to agree with him. McCain’s got folks in his campaign with Colombian connections. It is not farfetched at all to surmise that John was given a wink-wink nudge-nudge that if he showed up in Colombia this week, there might be something in it for him. If there is any truth to it, it takes media manipulation to a whole new level.

Of course, the other thing that these coincidences highlight is that we have been lied to by our government so many times that we don’t take any news at face value anymore. Sometimes an engagement is just an engagement and a trip to Colombia is just a trip to Colombia.

Or is it?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the death penalty cannot be applied to cases of the rape of a child. This has produced an outcry of opposition from among others, Barack Obama. I think Obama has missed the mark on this one. You see, there is that pesky LINE as in where do we draw the LINE?

Admittedly, I oppose the death penalty altogether. Its deterrent value is questionable and it licenses the state to commit the very act that it is punishing. Of course, that is the death penalty as it applies to murder convictions. While I disagree with it, at least in the application of punishing the crime of deliberate premeditated murder, we have some objective yardstick. In the case of child rape, I see an incredibly slippery slope.

If we apply the death penalty to child rape, what do we tell:
The man whose 80 year old grandmother has been raped?
The engaged woman who was saving her virginity (yes, old fashioned but it still happens) for her future husband and has been raped?
The young woman who is now pregnant with the child of her rapist?
The man who has been raped?

Do we tell all these people that their trauma is somehow less than that of a child?  You answer, “childhood is precious and special. There must be different standards applied there.”

So do we now apply the death penalty to:
Those who physically abuse children (which would put a lot of parents on death row)?
Creators and consumers of child pornography?
Employers who violate child labor laws?

Where do we draw the line? Our national obsession with the welfare of children is somewhat hypocritical in light of our professed disdain of but secret titillation with the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Miley Cyrus.

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision. If we must have the death penalty, it must be reserved for the most narrowly defined set of crimes. Otherwise, in the name of so called decency, we are on the slippery slope to a terrorist state.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

I would not have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes. Last Friday evening, in The McCain Update, an e-mail newsletter sent out to supporters, McCain provided a link sure to interest those young video game enthusiasts who, left to their own devices, might vote for Obama.

Right there on John’s campaign web site was Pork Invaders. I kid you not. Pork Invaders, in which you use your keyboard to move your “veto” gun back and forth and fire at a brigade of little pigs (no, I’m not making this up). If you manage to move from one level to the next, you are rewarded a snippet of anti-Obama propaganda concerning how much “pork” Obama has pushed through Senate legislation.

John’s game of course is patterned after Space Invaders. Space Invaders, folks, was invented in 1978. Wow, sure shows just how “hip” John is. Now I’m just waiting for John to show his youth appeal by writing campaign ditties to be sung to the melodies of Elvis Presley’s greatest hits. Does it get any cooler than this?

To those who feel they just don’t get enough excitement from my blog, I provide for you below a link to Pork Invaders. Fire away!

http://www.johnmccain.com/videogame/invaders/

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

There is only one thing that bothers me about the recent Obama flip flop on campaign finance. He started his statement to his supporters by saying that he would be foregoing more than $80 million in funding by opting out of public financing. Why on Earth did he say that and why did his handlers let him say that? The $80 mil he is “foregoing” is a drop in the bucket compared to what he has and what he will continue to raise. Why he felt he needed to frame this in the context of sacrifice is beyond me.

That said, the idea that this flip flop makes him a typical pol is ridiculous. A typical pol, works within the current system and plays it for all it’s worth. McCain will stick with public financing and let the 527’s do the dirty work for him in the traditional fashion. Rather than being a typical pol, Obama is going outside the established system and is really running a campaign “of the people”.  As other pundits have noted, Obama’s approach makes him beholden to no one. He has millions of small contributors, none of whom alone can unduly influence his policies. For that matter, his flip flop is not of the gargantuan proportions that McCain supporters would have you believe. Almost from the minute that Obama signed the “pledge” he started hedging, indicating that he would only accept public financing if he was assured that the playing field with McCain would be fair. He has obviously figured out that a fair fight this year means he needs all the money he can get. It’s a very sensible decision.

I guess the other thing that puzzles me is if public campaign funding is provided by tax payer dollars, why wouldn’t conservatives be overjoyed that their tax money is not going towards Obama’s campaign?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance