CW Political and Social Thought

Shame on Obama for Misleading the Gay Community

"With Obama, Gay Americans will be the first ones sold down the river" ~CWPolitical and Social Thought

I'm no political scientist, but I can clearly see how Obama is manipulating the gay community. First, Obama uses anti-gay gospel singer Donnie Mc-Closeted for a fundraiser in South Carolina, then yesterday in Charlottesville, Virginia, which I attended, Obama talked about his position on energy conservation, the achievement gap, foreign policy, special interests, health care, veterans benefits, social security, etc, but he made no mention of his support for civil unions for gay and lesbian Americans. You would think that a candidate running on "character" would want to be as morally and politically consistent as is possible. In his own words, Obama said, "I will always tell you where I stand". If that means anything, it should mean that Obama will not hide his position on civil unions just because he's in "red" Virginia, though it seems that he wants to hide his position altogether. Take a look at his website on the "issues".

Moreover, he perceives gay issues as being a divisive force in politics, as a problem originating out of the political calculus of those on the Right, instead of a  cry for equality from all the millions of second-class gay and lesbian Americans.

At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich. I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version.
Hartford, CT, June 23, 2007

And when we try to have an honest debate about the crises we face, whether it's from the pulpit or the campaign trail, the pundits don't want us to find common ground, they want us to find someone to blame. They want to divide us into Red States and Blue States, and tell us to always point the finger at somebody else - the other party, or gay people, or people of faith, or immigrants.
Hampton, VA, June  05,  2007


For the last six years we've been told that our mounting debts don't matter, we've been told that the anxiety Americans feel about rising health care costs and stagnant wages are an illusion, we've been told that climate change is a hoax, and that tough talk and an ill-conceived war can replace diplomacy, and strategy, and foresight. And when all else fails, when Katrina happens, or the death toll in Iraq mounts, we've been told that our crises are somebody else's fault. We're distracted from our real failures, and told to blame the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.
Baton Rouge, LA, May 05, 2007

And when we try to have an honest debate about the crises we face, whether it's on the Senate floor or a Sunday talk show, the conversation isn't about finding common ground, it's about finding someone to blame. We're divided into Red States and Blue States, and told to always point the finger at somebody else - the other party, or gay people, or immigrants.
San Diego, CA, May 02, 2007


Nevertheless, here is where Obama stands on issues important to gay and lesbian Americans.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes
In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported. Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes law to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Fight Workplace Discrimination and Promote Rights
Obama believes the Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Obama sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples
Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples, including the right to assist their loved ones in times of emergency as well as equal health insurance, employment benefits, and property and adoption rights. Obama also believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell
Obama believes we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service
should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure we accomplish our national defense goals.

Fight AIDS Worldwide
Obama has been a global leader in the fight against AIDS. He traveled to Kenya and took a public HIV
test to encourage testing and reduce the stigma of the disease. Obama worked to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act, one of the largest sources of federal funds for primary health care and support services for HIV/AIDS patients.

Finally, the question that we should all be asking is...

What Politicians Do Best: Change with the Wind

This business about Barack Obama using Donnie McClurklin as a political pawn in garnering support from African American voters in South Carolina despite Obama's support for gay rights and McClurklin's belief in the immorality of homosexuality is nonsense. [1](Though, McClurkin was himself a homosexual for twenty years.) The point is that Obama is doing what politicians do best, say and do whatever they need to in order to get elected (within limit of course). So this should come as no surprise. Here are cases of presidential candidates conveniently changing or making their position "more nuanced," which really means that they've been caught in a lie. Unfortunately, with cameras on them around the clock, candidates are avoiding taking a firm stance on issues and instead opt for the occasional, "I believe in the legality of x-issue, but I am personally against it." Or "My initial support for x-issue was based on these conditions, but because this and that have changed about the issue, I no longer support x-issue." Well, I'm not falling for it.

This actually reminds me of the 1858 Senate race in Illinois between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. Douglas often accused Lincoln of talking out of both sides of his mouth and no wonder why.

Abraham Lincoln speaking in northern Illinois (Chicago)

Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout the land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.

Abraham Lincoln speaking in southern Illinois (Charleston)

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races (applause); that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people...And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. (A People's History of the United States)

 

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney: I supported the Brady Bill, which instituted a five-day waiting period before you could buy a handgun, and a ban on assault weapons. As I said in 1994, "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA." But then, "I don't line up with the NRA." As I said in my gubernatorial campaign, "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them." [Boston.com]

Mitt Romney: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms. In our state . . . there are a series of laws restricting gun ownership in various ways. Over the past four years, I've worked very closely with the Gun Owners' Action League here, which is an affiliate of the NRA, and we've made some changes which I think they feel have been positive steps. And so you are going to see that, I think, hopefully, in other states as well, as they make progress, perhaps further than Massachusetts has." [Boston.com]

Rudy Giuliani
 

Hillary Clinton

A Minority Perspective of Larry Sabato's A More Perfect Constitution

In A More Perfect Constitution, Larry Sabato proposes twenty-three constitutional amendments, which in most experts' opinions look good on paper, but have very little chance of passage either through Congress or state initiative. That is not to say, however, that these proposals are not worth considering because, after all, Sabato is not just trying to modify our political structure so that it more accurately reflects the Founding Father's intentions for the role of Congress and the President, but also advances a creative plan to rid our system of the many malevolent forces that have dampened the spirit of democracy like partisan redistricting, presidential imperialism, and front-loading, a phenomenon which in the case of Iowa and New Hampshire has led to "a mere 1.4 percent of the U.S. population" basically determining who the presidential party nominees will be. In essence, "two small, heavily white, disproportionately rural sates have a hammerlock on the making of the president." His ideas range from increasing the size of the House to 1,000, to non-partisan redistricting to allowing foreign-born U.S. citizens the right to run for the presidency. No doubt, his proposals generated a lot of discussion at the National Constitutional Convention and serve as a starting point for reforming our Constitution, but, and this is a big but, Sabato gives no serious attention to the pressing need of minority representation.

Here are some facts at a glance
 

To his credit, Sabato does provide for the possibility that congressional districts could be drawn so as to create ethnic and racial districts and that the largest and medium states could have more senate seats, but I question whether he is really concerned about creating a more racially pluralistic Congress as much as he is about promoting the status quo, which by Harvard Law Professor Lani Guinier's account would represent a case of the tyranny of the majority. I don't mean to imply that this as an ad hominem attack against Sabato, rather it is an attempt to raise awareness of the most glaring omission from his book.  As Sabato never directly addresses the subject of minority representation or rather underrepresentation, I tried to get a sense of his opinion on the matter from various points throughout his book. Here are a few of them.

"The stormy modern subjects of abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, gun control, and the like, often threaten to generate their own form of civil war between the Democratic Blue states and the Republican Red states. Opinion is intensely divided on all of them, and they are best fought out on the political landscape, in the legislatures and election campaigns, until such time (if ever) that there is a national near-consensus on them. For now, these issues almost always generate more heat than light, and their introduction int0 the new Constitutional Convention would be poison, bitterly dividing delegates, soaking up disproportionate debate time and making compromise on other critical topics.  (Page  15)

Now, if Sabato is concerned about  less dramatic  constitutional proceedings, then certainly any discussion of racism and white privilege would be included in his "stormy modern subjects".

"While much remains to be done, great progress has been made in diversifying Congress over the past half century..." (Page 22)

Sabato then goes into listing the gender and racial makeup of Congress. Needless to say, Sabato is more interested in glorifying historical progress than advocating for structural features that might guarantee  that women and minorities are never so outnumbered by white men.

"The D.C. city council and electorate might be willing to accept a compromise of one senator in order to finally achieve some voting representation. Whether in a Constitutional Convention or the new Senate itself, this is a possible way out of this dilemma that is deeply troubling to many people: the unfair lack of voting representation for over a half a million Americans who pay taxes, often serve in the armed forces, and sometimes die for the country. That the District's population is heavily minority (about 60 percent African American and 10 percent other minorities) adds to the discomfort in the existing disenfranchisement" (Page 28)

This is really the only time in his book that Sabato addresses minority representation head-on, though D.C. residents' frustration in not having a voting member of the House or any member of Senate is not really a matter of worthwhile debate since "taxation without representation" is a founding principle of our government.

"Computer geographic software may be advanced enough by the 2010 census to aid significantly the compactness standard without doing any harm to minority representation." (Page 36)

Unfortunately, Sabato assumes that the present status of minority representation is an acceptable one.

"The overwhelming advantages conferred by incumbency and partisan redistricting can only be counteracted by a mandated maximum on office-holding, say term limit supporters. In addition, new ideas and fresh blood, perhaps greater representation for historically underrepresented women and minorities are guaranteed with term limits." (Page 41)

Then.

"While some variation in the characteristics of legislators is recorded here and there, term limits have not fundamentally changed the composition of legislatures" (Page 51)

"As the power of each member of the Court and the Court as a whole, has grown in recent decades, so too has the need for greater diversity and representation in the membership on the Court. ...The additional three members would permit greater diversity in race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, and background, and ideological leanings." (117)

At first glance, this excerpt appears to be some sort of recognition of the importance of minority representation, but Sabato does not seem to expound on the nature of minority representation. In other words, would a Supreme Court with African American justices with the conservative leanings of Clarence Thomas be a reasonable level of diversity? I don't know. He does not discuss that in-depth, but I suspect that given the level of attention and detail in his book to the exactness of minority representation, the quality of minority representation matters very little.

I must admit however that I find Sabato's position at times confusing, particularly in his recognition of a problem that is endemic to the minority population.

"In the alternative scenario, where the benefits of a particular policy are clear but very diffuse among a large section of the population, Oslon maintains that it is very difficult for an advocacy group to organize. In this circumstance, the broad affected group may assume that reason will naturally prevail or that other members of the group will take the lead. This is the legendary logic of "let George do it," and with juxtaposed with the notion of politicians as rational election-seekers, it has major consequences..."   

This particular paragraph discussed a collective action problem as it related to a mandatory balanced budget. Certainly, the observations of Oslon ring true in terms of minority politics. That being the case, why wouldn't certain constitutional measures be taken as with a balanced budget to mandate minority representation?

In any case, I am very disappointed that Sabato would call for a constitutional convention for the purposes of considering his amendments, which do little to challenge notions of white supremacy and tyranny in American national politics.

Pictures by Eugene Resnick from the National Constitutional Convention

From Top to Bottom (Geraldine Ferraro, Panel One (Moderator: Bob Schieffer, Fred Barnes, Rob Bishop, Donna Brazile, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jamie Raskin, Lowell Weicker), Donna Brazile and Eleanor Holmes Norton, Norton and Senator Raskin, Justice Alito, and former Senator Bob Dole)

My Appearance Before Charlottesville City Council

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

What does it mean to live in a just society? Does having the right to vote define justice? Does an equal applicability of the laws constitute justice? Certainly. But what about less technical issues? What about the nature of representation? Is a system whereby the majority determines all the rules just? If you find yourself in the majority, then perhaps this last question poses no great challenge, however, if you find yourself in the minority, then such a system appears to be only somewhat democratic. Ultimately, these rules are not just those agreed upon through legislative process, but include civil obligations, social attitudes, and standards of  objectivity. In other words, justice should not be politicized, as some objective limited to the state, but necessarily is a mandate to the people. Since the people are the antecedent of the state, then the burden of creating a just society in contingent upon the strong will of the people. Not a segment of the people. Not the majority of the people. The whole of the people. Here begins the critique of popular American thought. Unfortunately, the point has been missed by most Americans that democracy is the most ideal and least achievable practical form of  government. No doubt, the creation of rules is a necessary and proper first step, but the American project has basically stopped there.  The bifurcation and stalemate of our political  and moral energy attest to the disinterest in maximizing the input of diverse views and opinions. Nowhere has the abandonment of the democratic ideal been more tyrannical than with the white majority's firm belief in creating rules and institutions that deprive the minority population of real power and influence....

And old habits die hard.

***********************************************************
My Speech Before the Charlottesville City Council
Monday, October 15, 2007

"I stand here tonight to give my support to the representatives here as well as those citizens who have expressed their support through petition in denouncing the historical inaccuracy and offensive depiction of Sacagawea  and more broadly Native Americans. I believe that there is no argument that can be formulated that sufficiently counters the objections that we have made. Some critics ground their argument in a perversion of fact by supposing that Sacagawea is somehow reacting to having finally arrived at the Pacific Ocean, but I think that this supposition is  implausible.

This fundamental truth manifests itself through depictions of Native Americans elsewhere in public statues in Charlottesville. The George Rogers Clark statue on West Main Street conveys a violent confrontation between European-Americans and the indigenous people of North America. To sum up that scene, the Native Americans are being shot at and trampled as they try to resist foreign invasion. Perhaps if people took the opportunity to look at the back of the statue, which features a European-American about to ambush and indeed kill unarmed Native Americans, then the message of that statue and the message of the Lewis and Clark statue would be realized. Just as the George Rogers Clark statue symbolizes the conquering of a land and the conquering of a people, so does Sacagawea cowering at the feet of Lewis and Clark mean to symbolize the beginning of the end of the Native American civilization.

For these reasons, I support the hundreds of citizens who would like for this statue to be corrected through some means that gives dignity to the Native American peoples and truth to American history.

If I may leave you with this, what if every Native American in these statues was replaced by an African American? What if, instead of Sacagawea, that statue depicted York, a Black enslaved person who also went on that expedition? Would you feel different?"

Watch Clip Here. After player buffers, fast forward to the 10 min mark.

Sweep Around Your Own Front Door

As a kid, my father used to play a gospel song by the Williams Brothers called "Sweep Around"

You know there are too many people trying to take care of
others people's business and they can't even take care of their own.
What you need to do is take six months to mind your own business
and six months to leave other folks business alone. All I'm trying to say is:

Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around mine
Sweep around your own front door before you try to sweep around mine

You smile in your neighbors face and talk about them behind their back
but if you found out they were doing the same thing to you, you know you
wouldn't like that. (Oh no) Who we're to judge, what other people do, take a look
at yourself, and you could find some faults too.

I was reminded of this song because Congress is now considering a bill that would label the Turkish killing of over a million Armenians from 1915-1923 a genocide, but how can the United States condemn another country when it has never properly dealt with genocide on its own front door. Figures upwards of 100 million have been cited to show how many Native Americans died as a result of violence inflicted on and disease brought by European invaders, so where are the resolutions for that? As well, where is a post-facto resolution on the hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans who died on their way to the United States or the millions of Blacks who died as a result of that brutal and harsh institution known as slavery? Or what about the African Americans who were lynched without having any right to a trial or even the right to have Black witnesses? What about that? What about sweeping around our own front door!

Everyday Prejudice/ Racialism v Racism

After an Asian-American friend told me that her Korean parents would disown her for marrying a Black man, though they perhaps would not be averse to her marrying a white man, that got me to thinking, "What are some of these social rules, norms, and perceptions that govern race relations and serve as a barrier to racial peace?" I scoured the Internet to find out.

Against Chinese Americans

"One in four Americans has "strong negative attitudes" toward Chinese Americans, would feel uncomfortable voting for an Asian American for president of the United States, and would disapprove of a family member marrying someone of Asian descent, according to a landmark national survey." [1]

Against Black Americans

"Here is a list of reasons why we should discriminate against Blacks, starting with the most obvious down to the least obvious. Blacks hate us. Every Asian who has ever come across them knows that they take almost every opportunity to hurl racist remarks at us....Contrary to media depictions, I would argue that Blacks are weak-willed. They are the only race that has been enslaved for 300 years. It's unbelieveable that it took them that long to fight back. Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them, including Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians..Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity the religion whites forced upon them? [Kenneth Eng, Asian Week National, 2]

Against White Americans

That white perceptions of the extent of racial bias are rooted in a stupendous miasma of ignorance is made clear by a number of salient facts. First, as will be shown below, there is the statistical evidence indicating that equal opportunity is the stuff of fiction, not documentary; and secondly, the simple truth that white perceptions of racism's salience have always been splendidly naive. Indeed, as far back as 1963, before there was a Civil Rights Act to outlaw even the most blatant racial discrimination, 60 percent of whites said that blacks were treated equally in their communities. In 1962, only 8 years after the Brown decision outlawed segregation in the nation's schools (but well before schools had actually moved to integrate their classrooms), a stunning 84 percent of whites were convinced that blacks had equal educational opportunity. In other words, white denial of the racism problem is nothing new: it was firmly entrenched even when this nation operated under a formal system of apartheid [3]

Against Asian Women and White Men

"Interracial marriages between Asian women and white men is still predatory, purely paternalistic, if not outright capitalistic. Few white men are initially attracted to an Asian woman because they are beautiful by definition, nor because they know them personally and wish to know them better. They are specifically attracted to them because of the supposed stereotypes, cultural, sexual, anatomical—which is incredulously outrageous—regardless if these stereotypes are viewed as negative or positive. In the Asian community, especially among college students and young professionals, this subject is probably the most contentious. Both sides argue for and against, but in my opinion as an Asian male, the reasons for white males to "score" with Asian women is the reason why the practice should actually fall under the protection of federal Civil Rights Laws. Bottom line: If the white male's perspective regarding Asian women were to be totally publicized, it would be found objectionable to all—except maybe to themselves, of course." [4] 

Against Hispanic Americans

"A substantial and growing portion of the population gets more in goods and services from the government than it pays in taxes. When considered on top of the economic problem the cultural and political problems outlined by Huntington become even more serious. We can not afford - either economically or culturally - to continue on the current path on immigration policy. We need to deport the illegals, stop Hispanic immigration, and put both the need to maintain the existing culture and the advantage of much higher skilled and talented immigrants as key factors in determining who is eligible to immigrate to the United States." [5]

Against Middle Easterners

After the September 11th attacks, I have found myself paying much closer attention to fine details. Surveying my surroundings as if it's not only my responsibility, but a natural instinct. Some would say that it's racism, and others would say it's merely a reaction to a tragic event in American history. I must admit that I pay no more attention to Middle Easterners during my daily life than I do any other, but when it comes to suspicious activity, my level of awareness sky rockets, and I immediately feel a sense of urgency [6]

****************************************************

Racialism versus Racism

What is racialism? And how does it differ from racism? Many people may wonder what I mean in the header of this page by "racialist". Racialism and racism do share similar assumptions, namely that generalizing groups of people is valuable to understand the nature of racial relations and the inequality within the American context, however racialists fundamentally believe that race and racism are solely the product of social engineering, not of inherent qualities of people. In other words, in commenting on active and passive white supremacy and white male privilege, this is not an attack on white inferiority in that whites are heartless human beings who can't see pass their own white identity. Instead, in suggesting that white supremacy underlies social rules and norms, I hope to capture the extent to which contemporary Americans are victims of a prior social order that depended on placing races within a hierarchy. Moreover, our actions, specifically in terms of political representation, media representation, and employment, often mimic these traditions. In some respects, we are oblivious to the ways that we continue to pass the torch of white privilege, but in other respects, we consciously take on the spirit of this anachronistic practice. For instance, political parties often deliberately overlook women and minorities in canvassing for a party candidate because those individuals may pose a threat to the overall success of the  party in a particular district.  Since  white men were the traditional ruling class, and in some ways still is, people often struggle with their own prejudices with a female or minority candidate even for female and minority voters, but  notice this approach assumes that the rules of a prior social order are somehow pertinent to political success today. And of course, the rules are. So the best way to excite change is to cast doubt on the assumptions about the old social order that are blatantly racist and sexist. This is in no way saying that all white men are evil or that there is a conspiracy against women and minorities, only that institutions and rules that were established in a prior period continues to gain ground within the current American milieu, despite the growing resolve to try to undermine the prior order. In essence, racialists don't just hammer at the wall, they want to shake the ground on which it rests.

 

White Male Privilege in the VA Democratic Party

White Males are roughly 35% of Virginia's population, but have twice as much representation in the Democratic Party. The importance in using the Democratic Party as an illustration of white male privilege demonstrates the point that despite the so-called appeal of the Democratic Party to less represented groups like women and racial minorities, the pervasiveness of white male privilege in Virginia politics is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the special status afforded to white men in the United States. Indeed, they are overrepresented in almost all legislative bodies, but as well are  overrepresented in the media,  in academia,  and in the business world. No doubt, the deliberate attempt to shut out women and minorities for most of our nation's history has paid incredible dividends and  it is  our duty to see that that legacy ends once and for all.

Democratic Party Candidates for the Virginia General Assembly in 2007 as reported by the Democratic Party of Virginia [1]

By Numbers

 

In Percentage

 

* Race determined by physical characteristics and in some cases biographies provided by candidates on their official website.
* Race of Jerry Taylor and William Pratt not determined.

List of Party candidates from Virginia Democratic Party official website

• 01 - Jerry Taylor
• 05 - Susie Garner - http://www.susiegarner.com/
• 06 - Bill Thomas  - http://www.billthomas2007.com/
• 07 - Peggy Frank - http://www.peggyfrank.com/
• 09 - Eric Ferguson - http://www.fergusonfordelegate.com/
• 13 - Bruce Roemmelt - http://www.electroemmelt.org/
• 14 - Adam Tomer - http://www.tomerfordelegate.com/
• 16 - Andy Parker - http://www.parkerfordelegate.com/
• 19 - Lew Medlin - http://www.lewismedlin.com/
• 28 - Clyde Matthews - http://clydematthews.com/
• 21 - Bobby Mathieson - http://www.bobby21.com/
• 31 - Bill Day - http://www.dayfordelegate.com/
• 33 - Marty Martinez - http://www.martyfordelegate.org/
• 34 - Margi Vanderhye - http://www.vanderhye.com/
• 40 - Rex Simmons - http://www.rexsimmons.com/
• 50 - Jeanette Rishell - http://www.jeanetterishell.com/
• 51 - Paul Nichols - http://www.paulnicholsfordelegate.com/
• 52 - Chris Brown - http://www.brownfordelegate.com/
• 56 - Will Shaw - http://www.willshawfordelegate.org/ 
• 59 - Connie Brennan - http://www.conniebrennan.com/
• 72 - Tom Herbert - http://www.herbertfordelegate.org/
• 74 - Joseph Morrissey - http://www.morrisseyfordelegate.com/
• 78 - Mick Meyer - http://www.mickmeyer.com/ 
• 82 - Bob MacIver - http://www.bobmaciver.com/
• 83 - Joe Bouchard  - http://www.bouchardfordelegate.com/
• 86 - Jay Donahue - http://www.jaydonahue4delegate.com/
• 88 - Carlos Del Toro - http://www.deltorofordelegate.com/
• 96 - Troy Farlow - http://www.troyfarlow.com/

Incumbents

• 02 - Bud Phillips
• 03 - Dan Bowling - http://www.danbowling.homestead.com/
• 04 - Joe Johnson
• 10 - Ward Armstrong - http://www.wardarmstrong.com/
• 11 - Onzlee Ware - http://www.onzleeware.com/
• 12 - Jim Shuler - http://www.delegateshuler.com
• 23 - Shannon Valentine - http://www.shannonvalentine.net/
• 32 - David Poisson - http://www.delegatepoisson.com/
• 35 - Steve Shannon - http://www.delegatesteveshannon.com/
• 36 - Ken Plum - http://www.kenplum.com/
• 37 - David Bulova - http://www.davidbulova.com/
• 38 - Bob Hull - http://www.bobhull.org/
• 39 - Vivian Watts - http://www.vivianwatts.com/
• 41 - David Marsden - http://www.marsdenfordelegate.com/
• 43 - Mark Sickles - http://www.marksickles.com/
• 44 - Kris Amundson - http://www.amundson.org/
• 45 - David Englin - http://www.davidenglin.org/
• 46 - Brian Moran - http://www.brianmoran.com/
• 47 - Al Eisenberg - http://www.aleisenberg.com/
• 48 -  Bob Brink - http://www.bobbrink.org/
• 49 - Adam Ebbin - http://www.adamebbin.com/
• 53 - Jim Scott - http://www.delegatejimscott.com/
• 57 - David Toscano - http://www.toscano2005.com/
• 63 - Rosalyn Dance
• 64 - Bill Barlow
• 67 - Chuck Caputo - http://www.delegatecaputo.com/
• 69 - Frank Hall
• 70 - Dwight Jones
• 71 - Jennifer McCllelan - http://www.jennifermcclellan.com/
• 75 - Roslyn Tyler
• 77 - Lionell Spruill
• 79 - Johnny Joannou
• 80 - Ken Melvin
• 87 - Paula Miller - http://www.delegatepaulamiller.com/
• 89 - Kenny Alexander
• 90 - Algie Howell - http://www.algiehowell.com/
• 92 - Jeion Ward
• 95 - Mamye BaCote
• 100 - Lynwood Lewis

Senate

Challengers / Open Seats

• 01 - John Miller - http://johnmillerforsenate.com/
• 06 - Ralph Northam - http://www.northam2007.com/
• 09 - Donald McEachin - http://www.donaldmceachin.com/
• 13 - Steve Heretick - http://www.heretickforsenate.com/
• 15 - Bob Wilkerson - http://www.wilkersonforsenate.com/
• 22 - Mike Breiner - http://www.breinerforsenate.com/
• 23 - William Pratt
• 24 - David Cox - http://www.coxforva.org
• 26 - Maxine Hope Roles - http://www.rolesforsenate.com/
• 27 - Karen Schultz - http://www.karenschultz.org/
• 28 - Albert Pollard - http://www.pollardforsenate.com/
• 34 - Chap Peteresen - http://www.fairfaxsenator.com/
• 37 - Janet Oleszek - http://www.janetforfairfax.org/
• 39 - George Barker - http://www.barkerforsenate.com/

Incumbents

• 02 - Mamie Locke - http://www.senatorlocke.com/
• 05 - Yvonne B. Miller - http://www.senatorybmiller.com/
• 16 - Henry Marsh
• 17 - Edd Houck - http://www.senatorhouck.com/
• 18 - Louise Lucas
• 20 - Roscoe Reynolds
• 21 - John Edwards
• 25 - Creigh Deeds - http://www.creighdeeds.com/
• 29 - Chuck Colgan - http://colganforsenate.org/
• 30 - Patsy Ticer - http://www.patsyticer.com/
• 31 - Mary Margaret Whipple - http://www.whippleforsenate.com/
• 32 - Janet Howell - http://www.janethowell.com/
• 33 - Mark Herring - http://www.markherring.org/
• 35 - Dick Saslaw - http://www.dicksaslaw.com/
• 36 - Toddy Puller - http://www.toddy.org/
• 39 - Phil Puckett

We Can No Longer Ignore the Issue of Race

I talk a lot about racism on my website, but never did I think that someone could be tortured, held in captivity, sexually abused, humiliated, and be forced to eat dog and rat feces all because they were black. In commenting on Megan Williams' ordeal in West Virginia authorities are saying this...

"At one point, an assailant cut the woman's ankle with a knife and used the N-word in telling her she was victimized because she is black, authorities said. They said the young was also forced to eat dog feces..."

"Her captors, all of them white, choked her with a cable cord and stabbed her in the leg while calling her a racial slur, poured hot water over her and made her drink from a toilet, according to criminal complaints."

I have said time and time again that the white population in this country does not want to talk about race because they are afraid of what they might see in the mirror. Whites like to think and would like for everyone else to think that the United States is the freest nation in the world, but it is the freest nation in the world if you are Caucasian. If you are Black, even educated, you face a lifetime struggle in fighting for your rights to be heard, represented, and respected. I can't say that I am altogether surprised by what happened to Megan Williams, though the manner in which she was treated was comparable to being a slave in the deepest part of the Deep South.

As long as whites treat the issue of race as being a 'Black problem', they will never truly understand democracy, humanity, and freedom because in order for their freedom, humanity, and justice to be realized they must release themselves of their own white supremacy and hatred against everyone who is not white.

I am not just talking about the more overt forms as with Megan Williams, but I am talking about the subtle forms, like using affirmative action as a scapegoat for their own desire to preserve the greatest gifts of this country for whites. Affirmative action is not an automatic ticket to higher education or employment, nor should it be, but the mere use of race as one factor is being manipulated to mean that minorities can't even get into a college without allegations of not working hard enough, being smart enough, or deserving enough. Whites also have a way of ignoring minorities in how they contribute to the character of this nation.

They don't care much about Black history or culture, neither does their ignorance excite them to put up a book, or watch a movie, or start a conversation with a person of color. I once discussed this issue with a white student who was entering into the teaching field with a focus on American history. In encouraging him to read various books on minority history, he dismissed my gesture by saying that he does not have have time being that he's a new teacher, but as soon as he's comfortable in his subject matter, he'll "look into it". This is the nature of being white in America. 

Whites are so secured in their notion that this nation belongs to them that any other groups' attempt to claim ownership is disposable, sneered at, and ridiculed.

To them, the notion that Blacks have made an indelible mark on this country seems fabricated, if not down right stupid. If my remarks seem hyperbolic, then just a white person, "What does it feel like to be white."  More than likely they will look confounded, but deep inside they will know that whiteness in this country is power: power to dominate, power to inflict, and power to conquer.

It is with this power that  those white West Virginians virtually enslaved Megan Williams.

Here are the facts as reported in various news stories

1. 20-year-old Charleston, W.Va., resident Megan Williams, a black woman, was allegedly abducted, held captive for at least a week and tortured by six white individuals from Logan County, W.Va. Black Missing

2. A prosecutor said police are investigating the possibility that the victim was lured to the house where she was attacked by a man she met on the internet, but Carmen Williams insisted that wasn’t the case. “This wasn’t from the Internet,” she said. ABC NEWS

3. On September 12, 2007 six white residents of Logan County were arrested and charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, malicious wounding, and battery against Megan Williams, who is Black and Mentally Challenged. It is also reported that the defendants allegedly repeatedly used racial slurs while forcing Megan to eat human feces, rat feces, and drink urine while trapped at the Logan County, West Virginia residence. Send 2  Press

4. Frankie Brewster, 49, and her son Bobby Brewster, 24, are accused of kidnapping, sexual assault and malicious wounding. Karen Burton, 46, George Messer, 27, Alisha Burton, 23 and Danny Combs, 20, are charged with sexual assault and malicious wounding. SKY.COM

5. Authorities say they held a 20-year-old black woman for about a week at their mobile home, where she was tortured, sexually assaulted and forced to eat rat droppings. Court TV

Notes on Tokenism

Tokenism- a practice that seeks to give the public appearance of being diverse or valuing the parts that constitute a diverse body

"I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted Edgar Allan Poe; nor am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids- and I might even be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me." 
- Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man

My favorite book of all time is Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man because it speaks to me as a Black man who is somehow able to navigate in a predominately white world despite the hostility around and imposition upon me. As an individual entity and member of the  African American race, I am vastly misunderstood and blatantly caricatured. My culture and history are not deemed to be of much value, thus when I am loosely accepted, I am encouraged to check my Black identity at the door.  Ironically, that watered-down identity is then used to project institutional images of acceptance and tolerance when in fact, the appearance of diversity is just that. So when I see the 'token' Black  persons in films, posters, websites, and the like I question the truth of those images. When I see the University of Virginia using Black faces to suggest that it is a place of refuge and security, I am enraged. Administrators, especially those leading PR campaigns, think that a press release suffices in the instance that a racial incident creates tension and breeds animosity. You will never find them at a BSA meeting, CSA festivity or QSU meeting because they by and large could care less about the precise nature of the diversity they preach. This is not just endemic to the University of Virgina. Almost every place where there are minorities, there's this practice of tokenism due to the fact that minorities are hardly ever appreciated for what they bring to the table  besides being able to be a means to an end. You will find that with tokenism, institutions will do as little as necessary in order to quell a specific incident or to prevent public embarrassment.

Popular Forms of Tokenism

   

Hillary Compared to Obama and Vice Versa

"Hillary Clinton is not number one in the polls because she's Hillary but because she's a Clinton."
~CW Political and Social Thought

In Keith Boykin's lastest blog post, he discusses how Obama's problem with translating money into votes  is really a problem of distinguishing himself from Clinton.

Here's a quick test. Aside from the decision to go to war, name one major issue where Clinton and Obama disagree? I'm not sure what that issue is. They both agree on raising the minimum wage. They both want to expand health care to the 47 million Americans without insurance. They both want to end the war in Iraq. They both support affirmative action. They both support a woman's right to choose. And they both support civil unions over same-sex marriage.

I believe that this is true, but Obama is no different from many of the other presidential candidates. You could raise the same issue with Romney and Guliani or Tancredo and Huckabee. I'm just not sure how much much intellectual traction one gets with this question. If one were to say that Obama is not distinguishing himself from Clinton given their similar positions on gay marriage, health care, and the like, then would it not be equally plausible to say that Hillary has not distinguished herself from Obama? The answer to this question is not as obvious as it seems.  In nearly all national polls, Hillary leads Obama and other democratic candidates by double digits, but is this proof that as president she she would be any different than Obama? Here we begin to reduce the contest between Obama and Clinton to its essence. The fact that Hillary is more divisive as seen in the fact that she has some of the highest 'negatives' for any presidential candidate in modern history reveals that Clinton's success can't possibly be contingent upon broad personal appeal. Criticism of Clinton as aloof, sterile, scripted, and boring doesn't seem to be that farfetched in the minds of most voters, but the trump card for Hillary is that she is a Clinton. Her broad political appeal has everything to do with her present success. The only demographic that Clinton does not significantly outnumber Obama is among the most affluent Americans.

They are now tied at 47% each among those with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more, and Obama lags Clinton by only 4 points among those with postgraduate degrees. [1]

This has less to do with what Hillary has done to prove any personal or legislative commitment to these groups than it has to do with her husband's personal and political reputation among them. Frankly, most Democrats long for the days of Bill Clinton (of course minus extramarital scandal and divided politics) and they are settling for Hillary because they expect that she will be a continuation of the Clinton era. Everyone knows that Bill Clinton enjoys high favorability ratings among Americans as a whole and is unquestionably solid among Democrats.  A few months back, Clinton reached his highest favorability ratings in nearly ten years when 89% of the Democrats polled said that they regarded the former president as 'favorable'. [2] Clearly, being a Clinton in this campaign is a  plus, not to mention that all those special interests groups from the Clinton era want to get back into the game. A huge part of Clinton's success has to do with the coattailing effect. She's at 62% among African Americans because of her husband's hard work in establishing a good rapport with the African American community and proving to be an ally. She is 69% among seniors because of her husband's work in balancing the budget and making Medicaid more sustainable. Sadly, positive or negative name recognition is perhaps the best political tool in American politics. Let Marion Barry and William Jefferson serve as examples. Fortunately for Hillary, her husband's mass appeal overshadows her mass dislike.