Tonight on his program Steven Colbert had on rapper Nas. Nas attempted to deliver a petition including 612,005 signatures requesting that Fox News no longer engage in racist commentary on their network. Fox refused to accept the petition. Colbert had the fair sense to offer him a chance to air his message.

Of course in response Bill O'reilly portrayed Nas as a dangerous thug, who should be feared. Knowing that I am younger than most here, I'm sure hip hop isn't a regular in the cd catalog, but I wanted to post the lyrics to one of the songs from his new album.

I don't think anyone should overreact to Mr Link leaving. I have been on here since March, and despite a few weeks of here and there, I have seen every member here be on their best behavior. This applies to both camps. Some here have the agenda of garnering support for Barack Obama. We have gone over the top many times, myself included. It may teach us something to tone it down.

Others are calling for a change at the convention. While this may be a long shot, I have no problem with it. However you still need our help to achieve this goal. Trashing the candidate we support won't win us over.

Barack Obama has scored a lot of points overseas, so what does the McCain campaign do in response. McCain turns into a real dick. Two attacks today are disgraceful for any presidential candidate. The first he claims Barack wants to lose in Iraq for some political win. This is completely absurd. No US Senator wants to see our nation disgraced. There is a difference between making the best of a screwed up situation, and wanting to lose a war.

The other garbage attack claims that Obama would sit by and watch a genocide occur. A year ago Obama said our military could not get involved in every ethnic struggle in the world. This is a far cry from saying he won't do everything in his power to stop a genocide.

I will have to admit that I am uncomfortable talking about religion on these forums. I am not a christian, and have some deeply divisive views on religion in general. If someone wanted to call me an atheist, I would not be offended, though I refer to myself as a humanist. Here is a link to a thesis labeled "The most segregated hour in America".

link

It seems impossible to discuss church without race coming up in this election. I see this as a deeper problem then just a few offensive comments from a preacher. I may not be the best to comment on this, because I see many Christian churches making offensive comments. Beyond these comments there are 20 centuries of bloodshed, which remains unanswered. The Catholic church has protected known child molesters. The FLDS has subjected under age girls to repeated rape. By no means does this end with Christianity either.

First I do not speak for all Obama supporters, and there are some that will continue being mad as a hatter. Still a valid question was brought up about picking on people for being trolls. I can give an example of alternatives, if you'll promise to consider what I say.

Laura blogged critically of Obama's support of FISA. I can certainly see the argument there. Yesterday Sandi made a point about corporate employee funds used by Obama. Again this is a valid argument I can look up and research. I am an Obama supporter, but I by no means agree with every position he has taken. To be fair, there is no politician I agree with a 100%. I will happily engage in a discussion about these issues.

But when someone calls Obama a racist, what the hell am I supposed to say. With the Reverend Wright issue, either you feel this religious leader represents a dangerous view or you don't. There is nothing left to debate. When you ask if Obama registered for selective service, I can answer that I see no evidence that he didn't. If you want to believe this anyway, there is nothing I can say. I am happy to discuss issues that Obama has supported. I know some of them many will not agree with.

If you really feel we are not engaged in discussion, I will make a better effort to answer posts.  But I won't engage in false choices or slippery slope arguments.  If I asked you where Senator Clinton stood on an issue, you would probably be suspicious of my motivations as well.  If you give me a fair question, I'll do my best to give you a fair answer.

When reading republican material, it is clear that many have forgotten the surge debate a little over a year ago. The left and center wanted to begin to withdraw troops to put pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their own situation. Instead the right told us that there could not be any political victories in the current atmosphere of violence. They told us that the new strategy was to add more troops to relieve this violence. The US military succeeded in this goal. No one should question how brilliantly our troops performed their mission.

But this does not mean that the right should be taking credit for their success. The promise of political reconciliation was not fulfilled. John McCain and other surge supporters told us that Iraq would be able to achieve a fair distribution of oil profits in this safer climate. They haven't. They told us that Sunnis would be included fully into the political process. They haven't. They said that by the end of the surge the Iraqi army and police would replace the US forces in security missions. This is still not the case. There is only a statement of reduced violence coming out of the right. They are not discussing the larger promises they made.

One of my many hobbies is playing chess. I am better than some, and worse than others at it. One common fault of new players is mixing up strategic goals with tactical goals. They will focus on a single piece, while overlooking the wider board.

The tactical goal of this surge was the reduction of sectarian violence and terrorist attacks in Iraq. By every measure this happened. Iraq is a far safer place do to the addition of US forces. No one can deny that there is a tactical success in Iraq.

This being said, the strategic goal of the surge was to provide breathing room for political reconciliation. During the year and few months of this surge, there has been no legislation passed by the Iraqi government regarding political inclusion. This supposed breathing room failed to resolve the biggest issue of national oil revenues. As long as the central government of Iraq does not take responsibility for all factions within their country, there will be no lasting peace. This is why the surge has been a strategic failure.

Now there is another option on the table here. Senator Obama is presenting another way of moving forward. The tactical goal is a phased withdraw, while protecting our troops. The strategic goal is to place pressure on the Iraqi government to achieve a political stability. Granting Iraq breathing room from their problems has failed to achieve political reconciliation. Changing strategy is essential to our moving forward in foreign affairs.

It amazes me that campaigns still choose this strategy, as it never really works. John McCain goaded Senator Obama into a trip overseas for months, and now he's crying that all the attention is following Obama. When I have read his statements this week, he's been talking about Senator Obama. This reminds me of the '92 election summer, when the Republicans would not stop talking about Bill Clinton. If you make any election about the other candidate, the media will follow your lead. McCain has been claiming that voters know him, but they don't know Obama. Again he is pushing the coverage to Obama's issues.

If John McCain hopes to win over voters in the fall, he needs to sell himself to them. Republicans have a awful reputation right now, and McCain has an uphill battle in front of him. In '92 polls remained close until after the convention, while Clinton owned every headline. By the time the fall came, he was the only candidate anyone was talking about.

This is a great issue to raise, though it has been done with some bias. Since super delegates were added to the process, they have been given special favor by every candidate. Both Hillary and Barack donated to super delegate campaigns, and agreed to campaign for these officials directly. I for one see this as a corruption in our primary process, though it has been abused by every Democratic contender. The rules committee will be meeting in 2010 regarding the 2012 primaries. There are two issues I think they should seriously consider amending.

First I believe they should impose a early primary rotation schedule for all 50 states. While I still disagree with Florida and Michigan's actions, I believe their argument had a lot of merit. It makes no sense to favor any section of the Democratic electorate primary after primary. Each state should have a turn at early voting.

Secondly I think this notion of super delegates should be abolished. I see no reason that we should not entrust voters with the responsibility of picking the nominee. Even in the event of some explosive revelation about a nominee, pledged delegates have the right to change their vote at the convention. We don't need an elite class of Democrat picking the nominee.

Lastly there is an issue of how we view the popular vote. The problem of course is those caucus states. It would of course make sense to force states to use primaries, however this raises issues. Each state has a right to run their election the way they want, so we would be trampling on these rights. Also caucuses are far cheaper than primaries, so the DNC would need to provide additional funding for states whose legislature will not shell out the extra money.

By in far the stupidest story floating around is about the New York Times rejecting a op-ed written by John McCain. First off they did not reject the op-ed, they simply sent it back with editors notes. I studied journalism in high school, and my first couple years in college. Out of a few hundred stories, I never had one piece that didn't get sent back for a rewrite. It is just how it is, editors edit. Now the reason for this piece being sent back is important. The first rule of editorial writing in journalism is that you must provide an alternative argument. My teacher used to say "either your offering a solution, or you're just whining". That lesson has stuck with me in every aspect of my life.

I did not grow up privileged, and needed to learn to be tough in college and work. Sometimes I have had to fight to get my ideas respected. Sometimes I found myself having to oppose other's ideas in order to get things done. While it may seem harsh, that lesson from my journalism teacher Mrs. Klein has come up time and time again. I might be staunchly against a solution, but if I don't have one myself, I can't let myself whine. John McCain could have taken the editor's advice, and better define his vision for Iraq. He could have written a clear definition of what he feels victory would look like in Iraq. He could have drawn contrast between his vision and Obama's. Instead he is choosing to whine about it.

I am not about to credit Barack Obama with the clear change in position by the Iraqi government regarding a 2010 timetable. I instead will credit logic. Seems this young Senator's undergraduate degree in political science specializing in foreign relations from Columbia University taught him enough to see the forest for the trees. Anyone who disagrees with the right of Iraq's sovereignty, probably didn't respect it before we violated it in 2003. The path before us is as clear as it will ever be. Sometime in 2010 our troops will be home, and the Iraqis will be responsible for their own fate.

I know there will be those here that jump all over this post, but I refuse to lose my good mood. In 2002 I found myself in endless arguments about the upcoming invasion. I wrote letters to over 200 Democratic congress people. To me this was a violation of the lessons of aggression learned from World War II. I understood that 9/11 still loomed over the political atmosphere, but I feared the consequences of alienating ourselves globally. Now six years later, I am beginning to see the push back from these mistakes. I see relief for our strained military. I see victory over a testing trial for our nation.

"Now when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House, and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress. And that's exactly what we're going to do by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009."

This is a quote taken directly from hillaryclinton.com. Now I know many are still upset with the outcome of the primary. I was in the same boat four years ago. However I am a realist, and knew that I needed to review my options. I disagree with anyone who says that Barack Obama is your only choice, as I disagreed with the idea that Kerry was my only choice. I studied my options before returning to Kerry. You can pine for your loss, but that won't help you. It won't help Senator Clinton. I am a big believer in pragmatic thinking. Four years ago I seriously considered backing the Green Party, and if I didn't have a candidate I liked in the Democratic Party, that is where my efforts would be focused now. Right now the Green Party has nominated Cynthia McKinney for president and Rose Clemente for vice president. If you don't know anything about that party or their candidates, I would suggest you read about them.

To me prejudice revolves around the idea of generalizations. I refuse to say that men do this while women do that. In college I came in second in my class. The girl who came in first was named Sarah. We were both math majors with minors in computer science. Let me tell you she was tough as nails, and never displayed any qualities that merited stereotypes. I still exchange emails with her from time to time. She was a big Ayn Rand fan, and to this day is proudly a believer in Social Darwinism. Any man stupid enough to pull a punch in a business disagreement with her will be looking for another job before they've opened the car door. There are social roles that women and men have traditionally filled, but I argue that generates the prejudices we have.

In a truly fair world we will not apply abstract qualities to genders. I have known nurturing and loving men, and take no prisoner women. These are qualities possessed by persons, not people. Go to any Women's NCAA basket ball game (tickets are cheap, and I go regularly) and tell me these girls don't want to win. We must stop telling people what they are supposed to be like, and leave that decision to them to make. I used to tell every minority student I tutored with the Urban League that they never have to be anything but themselves. Women and men should not be generalized, as by doing so we would be engaging in the very definition of sexism.

Maybe this will spark a ageism forum next week, but Matty made an interesting point on my post. I am 31 years old, and I really don't know how women could be treated so badly for so long. I don't know why any minority was treated with such prejudice, and maybe my not understanding is a good thing. I think if you asked anyone born in the 70's or later, if women deserve equal pay, the response would be overwhelmingly yes. If you asked them about gay marriage, most would say sure they should have the same rights as anyone. Polls have shown that they overwhelmingly believe a black man or a woman can be president.

You see we grew up being told that everyone was equal in the schools and media. It is the prism through which we view the world. Gay rights have be the most recent civil rights challenge we've witnessed. I do not mean to say that things are equal by any means, but these prejudices are carry overs from a different time in our history. We didn't watch Selma on our TVs, we just were told that racism is wrong. We didn't witness rape being a taboo subject, we were told it was evil. There is a success here that is often overlooked, and I think it deserves some appreciation. This certainly wasn't our victory, but rather that of the social movements before our time. Indeed we should always remember our history, but we should not be bound to it.

My good friend Tony made a point to me when I was much younger and more vigilant. I accused someone of gay bashing, and he corrected me on the statement. He is 10 years my senior, and was out at the age of 16. I am not trying to question anyone's right to be offended here, but I think it can be alienating to misspeak. There is a difference between making homophobic statements (which I absolutely agree that I've seen here), and gay bashing. I agree that they are both rooted in prejudice, and should be confronted for what they are. However I in my opinion there is a distinction that should be used. I know many people who make racist statements, though I would not accuse them of hate crimes. It is the difference between productive enlightenment and writing off someone as a bigot.

I have driven friends to the hospital for stitches after skinheads beat the hell out of them. That is gay bashing. I have also gotten into arguments with people that make off handed homophobic statements. The two certainly represent prejudice, but I believe one can be addressed in a way that makes the speaker reflect on their own prejudices. I never like it when I see the word Nazi or KKK member used, as exaggeration belittles the truly dangerous segments of bigotry that exists in our society. Homosexuals have endured tragic abuse from many groups in this country, and I suggest anyone not familiar with their struggle research events like The Stonewall Riots. Still I refer back to Tony's advice of not exaggerating a truly dangerous behavior. I apologize if this offends anyone, but I felt it needed addressed.