The view from the mountaintop

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once famously stated that he'd had a dream about reaching the mountaintop and seeing a brand new day from that lofty vantage point. He predicted he would probably not be allowed to get there with us, but urged us to strive on without him. Has that day finally arrived? Well no, not quite. But it certainly does seem to be in spitting distance.

It was a fairly big deal when America's first handicapped president was elected. The selection of the first Catholic to rule from the oval office was a major leap of faith. A non-Christian U.S. president would signal the dawn of a new day far surpassing our current willingness to support Israel. Perhaps we'll never have a president who was not born an American citizen, so Arnie will have to settle for governing California and being a Kennedy-in-law. Eventually a woman will become commander in chief, an event that will be both transcendant and transformative. I know it pains many that it will not be happening this year. But as I see it, no greater leap can be taken by this country than the one from kidnapping Africans from the cradle of civilization and forcing them into bondage and servitude to the day when the first African American takes the oath of the highest office in the land. That occassion will be beyond epic, beyond description until seen with our scarcely believing eyes, yet it may only be months away from becoming reality.

Senator Barack Obama's work is not yet done of course. There's still the pesky general election to compete in. The Republican party will throw everything they can at him. Will more Reverend Wright-like stories emerge after extensive digging into his past and present? Will a smear campaign be effectively waged that appeals to the darker nature of people who fear difference and reject legitimate integration of our society? When the votes of democrats, republicans and independents are all added together will there be enough Americans willing to hand over the role of commander in chief to a black man? No matter how inept President George W. Bush has been and how closely the democrats manage to tie Senator John McCain to his failed policies and stubbornly wrong mindset, will racial bias (never mind that he is biracial, aka half white) or an idiotic insistence that nobody with a name like his can really be a Christian(religion probably being the only disqualifier even more potent than race) cause this country to elect more of the same old same old over the potential for legitimate change?

I say potential because who knows how much Obama would actually be able to change and accomplish as president. In four years he'd certainly get some important things done, such as getting us out of an unnecessary war for starters. Given eight years he might be able to significantly alter the way the business of politics is conducted in our nation's capital. Then again, his noble intentions may simply run into roadblocks he'll be unable to hurdle. Or worst case scenario, his strongest detractors could prove to be right and it will turn out that Obama is basically a self serving smooth talker no different than the typical politician, merely having a better tan.



From what I've been able to glean from his words, stated in debates and interviews and speeches as well as written in his books, Obama is a fine man who I believe can be a great president. What I also understand is that the day an African American holds the highest position in this land is the day that monumental metamorphosis will begin to take place in inner cities throughout this great and greatly improving land. No longer will a little black boy or girl say that at best they may be able to someday become a basketball player, or a singer/actor/strip club dancer, or a nurse, or a drug dealer, or a teacher, or a preacher, or a soldier, or a high school graduate, or a baby's mama or a missing in action baby's daddy. They will say they're not quite sure what they'll become because all of a sudden there no longer seems to be strict limits imposed on their future. They will express gratitude for the efforts of countless others before them that brought us to this long deferred place, proclaim that at last our past history of legally sanctioned racism and dehumanization has been overcome, and gladly lay out plans to be whatever it is they most want to be because why should they settle for anything less. They will dance with joy for awhile on top of that mountain and then head down to reap rewards only to be found in the valley of true equality.
- Roy Pickering (author of Feeding the Squirrels) http://www.synergebooks.com/ebook_feedingthesquirrels.html

Link of the day: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

**It's quite depressing that a web site like this had to be created in the first place, but one major negative of living in the internet era is that misinformation can be spread in very little time with the greatest of ease to all corners of the earth. For some reason the truth seems to travel much more slowly and not nearly as far.**

Hillary Clinton in her own words

“There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me… I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

And now for my words on the subject. It doesn't take a linguistics expert to spot that Mrs. Clinton is equating "hard working Americans" with "white Americans". Apparently she has conceded the shiftless negro vote. Desperate times do indeed call for pathetic pleas for support, but Hillary should be smart enough to realize that making statements to guarantee an endorsement from the head of the KKK is not what it takes in this day and age to secure a national political nomination. Call Barack Obama an elitist all you want (Such an absurd claim. Simply look at the backgrounds of Barack and Hillary and then decide which one is actually more concerned about and at ease among people making less than 10 million dollars a year), but there is nothing wrong with being educated, cultured, healthy (last I checked, eating arugula was not one of the Seven Deadly Sins) and open minded, and certainly nothing noble about scraping the bottom of the barrell for people who enter a voting booth with little information to base their decision on beyond the race of the respective candidates. Yet I'll give Hill a pass. Perhaps she had, as her husband of all people would put it, another "senior moment" during an exhausting and increasingly frustrating campaign. Maybe she was under the duress of sniper fire while being interviewed. I won't implore Fox "News" (aka Blatantly Republican Network) and CNN to dedicate the same amount and degree of coverage to Clinton's bold statement as they did to Obama's "bittergate" or "pastorgate", or even as much air time as was given to such critical issues as flag lapels and bowling scores. The reason I'm being so magnaminous is because I don't believe people should vote against the candidate who they have been most effectively scared away from. I feel reasonably comfortable saying this because none of the candidates has the last name Bush. Everyone should support the nominee who inspires the most confidence that their own interests and strongest held beliefs will be supported by the upcoming presidency. If that person in your opinion happens to be Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Ralph Nader (Ralph is a candidate too, right?), then so be it. If it happens to be Barack Obama, congratulations on your display of common sense regardless of how hard working you are or what your melanin count happens to be.

- Roy Pickering (Author of FEEDING THE SQUIRRELS: A Novella)
http://www.synergebooks.com/ebook_feedingthesquirrels.html

Conspiracy Theory of the Day

The Barack Obama - Reverend Wright connection has been troubling to many voters. Political analysts and opponents in the presidential race have not been willing to let the matter die a natural death, and probably will not do so any time soon. Even after Obama’s magnificent speech in Philly many people remained dissatisfied because Obama did not publicly “disown” Wright. For some odd reason Jeremiah Wright subsequently chose to pick on and insult Obama rather than quietly going away into the night, which one would have expected him to do if there was genuine friendship between the men. Why would he choose to sabatoge Obama's chances at getting elected unless something was going on that the general public was not aware of? Pride? Love of the spotlight? Betrayal complex? Or was there something more mysterious to it? Granted, it is understandable that Rev. Wright would want to defend himself and his church after being condemned and caricatured on a daily basis. But surely there was a way to accomplish this without doing further harm to Obama. For one thing, he could have waited until after the upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina before making public statements. When he did speak he could have made it clear that he and his former parishioner agree to disagree on certain principles, reinforcing that he speaks for himself alone and that matching every one of his beliefs (many of which are not especially outlandish or inflammatory despite what his critics claim) with those of Obama is ludicrous. The most unAmerican thing I can think of is to belittle freedom of speech by roasting a man for criticizing this country as if we're all supposed to have our heads stuck in the sand and believe the US of A is a utopian society. He is guilty perhaps of overstating his opinions. Someone who shouts at you will always seem less reasonable and rational than one who speaks calmly, even if they are saying essentially the same thing. With the exception of the US government inventing AIDS specifically to kill off African Americans I have yet to hear any commentary from Rev. Wright that did not contain a fair measure of truth and common sense, regardless of whether one is inclined to wholeheartedly agree with the truth as he views it or not. He said for example that Native Americans who had their land forcibly taken from them, Japanese American detainees during World War II, and African Americans from the time they were dragged here from Africa have not received the most polite treatment by this nation. Is this really something that any sane person can dispute no matter how rabidly pro Red White and Blue they may be? Would this section of his sermon even have been seen as particularly controversial if he did not take things a step too far by revising "God Bless America" to "God D**n America"? No doubt he felt that such phrasing would give maximum emphasis and flair to his criticisms, and so it did, but it also made them easier to condemn for being too extreme, even traitorous. Had Jeremiah Wright simply clarified his positions with minimal mention of Obama's agreement or disagreement with them, this would have been a sufficient response to fight against the tainting of his legacy. Instead Rev. Wright got in some digs while in the act of defending himself, implying that Obama was a typical politician who spoke out of both ends of his mouth, saying what he felt was necessary at the time to secure the maximum amount of votes, easily willing to change his tune if convenient and advantageous to do so. Why would he do this when Obama had certainly been far gentler on him despite the fact that he may have pleased more voters by being tougher? After the third and most outlandish stop on Wright's speaking tour, Barack Obama finally grew angry and distanced himself from the reverend just as many felt he should have done from the get go. Now that he has given the people precisely what they were asking for, one wonders if it will aid his cause or will be a case of too little too late. Either way, I’m left to ponder if Wright's seemingly unnecessary and certainly inappropriate dissing of Obama was for show. Did he act the part of bad guy in calculated fashion since he had already been cast in that role anyway courtesy of the YouTube clips? Was his actual objective to enable Obama to once again be seen as the good guy? By going out of his way to provoke the Democratic frontrunner, practically begging for retaliation of some kind, he provided Obama with a convenient out. Could it be that he intended to help rather than hurt his friend? If so, did Wright do so on his own or were they in it together? Perhaps I'm being overly cynical (following this election will do that to you) but it does make one wonder how much of what we're watching is real and how much is theater. Yet stronger than this wonderment is my hope that Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee (perhaps giving a central role to Hillary Clinton in spite of her less than admirable efforts to win the nomination for herself), goes on to defeat John McCain in the general election (perhaps giving him a central role in spite of his fondness for war because he does strike me as being a good and sincere man), and then proceeds to live up to his promise.

xxxxxxxx

Roy Pickering (author of Feeding the Squirrels)

http://www.synergebooks.com/ebook_feedingthesquirrels.html

xxxxxxxx

Newsweek article that comments on same topic, minus conspiracy theory - http://www.newsweek.com/id/134766

Diligence, Penny Pinching, Political Obsessing, and Pity

It's been about a month since my last entry. I intend to add to this blog more frequently and regularly going forward, though in my defense I have not been guilty of idle hands. Over the past several weeks I'm happy to say that I've been working on my novel "Matters of Convenience" on a pretty regular basis. The manuscript has surpassed 400 handwritten pages with its end on the not too distant horizon. At such a pace it's entirely possible that I'll complete the first draft by summer's end and will have it ready to submit to literary agents and/or publishers before the close of 2008. Not only have I been diligently working on my novel but I also penned a book in poetic form geared to toddlers that is waiting for accompanying illustrations by Erin. It has not been copyrighted so I won't post it here yet, but I am rather proud of it. "Baby's Day" is its title and Ava was the inspiration, particularly during the period when she was getting upset on a regular basis about being brought to daycare Monday - Friday. Erin and I did not want to leave her in the care of others and head to our day jobs any more than Ava wanted to be dropped off, but as a family that requires both our incomes we have no choice in the matter. I suppose "Baby's Day" was written as much to cheer Erin and I up as to give our daughter a more positive perspective on the situation. It's my sincere belief that once Erin has contributed her fantastic artwork to go along with my simple words, if/when published our book will be a welcome addition to the libraries of many working parents with young children. Stay tuned for Erin to give you a peek at an illustration or two from it. We definitely intend to create more children's books. Our second one will probably have an adoption theme.

Speaking of which, we're planning for our second child so that means we need to budget accordingly. As summer quickly approaches we'll hopefully find plenty of ways to make it the best one of our lives without breaking the bank. This is a potential topic to write about going forward. Last I checked, being flush with cash is not a requirement for fun. A lack of funds simply makes it a bit more challenging, which could in turn could make the results of our research more rewarding. There is plenty of wonder and laughter for us to experience without daunting price tags attached.

My obsession with Barack versus Hillary continues, as does my disappointment with the Clinton camp for doing their best to scare less enlightened voters away from Obama by portraying him as a man with strong racist, militant, unpatriotic ties. She isn't too far from proclaiming (with plenty of supporters helping to spread her ugly message) that a vote for Obama may as well be one for Reverend Wright, Al Sharpton, Mike Tyson, OJ Simpson, Louis Farrakhan and whoever else makes certain sectors of White America nervous. Barack Obama is not a perfect man or a perfect candidate, and he will not make a perfect president. But if given the chance I do believe in his potential to be a great one, and if Hillary Clinton is to get the opportunity ahead of him (which still seems doubtful) I only hope that she does so fair and square rather than appealing to the darker natures of an older and/or lesser educated demographic that clings to the past of our great imperfect nation rather than embracing the future envisioned by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The police officers who shot and killed Sean Bell on his wedding day as the 23 year old man left the strip club his bachelor party was held at have been acquitted. Perhaps it actually was a fair verdict. Maybe those police officers truly did see justifiable cause to fire 50 times at unarmed men. It's possible they really believed they were in danger and needed to shoot before being shot at first. I don't know precisely what took place on that fateful night with absolute certainty. What I do know is that Sean Bell is dead, his daughter is fatherless, his loved ones will find no peace from the legal verdict so need to look elsewhere for solace, and that black men scare certain people. Amadou Diallo frightened cops with his wallet, causing them to pump 41 bullets into him. Barack Obama continues to scare off Hillary Clinton's strongest base of support. I'm sure I've made someone somewhere nervous at some point by my mere presence. It doesn't make me angry anymore so much as sad.

That's all for now. Take care.

- Roy Pickering (author of Feeding the Squirrels)

http://www.synergebooks.com/ebook_feedingthesquirrels.html

Dumbest "controversy" of 21st century to date

The ongoing presidential primaries have certainly provided ample material that would fit the title of this blog entry, but I've decided that above all else, uproar over the cover of the current issue of Vogue magazine is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Announcement to people of all colors, creeds, races, religions, political parties, sexual preferences, and also to anyone who hasn't quite figured out yet that public funds are not intended for use by elected officials to subsidize extramarital affairs or trips to their brothel of choice: Black men and white women are allowed to be in each other's company without raising a major stir! This is the year 2008. Racism has not vanished from the face of the earth, but as everyone other than those who Barack Obama listens to on Sunday mornings should have figured out by now, we no longer reside in the era of Native Son or To Kill a Mockingbird. Within certain families trouble will no doubt be brewed if the wrong answer is given to the age old question - Guess who's coming to dinner? Nevertheless, the times they have already a-changed to a refreshing degree. As result it is actually possible to look at a photograph of a black man with a white woman, even one where the black guy is clowning (which apparently looks way too much like demonic scowling to some), and not automatically assume that the picture is a reinterpretation of a King Kong movie poster. I did not look at the accompanying photo and fear that the poor model was about to be raped or mugged or eaten alive by the primitive holding her captive. I did not conclude that LeBron was just begging to be lynched. What I thought was - there goes a picture of two young, attractive, famous, rich people, one of whom happens to be the girlfriend of the quarterback for the losing team in the Super Bowl. And then I moved on with my day. Anyone who gave this picture much more thought than that has way too much time on their hands and way too big a chip on their shoulder. I was not offended by the image in the slightest, but I am offended by anyone who takes issue with it because they are stuck in a past that is keeping us from moving full speed ahead into the future. A color blind world may not be right around the corner even if the right candidate is elected president, but surely we live in a day and age when a magazine should be able to blatantly peddle good old fashioned sex without inciting a race riot because the man and woman pictured do not look like genetic brother and sister. Reverend Wright was slandered endlessly for harshly criticizing this country, and Barack Obama was roasted by association. But aren't a few potshots warranted by a nation so obsessed with race that a pretty picture is able to distract us from the fact that we have (for starters) an economy in dire need of fixing and a weakly plotted war desperately in need of an ending?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Roy Pickering (Author of "Feeding the Squirrels: A Novella)

http://www.synergebooks.com/ebook_feedingthesquirrels.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.s. - IMHO this is one heckuva speech: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23690567/