At the incessant urging of Anti-Obama alarmists, spurred on by the granting of a special link to download Dinesh D'Souza's "2016: Obama's America", I have just now availed myself of the opportunity to watch this film in full. I was pleasantly surprised by the intellectual adequacy and even the fairness of the production, as well as the focused research. D'Souza, in effect, describes a man he does not know and takes the liberty to complete the description using everybody except the people that would know best.
He couldn't interview Barack Obama's mother who died 15 years before his book of 2010. He got chased out of the Kenyan village after trying to interview Obama's paternal grandmother. His real father is dead, and his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro is dead. His maternal grandparents were not alive at the time of the making of the film. Nobody who really knew Barack Obama as a child growing up was available for first hand interviews and conversations.
Instead of directly interviewing the man of the hour, Barack Obama himself, D'Souza relies on narratives from Obama's autobiography, often read by Barack Obama as if it is he telling the story being told in actuality, by Mr. D'Souza. A few well-placed, smartly edited speeches add to a muted sense of Barack Obama confirming the portrayal being manufactured by Dinesh D'Souza, but we miss his input more than get taken in by the ruse.
For all the invitation to inaccuracy and reliance upon conjecture, speculation and innuendo, D'Souza has given us a well orchestrated account of who he feels Barack Obama is, what and who motivated him, and where he plans to take America by 2016. All, again, based on seasoned conjecture ignoring reasonable doubt or alternative hypotheses.
This is a movie however, not a college course where conjecture is met with counter-conjecture; where questions get asked, and where alternative hypotheses enter the mix. Given the necessary narrowing of options and the requirement to reach conclusions that come with the production of a movie, Mr D'Souza gives us, as I said, his opinion and could well have titled the film "D'Souza's Obama". However, such a wording would have misdirected his intent, which was to create an image of a man nobody really knows, and make it appear to be the objective truth about a man whom all of us Americans know as our President.
Ultimately, Dinesh uses the framework of anti-colonialism to achieve his end, leaving the question open as to whether that was a good thing or a bad thing. This measure forms the heart of the film's message and provides a vehicle for engendering great respect for Barack Obama, or searing hatred tinged with fear that should he get re-elected, America is doomed. It all depends on who is watching the movie, or who is reviewing it. For me, I welcomed the discovery of a Barack Obama I never really thought existed. A truly black, African American far removed from the washed out vision I might have gathered from his immediate roots and his ability to walk into the lives of white Americans and convince them to vote for him to be their president.
The most telling portion of his autobiography, for me, was his choice to tackle the problems experienced by the denizens of the Chicago ghettos rather than follow his law degree into a cushy job with a reputable law firm. I am indebted to Dinesh D'Souza for helping me to find the blacker side of Barack Obama; the more African aspect of his nature. I had concluded after reading his book that he was indeed experienced by being black in America enough to count, despite his absence of slave roots and mixed parentage. Yet, I needed to fill that annoying gap with its nagging and begged questions as to what he really understands about being black. "2016: Obama's America" confirmed for me what I surmised after reading Dreams From My Father. Barack Obama is a lot blacker than many blacks in America give him credit for. His ability to bypass the routine characteristics and motivate many white Americans to vote for him reflects something good about America more than anything devious about this politician who happened to win the White House against all odds.
This was a Barack Obama whose pulse was on the pain and suffering not just of the lower classes of the United States, but of the world itself. He discovered, in his life in Indonesia, and narratives telling him about a father he never knew, that there existed a genuine global elephant which derived its wealth, power, and greatness from the destabilization and rape of the third world. He developed an understanding of how this process worked and saw something wrong with it. Something spiritually wrong. Suddenly it dawned on me that this was indeed the right man to become the first African American President in the United States, more than deserving of another four years in the WHITE House. America needs to be fixed from her roots and Barack Obama understands that more than anybody else running for the job.
If this movie was intended to turn me off about Barack Obama, and dismiss him, it had a completely opposite effect. What would describe the experience of being black in America better than the references so commonly associated with the movement to overcome the onerous and continually racist system which has burdened African Americans for so many years? And why not point the finger at colonialism? This is exactly what created the parameters and the impasses blacks experienced being born, raised, and living in America. Colonialism creates poverty as it generates wealth.
Colonialism justifies racism and ethnocentrism as it continues to enshrine these evils into the framework of the dominant culture; hidden, as Mr D'Souza learns from a chat with Jesse Jackson. (Interesting he could make this big case regarding anti-colonialism and not understand the nature of embedded, institutionalized racism. But why should he? He's from India.) Who wouldn't become anti-colonialist once understanding how it serves the disenfranchisement of the people whose lives are characterized by suffering and struggling.
Instead of being affronted by the word, "anti-colonialism" I am emboldened by it; educated by it; drawn to it, and more proud and admiring of Barack Obama than I ever was. And that's even if he maintains his silence as to whether or not he actually IS an anti-colonialist. Right now, he's a politician and would probably talk his way around the charge if it suited him. Furthermore, the overwhelming concern regarding this movie has come from the mostly white opposition to his re-election. What disturbs me most is that this demographic could be so insensitive to colonialism and all its wiles, especially after pounding the gavel over the last four years about the Founding Fathers and what they sought to gain during their break from the the Master Colonizer, Great Britain.
One would think that all Americans should be somewhat anti-colonialist, but the truth revealed here is that after stealing the land from the natives and enslaving Africans for over four hundred years while building a wealth the world has never seen, original anti-colonialists have become the colonizers whose deepest worry today seems to be focused on an emerging Hispanic front along the southern border of the nation. In their rush to condemn Barack Obama by any means necessary, they have chosen to vilify and reject the very conscience that created this country.
What's even more disturbing is how insulated Americans have become not just to the black community, not just to the Hispanic community, but to their own poor whites who themselves aren't so sure who they should side with on November 6th. Yet standing at the podium of the Rose Garden, or seated in the armchair of the Oval Office is the answer long sought; a man whose sensitivities are more American than most Americans, and more black than many blacks. This is a man who truly feels the needs of the people and may well be saving us from the destructive force of a revolution by opening doors that no president has ever tried to open; by reaching out to presumed enemies; by making a real effort to tone down the destructive force of all-out war and by not letting words like "communism" or "socialism" deter him from the kinds of programs that government still needs to engage in to uplift the lives of disadvantaged people and the lower classes so that they can compete a little better and seek the American dream for themselves. .
Getting back to D'Souza's Obama and as I end this piece, let me say that as the movie sought a place to end, the conjecture increased to a point where more questions were being asked than were answered. Dinesh gets so wrapped up in his conclusions about a man who provided no input to the film, he becomes captured by his own creation. At some point all documentaries edge toward myth in an attempt to certify the opinions dramatized in the work. "Obama's America" is no different, and though we are left with a pretty could understanding of where Barack Obama gets his humanity from, we are also fed a heavy dose of overkill, symbolized by the all-to-frequent depiction of the grave of Barack Obama's father. A man he did not know.
Finally, this man, Frank Marshall Davis might well have been an influence on the maturing Barack Obama. More is made of his storied association with the Communist Party than the content of his chats with the young man destined to become President of the United States. Why? Again, because Frank Marshall is dead and aside from what Barack Obama wrote in his autobiography, we have no live contributions from the president himself. Who amongst us has been influenced by people without becoming that person or joining the associations that person was connected to? Jumping to conclusions, labeling Barack Obama a communist or a socialist, or both, is an unfortunate act on the part of those who fail to understand that the wealth of a nation might well be in the happiness and well being of the rank and file citizens that comprise most of the population.
A word on the half-brother of Barack Obama who, according to Mr D'Souza is abandoned by the US President to live in a shack in Kenya while he flies around the world in the luxurious comfort of Air Force One. Cheap shot at best, Dinesh! What does does he truly know about this family connection and whether or not George Obama even wants "help" from Barack Obama? No more than he knows about any other salient aspect of the President's life, obviously. He just used George Obama to create more innuendo, conjecture, and speculation where facts are short.
The conclusions drawn by Dinesh D'Souza are those of Dinesh D'Souza, not hardly associated with a priori truth. This does not detract from the excellent work he has done in the creation of this film. I took note of his mention of being of the same color as Reverend Jesse Jackson, whom he debated while in college. He genuinely doesn't understand what is behind the mask. This may be a clue as to his inability to aptly describe the man he chooses not to know except through the inference, the conjecture, and the innuendo he firmly establishes in this film. See the film if you dare, but be sure to understand at all times, the difference between a balanced education and a carefully plotted indoctrination.
Robert W. Hamilton
9/23/2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
No Time for Resurrection Politics
In response to an Article in The Daily Beast entitled "Hillary Told you So"
Please read the article here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/07/hillary-clinton-2012-calls-grow-with-anger-at-obama-debt-capitulation.html
My Response:
How soon we forget the Hillary Health Care disaster when she couldn't convince congress to go for it during her husband's administration. The GOP is simply out for blood. They have no intention of handing over an improved economy to Barack Obama in 2012. No sitting Democratic president would have prevailed against this congress. Certainly not Hillary Clinton.
This is a sad capitulation to the kind of resurrection politics that commits the essential fallacy in logic which is begging the question. There is absolutely no basis from which to contend that Hillary would have done better with the resistant right whose aim has nothing to do with the good of the country. They want back in, that's all. They would have conspired to unseat Hillary Clinton just as they are conspiring to unseat President Obama. The president offered them every possible setup including twice the spending cuts, but added the inevitable: Increased taxes on the wealthy.
The ultimate fix will include raising taxes on the wealthy and closing some tax loopholes. Bill Clinton did it in his administration and it balanced the budget. Even though a GOP President in 2012 would eventually see that, none of the above wanted to concede it last week and possibly avoid this supposedly dreaded credit-rating reduction of fractional value at best.
The "other side" wants the wealthy on their side in 2012 and will string them along until after they (God forbid) win. Then the revenues will simply have to be increased. Period. We're no longer a nation of under 200 million people. We are going beyond 300 million and growing in leaps and bounds as we write. At some point, the haves are going to have to up their ante unless they want their wealth to diminish in a tide of reduced-value dollars.
So dig up the bones of Hillary Clinton if you will, but take a good look at her in any pictures you can find. The State Dept gig is wearing her OUT. The girl is EXHAUSTED. And now you want to submit her to the PRESIDENCY???? That should be a felony. Angry liberals are only going to make things worse for themselves hashing up a Clinton Re-Campaign. Play right into the GOP plan.
Vast right wing conspiracy? You mean the same one that was out to unseat her husband with those scurrilously fallacious claims of his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky? That one? Oh yeah. I remember that. It's not so vast nor is it so sinister. It's out in the open and called the TEA PARTY. The less-than-covert plan is to wreak the economy and sow the seeds for a GOP win in November based on their wreckage.
One of the "offers" the other side made was to OK a temporary debt ceiling increase, then vote on another one in 2012. Yeah. Right. Sure. Make it all about the debt ceiling and not about their mission to enlarge and perpetuate the underclass in this country, build walls around our nation, and finance the wealthy and the huge corporations like GM which originally showed up in Washington on PRIVATE JETS to negotiate their BAIL OUT. They want to throw the Debt ceiling debate right into the mix of 2012 politics and really stick it to the president by screwing the people of this country. And all these nerdy Dems have to say was HILLARY would have done better?
My guess is that this president knew what was coming and played out the bid for tax increases as long as he possibly could just to show the nation who the real terrorists are in this upcoming election season. My hope is that in the subsequent blame-game, his eloquence and coolness at the helm will edge out the aspiring fix-it candidates that haven't a clue as to what they will do to change what their predecessor managed to de-construct by catering to Wall Street, big bankers, and Corporate America. A man who owns enough land to establish a 51st State and whose family holdings rival the GDP of a developing nation has disappeared into the range while Barack Obama gets pistol-whipped by a greedy, win-hungry elite of wanna-be leaders who think they have a better plan.
So go ahead you foolish mortals. Bang the president around and call on a loser to mount a challenge. When the GOP is back in the White House and the Tea Part-controlled Republicans run slash and burn policies on entitlements, the backlash of angst and reaction-ism will rival that of Syria, Libya, Egypt, and London combined. To be forewarned is to be fore-armed.
BH
Please read the article here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/07/hillary-clinton-2012-calls-grow-with-anger-at-obama-debt-capitulation.html
My Response:
How soon we forget the Hillary Health Care disaster when she couldn't convince congress to go for it during her husband's administration. The GOP is simply out for blood. They have no intention of handing over an improved economy to Barack Obama in 2012. No sitting Democratic president would have prevailed against this congress. Certainly not Hillary Clinton.
This is a sad capitulation to the kind of resurrection politics that commits the essential fallacy in logic which is begging the question. There is absolutely no basis from which to contend that Hillary would have done better with the resistant right whose aim has nothing to do with the good of the country. They want back in, that's all. They would have conspired to unseat Hillary Clinton just as they are conspiring to unseat President Obama. The president offered them every possible setup including twice the spending cuts, but added the inevitable: Increased taxes on the wealthy.
The ultimate fix will include raising taxes on the wealthy and closing some tax loopholes. Bill Clinton did it in his administration and it balanced the budget. Even though a GOP President in 2012 would eventually see that, none of the above wanted to concede it last week and possibly avoid this supposedly dreaded credit-rating reduction of fractional value at best.
The "other side" wants the wealthy on their side in 2012 and will string them along until after they (God forbid) win. Then the revenues will simply have to be increased. Period. We're no longer a nation of under 200 million people. We are going beyond 300 million and growing in leaps and bounds as we write. At some point, the haves are going to have to up their ante unless they want their wealth to diminish in a tide of reduced-value dollars.
So dig up the bones of Hillary Clinton if you will, but take a good look at her in any pictures you can find. The State Dept gig is wearing her OUT. The girl is EXHAUSTED. And now you want to submit her to the PRESIDENCY???? That should be a felony. Angry liberals are only going to make things worse for themselves hashing up a Clinton Re-Campaign. Play right into the GOP plan.
Vast right wing conspiracy? You mean the same one that was out to unseat her husband with those scurrilously fallacious claims of his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky? That one? Oh yeah. I remember that. It's not so vast nor is it so sinister. It's out in the open and called the TEA PARTY. The less-than-covert plan is to wreak the economy and sow the seeds for a GOP win in November based on their wreckage.
One of the "offers" the other side made was to OK a temporary debt ceiling increase, then vote on another one in 2012. Yeah. Right. Sure. Make it all about the debt ceiling and not about their mission to enlarge and perpetuate the underclass in this country, build walls around our nation, and finance the wealthy and the huge corporations like GM which originally showed up in Washington on PRIVATE JETS to negotiate their BAIL OUT. They want to throw the Debt ceiling debate right into the mix of 2012 politics and really stick it to the president by screwing the people of this country. And all these nerdy Dems have to say was HILLARY would have done better?
My guess is that this president knew what was coming and played out the bid for tax increases as long as he possibly could just to show the nation who the real terrorists are in this upcoming election season. My hope is that in the subsequent blame-game, his eloquence and coolness at the helm will edge out the aspiring fix-it candidates that haven't a clue as to what they will do to change what their predecessor managed to de-construct by catering to Wall Street, big bankers, and Corporate America. A man who owns enough land to establish a 51st State and whose family holdings rival the GDP of a developing nation has disappeared into the range while Barack Obama gets pistol-whipped by a greedy, win-hungry elite of wanna-be leaders who think they have a better plan.
So go ahead you foolish mortals. Bang the president around and call on a loser to mount a challenge. When the GOP is back in the White House and the Tea Part-controlled Republicans run slash and burn policies on entitlements, the backlash of angst and reaction-ism will rival that of Syria, Libya, Egypt, and London combined. To be forewarned is to be fore-armed.
BH
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Herman Cain: The Politics of Marginal Minimalism
A voice for the Republican Party in 2012 must, if effective, sound the board of repetitive themes and stress the urgency of returning America to a time of conservative values, constitutional integrity, and budgetary self-control. Herman Cain not only covers these themes well, but adds a voice as eloquent and assured as that of President Barack Obama. While it shouldn’t matter that Mr Cain, a tried and successful businessman, family man., and God-fearing Christian just happens to be an African-American, it certainly helps in the post-Richard Steele era of the Grand Old Party.
Herman Cain is the gavel commander the Republican Party has been looking for to displace and dispel lingering suggestions linking Obama-opposition to racism while offering an alternative to black voters who may still be considering color as an appropriate value worth voting for. Out of the mouth of this staunch conservative, private citizen-turned-politician, rumbles the same nearsighted dialogue that seeks to minimize everything about the United States from its ideological preamble of the Declaration of Independence to the disdain for entitlements and Non-Christians working in the Cabinet of the administration. Cain and the GOP’s vision of a smaller government (despite a vastly expanded population) which drastically cuts spending, harkens back to the days of Ronald Reagan who actually dared to put such a philosophy into action during the 8 tormentuous years of his administration.
Cutting spending is code language for abandoning the idea of urban social programs aimed at addressing the inequality and blighted potential of persons living in the inner cities of America. That these people happen to be Black in a larger proportion than the demographic mix of the nation at-large may or may not have to do with persisting attitudes contrary to their worth as humans. Attitudes which, of course, stem from the slave system which was fully in effect when those glorious words of the Declaration of Independence were penned:
The reason Mr Cain, in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Georgia a few months back, quoted this time-worn phrase, was to frame his subsequent moralist re-hash of the God-driven values he presumes will catapult him to the crest of political leadership as President of the United States. Seizing upon the contemporary trend seeking to restrict the role of religion in government and in schools, Mr Cain intended the words regarding “their Creator” to introduce his support of Christian Values. The irony of a Black man praising those words written while his not-so-distant ancestors were still in chains in this country may have been missed by Mr. Cain, but not by myself and possibly others reasonably astute.
Whatever Herman Cain is looking for, he is certainly on track to forcing the GOP to find a place for him since he has sprung forth on his own (presumably) to fill the gap left by the strangely convenient dismissal of Michael Steele. The question remains as to just what Mr. Cain will submit to and if his integrity is for sale. If, despite the rumor that one doesn’t have to be white to oppose Barack Obama, Cain’s elevation to the level of candidate in 2012 is rejected by the Republican Party in advance, through the offer of a plum in the form of the RNC Chair, will Mr Cain jump at the chance or follow his convictions to where his confidence and self-respect is leading him?
In any case, it is clear that marginalizing the black community in the inner cities and following a minimalist approach to the process of governing that continues to leave large numbers of people out of the system, enlarging the underclass and ignoring the plight of the poor and suffering continues to label the not-so-hidden agenda of the GOP no matter who is holding the microphone. Cain and the GOP rail mightily against the Health Care Bill, but continue to offer no reasonable alternative while so many Americans go on living night and day without health care insurance.
Cain and his politics of entitlement-loathing and refusal to spend money to redress urban decay which is not tagged for more jails, more police officers and more criminal courts, threatens our society in far worse ways than the hysterical nostalgia-driven call to return to simpler times in this country. Ronald Reagan spoke of such times when he referred to a time when “America didn’t know it had a Race Problem” during his 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter. The further back one goes in US History, the worse it gets for blacks, minorities, and women, so I have to listen with both ears when I hear glorification of the past trumpeted by politicians seeking to gain power in the future.
Minimizing the country and marginalizing those who are disadvantaged may save budget money, but won’t address the reality of life in post-millennium America. Forcing Christian values into the arena of government and bringing back the “Under God” section of the Pledge of Allegiance speaks to Americans bent on fascism, yearning for a re-birth of fundamentalist Christianity and ignoring the large numbers of people standing outside of that narrow spectrum of National Identity. It may reverberate in the recall of the Declaration’s preamble, itself written in a minimalist mindset, omitting blacks, Native Americans, and Women, but it doesn’t rise to the image of diversified America today.
We are a plethora of religions, including non-religions; we are a diversity of cultures and races, including a growing contingent of mixed races. We are a casserole of mixed sexual orientations, trans-genders and who knows what else to come, all emboldened by a constitution that restricts the potential to compartmentalize on the basis of identification. It is not at all surprising or even significant that an African-American citizen should embody conservative values having come up in this culture and succeeded as a business person. I proudly salute Herman Cain’s successes and stature of decency. I firmly support the right of any person regardless of color to join any party he or she wants to. No one should be expected to vote for president Obama just because he happens to be black and few Republicans have expressed the Party’s ideals as eloquently and clearly as Herman Cain.
In the end of the day, I find his “vision” predictable, retrogressive, minimalist and marginal. I seriously doubt if more standard GOP politicians like Newt Gingrich are going to stand aside and let Mr Cain exhort his way into the candidacy for president on 2012, endorsed and chosen by the GOP, but wonders never cease. If Herman Cain is as committed and integrally sound as he comes across in his speech to the CPAC, I expect him to turn down the carrot of RNC Chair and go for the brass ring. Should he do so, we are in for a real treat in the campaign of 2012 which the best player will win. I believe the diverse nature of this country will prevail against the minimalist, marginalized message of the GOP and firmly re-assert my support of President Barack Obama for re-election in 2012.
RWH
Herman Cain is the gavel commander the Republican Party has been looking for to displace and dispel lingering suggestions linking Obama-opposition to racism while offering an alternative to black voters who may still be considering color as an appropriate value worth voting for. Out of the mouth of this staunch conservative, private citizen-turned-politician, rumbles the same nearsighted dialogue that seeks to minimize everything about the United States from its ideological preamble of the Declaration of Independence to the disdain for entitlements and Non-Christians working in the Cabinet of the administration. Cain and the GOP’s vision of a smaller government (despite a vastly expanded population) which drastically cuts spending, harkens back to the days of Ronald Reagan who actually dared to put such a philosophy into action during the 8 tormentuous years of his administration.
Cutting spending is code language for abandoning the idea of urban social programs aimed at addressing the inequality and blighted potential of persons living in the inner cities of America. That these people happen to be Black in a larger proportion than the demographic mix of the nation at-large may or may not have to do with persisting attitudes contrary to their worth as humans. Attitudes which, of course, stem from the slave system which was fully in effect when those glorious words of the Declaration of Independence were penned:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness”
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness”
The reason Mr Cain, in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Georgia a few months back, quoted this time-worn phrase, was to frame his subsequent moralist re-hash of the God-driven values he presumes will catapult him to the crest of political leadership as President of the United States. Seizing upon the contemporary trend seeking to restrict the role of religion in government and in schools, Mr Cain intended the words regarding “their Creator” to introduce his support of Christian Values. The irony of a Black man praising those words written while his not-so-distant ancestors were still in chains in this country may have been missed by Mr. Cain, but not by myself and possibly others reasonably astute.
Whatever Herman Cain is looking for, he is certainly on track to forcing the GOP to find a place for him since he has sprung forth on his own (presumably) to fill the gap left by the strangely convenient dismissal of Michael Steele. The question remains as to just what Mr. Cain will submit to and if his integrity is for sale. If, despite the rumor that one doesn’t have to be white to oppose Barack Obama, Cain’s elevation to the level of candidate in 2012 is rejected by the Republican Party in advance, through the offer of a plum in the form of the RNC Chair, will Mr Cain jump at the chance or follow his convictions to where his confidence and self-respect is leading him?
In any case, it is clear that marginalizing the black community in the inner cities and following a minimalist approach to the process of governing that continues to leave large numbers of people out of the system, enlarging the underclass and ignoring the plight of the poor and suffering continues to label the not-so-hidden agenda of the GOP no matter who is holding the microphone. Cain and the GOP rail mightily against the Health Care Bill, but continue to offer no reasonable alternative while so many Americans go on living night and day without health care insurance.
Cain and his politics of entitlement-loathing and refusal to spend money to redress urban decay which is not tagged for more jails, more police officers and more criminal courts, threatens our society in far worse ways than the hysterical nostalgia-driven call to return to simpler times in this country. Ronald Reagan spoke of such times when he referred to a time when “America didn’t know it had a Race Problem” during his 1976 debate with Jimmy Carter. The further back one goes in US History, the worse it gets for blacks, minorities, and women, so I have to listen with both ears when I hear glorification of the past trumpeted by politicians seeking to gain power in the future.
Minimizing the country and marginalizing those who are disadvantaged may save budget money, but won’t address the reality of life in post-millennium America. Forcing Christian values into the arena of government and bringing back the “Under God” section of the Pledge of Allegiance speaks to Americans bent on fascism, yearning for a re-birth of fundamentalist Christianity and ignoring the large numbers of people standing outside of that narrow spectrum of National Identity. It may reverberate in the recall of the Declaration’s preamble, itself written in a minimalist mindset, omitting blacks, Native Americans, and Women, but it doesn’t rise to the image of diversified America today.
We are a plethora of religions, including non-religions; we are a diversity of cultures and races, including a growing contingent of mixed races. We are a casserole of mixed sexual orientations, trans-genders and who knows what else to come, all emboldened by a constitution that restricts the potential to compartmentalize on the basis of identification. It is not at all surprising or even significant that an African-American citizen should embody conservative values having come up in this culture and succeeded as a business person. I proudly salute Herman Cain’s successes and stature of decency. I firmly support the right of any person regardless of color to join any party he or she wants to. No one should be expected to vote for president Obama just because he happens to be black and few Republicans have expressed the Party’s ideals as eloquently and clearly as Herman Cain.
In the end of the day, I find his “vision” predictable, retrogressive, minimalist and marginal. I seriously doubt if more standard GOP politicians like Newt Gingrich are going to stand aside and let Mr Cain exhort his way into the candidacy for president on 2012, endorsed and chosen by the GOP, but wonders never cease. If Herman Cain is as committed and integrally sound as he comes across in his speech to the CPAC, I expect him to turn down the carrot of RNC Chair and go for the brass ring. Should he do so, we are in for a real treat in the campaign of 2012 which the best player will win. I believe the diverse nature of this country will prevail against the minimalist, marginalized message of the GOP and firmly re-assert my support of President Barack Obama for re-election in 2012.
RWH
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, September 18, 2010
On the Hawking mission
On the Hawking Mission
From Science Daily: Jan 2010;
"Our lives here on Earth -- in fact, everything we see and know about the universe around us -- depend on a precise set of conditions that makes us possible," (Alejandro) Jenkins said. "For example, if the fundamental forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly, it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From "Multiverse" - Wikipedia Article:
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes, which were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From The Bible:
Luk 19:39-40 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. (40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
The worst part of the new Stephen Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow) book, The Grand Design, is how the media has focused on its implications regarding God creating (or not creating) the universe. The book is about far more than that and although this misdirection may have served to stimulate sales, it has also generated a vicious breed of responses that attack the man for his (apparent) lack of belief. This in spite of the fact that Stephen Hawking has not denied the existence of God. Yet. What follows is a brief discussion of the background science to put the book in context and prepare for a later review once I finish it. I would advise anyone undertaking a read of The Grand Design to familiarize yourself with the language of quantum analysis before and during the read. A simple internet search of related topics would help. As technical as this work is, Mr. Hawking goes a long way to make it readable. However, it does get difficult as he gets closer to the main topic.
The book is well written and follows the course of science from the work of Thales (c. 500 b.c.e) all the way to that of quantum physicists of today. Hawking prepares us for his drawn conclusions by reviewing the progress of scientific thinking re. The Universe and explaining as best as he can, the unexplainable science of quantum mechanics which does breach the border of communicability. I can't say that I understand it, but it is certainly not the work of one man. The contributing scientists mostly concur, but offer variations on existing themes. This is real science, not speculated inference; not an attack on religion, not peripheral enough to be ignored by the scientific community.
It would be great if people simply try to read the book instead of pre-establishing mental blocks raised by the focus of the media on what is one very small aspect of this work. Science has ALWAYS changed the course of religion, so it should come as no surprise that established religious concepts are being unearthed and overturned by this new direction in scientific thinking. To be fair, Hinduism, Islam, and even the Bible have referred to other worlds, successive levels of heavens, and other universes which could indicate an ancient speculation regarding the nature of that which is NOT seen. Mysticism would have no issue with multiple universes as long as there remains a place for the supernatural element. Religions are not without their trends and tendencies to look beyond the dogmas that entrap the freedom of consciousness to explore without restraint. As free as these forays may seem, they still remain tethered to the supremacy of a singular supernatural being and prove that no matter what happens in science, religion will find a way to rescue the deity even if it means changing the dogma.
Science, unlike religion, is not "answer driven". In this case, the idea of a universe of values seemingly fine-tuned for life got a lot of attention from the Intelligent Design sector. They took this information and flew with it, thinking it had confirmed the answer that corresponds with faith. Science, being impersonal, continued to investigate the idea of fine-tuning while some scientists, being human, drew conclusions. Multiverse theory is coming into its own as the cutting edge of Quantum Physics. The short story is that there could be universes with different measurements that either forbid life, or allow for a different kind of life. This idea is based on observations and the quality of measurement involved. Remember... we are now probing into the area of quantum dynamics where anything is possible. It is a world of discovery; of exploration.
Consider this analogy: The sailors from the Old World sought a passage to the east by sailing west. They discovered the new world (the Americas) but guided by ANSWER-driven thinking, they drew conclusions and named the people of the new world "Indians", thinking they had discovered India. Fortunately, the science continued and the Pacific Ocean was discovered years later, indicating that the New World was just that. A New World. As long as scientists, who are human, are apt to jump to conclusions, the progress of science is slowed, but not stopped. Where Stephen Hawking is going with this new direction is towards a kind of thinking, based on quantum observation as opposed to Newtonian specifications that describe static states. Quantum measurements describe probabilities and treat all of them as validly existing. Again, this is based on observation such as the split-screen experiment which demonstrates the validity of all states of a quantum system even though only one state appears when measured.
This is very new and highly counter-intuitive at the moment. So too, was the transition from flat earth thinking to round; from earth at the center of the universe to earth revolving around the sun; from the sun being at the center to the sun being located at the edge of a large galaxy of 400,000,000,000 stars in a universe of over 100,000,000,000 such galaxies; from the universe existing as a steady state to a universe evolving from a small point of energy. The transitions brought by scientific investigation are profound. They are not based on religious ideation or hasty conclusions. They are Just observations and models/theories that explain those observations. As hard as it is now to conceive these new ideas, just think of people 5,000 years ago trying to conceive the simple idea of a round earth. Eventually the science does break through into the religious realm and change happens.
Right now, religion is scoffing at Hawking and others who are suggesting that not only could there be as much as (10 to the power of 500) universes "out there" but that a supernatural creator would not be necessary to create them. This thinking either takes God out of the equation OR finds a newer and far more profound area where God might be more significant than any theologian has yet to consider. Being itself could be the ultimate reality with physical universes being simply a consequence of energy which is impersonal. Our life within this existence may be an unfolding of BEING, which, for the religious, could have meaning beyond the scope of "creation". What all this really means is that the Hawking mission does not have to stand in opposition to the existence of God, just in opposition to antiquated concepts of reality.
10^500 is a HUGE number! That’s a 1 with 500 zeros after it. It's virtually infinite. UNIVERSES we're talking. Not stars. Not galaxies... UNIVERSES; All originating out of NOTHING. Self-generated; Some with life, Perhaps many without life. What theists will do, as theism resists any change that will render it obsolete, is find a God that fits that picture. See... God cannot be disproved because God did not come empirical observations... just speculations based on the unknown. These speculations found their way into the literary category of mythology where they found life as religion.
As long as it's ok for speculations based on the unknown to count for answers, God will persist in the mind of humanity. It has been said that science at this profoundly theoretical level is just as vague if not more so, as religion. BUT, the key difference is OBSERVATION. Basic unbiased observing leading to models which explain the results. These models have to explain the past/present and predict the future before a wide range of scientists accepts them. From that point on, there is no need to cut heads off or ostracize, threaten or ply with guilt trips to keep these theories in play. All that is necessary is for ONE MODEL to present a result not supported by a current theory.
So... in the spirit of ongoing discovery, I have selected part of an article from Science Daily by Alejandro Jenkins regarding the Multiverse theory. Multiverse explains a mystery regarding the nature of measurement on the quantum level and is the result of the kind of thinking and experimentation that has been going on throughout the late 19th throughout 20th century. Hawking is just reporting on the accumulated wisdom of scientists-physicists like Richard Feynman, Gell-Mann, Heisenberg, Einstein, et. al. as they have articulated what is a very new and radical area of science... the quantum. It's about what happens at very small levels where Newtonian physics breaks down. It takes an open mind to deal with it.
Religious minds have value, but impede the progress of science by prioritizing the significance of religion.. Despite the obvious fact that religion has NEVER gotten it right about the nature of the universe, it continues to try to "guide" science... to limit the scope of science. Religion continues to try to artificially establish itself as primary in the area of knowledge about our experience here. Religion uses pseudoscience to de-mystify creation mythology, and succeeds because so many people in the world do not understand the raw, unbiased simplicity of real science. Religion has better business to attend to than opposing the work of science just because it casts doubt on dogma. Religion would be well advised to attend to uplifting dampened spirits, restoring hope, rescuing lost souls, promoting unconditional love and giving people quality options with which to manage their weekends.
Across the Multiverse: Physicist Considers the Big Picture
Science Daily (Jan. 13, 2010) — Is there anybody out there? In Alejandro Jenkins' case, the question refers not to whether life exists elsewhere in the universe, but whether it exists in other universes outside of our own.
The theory of "cosmic inflation," which was developed in the 1980s in order to solve certain puzzles about the structure of our universe, predicts that ours is just one of countless universes to emerge from the same primordial vacuum. We have no way of seeing those other universes, although many of the other predictions of cosmic inflation have recently been corroborated by astrophysical measurements.
Given some of science's current ideas about high-energy physics, it is plausible that those other universes might each have different physical interactions. So perhaps it's no mystery that we would happen to occupy the rare universe in which conditions are just right to make life possible. This is analogous to how, out of the many planets in our universe, we occupy the rare one where conditions are right for organic evolution.
"What theorists like Dr. Perez and I do is tweak the calculations of the fundamental forces in order to predict the resulting effects on possible, alternative universes," Jenkins said. "Some of these results are easy to predict; for example, if there was no electromagnetic force, there would be no atoms and no chemical bonds. And without gravity, matter wouldn't coalesce into planets, stars and galaxies.
"What is surprising about our results is that we found conditions that, while very different from those of our own universe, nevertheless might allow -- again, at least hypothetically -- for the existence of life. (What that life would look like is another story entirely.) This actually brings into question the usefulness of the anthropic principle when applied to particle physics, and might force us to think more carefully about what the multiverse would actually contain."
So while people who are dedicated to remaining true to God, cling to religious constructs, even manipulating the scientific method to support unsupportable notions, science itself, cold and impersonal, moves on. Where it goes, eventually religion will have to follow just as it has followed from day one. Truth is self-evident. You just can't wish it away.
I am "only" 50% into Hawking's, The Grand Design. Comments I have received from friends regarding his physical condition contributing to the rebellious attitude of his thinking would not apply to the many concurring scientists who are physically able and healthy. They not only agree with him, but have provided much of the preparatory thinking even before Hawking was born.
The tendency to speculate on his physical condition in an attempt to discredit him is typical of religious defensiveness and the main reason why I continue to reprimand those who would stifle intellectual growth in the name of preserving tradition. Silence one voice for reasons irrelevant... Silence them all maybe, but in the end, the stones themselves cry out....
Robert W. Hamilton
9-18-2010
From Science Daily: Jan 2010;
"Our lives here on Earth -- in fact, everything we see and know about the universe around us -- depend on a precise set of conditions that makes us possible," (Alejandro) Jenkins said. "For example, if the fundamental forces that shape matter in our universe were altered even slightly, it's conceivable that atoms never would have formed, or that the element carbon, which is considered a basic building block of life as we know it, wouldn't exist. So how is it that such a perfect balance exists? Some would attribute it to God, but of course, that is outside the realm of physics."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From "Multiverse" - Wikipedia Article:
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes, which were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
From The Bible:
Luk 19:39-40 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. (40) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
The worst part of the new Stephen Hawking (with Leonard Mlodinow) book, The Grand Design, is how the media has focused on its implications regarding God creating (or not creating) the universe. The book is about far more than that and although this misdirection may have served to stimulate sales, it has also generated a vicious breed of responses that attack the man for his (apparent) lack of belief. This in spite of the fact that Stephen Hawking has not denied the existence of God. Yet. What follows is a brief discussion of the background science to put the book in context and prepare for a later review once I finish it. I would advise anyone undertaking a read of The Grand Design to familiarize yourself with the language of quantum analysis before and during the read. A simple internet search of related topics would help. As technical as this work is, Mr. Hawking goes a long way to make it readable. However, it does get difficult as he gets closer to the main topic.
The book is well written and follows the course of science from the work of Thales (c. 500 b.c.e) all the way to that of quantum physicists of today. Hawking prepares us for his drawn conclusions by reviewing the progress of scientific thinking re. The Universe and explaining as best as he can, the unexplainable science of quantum mechanics which does breach the border of communicability. I can't say that I understand it, but it is certainly not the work of one man. The contributing scientists mostly concur, but offer variations on existing themes. This is real science, not speculated inference; not an attack on religion, not peripheral enough to be ignored by the scientific community.
It would be great if people simply try to read the book instead of pre-establishing mental blocks raised by the focus of the media on what is one very small aspect of this work. Science has ALWAYS changed the course of religion, so it should come as no surprise that established religious concepts are being unearthed and overturned by this new direction in scientific thinking. To be fair, Hinduism, Islam, and even the Bible have referred to other worlds, successive levels of heavens, and other universes which could indicate an ancient speculation regarding the nature of that which is NOT seen. Mysticism would have no issue with multiple universes as long as there remains a place for the supernatural element. Religions are not without their trends and tendencies to look beyond the dogmas that entrap the freedom of consciousness to explore without restraint. As free as these forays may seem, they still remain tethered to the supremacy of a singular supernatural being and prove that no matter what happens in science, religion will find a way to rescue the deity even if it means changing the dogma.
Science, unlike religion, is not "answer driven". In this case, the idea of a universe of values seemingly fine-tuned for life got a lot of attention from the Intelligent Design sector. They took this information and flew with it, thinking it had confirmed the answer that corresponds with faith. Science, being impersonal, continued to investigate the idea of fine-tuning while some scientists, being human, drew conclusions. Multiverse theory is coming into its own as the cutting edge of Quantum Physics. The short story is that there could be universes with different measurements that either forbid life, or allow for a different kind of life. This idea is based on observations and the quality of measurement involved. Remember... we are now probing into the area of quantum dynamics where anything is possible. It is a world of discovery; of exploration.
Consider this analogy: The sailors from the Old World sought a passage to the east by sailing west. They discovered the new world (the Americas) but guided by ANSWER-driven thinking, they drew conclusions and named the people of the new world "Indians", thinking they had discovered India. Fortunately, the science continued and the Pacific Ocean was discovered years later, indicating that the New World was just that. A New World. As long as scientists, who are human, are apt to jump to conclusions, the progress of science is slowed, but not stopped. Where Stephen Hawking is going with this new direction is towards a kind of thinking, based on quantum observation as opposed to Newtonian specifications that describe static states. Quantum measurements describe probabilities and treat all of them as validly existing. Again, this is based on observation such as the split-screen experiment which demonstrates the validity of all states of a quantum system even though only one state appears when measured.
This is very new and highly counter-intuitive at the moment. So too, was the transition from flat earth thinking to round; from earth at the center of the universe to earth revolving around the sun; from the sun being at the center to the sun being located at the edge of a large galaxy of 400,000,000,000 stars in a universe of over 100,000,000,000 such galaxies; from the universe existing as a steady state to a universe evolving from a small point of energy. The transitions brought by scientific investigation are profound. They are not based on religious ideation or hasty conclusions. They are Just observations and models/theories that explain those observations. As hard as it is now to conceive these new ideas, just think of people 5,000 years ago trying to conceive the simple idea of a round earth. Eventually the science does break through into the religious realm and change happens.
Right now, religion is scoffing at Hawking and others who are suggesting that not only could there be as much as (10 to the power of 500) universes "out there" but that a supernatural creator would not be necessary to create them. This thinking either takes God out of the equation OR finds a newer and far more profound area where God might be more significant than any theologian has yet to consider. Being itself could be the ultimate reality with physical universes being simply a consequence of energy which is impersonal. Our life within this existence may be an unfolding of BEING, which, for the religious, could have meaning beyond the scope of "creation". What all this really means is that the Hawking mission does not have to stand in opposition to the existence of God, just in opposition to antiquated concepts of reality.
10^500 is a HUGE number! That’s a 1 with 500 zeros after it. It's virtually infinite. UNIVERSES we're talking. Not stars. Not galaxies... UNIVERSES; All originating out of NOTHING. Self-generated; Some with life, Perhaps many without life. What theists will do, as theism resists any change that will render it obsolete, is find a God that fits that picture. See... God cannot be disproved because God did not come empirical observations... just speculations based on the unknown. These speculations found their way into the literary category of mythology where they found life as religion.
As long as it's ok for speculations based on the unknown to count for answers, God will persist in the mind of humanity. It has been said that science at this profoundly theoretical level is just as vague if not more so, as religion. BUT, the key difference is OBSERVATION. Basic unbiased observing leading to models which explain the results. These models have to explain the past/present and predict the future before a wide range of scientists accepts them. From that point on, there is no need to cut heads off or ostracize, threaten or ply with guilt trips to keep these theories in play. All that is necessary is for ONE MODEL to present a result not supported by a current theory.
So... in the spirit of ongoing discovery, I have selected part of an article from Science Daily by Alejandro Jenkins regarding the Multiverse theory. Multiverse explains a mystery regarding the nature of measurement on the quantum level and is the result of the kind of thinking and experimentation that has been going on throughout the late 19th throughout 20th century. Hawking is just reporting on the accumulated wisdom of scientists-physicists like Richard Feynman, Gell-Mann, Heisenberg, Einstein, et. al. as they have articulated what is a very new and radical area of science... the quantum. It's about what happens at very small levels where Newtonian physics breaks down. It takes an open mind to deal with it.
Religious minds have value, but impede the progress of science by prioritizing the significance of religion.. Despite the obvious fact that religion has NEVER gotten it right about the nature of the universe, it continues to try to "guide" science... to limit the scope of science. Religion continues to try to artificially establish itself as primary in the area of knowledge about our experience here. Religion uses pseudoscience to de-mystify creation mythology, and succeeds because so many people in the world do not understand the raw, unbiased simplicity of real science. Religion has better business to attend to than opposing the work of science just because it casts doubt on dogma. Religion would be well advised to attend to uplifting dampened spirits, restoring hope, rescuing lost souls, promoting unconditional love and giving people quality options with which to manage their weekends.
Across the Multiverse: Physicist Considers the Big Picture
Science Daily (Jan. 13, 2010) — Is there anybody out there? In Alejandro Jenkins' case, the question refers not to whether life exists elsewhere in the universe, but whether it exists in other universes outside of our own.
The theory of "cosmic inflation," which was developed in the 1980s in order to solve certain puzzles about the structure of our universe, predicts that ours is just one of countless universes to emerge from the same primordial vacuum. We have no way of seeing those other universes, although many of the other predictions of cosmic inflation have recently been corroborated by astrophysical measurements.
Given some of science's current ideas about high-energy physics, it is plausible that those other universes might each have different physical interactions. So perhaps it's no mystery that we would happen to occupy the rare universe in which conditions are just right to make life possible. This is analogous to how, out of the many planets in our universe, we occupy the rare one where conditions are right for organic evolution.
"What theorists like Dr. Perez and I do is tweak the calculations of the fundamental forces in order to predict the resulting effects on possible, alternative universes," Jenkins said. "Some of these results are easy to predict; for example, if there was no electromagnetic force, there would be no atoms and no chemical bonds. And without gravity, matter wouldn't coalesce into planets, stars and galaxies.
"What is surprising about our results is that we found conditions that, while very different from those of our own universe, nevertheless might allow -- again, at least hypothetically -- for the existence of life. (What that life would look like is another story entirely.) This actually brings into question the usefulness of the anthropic principle when applied to particle physics, and might force us to think more carefully about what the multiverse would actually contain."
So while people who are dedicated to remaining true to God, cling to religious constructs, even manipulating the scientific method to support unsupportable notions, science itself, cold and impersonal, moves on. Where it goes, eventually religion will have to follow just as it has followed from day one. Truth is self-evident. You just can't wish it away.
I am "only" 50% into Hawking's, The Grand Design. Comments I have received from friends regarding his physical condition contributing to the rebellious attitude of his thinking would not apply to the many concurring scientists who are physically able and healthy. They not only agree with him, but have provided much of the preparatory thinking even before Hawking was born.
The tendency to speculate on his physical condition in an attempt to discredit him is typical of religious defensiveness and the main reason why I continue to reprimand those who would stifle intellectual growth in the name of preserving tradition. Silence one voice for reasons irrelevant... Silence them all maybe, but in the end, the stones themselves cry out....
Robert W. Hamilton
9-18-2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Tiger Woods: Who Cares?
Tiger Woods’ performance on National TV “apologizing” for his errant behavior off tee was pathetic, self-serving, morally indulgent and a sad failure to mirror the mastery of African-American oratory. With his wealth and fame, you would think he could at least have gotten a coaching session from Barack Obama. It’s hard to watch the psychological meltdown of a great American athlete who should be using his golfing skills to restore his right to the living rooms of human beings across the nation and around the world. I wish Tiger Woods would leave his senseless guilt purging to a confession booth and get back to playing the game that made us care about him in the first place.
The absence of his wife at his side made the entire performance insincere from the start. “Fake” as Steven A. Smith put it. A man confessing his sins before a sinful public is now prime-time TV? Entertainment? Get real Tiger! Now what do we expect? A complete revision of his moral worth so that we can watch him play golf without fearing a strike of lightening that could endanger the lives of his followers and playing partners? Just because Barack Obama talked himself into being elected president doesn’t mean Tiger Woods is going to talk himself into being the moral angel we all thought he was, who just happens to have a good golf game.
What a tragic waste of quality TV time. What a sad display of self-righteous theater bent on renewing an image forever tarnished by acts of human nature that offend many who still believe in the sanctity of marriage but again, has nothing to do with whether or not he can win a Golf Major. Tiger Woods needs to just grow up and get over what he did and did with intention and great pleasure. He fooled around. He didn’t kill anyone. He certainly didn’t offend MY moral sensitivities, nor should I be a party to what should be a personal interaction within his family and whatever spiritual center he professes to believe in. Tiger Woods asks for all to leave his family alone and this unsolicited exposure to his inner being is the way to go about it?
I am left to believe the only thing Tiger Woods’ is interested in is his bank account. This tearless tirade of pathos was intended only to rescue an image of purity that has made him billions of dollars. He’s already lost significant sponsorship in a commercial world that markets anything of value to anyone who can pay yet has the audacity to demand moral perfection of the Tiger Woods’ Michael Jacksons and Kobe Bryants that help advertise their products. Afraid he may sink into the economic quagmire of garden variety millionaire-hood, Tiger is on a ridiculously ill-advised mission to save his billions and remain the man his trophy wife married. Perhaps he’s making sure her legal savvy won’t suddenly improve in the coming days and months to where she could take a more mercenary view of his multiple counts of adultery.
Instead of concentrating on a golf hole a few inches in depth, Tiger Woods is opening a hole large enough to build a bomb shelter in. Just like Pinocchio’s nose, the hole gets bigger the more he stands before the cameras of global TV and preaches his absolution. Where are his high-paid lawyers right now? Where is the chorus of “SHUT UP, TIGER??”. Where are his golf clubs? Did Elin break every single one of them trying to knock some sense into his head? I should hope I won’t need therapy to erase this emasculated image of self – pity from my head as I wait endlessly for Tiger Woods to return to the TEE. That is the only platform upon which world opinion is going to take shape; the only venue upon which the global corporate world is going to make endorsement contract decisions.
Hopefully, before the end of the world in 2012, the re-runs of Tiger’s regretful performance will cease. Perhaps eventually we can get back to the real world of professional athletics where flawed personal lives are eclipsed by the skills of the game. What truly matters in a world that eye-winks moralism is the intrigue of larger-than-life athletic heroes who receive their just reward in money, not absolution of sin. Let’s withhold any further judgment of Tiger’s marital offenses and pray for the day he returns to the TEE. A true performance by a great golfer is one that we shouldn’t want to change the channel on. It’s too bad the Supreme Court can’t put a gag order on any TV station to prevent re-airing this pitiful episode of poor judgment. Instead it’s going to play and play and play until those still watching will wonder who is Tiger Woods and why does anyone care?
Robert Hamilton 2-20-2010
The absence of his wife at his side made the entire performance insincere from the start. “Fake” as Steven A. Smith put it. A man confessing his sins before a sinful public is now prime-time TV? Entertainment? Get real Tiger! Now what do we expect? A complete revision of his moral worth so that we can watch him play golf without fearing a strike of lightening that could endanger the lives of his followers and playing partners? Just because Barack Obama talked himself into being elected president doesn’t mean Tiger Woods is going to talk himself into being the moral angel we all thought he was, who just happens to have a good golf game.
What a tragic waste of quality TV time. What a sad display of self-righteous theater bent on renewing an image forever tarnished by acts of human nature that offend many who still believe in the sanctity of marriage but again, has nothing to do with whether or not he can win a Golf Major. Tiger Woods needs to just grow up and get over what he did and did with intention and great pleasure. He fooled around. He didn’t kill anyone. He certainly didn’t offend MY moral sensitivities, nor should I be a party to what should be a personal interaction within his family and whatever spiritual center he professes to believe in. Tiger Woods asks for all to leave his family alone and this unsolicited exposure to his inner being is the way to go about it?
I am left to believe the only thing Tiger Woods’ is interested in is his bank account. This tearless tirade of pathos was intended only to rescue an image of purity that has made him billions of dollars. He’s already lost significant sponsorship in a commercial world that markets anything of value to anyone who can pay yet has the audacity to demand moral perfection of the Tiger Woods’ Michael Jacksons and Kobe Bryants that help advertise their products. Afraid he may sink into the economic quagmire of garden variety millionaire-hood, Tiger is on a ridiculously ill-advised mission to save his billions and remain the man his trophy wife married. Perhaps he’s making sure her legal savvy won’t suddenly improve in the coming days and months to where she could take a more mercenary view of his multiple counts of adultery.
Instead of concentrating on a golf hole a few inches in depth, Tiger Woods is opening a hole large enough to build a bomb shelter in. Just like Pinocchio’s nose, the hole gets bigger the more he stands before the cameras of global TV and preaches his absolution. Where are his high-paid lawyers right now? Where is the chorus of “SHUT UP, TIGER??”. Where are his golf clubs? Did Elin break every single one of them trying to knock some sense into his head? I should hope I won’t need therapy to erase this emasculated image of self – pity from my head as I wait endlessly for Tiger Woods to return to the TEE. That is the only platform upon which world opinion is going to take shape; the only venue upon which the global corporate world is going to make endorsement contract decisions.
Hopefully, before the end of the world in 2012, the re-runs of Tiger’s regretful performance will cease. Perhaps eventually we can get back to the real world of professional athletics where flawed personal lives are eclipsed by the skills of the game. What truly matters in a world that eye-winks moralism is the intrigue of larger-than-life athletic heroes who receive their just reward in money, not absolution of sin. Let’s withhold any further judgment of Tiger’s marital offenses and pray for the day he returns to the TEE. A true performance by a great golfer is one that we shouldn’t want to change the channel on. It’s too bad the Supreme Court can’t put a gag order on any TV station to prevent re-airing this pitiful episode of poor judgment. Instead it’s going to play and play and play until those still watching will wonder who is Tiger Woods and why does anyone care?
Robert Hamilton 2-20-2010
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Nobel Obama: Triumph of Symbol
Barack Obama won a historical election in November 2008. He captured the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth and arguably throughout history. Prudence demanded an avoidance of the race card during the campaign although it did manage to surface here and there despite efforts to suppress. When victory was achieved however, racially charged celebrations broke out across the nation and around the world. The party seemed never to end. Blacks and non-whites danced in the streets from Harlem to Kenya. “Yes We Can” became “Yes We Did” and for a prolonged moment in time, the hope of all people who are not white radiated with a powerful energy which has yet to dissipate.
Now Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and many people, including myself ask “for what”? I supported and continue to support this president but do find his major accomplishments more a thing of the future than the near past. Still I have to sit back and give the folks in Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I have to assume they are intelligent and above corruption. This prestigious award is one of the most coveted, respected honors a human being can attain. Since there is no immediate issue presenting itself to account for this award, one has to seek deeper into the mystique of the Obama victory to discover reasons why this exalted community chose this man for the prize.
Avoiding the race card in this past election had the effect of obscuring the elephant in the victory (no pun). My initial thoughts regarding the celebratory reactions around the world had to do with the irony of ignoring the race of the man while he was running, but exalting it after his victory. The celebrations made no effort to camouflage the obvious. A black man had been elected president and for this reason alone there was cause to be hysterically jubilant. The media coverage displayed a wild party atmosphere going on in African–American communities around the nation, seasoned with like celebrations throughout Africa and the world as non-whites met this momentous occasion with an outpouring of unbridled joy.
The tumult was not fueled by a sudden realization that health care was coming to all, that peace was imminent in the Middle East, or that the economic recession was soon to end. The reaction was largely non-substantive, reveling mainly in the sole realization that for the first time in history the least likely of ethnic peoples was being represented first-hand in the White House. It was a dance of symbolism; a time of reference; an advance of the Civil Rights movement. It was everything but specific; a border-less passion set free as though confined throughout the entire spectrum of human history.
This victory inspired hope and energized the human spirit all over the world. It signaled the end to a human history of white people being in charge of everything powerful and economically significant. True, the idea held more symbolism than reality for the power structure rarely changes that much over the election of one president. Additionally, the election of a black man does not, did not, nor will not disenfranchise the power of the white man in politics or economic leverage. Despite the implications behind the presidential victory of a black man, racism, institutionalized in America and around the world continues to recede ever so slowly from the human landscape.
Barack Obama is an embattled president whose detractors will not rest until he is a loser in 2012. Nothing Mr. Obama does seems to meet with the approval of those who oppose him and seek his failure at any cost. The opposition media will misinterpret, twist and skew Obama’s words and acts no matter what it is he says or does. His trip to Denmark to win the Olympics for Chicago was win/win/, lose/lose, depending on who you ask.
When an aging, but still highly intelligent former president called attention to obvious racist attacks on Barack Obama from the opposition, Fox News immediately interpreted the remarks as referring to every attack on Barack Obama. Glenn Beck smirked and joked about being a racist just because you oppose Barack Obama. The tide of misinformation regarding President Carter’s remarks sought to ridicule the former president and deny any racism at all in the relentless drive to invalidate, devalue, criticize and deflate the presidency which in November, 2008 brought pure ecstasy to the majority of the world’s population.
Enter the Nobel Peace Committee. What this community has observed is that the election of Barack Obama was a significant inspiration to people all over the world, black and yes, white. It was a symbolic moment in human history that validated all people of color and demonstrated that indeed, you didn’t have to be white to count in this world. Symbols often carry more meaning that reality. Our faiths are built on symbols and non-literal meanings. Who would argue that faith does not impact the human experience in a great way, whether good or bad? The Nobel community has decided that symbol in the elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency of the USA is more important than the persistent devil trying to take command of the details. The opposition has been more than marginally successful in portraying Barack Obama as a failure and disappointment so far. The euphoria of November has abated in the wake of reactionary activity aimed solely at destroying the victory of 2008 with an unseating of Barack Obama in 2012.
My understanding of this award centers on the victory of Barack Obama as being sufficient enough to ignite and inspire the world to move towards peace and international cooperation. The momentum may be mired in a sea of impatience and dearth of accomplishments, but the victory nonetheless was significant for the very reason that race card-avoiders are reluctant to admit. It was the emergence of the Black and non white masses onto the open stage of power-sharing and the validation of all people around the world no matter their color or heritage. The Nobel Prize was the triumph of symbol; the celebration of spirit and the acknowledgment that faith in its purest form is still a potent and valuable motivator in the human experience.
President Obama wisely accepted this award in a diminutive tone, understanding that its raison d’être had less to do with substance than pure potential. It is an appropriate salute to the forces behind the fury of November 2008; a thank you to a man whose tireless effort and strong will took him through a hard-fought election where more than politics was at stake. Far more, for now it is at least a dream-able dream that the world’s people will seek to unite in a search for peace, even as wars continue to be fought more over principle than substance. I congratulate not Barack Obama, but the Nobel Committee for seeing through the camouflage and recognizing the president’s victory for what it truly was.
Robert W Hamilton: 2012: It's never too soon.
Now Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and many people, including myself ask “for what”? I supported and continue to support this president but do find his major accomplishments more a thing of the future than the near past. Still I have to sit back and give the folks in Sweden the benefit of the doubt. I have to assume they are intelligent and above corruption. This prestigious award is one of the most coveted, respected honors a human being can attain. Since there is no immediate issue presenting itself to account for this award, one has to seek deeper into the mystique of the Obama victory to discover reasons why this exalted community chose this man for the prize.
Avoiding the race card in this past election had the effect of obscuring the elephant in the victory (no pun). My initial thoughts regarding the celebratory reactions around the world had to do with the irony of ignoring the race of the man while he was running, but exalting it after his victory. The celebrations made no effort to camouflage the obvious. A black man had been elected president and for this reason alone there was cause to be hysterically jubilant. The media coverage displayed a wild party atmosphere going on in African–American communities around the nation, seasoned with like celebrations throughout Africa and the world as non-whites met this momentous occasion with an outpouring of unbridled joy.
The tumult was not fueled by a sudden realization that health care was coming to all, that peace was imminent in the Middle East, or that the economic recession was soon to end. The reaction was largely non-substantive, reveling mainly in the sole realization that for the first time in history the least likely of ethnic peoples was being represented first-hand in the White House. It was a dance of symbolism; a time of reference; an advance of the Civil Rights movement. It was everything but specific; a border-less passion set free as though confined throughout the entire spectrum of human history.
This victory inspired hope and energized the human spirit all over the world. It signaled the end to a human history of white people being in charge of everything powerful and economically significant. True, the idea held more symbolism than reality for the power structure rarely changes that much over the election of one president. Additionally, the election of a black man does not, did not, nor will not disenfranchise the power of the white man in politics or economic leverage. Despite the implications behind the presidential victory of a black man, racism, institutionalized in America and around the world continues to recede ever so slowly from the human landscape.
Barack Obama is an embattled president whose detractors will not rest until he is a loser in 2012. Nothing Mr. Obama does seems to meet with the approval of those who oppose him and seek his failure at any cost. The opposition media will misinterpret, twist and skew Obama’s words and acts no matter what it is he says or does. His trip to Denmark to win the Olympics for Chicago was win/win/, lose/lose, depending on who you ask.
When an aging, but still highly intelligent former president called attention to obvious racist attacks on Barack Obama from the opposition, Fox News immediately interpreted the remarks as referring to every attack on Barack Obama. Glenn Beck smirked and joked about being a racist just because you oppose Barack Obama. The tide of misinformation regarding President Carter’s remarks sought to ridicule the former president and deny any racism at all in the relentless drive to invalidate, devalue, criticize and deflate the presidency which in November, 2008 brought pure ecstasy to the majority of the world’s population.
Enter the Nobel Peace Committee. What this community has observed is that the election of Barack Obama was a significant inspiration to people all over the world, black and yes, white. It was a symbolic moment in human history that validated all people of color and demonstrated that indeed, you didn’t have to be white to count in this world. Symbols often carry more meaning that reality. Our faiths are built on symbols and non-literal meanings. Who would argue that faith does not impact the human experience in a great way, whether good or bad? The Nobel community has decided that symbol in the elevation of Barack Obama to the presidency of the USA is more important than the persistent devil trying to take command of the details. The opposition has been more than marginally successful in portraying Barack Obama as a failure and disappointment so far. The euphoria of November has abated in the wake of reactionary activity aimed solely at destroying the victory of 2008 with an unseating of Barack Obama in 2012.
My understanding of this award centers on the victory of Barack Obama as being sufficient enough to ignite and inspire the world to move towards peace and international cooperation. The momentum may be mired in a sea of impatience and dearth of accomplishments, but the victory nonetheless was significant for the very reason that race card-avoiders are reluctant to admit. It was the emergence of the Black and non white masses onto the open stage of power-sharing and the validation of all people around the world no matter their color or heritage. The Nobel Prize was the triumph of symbol; the celebration of spirit and the acknowledgment that faith in its purest form is still a potent and valuable motivator in the human experience.
President Obama wisely accepted this award in a diminutive tone, understanding that its raison d’être had less to do with substance than pure potential. It is an appropriate salute to the forces behind the fury of November 2008; a thank you to a man whose tireless effort and strong will took him through a hard-fought election where more than politics was at stake. Far more, for now it is at least a dream-able dream that the world’s people will seek to unite in a search for peace, even as wars continue to be fought more over principle than substance. I congratulate not Barack Obama, but the Nobel Committee for seeing through the camouflage and recognizing the president’s victory for what it truly was.
Robert W Hamilton: 2012: It's never too soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
