Who is making race an issue?

---by Micheal

The Obama camp has been quick and almost shrill in trying to decry any perceived hint of race becoming an issue. Race, they are quick to preach, should never be brought into the campaign. That belongs to the bad old days, not today.

Lofty sentiments, to be sure, and I could agree with them thus far. The candidates should be judged by who they are inside, who they are positionally and by their character. Skin color should not be how one selects a president.

Lofty, but it just ain't happenin'. All over the press as the Democratic Convention played out, were signs, posters and buttons announcing how wonderful it was that Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream was coming true. How great it was that a black man was (in the Democratic optimism) going to become president.

But this is all judging him by his skin. Just because he's got semi-black skin, he's a wonderful thing? Obama was never part of the grand old Civil Rights Movement culture. Early critics of him (such as Rev. Jackson) were quick to point out that Obama really wasn't "one of them." He grew up in an entirely different culture than the group who struggled through 50s and 60s in the south, segregation, bussing and "Jail no bail". Obama is not one of King's fellow protesters. He was too late, and waaaay outside of that orbit.

The only connection Obama has to the MLK and Civil Rights culture is the color of his skin. Yet, this is EXACTLY what the teary-eyed Democrats are so proud of. He's got black skin. Isn't that wonderful?

Make no mistake. Race is already being made an issue -- by the Democrats. The unstated rule is: you can make race an issue, only if it favors the black man. (Even though double-standards are supposed to be wrong.)

Change What?

---by Micheal

The headline across USA Today's front page read, "Time to Change America" as summarizing Barack Obama's and the Democrats' bumper sticker slogan for November. The TV has been stuffed to nauseating fullness with gushy blather about "bringing change" and "fixing things." It's all too much like a fast talking vacuum cleaner salesman's pitch. Lot's of high-sounding words, but conspicuously devoid of particulars. What exactly are they in such a big hurry to change?

In street magician style, the vague talk suggests things like more jobs and lower taxes and better education, etc. etc., but no one is really promising anything specific there. Thus far, it's just been a lot of waving of hands and wafts of smoke.

It's when Obama staffers speak out against McCain that you get a hint of what the change is they have in mind. They fret over abortion rights and gay marriage. THAT is what appears to be really important to them. The rest is intentional diversion stuff for those not paying close attention.

Not all change is good. -- Right now, abortion is already legal. Change would mean making it illegal. Do they really want to change America? Me thinks not. Gay marriage is not a federal right. Perhaps that is what they're in such an all-fired hurry to change.

The liberal agenda has (for the past forty years) been in a huge hurry to get God removed from America and let humanist doctrine run everything. Free love, everyone entitled to everything equally, except that extra-affirmative-action should ensure that anyone who felt oppressed by white males at any point in their family history, should be entitled to preferred treatment. (What happens to white males who felt oppressed by other white males?)

There are so many ways to totally screw up this country, that some vague sloganizing about changing America sounds like a very risky deal. I might change a few things, sure, but I'm not so sure America needs all that much changing. The political process in Washington needs improving, but a big injection of more humanist doctrine will only make the monster stronger, not better.

Do we LOVE being lied to?

---by Micheal

First was the revelation that the impressive "footsteps" fireworks at the Olympic opening ceremonies were fake. CGI for TV only. Then today comes the revelation that the cute little girl singing at the opening ceremonies was lip-syncing. The real little girl singing was deemed not pretty enough to appear on TV.

Just a few more examples of how we're regularly fed the "pretty lies".

As easy as it would be to rail at the Chinese politicos for such fakery, half the blame has to fall in our own laps. How much do we prefer -- if not demand -- the pretty lie?

A short while back, while listening to NPR's Cokie Roberts, she was gushing all sorts of praise at Obama for his "wonderful" European tour. "Brilliant," she called it. She couldn't hardly get a word out without tripping over another praise. (This is the journalist who favors word spins like Obama is the "presidential hopeful" while McCain is the "presumptive nominee.")

She was talking about a very heavily stage managed string of photo-ops orchestrated by the Obama campaign. It was the same pageantry stuff as the Olympics opening ceremonies. Nothing real. Nothing substantial. Just a big show intended to dazzle. In short, we're being lied to -- given the pretty face to watch and carefully crafted audio to go with it. Some, perhaps many?, like Ms Roberts are buying into the lie, lock stock and barrel.

As we go into the home stretch on the elections (both state and national), do we as voters fall for the pretty lies? Worse yet, do we subtly expect the pretty lies? "Tell me what I want to hear regardless of how impossible it is." Are we semi-consciously demanding that our politicians will be the pretty face, have the soothing voice and promise us a gilded utopia?

One big test for this Pretty Lie Fixation is how you react (inside) if a politician does not promise you your utopia? Do you angrily demand your silk purse, or do you try to figure out what you can do with that sow's ear?

If you demand the pretty lie, you'll get it, but that's all you'll get.