If You Think That I am a Hothead

Workout notes 2650 yard swim; I did a variety of things (drills, IM sets, paddle) and the whole workout took me 56 minutes. I was next to a good swimmer for part of the workout and that was humbling.

Ok, writing in my blog is an excuse to not do math research; the latter is hard; the former is easy.

Ok, actually, I am reading two non-math books: Dreams From My Father (Barack Obama; no ghost writer!) and Rewriting History (Dick Morris). Both are interesting; I am through the first third of both books and hope to finish these by the end of the vacation.

Both are interesting for different reasons: DFMY is written by someone who wasn’t famous at the time (O hadn’t even won his State Senate seat as yet) and so contains some rather embarrassing personal revelations, beyond the simple admission of drug use. The Morris book (written as a lengthy review of Hillary Clinton’s ghostwritten book Living History, which I did read) is interesting in the fact that it isn’t a simple hit-job; it does praise HRC many times. It’s whole thesis is that “HILLARY” is some sort of false “brand” for the politician Hillary Clinton; Morris claims that she is, well, a smart, ambitious, smart policy wonk who doesn’t have the people skills that Bill Clinton has and is more ideological (Bill was more problem solving oriented rather than agenda driven). Frankly, to this point, Morris’ book has increased by respect for HRC as, to be frank, I find HILLARY to be phony and superficial. Hillary Clinton, according to Morris, is neither.

Note: I know that Morris was canned by Bill Clinton for being involved with a hooker, so I view his writing as that of someone describing their ex.
And yes, it appears (so far) that the Media Matters criticism of his work has some merit.

I’ll write a review of these books when I finish them.

The main topic

Dick Morris has some interesting things to say; I swear it almost appears as if he is pulling for Obama. He starts out by saying that Ferraro is a Clinton surrogate out to try to win older white voters for HRC. He says that her claim that BHO is doing well because of his race is wrong. But then he says a bit more:

The fact is that Obama cannot and should not be held accountable for the ranting and raving of his minister, unless he fails to disavow these remarks. He has done all he needs to do in distancing himself from the likes of Farrakhan. And is success is due to his imaginative use of the political process to achieve what he has earned.

Obama out-organized Hillary by focusing on the small caucus states in February, by which time Hillary confidently expected the race to be over.

Obama out-messaged Hillary by refusing special interest PAC or lobbyist money, giving him a way to paint Hillary as the candidate of the Washington establishment.

Obama out-fundraised Hillary by understanding the potential of the Internet to raise quick and clean money and to permit reloading quickly.

Obama out-positioned Hillary by using her claim to experience (faux as it was) to paint her as just another cycle in the oscillation between Bushes and Clintons which has dominated our politics for two decades now.

Obama out-spoke Hillary by showing and eloquence and elegance that she cannot hope to match.

Obama out-targeted Hillary by focusing on young voters and grasping the amazing insight that in an election with a black and a woman, that age would be the decisive variable.

And now Hillary is trying, through her surrogate Ferraro, to make it appear that all Obama had to do was show up, show some skin and win.

Even for the Clintons, this is a new low.

Wow!

Ok, that was from a Republican. But even some Democrats are getting worried about the increasing negativity.

We have an historic nomination battle, driving record Democratic turn-out and commanding the nation’s attention. But, the Democratic race for President has lost its focus. We have John McCain to beat in November, instead we fight each other.

America needs to know our nominee will fight global warming with new jobs, technologies, and investment. Our nominee will expand health coverage to 10 million kids immediately, allow lifesaving research on stem cells, and work toward health care for all by the end of a first term. We will ban torture, restore habeas corpus, and build renewed respect for America around the world. A Democratic President will end the war in Iraq and bring our brave men and women home.

Let voters choose our nominee based on the best we have to offer, not the worst we can imagine. Join me in demanding Senators Clinton and Obama fight McCain, not each other.

If you want to sign the letter, follow the link.

Do you think that I am hard on hawks? Check out Science Avenger.

And if you think that I am hard on one of our Democratic candidates, check out an e-mail message I got from a female Democrat who considers herself to be a feminist! I had said that I had gotten into political fights:

>Other than that, I’ve been mostly getting in political fights.

She responded

I hope defending the choice of Obama, and not the BITCH.

Wahington went almost 70/30 for Obama. We be cool.

Note: Washington is a caucus state.

Strangely enough, I’ve become more at ease. I know that winning this nomination or the general election won’t be easy, and I’ve come to see HRC as someone who just plays rough in the political arena; she is a bit like the physical power forward who will throw hips and elbows but then scream for a foul as soon as she is brushed.

I don’t even dislike her, though I do have contempt for the lousy campaign that they have run and contempt for the whining that they have done because they have gotten their butts kicked so far.

Unless she blatantly cheats, I won’t have a problem supporting her in the general election if she indeed wins the nomination. Of course, I might express a different opinion 5 minutes from now, but I won’t be supporting McCain unless we decided to draft David Duke.

Damn You Hypocrites!

Consider the following:

Damn you rich! You already have your compensation.

Damn you who are well-fed! You will know hunger.

Damn you who laugh now! You will weep and grieve.

Damn you when everybody speaks well of you!

A rant from a radical preacher? Without a doubt. [...]

Hint: think: The Jesus Seminar translation of the New Testament Gospels.

What about this?

They tell us that America is complicit in the “murder of the unborn,” has become “Sodom” by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, “under the judgment of God.” They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. [...]

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]… then at a certain point force is justifiable.

And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools… There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union….

Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate… A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion… It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation…

So what happened to the preachers that said these things? The preacher that said these things was a:

frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General.

How about this?

I ask you, did Limbaugh and Hannity dedicate entire shows repudiating Mitt Romney due to the Mormon Church’s racist views against our darker skin brothers and sisters? No. In fact, it was proclaimed to be a violation of Romney’s first amendment rights. It was bigotry to even question his association. However, until 1978 black people could not become priests in the Mormon Church. The church taught that dark skin was the “mark” given to Cain for killing his brother Abel. Mormon’s were also taught that God allowed black people to survive Noah’s flood so there could be a balance between good and evil. Black people were Satan’s representatives on Earth. This bigotry and racism was much worse than that of Rev. Wright, for it heaped condemnation beyond the grave. [...]

When it was revealed that Billy Graham made anti-Semitic statements in a private conversation with Richard Nixon, did anyone demand Graham no longer associate with Presidents? Of course not, he is still called “America’s Pastor,” and has counseled every President since.

Recently, theist wacko John Hagee gave his endorsement to John McCain. There was very little condemnation in the press, and the “Righteous Right” was satisfied with McCain’s statement that the endorsement didn’t mean that he (McCain) supported every thing Hagee believed. This apparently was enough for Limbaugh and Hannity, so they didn’t need to dedicate much time to this fiasco.

John Hagee has preached for years that the Catholic Church is the “Great Whore” in the book of Revelation. His demand that America support Israel’s refusal to surrender any land, has given support to radical Jewish extremists and has contributed to the hatred in the Middle East. Hagee even clearly blamed the Katrina hurricane on the New Orleans homosexuals and their planned “Gay Parade.”

For more clips:

In other words, people excuse hate coming from white preachers, but not from black ones.

So, this is for you wingnuts: if you come here with your “Obama belongs to a racist church” nonsense, either you denounce and reject all of the venom coming from the right wing idiots at the pulpit, or you can take your nonsense somewhere else.

For more: Some of Wright’s preaching (that people are trying to pin on Obama)

Fox’s Jihad

The Trinity Church Website

The UCC responds to this fracas.

Obama’s Response

Obama on bringing people together

And frankly, this is how many African Americans see things (as do I, to a degree) Thanks to babeuf for a good diary:

Look the reverend Wright affair centers around rhetoric and history. First Wright is a classic black power preacher circa late 60’s early 70’s. Basically the rhetoric is America has a long and entrenched Imperialist and racist history and one must shout that fact from the roof tops because the essence of American life is to deny those two central facts. It was meant to be incendiary, because black power rhetoric was meant to counter the conciliatory speech of black politicos. The courageous and venerable John Lewis, I am sure, sat through many hours of Black power lectures given by the likes of young Turks like Stokely Carmichael which I’m sure were equally as incendiary as Wright’s. No one would dare question Lewis’ commitment to non-violence and rightfully so. Like many of his generation Lewis would condemn the strategy and words; Obama has done the same. In words and actions he has committed himself to a politics of reconciliation. His exposure to black power rhetoric hardly contaminates him.

There are numerous problems with black power politics and rhetoric, but to be honest, its other black folks who will suffer the consequences, not white America. In fact, my biggest problem with the rhetoric is that it leads down the road of often irrational conspiracy theories. It also substitutes rage for political action. But again black folks ultimately suffer the consequences of this rhetorical grandstanding. Despite America’s dread fear of angry black people, there has never been nor shall there be some black power cabal exacting revenge on a sleeping white populace. And yes that includes the oh so scary black panthers.

In the 60’s and 70’s black power rhetoric was common, however in our age in which we are in full denial of our national culpability in some very violent and unsavory deeds, this sounds like the essence of treason. How dare anyone speak ill of America after 9/11. We live in era in which patriotism is uncontested. By patriotism I don’t mean the simple love of ones country but the idiotic symbolic display of this adoration.

What is difficult for many white Americans to understand is that patriotism is intimately linked with white supremacy–see FoX News if you have any doubts. Black men and women, from the south side of Chicago who have enlisted and fought in every war this country waged returned home to segregation, racial violence and the grind of everyday bigotry. They don’t wear flag lapel pins, they don’t joyously sing “God Bless America” at every opportunity–why the hell would they. Wright is the pastor of THIS community. And their experience vis-a-vis patriotism is complicated, and completely untranslatable to white America–liberals and reactionaries alike.

I can only lend a story. My uncle, a good upstanding bourgeois black man was a decorated Korean war veteran. His family has been in this country since the 1700’s and the men have fought in virtually every American war. Come veterans day and memorial day he flew the flag and occasionally marched in the parade. However when you spoke to him about Vietnam and the wartime experience of younger men in the family and their disillusionment and anger. He would say, they’re right–this is a senseless war and he’d quote Mohammed Ali’s phrase, Ho Chi Minh never called me a n——. Now, if my uncle were on FuX News stating this, he would be considered a commie, ingrate–the poster child of the ‘angry black man’. But for him, America’s imperial wars are not something to be proud of. [...]

2008 Democratic Election, Walking, Injury, Boxing and assorted topics

Today is day one of my spring vacation. I admit that I made an error after getting the flu; on my comeback I cut down on the number of miles (that is good) but I did them all faster (not good) and my left hip/piriformis/bike crash area is singing to me, though it appears to be in a “muscle ache” way. I am not getting any serious down the leg tingles, but the muscle is sore.

So, some gentle “hiking” or even some jogging might be ok. Strangely enough, 5 miles at 12 minutes per mile was harder than the 10 miles on the tough McNaugton course. I am finding out that I need the yoga/cross training/days off in my schedule.

So, I’ll do something over lunch; I haven’t decided on whether it will be swimming, walking, jogging or even an easy yoga class at noon.

But I’ve found that I need the mix of cross training (swimming, cycling, fast walking, longer slow walking, trails, perhaps a bit of speedwork (maybe once a week) and even trail running. I can’t stick with just one thing and get away with it.

This post is somewhat long and rambling. Therefore, I’ll put a list of topics that I discuss and/or link to.

1. Personal observations of Barack Obama (by those who have met him, including my wife)
2. Mathematics; part of what I am thinking about and of elections. The phenomena of “well, Clinton beat Obama in the primary in this state, yet Obama runs better against McCain in that same state” is explained.
3. Boxing: some youtube videos of some famous heavyweights, including Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Holmes, Cooney and Norton.
4. Democratic race 2008: the animosity between Democrats.
5. Democratic race 2008: Obama is held to a different standard than most when it comes to religion (e. g., he is pillared for the dumb things said by his pastor, yet others get a pass from the pastors that they embrace).

1. Personal note about Barack Obama (more on the race later)

Here is a Daily Kos diary about someone (dawnt) who talked to Obama before he was famous. I’ll add something that my wife told me (she had lunch with him when he visited the Peoria Rotary Club back in 2004; it wasn’t “one on one” but rather she sat at a table of 6 and he was at the same table)

when he visited her Rotary Club (Peoria North) back in 2004; he sat at her table. At the time, he was a long shot to win the D Senate Primary.

What she remembers: he had started to talk to some high school students (that usually attend as guests) and Ray LaHood (R, IL-18) came up to speak with him. Instead of dissing the students, Obama said “Ray, I’ll be with you in a minute” and kept talking to the high school students.

More on the political race later.

2. Mathematics Here is a nice easy to understand summary of some of the stuff that I am thinking about. I am also thinking about the mathematics of voting; one gets some interesting things happening if there are more than 2 people left in the race. The following article explains how one might get the following kind of result: “Clinton beat Obama in the primary, but Obama does better against McCain in that state”, or visa versa. The article is by poblano of the Daily Kos.

It might help to abstract the situation and consider the rest of the electoral cycle from the perspective of Instant Runoff Voting. Suppose you asked each voter to rank her choices — Clinton, Obama and McCain — from one to three. There are six possible permutations — and each of them can reasonably be associated with one or another demographic group, or at least a stereotype thereof.

1. Clinton-Obama-McCain. These are likely to be the choices of mainline, establishment Democratic voters, especially women, Hispanics, and working-class voters outside of the South. If you look at the choices of Democratic voters so far in the primaries, they form a sort of donut hole: Obama does better among voters on the far left, and he also does better among moderates and independents. But Clinton does better with the “median”, more traditional Democratic voter in the middle of the donut.

2. Obama-Clinton-McCain. The most likely order of preference for blacks, young voters, and progressives and other “latte liberals”.

3. Clinton-McCain-Obama. This ordering may be fairly common among two groups: Southern Baptsits and other evangelical Democrats, and some older voters.

4. Obama-McCain-Clinton. Probably a common ranking for independents, as well as some anti-establishment (and anti-Clinton) voters to the left and center of the political spectrum.

5. McCain-Clinton-Obama. According to Mark Blumenthal, this was a common ordering in Mississippi. A lot of Republicans may have voted tactically in the Democratic primary — but unless they were lying to exit pollsters, it also appears that they genuinely preferred Clinton to Obama as their #2 choice. I think we’d find the majority of social conservatives in this group, especially in the South, as well many national security conservatives, and a significant minority of suburban women.

6. McCain-Obama-Clinton. On the other hand, I’d guess that most economic conservatives and many libertarians end up here, and certainly most right-leaning independents; also perhaps some anti-Bush and anti-war Republicans.

So, these are the six fundamental classes of voters. Of course, you could get more technical than this if you’d like. For example, we’ve neglected those voters who might vote for one and only one candidate; I suspect the decision rule for some black voters, for instance, is “Vote Obama, otherwise sit out”.

The author goes on to show different tables which breaks down, say, Mississippi and Pennsylvania into different subgroups which would explain both the primary results and the polling for the general election. If you like the mathematics of it all, I’ll point you toward an internet article which has many good references.

3. Boxing: last night I decided to watch some old fights on youtube.

Joe Frazier against Jimmy Ellis; note the movement that Frazier has.

Ali-Frazier I, rounds 10-11. Watch round 11.

Tyson Biggs: the end

Mike Tyson-Lenix Lewis.

Watch this: 45 year old George Foreman knocks out Michael Moorer to win the championship! Look at how short the knockout punch is. Incredible! Note that Moorer was dominating the fight and the round.

George Cooney-Larry Holmes.

Cooney-Norton

Norton-Holmes Probably the best finish to a heavyweight fight. Holmes won a split decision by 1 point.

4. Speaking of Boxing: what about the Democratic 2008 race?

Well, this election has strained the relations between many “rank and file” Democrats (not just my sister and I!) SeattleforObama has quoted an interesting article

At the lunch after Clinton’s loss in Virginia, Alicia Knight, 49, a Hillary supporter, came in late. The only spare chair was between two Obama supporters, both old friends of Knight’s. “I was so angry, I didn’t want to sit between them, so I sat by myself at another table,” she says. “It’s become like the cold war: in order to maintain the relationship, you don’t talk to each other.” Recently, the Clinton and Obama groups began lunching separately. “We couldn’t take the bashing, the smirkiness of the Obama fans,” says Linda Berkoff, 63.

It’s unclear exactly when the primaries stopped being a joyous occasion for the Democrats. But as the weeks have ground on, the intensity between Democrats who disagree has calcified, the vitriol grown fiercer. According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87 percent of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they’d vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).

For many Democrats, what started out as a glowing opportunity for a historic presidency has become a depressing display of division and anger trumping reason. Because the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are minor, the debate is not about substance; it’s been mainly about character and identity in a contest between a black man and a white woman. [...]

But clearly there is something more than this going on.

Women have attacked each other too; mostly the younger feminists versus the older ones:

At a Washington reception last month for a well-known national women’s organization, the chair of the board asked Maureen McFadden, a communications executive with the organization, which candidate she’d voted for in the recent primary. McFadden, hoping to avoid an awkward moment, answered that she’d voted by absentee ballot. The board chair pressed ahead, “Did you vote for a boy or a girl?”

“I paused for a long time,” says McFadden. “Then I told her I voted for a boy–I wasn’t going to lie.” McFadden, who has worked on women’s issues for twenty years, says the room went silent and the board chair chastised her. “It was clear that I had betrayed feminism by voting for Obama. It became obvious–if you didn’t vote for Hillary, you were less than a feminist and only marginally a woman.”

It’s no secret that Clinton’s candidacy has caused waves in feminist circles. Media outlets from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post have reported on the rift between feminists voting for Clinton and those supporting Obama. Blogs have weighed in, and feminist listservs are aflame. As a feminist blogger and writer, I’ve been watching the tension unfold–but with no great surprise. This election “rift,” far from being a new wrinkle in a feminist utopia, is a fairly predictable response from a movement already disunited. The Clinton-Obama divide has shone a spotlight on feminism’s dirty little not-so secret: the movement’s longstanding power imbalance, in which a few organizations and leaders decide what counts as an acceptable platform. Indeed, feminist support for Clinton–coming from the usual suspects like the National Organization for Women (NOW), EMILY’s List, Gloria Steinem and former Ms. magazine editor Robin Morgan–has been organized, strong and far-reaching. What’s been less than savvy, however, is the reaction some feminist Clinton supporters have expressed toward their Obama-endorsing cohorts. I’ve seen Obama supporters called everything from naïve to traitors to the cause, and the majority of this ire has come from mainstream professional feminists. [...]

And there are those who are worried that this infighting will hand McCain an easy victory; we forget how good of a candidate McCain is at our peril.

What is going on? For me, much of it is simply this:

I’m sorry; she doesn’t have “35 years of experience”. Much of what she claims as “experience” is bogus.

On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have “cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold.” In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can’t determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton’s foreign policy claims are exaggerated.

* Clinton claims to have “negotiated open borders” in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiating.

* Clinton’s activities “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.” Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton’s actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.

* Clinton has repeatedly referenced her “dangerous” trip to Bosnia. She fails to mention, however, that the Bosnian war had officially ended three months before her visit – or that she made the trip with her 16-year-old daughter and two entertainers.

* Both Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that Hillary privately championed the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That conversation left no public record, however, as U.S. policy was explicitly to stay out of Rwanda, and officials say that the use of U.S. troops was never considered.

* Clinton’s tough speech on human rights delivered to a Beijing audience is as advertised, though Clinton herself has been dismissive of speeches that aren’t backed by solutions.

True, all candidates (even Obama) exaggerate their accomplishments and pander. But it appears that Clinton supporters are outraged when you question her campaign BS or point out that it is spread wide and deep; unusually wide and deep.

And frankly, much of Clinton’s support comes from a “dammit it is her turn” mentality. No one should be getting a “turn” at being president, but it appears to me that many people think that way.

5. Now what about Obama? In an effort to keep running as the clean candidate, he has been extremely wide open and transparent about his Rezko dealings. I know that he has caught flack for some of the stuff his pastor has said; interestingly enough Republicans seem to be held to a much lower standard.

Yet, Brother Richard points out that certain other candidates did not have to go through this much trouble to explain away things their religion believed or religious supporters said.

I ask you, did Limbaugh and Hannity dedicate entire shows repudiating Mitt Romney due to the Mormon Church’s racist views against our darker skin brothers and sisters? No. In fact, it was proclaimed to be a violation of Romney’s first amendment rights. It was bigotry to even question his association.

To be fair, Romney did get questioned about this by other sources, but his explanations were unsatisfactory. Still, no one pressed him on it any further.

Brother Richard has another example:

When it was revealed that Billy Graham made anti-Semitic statements in a private conversation with Richard Nixon, did anyone demand Graham no longer associate with Presidents? Of course not, he is still called “America’s Pastor,” and has counseled every President since.

If you want some more background on this, there’s a video included in the article.

Many conservatives have credited Jerry Falwell and his “moral majority” for the election of Ronald Reagan. When he and Pat Robertson made their despicable remarks concerning September 11th, the media brought attention to their lunacy, but did anyone use it to disavow Reagan’s legacy? Did anyone demand that the “conservative movement” reject these buffoons? Of course not…

…

When Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani, did the “talking heads” scream and demand that Giuliani deny and denounce all the idiotic and evil sermons of Rev. Robertson? No…

…

Recently, theist wacko John Hagee gave his endorsement to John McCain. There was very little condemnation in the press, and the “Righteous Right” was satisfied with McCain’s statement that the endorsement didn’t mean that he (McCain) supported every thing Hagee believed. This apparently was enough for Limbaugh and Hannity, so they didn’t need to dedicate much time to this fiasco…

So why does Obama have to explain away something his pastor said during sermons at which Obama was not even present?

Go to the linked article to get the links to the articles and videos noted.