It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.
 
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
 
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
 
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
 
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
 
Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
 
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher."
 
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.
 
Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
 
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
 
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
 
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
 
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats.  We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

"No Man's Land" is what they call native housing in Vancouver. The reason for this is the almost total lack of fathers taking care of their children.

From a visiting alien's perspective, it seems like someone is conducting a wide-scale social scientific experiment on the Native population in Canada to determine what happens when nations of children are raised without their fathers.

Preliminary findings of this grand experiment indicate low self-esteem across the board, a predisposition to a host of self-defeating behaviors, high incarceration rates, and widespread violence.

Single mothers, grandmothers, or aunties are forced to raise their children on their own without the support of the children's father. Make no mistake about it: most of these women deserve superhero status.

This is such a huge problem in the Native community, yet no one talks about it. This is having a huge effect on the holistic health of our People.

Our children need a father's love and concern to compliment the love they receive from their mothers. Without it, a child isn't complete. And without it, a child can grow up resenting and even hating all men.

Where are the fathers?

The crux of it is no one ever taught them to be men.

The coming of age ceremonies have largely vanished as a direct result of colonization and the long-lasting effects of residential school syndrome. Some of these ceremonies included the throwing away of all the child's toys to both symbolize and actualize the child's transformation into an adult.

Simply put, G.I. Joe and candy morph into guns and alcohol. They're too busy acting like boys, shrugging off any responsibility or accountability. Detention turns into prison time for many Native men.

If you've read my last blog, then you've caught a glimpse into the Native community's unwillingness to embrace adulthood.

The sad fact is that most Native men do not want to get married and raise children. It's surely not a problem of not enjoying the company of women or being physically capable of having children. Native birthrates are among the highest in the world. The problem occurs after the child is born.

Even some of our leaders are busy acting inappropriately when it comes to having extramarital affairs and fathering children with a number of women.

Now before you start to think that I'm putting all the blame on Native men, that's missing the point. What happens in the Native community happens in others communities as well.

As a sidebar, we still haven't seen a movie about the life of Martin Luther King, despite all of his political accomplishments and inspiring leadership. Even though he said all the right things in public, his private life did not always live up to his upright reputation. In this respect, he shares even more in common with JFK.

It's too simplistic to blame just the men for the problem of single-parent families. The women must share in the responsibility for this wide-ranging phenomenon. When you point the blame at one party, it has the effect of polarizing the community even more.

Instead of focusing on entrenched positions of "He doesn't have anything to do with raising his children" to "She is constantly being manipulative", we have to shift to the common interests of how we can come together to raise our children.

To end on an upswing, my father was and still is an excellent role model for all Native fathers. He is still married to my mom after 44 years. Along with my mother, he accepted and embraced the responsibility of raising both my brother and myself. Together, they overcame the long-term effects of their time spent at the Pelican Falls residential school--the place where they first met as children.

There are others just like my dad all over Turtle Island. The problem is there are just far too few of them. This must change.

Life isn't a rap video. Perhaps if more Native men suffered from early onset male-pattern baldness, they would act their age much sooner. Flowing hair aside, no one should aspire to be the old guy at the club. It's more sad than laughable for many reasons.

The Birth Home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., may be visited only with a park ranger led tour. The tours are filled on a first-come, first-served basis. Register for the tour at the National Park Service Visitor Center in person upon arrival to the park. The tour is strictly limited to 15 people per tour! They fill up fast on weekends and holidays.

Posted By John Michelena of Amerivest Realty, Atlanta Georgia

Ed Gillespie of Futerra refers to this quote in his latest post on the Futerra blog. According to him "it's time stretch the vision, take a few risks, ignore the lobbyists and defenders of the status 'business as usual' quo, implement some potentially unpopular decisions (...) and simply do what's right. Will 'Change we can believe in' or 'The straight talk express' deliver this? I'm not so sure, but I live in hope and still have a dream..."

When is the last time you've done something because it's right?

Ed here is talking about measures in order to prevent disastrous climate change. And he's, well right. But let's look at your clients. How many of them evaluate your advice or proposals by asking "Is it safe?", "Is it politic?" or "Is it popular?". How many of them can honestly say they've simply asked "Is it right?" and went for it? How many of us have done that lately?

It's about integrity, right?

A lot of people have come to believe that "Is it safe, politic or popular?" is the same as "Is it right?" which it isn't. How do we know? Well, saying somethin is right implies that this outweighs the answers on the three other questions.

Saying "it's right" is also about integrity. About daring to go all the way and taking the consequences for your actions. It's about responsibility. Safe, politic and popular is usually about the opposite.

Live life.

Do something with integrity and you'll be able to learn from life. It will keep you from putting the blame on others and learn from your mistakes. It will help you to focus and improve. It will enable you to enjoy the success of your efforts to the fullest.

    

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- As a young man, Barack Obama idolized the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.

"Reading about people not that much older than me who had gone to jail and suffered beatings in order to liberate a people," he said, "I thought there's something powerful about that."

Fellow Harvard University student Kenneth Mack remembered walking around the Harvard Law campus with his friend, who was constantly quoting the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

" 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,' " Mack remembered Obama saying. "For other people to say things like that, people wouldn't take it seriously, but with Barack, people really did take him seriously. They thought of him as someone who really sincerely believed it."

But Obama was about 20 years too late to join King's movement. So, he decided to do the next best thing. In 1985, a few years before he went to Harvard, Obama took a job as a community organizer.

Read the rest:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/revealed.obama.chicago/index.html

That name stirs up instant visceral emotion for many people of many ages with many backgrounds.

He was a giant among men, a leader for the lost and a beacon of hope for countless thousands in a dank, dreary world.

His words were a refuge, so it's not surprising next to Jesus Christ, Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King is also one of the most widely quoted people of all time.

I know several people that can quote the acclaimed "I have a dream" speech verbatim. Others can recite his clarion calls of civil rights like chefs rattle off their recipes. But one of his most controversial quotes is still making headlines today, "11 a.m. Sunday is the most segregated hour in America." Ouch! 40 years ago, not so stunning. Today, rap music is tops on the music charts, saggin' is the fashion rage (albeit a seriously brain-dead look), interracial relationships are common practice and of course, everyone wants to be "Like Mike" (or Tiger). So why wouldn't the Church carry that same "We are the World" visage?

Because like polka-dots and stripes, there are some things that most people refuse to mix. The celebration of Jesus is one of them.

Recently, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's ace journalist John Blake penned a riveting article on this subject that was picked up by CNN. It's a long article, so if you have some time, I encourage you to digest it. This brilliant piece sparked many ruminatologies for one HiScrivener. Here we go - this could get lengthy:

> Chronology - Look back the past century. Preachers have been extolling the greatness of God and the inclusiveness of the Gospel for decades. All the while, they have been doing it to stark monochromatic pews. Why doesn't the message of racial unity bridge the gap in the Church? During the Civil War (and before), religion had to be separate. Congregations wouldn't mix because of the absent-minded angst many so-called Christians held. That sprouted the roots of some of the most celebrated denominations in America - COGIC, AMC, MBC, PBC and so on. Today, the Church is only less than 10 PERCENT "racially-mixed". Absurd. It's common knowledge for folk clutching the hymnal that if you want to get down in church - in the words of the iconic "Curtis" from The Blues Brothers - they can "slide on down to the [analogy here] Triple Rock and catch Reverend Cleophis." But what does that tell you? If you like your Jesus this way, stay at the all-white church. If you like Jesus that way, go over where the black folk are. Rarely, is there any in-between. And yes, I CAN name just about every larger church that does bridge the gap. The fact I can do that is not a nice party trick. It's a pathetic indictment on the Body of Christ. But it's also transparent that time may not heal all wounds.

> Sociology - We are not the same, we are different and this is one segment of society that hasn't figured out really to grasp that yet. What's wrong with one portion of the Church enjoying three-chord hymns that are considered works of art in music and another portion that adores progressive and passionate music with choirs that could lift the sin right off your back? Answer: NOTHING! So why is it acceptable to make fun of the other, and please, let's not act like you are so holy. If you are black, it's "they clap on one and three". And if you're white, it's "I can't understand a freakin' word they sing anyway." Why not just appreciate it for what it is - an interpretative celebration. That's the reason denominations were apostatized... er, created anyway. Enjoy the fact that although that church doesn't do it like your church, as long as you both jam for Jesus during praise and worship, see you in heaven! In other words, both of you shut up and mind your own choral business. God made us different - same blood, same spirit but different emotional make-up - so relish in your unique quality to worship God your way, and let others do it their way. No one has a patent on worship, although one guy was rumored to have it, but he was given the boot from his last gig (literally), but never mind that right now.

> Psychology - Much to the sociology, we feel differently too. Our hearts may look the same and produce the same blood, but they tend to "beat" differently (yes, pun intended). I know many of God-fearin', Bible-totin' folk that love the Lord with a greater veneration than jubilation. Because of that mental focus, a more mundane celebration found in some "passive" churches would be more their stelo. These folk go to churches of the Catholic, Church of Christ, Methodist, Wesleyan, Anglican, Presbyterian, et al. persuasion. I also know an equal amount of jubilation saints that you can find in any Assembly of God, COGIC, Church of God, Pentecostal, Non-denominational (and yes, THAT IS a denomination), et al. church. They aren't in those churches because they are tone deaf or can't keep a beat. That's just how they roll, and so what? If they think God is offended by the aforementioned "Old Landmark", they may be really off-base and in need of consulting how David danced, but they mean well and God respects that. What's that to ya'? Not much.

> Theology - If God's children each feel and act differently, I am willing to gamble the mortgage on my house, we think differently too. Why else do you think there are a ba-jillion different translations and interpretations of the Bible? These are also coupled with everyone's commentary, self-help book and metaphysical breakdown of the scriptures. Oy! No wonder the real money is in Christian publishing. Anywhoo... we do process the Bible in various ways. Some of us are heedful and cerebral, and for that the Church has teachers. Others of us are emotional and sentimental, and for them the Church offers evangelists. And even more of us are practical, and for them are the pastors. Those black or white or brown or yellow or red dudes pounding the pulpits around the world fall under one of those five gifts. And most do so with passion and vigor. Some whoop and holler, others ruminate and orate. Regardless of how they run the race, they usually get to the same finish line - it's all about God and his son Jesus crucified and risen for our sins. Why are each of those churches full (or half-full) of people every Sunday? The same reason different restaurants serving the same hash are - the food is really the same, but people are convinced it's different because their preference is the filter, not the flavor. Think about it and dare to try another kind of burger. You may be surprised how differently it tastes; yet how similarly it fills you up.

> Doxology - So, I suppose after this dissertation is complete, the fashions in which we worship, the practices in which we study the Bible and the churches in which we attend all come down to preference. You can usually determine what the demographic of a church by looking at one person - the pastor. If the pastor is white, odds are you will find 90 percent white folk and all of the things that go with it. If the pastor is black, same thing. It the pastor is a woman, well... nevermind. Preference is fine with God. He made us that way. So if you like your worship one way, enjoy it that way. If you wish your pablum a certain way, go get it. If you prefer certain people, cool. But the moment preference of celebration becomes prejudice based on creed, it's sin! I don't care if an ordained preacher is proselytizing a black liberationist theology. What I do care about is that he is usually standing on the heads of white people to do look bigger doing it. Likewise, I don't care if you walk into a church and you are blinded by the stark whiteness in the pews. The moment you hear that pastor exclaim it's white because that's how God intended it, I'm looking (and praying) for lightning with the quickness! I realize "We are the World" began as a song for hunger and is now a punch line to extol unity, but... we really are. There are facets of other cultures that are fascinating and for you not to enjoy them - or at least observe them - is cheating yourself on God's imagination, his own celebration of the life he gave us.

So, here's to the world and its living rainbow. We are one big melting point of culture and creed, race and region, gender and geography... but when it comes to religion, it seems we all go our separate ways. You go that way and we go this way. Is it acceptable? I suppose. Is it temporal? Probably not. The churches of the rainbow are great, but seem to be a trend that can't catch steam. Too may people with hot air fill the other ones, you know? But to sum it up, I don't think a HiScrivener witticism is necessary. I know another guy that has been known to opine from time-to-time. I'll use his profound words:

Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away, and that in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation will their scintillating beauty.

There. I couldn't have said it better myself, and after this post that's saying something!

Forty years ago Hillary Rodham was still an undergraduate at Wellesley College, John McCain was in the Hanoi Hiilton after being shot down the previous October, and Barack Obama had just turned eight and was attending elementary school in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The hot summer had brought to full force one of the most tumultuous times of political history.  Vietnam was becoming increasingly an unpopular war and although Lyndon B. Johnson had chosen not to run for re-election, many felt that his Vice President, Hubert Humphrey and presidential front runner, was equally to blame for the carnage in southeastern Asia.  The anti-war movement had been planning since March and included such groups as Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Youth International Party (YIPPES), and National Mobilization Committee to End War in Vietnam.

The war was not the only stress felt by the country.  Civil rights riots had broken out in the spring following the assassination of Martin Luther King in Memphis, Tennessee.  One of King's most visible supporters was Democratic Presidential Nominee, Bobby Kennedy, who had been killed in Los Angeles in July by a mentally ill Palestinian, Sirhan, Sirhan.The atmosphere was tender dry and lay waiting for the one spark to ignite the blaze which would forever transform the U.S. political process.

While I have, for the sake of brevity, caricatured both positions, these really are rather different views of where peace, and social change in general, comes from. Of course, there are ways of reconciling them, along the lines of peaceful people creating peaceful social conditions, and vice versa. But that leaves a problem: when a cycle of violence starts, and increasingly violent people create increasingly violent conditions that make people even more violent, how do you stop and reverse the process? I personally think it has to do with values: people with peaceful values and the spiritual strength to try to promote those values commit themselves to change. So, in that sense you do need inner peace to create outer peace; but inner peace, while probably involving an inner life of meditation and prayer (at least for some), is an active posture and not a passive one. Here Ghandi or Martin Luther King are excellent examples.

I know I have just scratched the surface on this one, so why not discuss it further in the comments.

This is the revelation I got on the 3rd day of a 4 day fast. How many times have we been held back and missed great opportunities because we have waited on the feeling of Faith? Waiting because we don't know the whole equation or you think you have to read just one more book before you can really go out and make it happen. Martin Luther King Said "You don't have to see the whole stair case just take the first step in faith." Well faith is not a feeling, don't wait on it, just take the first step in faith.

Faith the feeling is a result of faith the action. Example - How many times have you tried a new work out plan to find out after the first few minutes you felt like giving up, you didn't think it was worth it. Then the next day or week you took action and did it again and it was easier and you thought this feels good. So you continued to work out and see results until one day for what ever reason you missed your work out. The next day the same thing happened and eventually you stopped working out altogether. Your faith actions changed and as a result faith the feeling disappeared as well. Here's another example from the book Mastery by George Leonard "At our aikido school, a notice is placed on the bulletin board four times a year asking qualified students to sign up for ranking exams. Some students sign immediately, while others wait until a few days before the exam. It's instructive to watch the immediate surge of clarity and energy during training that comes from the simplest act of writing one's name on a notice. Those who sign late suffer from having less time in which to enjoy the energy that flows from commitment. The gift of an externally imposed deadline isn't always available. Sometimes you need to set your own. But you have to take it seriously. One way to do this is to make it public. Tell people who are important in your life. The firmer the deadline, the harder it is to break, and the more energy it confers. Above all else, move and keep moving. Don't go off half cocked. Take time for wise planning, but don't take forever. "Whatever you can do, or dream you can— begin it," Goethe wrote. "Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it." A great example of how taking action leads to the feeling and energy and results that flows from faith/action.

Why that background? Today I read this and was reminded of how wonderful my childhood was, how loved I was, how safe I was. I was reminded that despite what goes on around me in my world today, I can offer a safe haven for my children as well. Can I protect them from evil? No, not completely. But I can love them and nurture them in a way that will hopefully equip them to overcome it when they are threatened by it. And to have that opportunity, today, is a blessing. Today, I enjoyed hugging each one before leaving the house. I will enjoy hugging each one when I get home. I will enjoy reading to them (oh, wait, we'll probably be gathered around the TV watching olympics, the nightly reading being postponed for two weeks), and tucking them in and singing to them and praying with them.

Fear grips many people today. I hope to instill in my children a trust in God to see them through that fear.

Iløpet av fire minutter og 57 sekunder klarer Robert med sin stort sett improviserte tale å roe ned den hatske stemningen blant publikum og får den svarte befolkningen i byen til å se videre, til tross for at de har mistet sin viktigste forkjemper for sine rettigheter. Det hører med til historien at mens det i de fleste amerikanske storbyer brøt ut opptøyer blant den svarte del av befolkningen, forholdt de i Indianapolis seg stort sett rolig, noe Kennedy i ettertid har fått mesteparten av æren for.

Robert Francis Kennedy, for en mann, for en taler. Synd at Amerika aldri fikk ha denne mannen som president.

Uau. E como lidar com a sensação da injustiça? Hummm... em minhas navegações blogueanas encontrei ontem um post sobre pôquer. O artigo falava sobre como lidar com grandes perdas. Ora, uma grande perda também pode ser vista como uma injustiça, dependendo do caso.

Então, vamos lá. O artigo dizia que não adiantava a gente ficar se lamentando, ou brigar, a atitude de um campeão é simplesmente manter a disciplina e a otimização de desempenho apesar dos revezes da vida.

Dizia que não adiantava a gente levantar a bola apontando as falhas do outro, ao invés disto, precisamos nos aprimorar, sempre.

Dizia mais ou menos assim: mais vale ter uma derrota injusta do que uma vitória injusta.

Eu não coloquei as referências do texto citado porque era de acesso restrito.

Martin Luther King

Times-Picayune editorial writer and columnist Jarvis DeBerry show us he still still a man "in touch with the street", as old white guys in politics used to say when I was a young white guy in politics. He treats us to a bit of street talk in his Aug. 10 column on Mayor C. Ray Nagin's latest show of tail feathers over the blogger-sourced NOAH scandal. Nagin is, he tells us

A walking embodiment of the black vernacular, he called certain mail critics "ginny women.: He accused others of "selling wolf tickets"....

Sadly, Mr. DeBerry doesn't bother to explain to us cracker-ass, recovery-hating bloggers what these terms mean. Thank bog for the Internets, that series of tubes which we nattering nabobs of negativism have excavated beneath the city's recovery like medieval miners trying to fell a castle wall.

Oddly, I found the definition for "ginny woman", a man who likes to gossip or involve himself in "women's business", under the Wikipedia entry for Yat (scroll down to the glossary), a uniquely working class white vernacular. I wonder if all of the Yat's are supposed to drop using ginny woman now the way blacks stopped saying "brah" for brother the minute the white guys at Kennedy High School took it up.

Selling wolf tickets is more genuinely black vernacular, if the unruly mob behind Wikipedia are to be trusted. Sadly DeBerry missed a grand opportunity for irony in the service of clarify when he didn't use the Lord Mayor's own feeble threat to "cold cock" members of the local news media as a living definition. Either that or he ran over his word count, as people who live and die by the column inch must sometimes do when they're on a roll, and something had to go.

In all fairness, DeBerry and columnist Stephanie Grace deserve full credit for their tag team Sunday columns (his here, her's here)calling out the mayor. Jumping Nagin is something the Picayune seems very cautious about in its news column. I especially like the part where Stephanie jumped into the ring with the folding chair and whacked Hizzoner upside the head. (OK, that was gratuitous and entirely too much fun to type). Others have analyzed the full dynamic of their one-two punch better than I: Moldy City in particular.

All frustrated newspaper columnist cleverness on my part aside, I have a lot of respect for DeBerry. If I've deeply insulted him by any of the above, I apologize and in the same breath suggest he needs to lighten up and get out of the newsroom a little more often. I respect him because he is the child of middle-class Black parents who is an editorial writer at a paper ruled by the white uptown elite in the person of Ashton Phelps, Jr. I am sure DeBerry must walk a very fine line between what he wants to say and what he can or must say if he wants to keep his job, much as the politicians he sometimes writes about must do.

That may be the reason behind the failure of his Sunday column fails. It fails because it starts down a path it does not follow to its logical end. DeBery is in a unique position to speak out to all communities, as an editorialist for a mainstream newspaper who routinely speaks to the Op-Ed reading elite, and as a son of black New Orleans. I think he could call the mayor out on the most important score of all more effectively than my sorry Bunny Bread ass ever can, sitting here typing for an audience of a hundred (on a good day). Still, that is a Rubicon DeBerry has not yet crossed, and perhaps never can with Phelps looking over his shoulder. So once again I'm stuck out here in the wilderness with locusts and honey stuck in my teeth and not so much as a twig in sight, speaking what must be said:

Nagin is a racist.

His use of black street slang isn't just machismo, as DeBerry suggests. Nagin is speaking in racial code to advance his agenda, circling "his people" around him as a buffer from any criticism. Anyone who so openly panders to one race over the other, who falls back upon the defense that "they" are out to get one of "us", differs from David Duke in degree and not kind. Speaking in code just makes it worse, more insidious. Were the White Citizen Councils somehow different or better than the Ku Klux Klan? When I say this (or if James Gill or Stephanie Grace try it), well, we're just them: Exhibit A in the argument that We're out to get the Brother-In-Chief of the city.

What bullshit.

If you pander to racial divisiveness, you are a racist. It doesn't matter if you drape yourself in your wife's best sheets or the lingo of the streets, the game is the same. And that is what Nagin does, just as Cynthia Hedge-Morrell and Cynthia Willard-Lewis did with the Inspector General debate When you pack the council with an angry, racial mob to get your way, does it matter if they are black or white? What difference does it make? Not that Nagin or the Cynthias are alone. Stacey Head is not above giving tit-for-tat, publicly disrespecting the other side to curry favor with her own. She is the obverse of the Nagin coin. Her taunting of public housing residents and clash with Tamborine and Fan are equally unacceptable.

What no one in the Times Picayune is likely to step up to say is the one thing that needs most to be said: people who stir up racial division are the ones who do the greatest damage to the recovery, even more than the looters in suits who siphon off recovery money.

Yes, you, C. Ray Nagin. You are not only a racist, you are one of the greatest threats to the city's recovery. You are what I have railed against since I started blogging back in August 2005 and all through the darkest days of the rest of that dark year, back when I wrote about the Knights of the Invisible Hand, or a year and a half later when I wrote about the inspector general battle.

My position remains the same: We can not afford this. We couldn't in September 2005, or November 2006 or August 2008. At the one bright moment in the history of the entire slavery-cursed South when everyone in one community had the largest event of their lives in common, were united in solidarity by the flood; when history presented us our Augenblick, our opportunity to seize the day and make the revolution Martin Luther King prophesied, you chose instead to whip it out and piss all over it just to show you're one of the folk, one of the guys. When you were done you shook the brothers down for all they had in their pockets for your car fare to get uptown and collect your campaign checks, and you laughed all the way to the bank.

What a tremendous accomplishment and legacy. We shall have to erect a statue to you in memory of these times, perhaps where the Liberty Monument once stood, to remind us how you helped to destroy the second reconstruction of New Orleans. We can all look at it and hope that some day we will all join together to pull it down.

Oh, and Mr. Mayor: if you think the bloggers are out to get you, we are. In case you haven't noticed, the NOLA Bloggeres are out to get anyone who threatens or interferes with the recovery. FYYFF.

Su figura continúa ejerciendo entre sus
compatriotas un ascendente tan poderoso que a nadie llama la
atención en Estados Unidos que los políticos, poco importa
cuál sea su pelaje o filiación ideológica, se afanen en
capitalizar el legado de Martin Luther King.

En su reñida competencia por hacerse con la nominación
demócrata para las presidenciales de noviembre, Hillary Clinton y
Barack Obama no solo han reivindicado ostensiblemente al
campeón negro de los derechos civiles, sino que los senadores
por Nueva York e Illinois se han enzarzado incluso en una agria
disputa -aunque episódica y banal- a cuenta del reverendo negro
asesinado en 1968 en el balcón del Lorraine Motel de Memphis.

El desencuentro lo originaron hace algunos meses unas
declaraciones televisivas de la antigua primera dama a propósito
de la ley que, en 1964, consagró el denominado "sueño de la
igualdad".

Al referirse a la llamada Acta de los Derechos Civiles, Clinton
destacó el papel desempeñado por el presidente Lyndon B.
Johnson en la promoción de aquella histórica norma. El énfasis
puesto en los méritos de Johnson molestó a algunos líderes de la
comunidad negra, que interpretaron -no sin cierta malicia- que la
senadora minimizaba con su comentario la contribución de King
al movimiento de los derechos civiles. Rápidos de reflejos, los
integrantes del equipo de campaña de Obama utilizaron las
palabras de Clinton para presentarlas como un signo de su poca
"sensibilidad racial".

Finalmente, después de que la rencilla cundiese para varios
titulares de prensa, los dos aspirantes demócratas sellaron las
paces con ocasión del aniversario, días más tarde, del
nacimiento de Luther King. "Puede que discrepemos en asuntos
menores, pero cuando se trata de lo verdaderamente importante
somos como una familia", resumió Clinton tras darse un baño de
multitudes en Nueva York junto a un grupo de activistas
afroamericanos.

Además de servir para ilustrar cómo una carrera electoral tan
dilatada como la norteamericana fuerza a escenificar
desaveniencias entre los candidatos que enseguida quedan en
simple anécdota, a la efímera disputa demócrata acerca de MLK
se le puede encontrar algo más de entraña.

Por más influencia que pueda tener en el imaginario colectivo,
por más que los políticos se encomienden a su obra, lo cierto es
que una parte sustancial del mensaje del líder negro todavía no
ha sido ni asumida -menos aún practicada- por la dirigencia
estadounidense.

Esto es algo que se advierte al examinar la actitud de Clinton y
Obama, quienes deberían haber recordado antes de enredarse
en su cruce descalificaciones que el empeño de Luther King,
tanto como una causa por la igualdad y las libertades, constituyó
una vindicación en favor de la concordia y el entendimiento.

Pero se advierte sobre todo al corroborar cómo la furia guerrera
del que ha hecho santo y seña la administración Bush mantiene
a los Estados Unidos muy lejos de la proclama pacifista que
también agitó con vehemencia el pastor bautista.

"Honramos a Luther King, pero nunca lo hemos escuchado",
escribió Bob Herbert desde las páginas de opinión del rotativo
The New York Times. "A pesar del mensaje de cambio pacífico
de King, no existe nada más americano que la violencia brutal",
añadió el columnista.

Para Herbert, el carismático hombre de cuyo asesinato se
cumplen ahora 40 años entendió con inusitada lucidez "el precio
que hay que pagar por la creencia de que cada problema puede
ser arreglado con una bala o una bomba".

En la comprensión del coste que acarrea la "diplomacia de las
armas" parecen hallarse en este preciso momento los
estadounidenses, asqueados en su mayoría ante la espiral de
violencia en la que se han convertido las intervenciones de Irak y
Afganistán.

Es tan solo cuestión de tiempo que podamos comprobar si, una
vez entendido cuál es el verdadero precio de la sangre, Estados
Unidos estará dispuesto a volver a asumirlo tan ufanamente. O
si, por el contrario, optará -como empieza a demandar buena
parte de su opinión pública- por una estrategia menos
beligerante.

Únicamente tiempo.