Praying, Cringing and Dealing with Realities Following the Horror at Fort Hood

I fully admit that I am one of those black people who, when looking at the local news, prays that the latest crime being discussed does not have a black suspect. Yes, I am one of those people who cringes at the notion of yet another crime committed by a black person, thus adding one more reason law abiding black men like myself have to deal with the fears and suspicions of virtually everyone else.

In light of the horror that took place at the hands, allegedly, of a Muslim American at Fort Hood, I am sure that Muslims around the U.S. prayed that the suspects were not Muslims, and then likely cringed when it was revealed that Major Nidal Hasan was the named suspect. Over at Huffington Post, Jamal Dajani posted his reaction to all of the calls he was receiving from media types looking for a "Muslim perspective." Exhausting, I can imagine. Wajahat Ali, also at Huffington Post, stated the following: "Ultimately, this use -- or misuse -- of fear and rumors over Hasan's Islamic faith should be moot in light of the record of thousands of Muslim American soldiers who have served and made sacrifice...."

But in our post 9/11 world, that record that Ali references does not matter to a large swath of Americans. What they see are "Muzlims," and those are the people who want to kill all Americans and hate "our freedoms." We are a panic ridden society now, and it would not surprise me if calls for thorough checks and examinations, and even beginning thoughts of the internment of Muslim American communities didn't get louder. Yet, we have to make sure that we maintain who we are as Americans with an open society, while insisting on providing top tier national security protection to all of us, so that we do not have to experience tragedies like this one again.

The question is how will we do it?

Playing with Words, Limbaugh-like

After reading Maureen Dowd's latest, I couldn't help but feel my inner "Michael Evans" from "Good Times" come forth. So, when Rush Limbaugh calls Barack Obama a "man-child...," is that just a cute way of calling the man "boy" in the old school sense?

Abolish Tax Exemptions For Religious Institutions

I'll keep this post short and sweet. If churches, regardless of perspective want to get in the game of politics, then churches need to lose every tax exemption that is currently in place. It is offensive to me to know that many, particularly conservative, church leaders conflate their personal political positions with what they interpret as the word of God, thus suggesting to their congregations that, say, voting Republican is akin to voting the way God would. The whole purpose of the exemption, if I am recalling it correctly, was to protect churches from the whims of the secular and political worlds, as well as to offer somewhat neutral territory.

Besides, we need the tax revenue.

For Holtz-Eakin: Reality is a Bitch

When I saw this "Washington Post" article on Doug Holtz-Eakin (a former McCain campaign economic advisor), I realized that as much as I wanted to laugh at his situation, I could not do it. Holtz-Eakin's sitch cuts too close to home. I know that pain, and that sense of fear. Yes it does hurt, and yes there is fear there. My mother has said the exact same thing as his does, even as we work our networks to change our circumstances, whether it's getting more clients or a full time gig.

I do hope that this humbles Holtz-Eakin. I know that he has made it clear that he is not in favor of what is happening on the Hill with regard to health insurance reform, yet this is a rare chance for a high and mighty person to see and feel what's it's like for the rest of us. He is getting a healthy dose of that, and perhaps he will be inspired to devise a conservative approach to health insurance reform that is genuinely effective. Only time will tell. I wish him the best in securing some form of affordable health insurance, because I, too, know that reality can be a bitch.

Liz Cheney: Straight Up Liar

In the past, I've posted about Liz Cheney on this blog. I pointed out her double standards. But now, I've come to a new conclusion.

Cheney is someone who simply does not deserve to be listened to; she deserves no audience. I say this not because she has a political perspective that I do not share. I say this because she is a straight up liar, and my girl Rachel Maddow made that so plainly clear last night on her show:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And then there is this segment on "Countdown" last night.


It should be made clear. Until Liz Cheney can learn how to operate in a world where things like facts and truths matter, no one should bother to listen to a single syllable that she utters from her mouth. We don't need to be subjected to another person who is nothing but loud and wrong.

Let me make this clear once again. Liz Cheney is a liar. Even if one doesn't agree with the politics of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, one cannot say that they are both lying about Cheney. I think that the next time she appears on a program for a debate, either on the radio or on television, someone should confront her on the lies she has told. Make her explain herself. If they don't, then shame on every person who fails to do so; they will be giving her their imprimatur to continue spewing lies.

Furthermore, I d-double dare Liz Cheney to go on Rachel Maddow's show. THAT'S RIGHT, D-DOUBLE DARE!

Justice Scalia and Dissents

"Scalia on Brown v. Board of Education: I Would Have Dissented"

When I saw that headline on Huffington Post, something didn't feel right. I fully admit that I am no fan of Scalia's judicial philosophy, but I digress. I then went to the link provided in the post, and read it twice; I saw no mention of Brown v. Board of Education. Problem. Finally, I saw this post over at Balkinization that included an update (and a video clip) that made sense. Scalia would have dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson, which brought constitutional imprimatur to the idea of "separate but equal" back in 1896 that the Brown decision overturned in 1954.

What I found interesting about this little episode was the ease with which I could believe that Justice Scalia would have dissented in Brown. Yet, I am glad that my very next instinct was not to believe it without some type of proof. Because, even with a lifetime tenure, Scalia saying that he would have dissented in Brown would be like stepping on a landmine of landmines.

Huffington Post has updated the first post I saw, so the link I have will be the updated version. Here is the link to the video clip if someone is interested in watching the discussion between Scalia and and Justice Breyer; it's actually interesting.

Bipartisanship? Whatevah!

I just finished reading Howard Fineman's piece for "Newsweek" online, and he hits the nail on the head with regard to the pointless pursuit of bipartisanship on the part of the Obama administration. This effort would only make sense if the GOP was actually interested in working with Obama. It isn't, so watching Obama wax about bipartisanship following the Senate Finance Committee's vote was painful, because it was hollow. This is an instance where the push for bipartisanship feels more like ass covering, just in case the legislation doesn't do what you hope to do, than a real effort on the part of both sides of the aisle working to improve the lot of the American people. So, to Obama, I would say that if you think you have a good idea, then own it, and act like you have a massive Democratic majority in Congress. Let Hill Republicans continue to do their version of "talk to the hand," and ignore them accordingly, because this push for bipartisanship is a damn waste of your time.