05:34PM Mar 25, 2008 in category by George W Frink
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said today in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that "she would have left her church" if her pastor made inflammatory remarks like those made the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
She tried to wrap it in a politically convenient homily about choices Sen. Barack Obama might have made regarding whether to continue to attend Trinity United Church of Christ while Wright was pastor.
She said:
He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.
How morally remote from real life, in which her declaration still means she would walk out on her church community if the pastor currently assigned to her home pulpit offended her.
It is as though she doesn't understand either the nature of church membership or its obligations. As the editor of the Biblical Recorder put it in his blog:
Church membership isn't just about a particular minister and his sermons. It's about a community. ... Your church, especially in our transient society, is your family. The persons in your Sunday school class or cell group are likely those you hang out with or call when you have a free evening and want to do something with a friend. Your children's friends are there. You make connections that carry into your everyday working world. These are the people who rally to your needs.
Unless you're Hillary Clinton, who at the pastoral utterance of sufficiently offensive words would abandon all of those fellow church members with whom she had developed relationships of Christian fellowship and mutual spiritual support.
If I ever trusted her about anything important, I don't now.
Gallused-overall wearing North Carolina tobacco farmers from whom I first learned to read a newspaper would have described current Democratic primary coverage in terms that I reserve for barnyards.
They and their descendants aren't confused, but anyone visiting from Mars or an extrasolar planet might be misled by hyperventilating media coverage into believing there is a cliff-hanger race between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Here in the Old North State we can enjoy the attention of Clinton and Obama campaign visits, and should vote with enthusiasm come the May 6 primary, without buying into the myth.
Grandaddy always said "every vote counts," even if you know who's going to win. I believe that were he alive today, he'd observe that Obama is going to win. And to tell the truth, Grandaddy broke fresh starch on khaki trousers every day, but clothing is beside the point.
After appropriate sarcasm, Politico runs through the math in nice detail, explaining why Ms. Clinton's candidacy is history.
Others say that if she is maybe, perhaps, just ever so possibly to re-create a chance of winning the nomination, Ms. Clinton has to win, well, North Carolina.
Which whiplashes me back to the concept of extrasolar journalists and pundits, since the polling news in that regard forecasts little or no such possibility.
Obama now has and is consolidating his lead here.
Could it be that "down home" we're collectively smart enough to understand issues like loyalty to one's home church, and make allowances, rather than have our heads turned by the spin?
Absent some kind of substantial and unexpected revelation, Ms. Clinton and the extrasolar journalists can take a nap. Rural and urban Tar Heels alike have this thing sorted out, thank you.
Addendum: A survey by Public Policy Polling, done before Ms. Clinton admitted she "misspoke" about having braved sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996, showed Obama with 55 percent to Clinton's 34 percent among likely voters in the May 6 primary.
Today I yearned to have my Grandfather George Frink with me to share Barack Obama's speech, just as we often read the newspaper together in the morning and watched the news on television together at night.
More than a century ago, after putting together a school committee and so securing the state funds required to construct the whites-only Hallsboro (North Carolina) School from which I eventually graduated, my grandfather secretly defied the KKK by subsidizing construction of a school in "The Quarters" there for the black citizens.
Grandaddy would have approved of Obama's epochal speech on living with and overcoming American racial division.
In our grandfather/grandson approach to active listening, we would have annotated that speech with discussion which ranged across how, when I was a child, Grandaddy taught me to speak my dissent carefully, softly.
It was a matter of survival.
He knew he had to teach me restraint, lest loud assertion then of my attitudes and ideas bring the Klan by to shut me up, possibly forever and about everything.
Heaven knows, my father, a Klansman, tried from time to time to shut me up. His militant racism broke Grandaddy's heart and divided us in ways I tried but could not heal. My mother's dividing hold over my father would not permit healing. Yet I did not and do not disown my father, who has passed away. Shunning is not about love or forgiveness, and I am. Nor is it possible, ultimately, to shun that which is as much a part of you as a parent.
It was through the softening, entangling web of memory that I heard Obama say of his former minister, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.
Amid those words there returned to me the memory of Grandaddy's sawmill.
With its screaming, circular saws he cut mast from his own forest into beams and boards to "sell" to members of the Cherry family for money they brought to him in a well-used paper bag and a glass jar.
Almost all of that mast was cypress my grandfather cut down and hauled out of Columbus County's, White Marsh alone, behind a team of mules. He chose cypress because the termites were unlikely to eat it and it resisted rot.
He wanted that school to last and to offer enduring shelter to his friends' children as they received the education that he had himself been denied as a child. For despite being an inveterate reader whose interests ranged from detective novels to modern physics, Columbus County's poverty and the failure of his father's business had denied him the opportunity to finish high school.
He didn't keep so much as a penny of the school money.
Grandaddy walked or rode his horse alone through the late-night darkness of back roads to return it to his friends, who after a time would return by day to "buy" more of the lumber with which to build their school and maintaining the illusion that he was profiting from what the Klan believed were useless efforts.
"A man does what he can," Grandaddy always said, and he would know what a man can do now.
Just as I know.
Grandaddy and I would not lower our voices this time, or move stealthily through the mosquito-thick darkness to accomplish the good.
Not this time.
I know that together we would join Obama in proclaiming, "Not this time."
This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we would build one school together in the daylight, and celebrate what we have become.
This time we can build together at last the kind of society Grandaddy envisioned and secretly fought for, beginning more than a decade before my father was born.
This time, we can build it to last, the way Grandaddy would.
Note: Here are the text and video of Barack Obama's Tuesday, March 18, 2008, speech.
Seriously. Speaking as a one-time pig farmer, I think that's going to turn out to be hogwash.
An opinion survey says only 30% of Americans see gambling itself as sinful. Yes, and the same survey found that only 87% believe in the concept of "sin."
Makes me wonder whether they asked the right questions.
Dangit! While cheering his morning speech on race, I learned that Barack Obama is coming to Fayetteville for a by-invitation-only event.
Are you invited?
Thursday marks fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, and while there were no weapons of mass destruction and we still don't seem to know what's going on.It's a matter of another day, another bomb, of what kind, delivered by whom, for what reason?
With decades of experience in mainstream daily newspapers before decamping for the world of bits and bytes, I am irretrievably a journalist (among other things), and I know you don't have to be one to be honest. Failing to report the facts and refusing to correct when you're clearly wrong is dishonest, and folks who do that don't deserve my attention.
As naturally as a bear killing rabbits, I salute Jocelyn Newmarch's criticism of a fellow South Africa Mail & Guardian Thought Leader blogger for using that excuse. She was at her best when she wrote:
... the promise of blogging is that all this multiplicity may enable us to think more rigorously and critically, to deepen the level of debate, and to respond to our society with greater compassion. But it can only do that if we?re willing to find the truth, however quiet or mundane it may be.
Buster at the Biblical Recorder Editor's Journal addresses that challenge to religious bloggers, concluding:
Yes, the unofficial motto of the blogosphere -- "we fact-check your ass" -- can be relentless and unforgiving. Shouldn't it be?
Andrew G.R. seems to me to be close to the mark when commenting on March's piece for the Blog Herald. Addressing the question, "Are bloggers journalists?," he concludes:
In my humble opinion, it all depends on the type of blog you are running. One thing, however, is certain: you should always tell the truth and be prepared to defend your post, regardless of your blog?s size.
There seems to be a coherent standard here:
Write honestly, with painstaking attention to the facts when facts are used, and be prepared to honestly defend your work.
Having once upon a time served for years as a newspaper opinion writer/editor, that sounds to me very much like the meat of a job description for a newspaper editor.
Which brings me to a longstanding personal conclusion:
Bloggers who aren't journalists and who are blogging about matters of factual import, should all aspire to be.
07:29PM Mar 12, 2008 in category by George W Frink
Departure Tuesday of the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon recalled how, two years ago, an Atlanta woman gently confessed to me her belief that the DangerBush and CheneyMaster planned to invade Iran.
Months before Seymour Hersh gave journalistic substance to her analysis, she observed that Bush has an addict's preference for using war to build domestic political power, and had his team beating the war drums.
She was troubled by a groundless fear that her Web consultant would think her bonkers.
Or worse, given her musical expertise, tone deaf.
Not at all, and the case for her view has mounted steadily while hope for peaceful outcomes has dimmed until on Tuesday, they all but went dark.
Fallon was forced out because, absent another injection of the war drug to which Bush is politically addicted, a Democrat is likely to be elected president in November. And Fallon refused to sing "Good Night Iran." Nor would he remain stolidly silent. Fallon insisted instead on a persistent, thoughtful rendition of Don't Do That.
Attempting to distract myself with that cheerful old video hit The Nuclear Bunker Buster, it came to me again that those Bush/Cheney songs are without melody or tune.
05:32PM Mar 09, 2008 in category by George W Frink
The often intellectually precise Salon blogger Glen Greenwald on the left and the often intellectually lightweight MSNBC personality Tucker Carlson on the right do have something in common:
Both libel American journalists as generally guilty of spinelessly accepting whatever "off the record" demands their sources make.
For my peers and I, the general rule was and among those still working in the field remains:
Absent prior agreement to keep an interviewee's words off the record, they are on the record.
Carlson's libel occurred during his interview with British journalist Gerri Peev of The Scotsman, whose work resulted in the apology and resignation of Samanthat Power from her post as an unpaid consultant to Sen. Barack Obama in his effort to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Peev correctly quoted Power as saying of Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's opponent:
She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything.
Carlson said in what struck me as a bizarre response for anyone who is or pretends to be American journalist:
Typically, the arrangement is if someone you're interviewing wants a quote off the record, you give it to them off the record. Why didn't you do that?
He earned the contempt evident in Peev's response, and I believe she should be forgiven her for being unacquainted with standard practice in this country. She gave him what amounted to a starch, Journalism 101 summary on the proper handling off-the-record requests:
Are you really that acquiescent in the United States? In the United Kingdom, journalists believe that on or off the record is a principle that's decided ahead of the interview.
Greenwald begins his dully constructed troll with twin pretenses: (1) That Carlson is a professional journalist whose behavior exemplifies the profession. (2) That Carlson's false summary of the proper handling of off-the-record requests was an unintentional revelation.
Upon those pretenses, the shameful recitations of a few real journalistic failures and a mangled misexamination of the unsettled conventions of email communications, Greenwald constructs the same gallows the right wing has built time and again, decade after decade, in its attempts to discredit and disenfranchise the best of American journalism. He argues that the press plays a "the lowly, subservient role" to the powerful, whom "they" dare not offend. Or to put it somewhat differently, "they" don't tell you the truth but "I" do and will.
Every effective troll knows his audience, and Greenwald attracted an answering chorous of right-wingbloggingapplause and ritual affirmation from others more skeptical of "the press" than of Greenwald.
Given a moment of honesty, there are plenty in power who would disagree with Greenwald's outworn "press as lapdog"argument.
Explain to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, how power makes U.S. politicians immune to, say, having their involvement and suspected involvement with lobbyists paraded before the world by the New York Times.
Or if you're into television, not print, find former U.S. Sen. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and talk to him about how protective power is after some television reporter gets wind of your story. Nor is alleged or real misdoing required to put the powerful in the hot seat.
Ask Sen. Barak Obama. D-Ill., whether power won him a pass on the topic of Louis Farrakhan from Tim Russert (Washington Bureau Chief for NBC News, whom Greenwald gave as an example of subservience) during the last debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
Just to offer a very short list of the first few examples which come immediately to mind.
Addendum, Sunday, March 9: According to TVNEWSER, "Tucker Carlson's 6pm ET show Tucker is getting the axe, but Carlson stays on as a political contributor to all MSNBC shows at least through the 2008 election."
02:50PM Mar 07, 2008 in category by George W Frink
Secular offered ecclesiastical a lesson in repentance today as Obama presidential campaign adviser Samantha Power first apologized and then resigned for characterizing Sen. Hillary Clinton as a "monster."
Ms. Power's behavior is in sharp contrast with that of Dr. Richard Land, chairman of the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who made a slyly worded pseudo apology after calling N.Y. Senator Richard Schumer a "schmuck."
It is no secret that "schmuck" is a Yiddish word which literally means "penis," and that use of that word in reference to a Jewish U.S. Senator is profoundly insulting.
Yet Princeton graduate Land attempts to finesse the facts and etymology in his pseudo apology this week:
As Jeffrey Weiss of The Dallas Morning News has pointed out, the idiom means 'jerk,' which was my intended usage. I truly apologize to anyone offended by my use of a word they perceived to be crude or obscene. I used the word 'schmuck' in my reference to Senator Schumer solely in an attempt to employ a word that alliterated with Schumer?s name and describe my perception of his behavior during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito ? nothing more!
Land goes on to attack his critics for any suggestion of anti-Semitic intention on his part, creating a straw man in order to transform his pseudo apology into the very image of offended dignity, as though he were the one wronged:
However, I am deeply offended that anyone would interpret my remarks as anti-Semitic. My entire Christian life I have been taught, and believe, that the Jews are God?s chosen people. ... Anti-Semitism is far too dangerous and virulent in our world to tolerate the luxury of such a trivialization going unchallenged.
He apparently says nothing at all about his suggestion in the same Criswell College speech that Ms. Clinton rides a "broom." Nor has he resigned or, judging from reports as of this writing, offered to resign.
Whereas Ms. Power's apology was unequivocal:
It is wrong for anyone to pursue this campaign in such negative and personal terms. I apologize to Senator Clinton and to Senator Obama, who has made very clear that these kinds of expressions should have no place in American politics.
"No place" means exactly that to the Obama campaign, and her resignation was announced today (Friday, March 7).
Thus Ms. Power offers us a fully ethical response to misguided behavior, while Dr. Land offers us transparent evasion and falsely offended dignity.
by George W Frink
by George W Frink
Frink
