A brain scientist discusses her own stroke

I came across this amazing video of neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor discussing her own stroke. If you have 18 minutes to spare, I highly recommend watching it.

It's incredibly fascinating and inspiring. I was initially interested in it because of my own neuroscience background but was surprised at how inspiring and even spiritual it was. The brain is a truly amazing and wonderful thing, and Jill Taylor really captures what makes being human so great. She urges us to be aware of the two natures within us (the brain hemispheres) and to strive to be more in tune with the world around us.

(Thanks to Jonathan Blake for mentioning this video on his blog, and for his insightful comment: Her experience struck cords of naturalism, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, mystical awakening, and human compassion which is rooted in our commonality.)

From the mouth of a four-year-old: the "donkey" party and the invasion of Florida

I usually have a few issues of The Nation lying around the house. This morning my four-year-old daughter noticed the the cover of the June 2 issue. It has a cartoon drawing of a dejected-looking elephant sitting in the midst of party debris and the heading "Is the party over?" The feature article is about the GOP's struggles this year, including the loss of some generally thought-to-be-safe House seats.

Anyway, she asked about the elephant and why he looks bummed. So I told her about the two-party political system in the U.S. and how the elephant is a symbol for the Republican Party and the donkey is the symbol for the Democratic Party. I knew she probably wouldn't understand much of it. I was mostly just being funny. Anyway, then she asks, "So he's bummed because he's in the Republican Party and not the Donkey Party?" I laughed and said "pretty much."

A bit earlier we were talking about WWII. We have the recent movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and she's asked us several times why the four siblings have to leave London. I talked to her about the bombing of London by the Germans. I mentioned that Nazi Germany invaded several countries, too. After I listed Russia, she added "And Florida?" I laughed and told her that fortunately Florida was not invaded.

It's fun having a four-year-old.

A victory for marraige equality: some thoughts on the California Supreme Court decision

Yesterday the California Supreme Court struck down two state laws limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman, ruling that same-sex couples have the right to marry. The 4-3 decision is likely to have an influence on future state and federal decisions, not to mention the influence it might have now on the Presidential election. I am personally thrilled by the decision. I am happy for loving, devoted couples in California and elsewhere that will be able to take advantage of this and practice their right to marry. I'm proud of the judges who ruled on the side of love and fairness.

Some excerpts from their decision, written by Chief Justice Ronald George:

In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

And:

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children... Because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship...

This is by no means the end of the struggle, however. Conservative groups have apparently amassed enough signatures to get it on the ballot, maybe even for this fall. Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage said: "The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one. The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.” Brian Brown, executive director of the organization's California chapter, said this: "Thanks to the more than 1 million Californians who signed petitions, these out-of-touch judges will not have the last word on marriage. California voters will.”

During the Civil Rights era, courts "brushed aside" traditions and laws that permitted racism and hate. That's simply not a good enough reason. And I knew that people would condemn the decision as a ruling by "out-of-touch" and "activist" judges. By the way, the CA Supreme Court has a reputation for being conservative, and three out of the four judges voting in favor of same-sex marriage were appointed by Republican governors. Anyway, we have judges so that they can guard against oppression of the minority by the majority, and we have them to act as independent decision-makers and interpreters of the constitution. Good for them.

Why people devote so much time and energy to excluding loving, committed couples from enjoying the social, emotional, and legal benefits of marriage is beyond me. It disgusts me. The little patience I do have for such people comes from the fact that I once believed that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

Some great blog posts over at HuffPo really sum up what this means and how important it is. Sara Whitman writes:

As a lesbian, I have never felt protected by the law. When we went through the process of second parent adoption in Massachusetts for our three boys, each time I had a lump in my throat. The laws were created to keep people like me away.

No more.

California has taken the next step in the fight for equality. Without question. There are many more to take before LGBT people are seen as equals in the law, equals in this country on both state and federal levels.

And there will be backlash, threats of the end of the world. Funny thing is, we're still all alive and breathing in Massachusetts. Heterosexuals are still getting married -- and divorced -- at the same rate as always. The biggest difference is a lot of kids, like mine, have their families protected.

Rights guaranteed.

Because it's not about "gay marriage." It's about equal access to a legal institution that has been created to ensure committed couples are protected. It ensures the children of that couple are protected under the law. There have been thousands of legal precedents based on the institution of marriage that simply cannot be replicated by a new term, or new legal definition.

Joan Garry quotes the above excerpt from the decision and writes:

Did you get that? The word "marriage" IS important. Calling it something else implies that it is not of comparable stature or equal dignity. Calling it something else just for same sex couples implies that the parallel institution is a mark of second class citizenship. (Note to self: send copy of these last two paragraphs to Clinton and Obama campaigns)

So what's the moral of the story today? We are reminded that when we make a strong case (thank you to NLCR, Lambda Legal and the ACLU) in front of fair minded judges, judges who are doing their jobs, judges who, regardless of who appointed them, evaluate cases with integrity , we win. And we are all reminded that "separate but equal" has never cut it in America. Because "separate" is simply not equal at all.

Just a few more thoughts. John Nichols at the Nation says that this will make gay marriage an issue in the Presidential election, and that Democrats need to not wimp out on this. They should take a principled stand and live up to the reputation that it is the party that supports gays and lesbians. He notes that Senator Feingold of Wisconsin has always taken a strong stand for gay marriage, not just civil unions, and won by over 300,000 votes, despite coming from a state that narrowly passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

The campaigns have made careful and predictable statements. Clinton and Obama basically said that they support civil unions but that marriage should be left up to states. McCain basically said that it should be left up to states, but implied that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman.

Two good articles on gay rights at Religion Dispatches

Yesterday I happened across this great website called Religion Dispatches, "a daily online magazine dedicated to the analysis and understanding of religious forces in the world today, highlighting a diversity of progressive voices and aimed at broadening and advancing the public conversation." I really like what I've read so far. As a grad student I read a lot of scholarly work on religion and society, but this website is appealing because it is in a less formal, more opinion-based format and deals with very current issues. I've added it to my list of favorite websites on the side of my blog and I suspect that it will inspire a lot of blog posts from me in the future.

I found two articles on the topic of gay rights yesterday that I really enjoyed. The first, written by Michelle Wolkomir, discusses the cancellation of a special workshop on religion, homosexuality, and therapy to be put on by the American Psychiatric Association last month. Apparently, there was tremendous pressure from gay activists to cancel the event, which was going to include two evangelicals: Rev. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at an evangelical college in western Pennsylvania. Some activists saw the workshop as an attempt by religious conservatives to influence the APA on their stances toward homosexuality. Notably, Gene Robinson, a well-known and openly gay Episcopal bishop, withdrew from the event, saying that the event would lend credibility "to that so-called reparative therapy movement."

In her article, Wolkomir laments that the debate over gay rights is based around the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not:

Neither gay nor ex-gay advocates challenge the stigma imposed on homosexuality, and they reduce the debate to an all too simple formula: If no choice, then rights. If choice, then no rights. Given this framework, activists on either side of the debate busy themselves trying to find religious and/or scientific proof for something that is, as of the present moment, simply unproveable—the origin of sexual desire. This formulaic choice/no choice framework of the debate keeps people from asking the truly important question that should be the heart of the matter: in these democratic United States, do mutually consenting adults have the right to freely, without coercion or sanction, choose their sexual partners? If the answer is yes, then no rights of citizenship can be withheld for this choice. Why people make the choice they do (or whether they have a choice) matters not at all—at least not for acquiring rights and privileges.

I think Wolkomir makes a really good point here. She's basically saying that whether you're born that way or whether you choose it doesn't really matter. What matters is what it means to live in a democratic, free society and whether consenting adults should have the freedom to choose their sexual partners. However, I have two main problems with her argument. First, she is really letting people who don't agree with the science or who oppose the research itself off the hook. She's also saying that science can never help us on this issue. I disagree with her on this. We should draw on multiple sources to understand our world, our society, our psychology, and our sexuality. Science is one of those sources and will, I believe, contribute to the debate in the future. My second problem with her argument is that she misses the point that for people on both sides, it is more than a matter of individual rights and choices. Some on both sides believe that the collective moral health of society is at stake. Opponents of gay rights believe that recognizing homosexuality and expanding gays' rights will lead to moral decline and will undermine the sacred institutions of marriage and family. Supporters believe that we cannot be a free, just, and responsible society until everyone is granted the rights they they are entitled to. Also, many religious conservatives undoubtedly would agree that gays and lesbians can choose whatever partner they want, as long as they keep it to themselves. When the issues of civil unions and gay marriages are in the picture, things change. These are social issues.

The second article was written by Evan Derkacz. He notes that a recent email alert from the Family Research Council, a Christian Right think tank and lobbying organization, had a tribute to Mildred Loving, a black woman famous for her successful challenge of a state law banning interracial marriage. Here's an excerpt from Derkacz's article:

The FRC devotes a significant portion of its tribute to Loving to caution readers: "Although homosexual activists are fond of portraying the Lovings' victory as a precedent for their cause, the Loving case didn't alter the definition of marriage but affirmed it by allowing any man to marry any woman. The nation is indebted to Mildred for a legacy that so aptly lives up to the couple's shared name."

There are at least two critical things to keep in mind while reading this. First, the embarrassing, then the meat. It's not just "homosexual activists" who see parallels in the Loving case—it's Mildred herself. On June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving case (a decision handed down just months before MLK was killed in Memphis, by the by), Mildred penned a public statement that included these liberal sentiments (full PDF here; italics mine):

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the tendency for conservative groups to adjust their views to give the Groundhog Day-like impression that to believe in what is (now) the culturally appropriate view is eminently "conservative" (as in: "traditional," "unchanging," or "objectively true").

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, these very welcome props to Mildred Loving and her husband Richard are deeply, abidingly, and intrinsically progressive values. They are the values of those whose sense of justice transcends the tunnel vision of time; of those who have both the vision to question received wisdom and the guts to express it.

Amen.

Religious Identity and Unitarian Universalism

I spoke in a Sunday service a couple weeks ago and I just thought I'd let people read what I said if they're interested. It was a lay-led service and several other "young adults" spoke, too. It was a really nice service. I realize it's a bit long for a blog post, but here it is if you're interested:

When I stopped attending Mormon services in 2006, it was at the end of a long period of life-transforming questioning, doubting, and longing. I was excited and relieved to be doing what I thought was the only honest and sincere thing I could do. Yet, I had a feeling, even a fear, that when I left Mormonism, I was probably leaving religion altogether. As someone who values religion deeply and has even decided to make a career of studying it, I was saddened by the prospect of no religion in my life. Thankfully, a little over a year ago I found this place.

Now, over a year later, I pause to reflect on where I’ve been and where I’m going. The topic of today’s service came out of personal reflection and several conversations I’ve had with others on a challenge that I believe faces many of us. I speak of the fact that we sometimes describe our faith by what it is not instead of by what it is. Earlier, Tina and I performed a goofy skit illustrating this tendency. Sometimes when I tell people about this place and my involvement here, I find myself asking or at least thinking something like “Where else would an agnostic, post-Mormon intellectual go?” The problem is that this only implies that I am UU by default – maybe because no other place would take me. While that may be true, I don’t want to be UU merely be default – because I happen to not be anything else.

I often think of an experience I had in this place. I once heard someone, when asked why they come here, say because “it doesn’t offend me.” I don’t doubt that this is true for many of us, maybe even myself. What a relief it is for many of us to find such a place. But is this really the best reason to be here? Are we always so on guard here in this place of religion that we seek to merely not be offended?

I wish to speak today on constructing a positive religious identity as Unitarian Universalists. I recognize and appreciate that such an identity will be different for each of us. What I share today is the process I have begun to go through to do this for myself.

The sociologist in me recognizes that groups always define who they are in part by identifying who they are not. Groups set clear boundaries and create what are called negative reference groups – groups we look to help us determine what we are not . We all do this everyday and this is an important and natural part of social life. But in the religious sphere, what happens when we rely only upon this means of figuring out who we are and what we believe? The Unitarian Universalist in me believes that it may serve as a barrier to personal, congregational, and denominational growth.

I believe that in order to connect my beliefs to action and to use religion as a source of guidance, inspiration, and hope, I need to ground myself in a positive religious identity. Doing so goes beyond defining what I don’t believe, and into defining what I do believe, and, perhaps most importantly, what I’m willing to do to achieve it. I believe that in our faith and in our congregation we have some tools to help us. Religious Education classes like Articulating Your UU Faith, Building Your Own Theology, and Owning Your Religious Past are designed to help us explore and define our beliefs and our religious identity. Some of us are stuck in a spiritual rut, still looking back at where we’ve come from rather than where we’re going. Each of us will create a positive religious identity in a different way, but it’s something I believe we all should do.

Some of you may say “Yeah, but why a religious identity? I’m not a religious person.” Some of you may feel uncomfortable calling yourselves religious or maybe even uneasy calling Unitarian Universalism a religion. I can sympathize with this – by conventional standards I’m probably not religious, either. But to construct a positive religious identity is to ground ourselves in this religious tradition of Unitarian Universalism, its rich history, its exciting present, and its yet-to-be-determined future. Let’s not let the word religion scare us away. UU minister and former UUA president Forrest Church defines religion as “our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die.” Humanist professor Anthony Pinn defines it as “that which provides orientation or direction for human life” along with “motivation for living and acting in accordance with this orientation.” Let us have a say in what it means. To borrow from Forrest Church and Anthony Pinn, let Unitarian Universalism be our response to life, and our orientation for living fully.

A month ago I attended the spring conference of the Joseph Priestley District of the UUA. The keynote address was given by Rob Keithan, director of the Washington Office for Advocacy of the UUA. Rob’s address was called “Who do we think we are?” and focused on the need for a strong, focused, but humble and grateful religious identity as UUs. Rob insisted that we not shy away from calling ourselves “religious.” First, he pointed out that, well, technically, we are. But Rob said that there’s another, deeper way in which we are a religious people, a way that I had never considered. Our beloved first principle, which emphasizes the worth and dignity of ALL people and which drives our commitment to social justice and love, is a faith statement – something that can’t be proven or tested, but that we accept on faith. You could probably make the same case about the other principles.

I believe that as individuals and as a religious movement we need to construct a positive religious identity because others continue to try to narrowly define religion in a way that is not in keeping with our religious ideals and principles. Some in the Religious Right identify secular humanists, religious liberals, gays and lesbians, the ACLU, and others as “the enemy,” and assert that somehow despite the wisdom of our founders and the language of their founding documents America is a “Christian Nation.” Others, part of a “new atheist” movement, put ALL religion squarely in the crosshairs. Based on worn-out, oversimplistic, and intolerant arguments, these authors have tried to make the case that the world would be better off without religion. I believe that we are poised to offer an alternative voice in the debate over religion. I think that Unitarian Universalists see religion as a tool. A tool that can be used for good or ill. We see in religion the potential to heal, unite, inspire, and motivate. We also see in religion deep and meaningful expressions of history, culture, and art. We see it as an expression of what makes us human. We refuse to give up on religion. A positive religious identity as Unitarian Universalists would position us to provide this sort of viewpoint and challenge those who would more narrowly define religion in order to attack those with whom they disagree.

There are claims, often found in UU jokes and sometimes offered by much more conventionally “religious” individuals, that Unitarian Universalism is an empty faith, so devoid of theology and so concerned with political correctness and inclusiveness that it ultimately says nothing at all. I do not believe that UUism is empty and meaningless. We have made a deliberate decision to have no creed. This allows individuals to embark on their own religious journeys, guided and informed by our common goals and shared principles. Second, our commitment to inclusiveness poses challenges, but ultimately we believe that it is the only way to be fair, just, and loving.

So what should a positive UU identity look like? It will no doubt look different for each of us, but I believe we share much with each other in terms of beliefs and values, and the obvious place to look is the seven principles, a set of powerful beliefs and values that under-gird what we do in our faith and what we seek to accomplish. Let us reflect on these often and commit to more fully live up to them.

My personal religious identity has been heavily influenced by religious humanism and religious naturalism, and more specifically, by a view described by Reverend William R. Murry in his book Reason and Reverence as “humanistic religious naturalism.” Combining religious humanism’s confidence in human potential and its emphasis on ethical living with religious naturalism’s view of humans as merely part of a larger, natural world worthy of reverence and human care, Murry describes a religious perspective that “promotes an ethical life in which one thinks and acts from a larger perspective than one’s own egoistic interests, a life that affirms the worth and dignity of each person, a life filled with wonder and reverence for the extraordinary magnificence of the natural world and human creations.” This is a pretty accurate description of my own religious identity as a Unitarian Universalist.

But what’s your religious identity? Why are you here in this place when you could be somewhere else right now? What beliefs and values motivate you and ground your commitment to working for a better world? Despite your best intentions, do you still sometimes find yourself defining who you are as a UU too much by what you are not and by what you do not believe in?

These are important questions, and I hope that this service will make each of us pause to consider them. Let us be grateful for our faith, Unitarian Universalism, and seek to ground ourselves in a positive identity that will further our commitment to social justice, ethical living, and living in love. So may it be.

Biking, exercise, and "living in Earth"

Let's face it. I love graduate school but sitting at a computer for 8 hours a day isn't exactly good for your health. I've gained a lot of weight since I started graduate school and recently I decided I should do something about it. Disc golf and biking are about the only forms of exercise I like. Disc golf is a lot of fun. There's a new 9-hole course here in State College (the only one). It's not a great course, but it's fun.

But biking is what I've really gotten into lately. I prefer to use the term biking since "cycling" makes me think of skinny people on skinny bikes with aerodynamic helmets going like 60 miles per hour. And none of that would apply to me. Anyway, I've been going on rides several times a week. Here are the reasons I enjoy it so much:

1. Like I said, it's about the only kind of exercise I like. And it feels really good. There's a post-exercise buzz you get that's almost euphoric, like how you feel after, well, I'll let you decide. And I think I've already lost about 10 pounds in just a few weeks, too.

2. I get to wear spandex. I'm joking. I actually did recently get over my fear of wearing bike shorts and bought a pair. The last time I wore spandex I was like 10 years old or something. Anyway, they're extremely comfortable, no matter how dumb I look. (Another plus is that when I use my Camelbak I feel like one of the Fremen in Dune).

3. Maybe the biggest reason I like to bike is that I get to be outside. And the more I can get away from cars and roads and houses the better. There's a Pennsylvania game land on the edge of town that I absolutely love to ride in. It's absolutely beautiful. The trails are challenging but not too challenging and there's a nice variety of terrain. Once I feel more comfortable riding there, I want to start riding in Rothrock State Forest, which is apparently really challenging. I think I like to mountain bike so much because I can just be in nature. There is something refreshing and healing about it.

We humans are interesting in that most of our technological advances, designed to improve and simplify our lives, tend to remove us from nature more and more. It's almost like we're aliens on Earth, the way that we drive around in metal cars and live in air-conditioned homes. In some small way, my bike rides in nature make feel connected to nature again, and remind me that I am not an alien on Earth, but a member of it, and part of it.

I recently read a fantastic article in an independent local newspaper here in Central Pennsylvania. The author offers "a new way to think about how we might respond to climate change." He asks:

Do you live on Earth, or in Earth? Though saying that you live on Earth may sound right, the truth is that we all live in Earth. If you doubt this, go out in the afternoon and lie on your back and look up at the sky. In particular, observe the clouds and consider that, at our latitude, Earth is spinning at more than 500 miles per hour to the east. So why aren’t those clouds up there racing across the sky to the west at hundreds of miles per hour?

The answer is that all the stuff up there that we blithely refer to as “atmosphere” is part of Earth. Yes, that’s Earth up there! If you still doubt this, hold your breath! Just as a fish is utterly dependent on water for life, our life medium is the atmosphere.

It is the same with our perception of air. The prevailing consciousness leads us to see air as empty space or, if you are of a scientific disposition, to define atmosphere as a mix of gases. Caught in this limited worldview, we hear things such as, “Humans can only pump so many tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year without disturbing Earth’s climate systems.” Sadly, this way of speaking fails to acknowledge that we are intimately entangled with this stuff called “atmosphere.”

The upshot of all this, in my view, is that we will not make genuine progress in mitigating climate change until we learn to speak of the atmosphere from the inside, understanding it as the breath of life. In short, what is needed is a reverential ecology— a way of seeing that reminds us that Earth doesn’t belong to us, but rather that we belong to Earth!

Let us substitute hubris with humility, recognizing, as David Abrams points out, that “our breathing bodies are simply our part of the exuberant flesh of Earth.”

So what does this have to do with bike riding? I guess riding in nature reminds me that I live in Earth and not on it.

I understand now . . .

. . . why so many people can't stand politics. To be honest, I didn't care much for politics until recent years. I started reading and listening more, trying to learn all I could, making sure I was informed when I went to vote, and so on. I started this blog to discuss, among other things, politics. I realized that I should care. I have a responsibility to care. And I started to believe that maybe I could make a difference, even if it was just an infinitesimal one.

But I'm starting to understand why so many people don't care. This Presidential campaign, and particularly Hillary Clinton, have helped me to understand that.

Ari Berman is on to something:

Too long, too sleazy, too expensive. That's how a friend described the Democratic primary this morning and I couldn't agree more.

It all started off so inspiring---the Democratic field as a whole was the best in years, and Obama and Clinton in particular were two intelligent, skilled, historic candidates. It was a win-win situation for the Democratic Party. And then, soon after the voting started, the race descended into the gutter.

There's a whole lotta blame to go around. You can blame the Clinton campaign for playing the race card against Obama and pushing every ridiculous guilt-by-association. You can blame right-wing hatchet men for inventing lie after lie about Obama and for smearing the Clintons for twenty years. But much of the blame rests with the so-called mainstream media, particularly tv pundits, for manufacturing scandal after scandal, and then endlessly repeating the coverage under the guise of "news."

Lara Cohen, the News Director at the celebrity magazine Us Weekly, writes that the media's coverage of the Rev. Wright issue was probably more tabloidy, trashy, one-sided, and unfair than anything her industry could produce. And she should know.

The most disappointing thing for me, though, is Clinton's campaign. Our country has so many issues, and we're really hurting after 8 years of Pres. Bush. Yet, Clinton appears prepared to try to win at all costs. Now she seems to be trying to run like a Republican. She promised the she wouldn't hesitate to "obliterate Iran" if necessary, a statement which really hasn't seemed to bug people the way it should and has received no attention. That genocidal, arrogant, bully-ish statement disturbs me, and just sounds like 8 more years of Bush to me.

Clinton is now running as a regular old, working-class, gun-toting, hawkish, anti-intellectual tough guy. She really is. She's decided that she's already turned off the educated, activist liberal base of the party (not to mention African Americans) and she's decided that her best shot is to slam down shots, talk about being big, mean, tough, and nasty and try to shore up that white working-class vote. She's pretending to be the antidote to elitism, which apparently is Obama and anyone else that speaks intelligently and is out of touch with real life (see the recent gas tax nonsense). I'm not bashing white working-class Democrats, I'm criticizing Clinton for pretending to be one.

Speaking of that white working-class vote, Richard Kim put his finger on something that had been bugging me about Clinton's electability arguments. I don't agree with everything he says, but he brings up some fantastic points and at the least a thought-provoking argument. He makes the case that in talking up Obama's electability issues with working-class swing voters (who are all white, of course), Clinton is courting the racist vote, and trying to convince superdelegates that Obama is unelectable because he is black. Of course, Clinton's campaign is careful how they discuss the issue, but when it really comes down to it, Clinton's strongest group of voters, at least in Ohio and PA, are those that most likely to be racist. I'm in no way saying that they all are, or that Clinton is not trying to point to other electability issues besides race. But I have had this nagging feeling that Clinton is taking advantage of that layer of racism and xenophobia that lies just under the surface in America. And Kim is right to point out that this isn't what Democrats should be about.

I really feel like the Rev. Wright thing is a problem because it reminds people that despite his articulate speech, his charisma, his nice suit and good looks, Obama is a black man. As one Indiana writer put it:

“Race is going to swing the race,” he predicted. “Folks have been handed the cover issue and now don’t have to say ‘I’m not voting for Obama because he’s black,’ but instead, ‘I’m not voting for him because he listened to a black preacher.’”

Yes, it's all frustrating, and I can understand why people just tune it all out. But it's just too important this year. I can't tune it out. I support Barack Obama because of the way he's run his campaign. I support him because I feel like his demeanor, his policies, his attitudes, and his dedication are what we need right now. I second what Friedman had to say in his recent column:

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”

It is especially not trivial now, because millions of Americans are dying to be enlisted — enlisted to fix education, enlisted to research renewable energy, enlisted to repair our infrastructure, enlisted to help others. Look at the kids lining up to join Teach for America. They want our country to matter again. They want it to be about building wealth and dignity — big profits and big purposes. When we just do one, we are less than the sum of our parts. When we do both, said Shriver, “no one can touch us.”

Rev. Wright, the Black Church, and the media

I've been especially frustrated by the treatment of the whole Rev. Wright issue. First, there is still virtually no effort at all to understand Rev. Wright's words and his career from the context and history of the Black Church (here's a good NPR piece on the Black Church). Even if some of the things he said are inexcusable, we owe him and the Black Church some effort to understand and empathize. Even if he has some crazy ideas that make him a liability for Obama, he has had a long successful career, built a large, thriving congregation in a predominantly white denomination, the United Church of Christ, and is no doubt more complex (and probably better) than a few angry-sounding excerpts. Second, the whole thing reveals a double standard in how the media treats race and religion. Two fantastic articles I found today really explore this and make sense of it.

First, I'd recommend you read Frank Rich's column in the Times today.

Second, Bill Moyers, who interviewed Rev. Wright recently, spoke about Rev. Wright, the media, and the double standard. I found it at The Nation. It's quite good, so I'll reproduce it here. If instead you'd prefer to watch Moyers tell it himself, scroll down to the bottom to watch the video.

Beware the Terrible Simplifiers

By Bill Moyers

May 3, 2008

I once asked a reporter back from Vietnam: 'Who's telling the truth over there?'

'Everyone,' he said. 'Everyone sees what's happening through the lens of their own experience.'

That's how people see Jeremiah Wright.

In my conversation with him and in his dramatic public appearances since, he revealed himself to be far more complex than the sound bites that propelled him onto the public stage.

More than 2,000 people have written me about him, and their opinions vary widely. Some sting: 'Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a race-hustling, American- hating radical,' one of my viewers wrote. Another called him a 'nut case.'

Many more were sympathetic to him. Many asked for some rational explanation for Wright's transition from reasonable conversation to the shocking anger they saw at the National Press Club.

A psychologist might pull back some of the layers and see this complicated man more clearly, but I'm not a psychologist.

Many black preachers I've known-scholarly, smart, and gentle in person-uncorked fire and brimstone in the pulpit. Of course, I've known many white preachers like that, too.

But where I grew up in the South, before the civil rights movement, the pulpit was a safe place for black men to express anger for which they would have been punished anywhere else. A safe place for the fierce thunder of dignity denied, justice delayed.

I think I would have been angry if my ancestors had been transported thousands of miles in the hellish hole of a slave ship, then sold at auction, humiliated, whipped, and lynched.

Or if my great-great-great grandfather had been but three-fifths of a person in a Constitution that proclaimed: 'We, the people.'

Or if my own parents had been subjected to the racial vitriol of Jim Crow, Strom Thurmond, Bull Conner, and Jesse Helms.

Even so, the anger of black preachers I've known and heard and reported on was, for them, very personal and cathartic. That's not how Jeremiah Wright came across in those sound bites or in his defiant performances since my interview.

What white America is hearing in his most inflammatory words is an attack on the America they cherish and that many of their sons have died for in battle - forgetting that black Americans have fought and bled beside them, and that Wright himself has a record of honored service in the Navy.

Hardly anyone took the 'chickens come home to roost' remark to convey the message that intervention in the political battles of other nations is sure to bring retaliation in some form, which is not to justify the particular savagery of 9/11 but to understand that actions have consequences.

My friend Bernard Weisberger, the historian, says, yes, people are understandably seething with indignation over Wright's absurd charge that the United States deliberately brought an HIV epidemic into being.

But it is a fact, he says, that within living memory the U.S. public health service conducted a study that deliberately deceived black men with syphilis into believing that they were being treated while actually letting them die for the sake of a scientific test.

Does this excuse Wright's anger? His exaggerations or distortions? You'll have to decide for yourself, but at least it helps me to understand the why of them.

In this multimedia age the pulpit isn't only available on Sunday mornings. There's round the clock media - the beast whose hunger is never satisfied, especially for the fast food with emotional content.

So the preacher starts with rational discussion and after much prodding throws more and more gasoline on the fire that will eventually consume everything it touches. He had help - people who, for their own reasons, set out to conflate the man in the pulpit who wasn't running for president with the man in the pew who was.

Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the war-mongering, Catholic- bashing Texas preacher, who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins.

But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee's delusions or thinks AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right.

After 9/11, Jerry Falwell said the attack was God's judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.

Jon Stewart recently played tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the Oval Office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America.

This is crazy and wrong -- white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren't.

Which means it is all about race, isn't it?

Wright's offensive opinions and inflammatory appearances are judged differently. He doesn't fire a shot in anger, put a noose around anyone's neck, call for insurrection, or plant a bomb in a church with children in Sunday school.

What he does is to speak his mind in a language and style that unsettles some people, and says some things so outlandish and ill-advised that he finally leaves Obama no choice but to end their friendship.

We're often exposed to the corroding acid of the politics of personal destruction, but I've never seen anything like this - this wrenching break between pastor and parishioner played out right in front of our eyes.

Both men no doubt will carry the grief to their graves. All the rest of us should hang our heads in shame for letting it come to this in America, where the gluttony of the non-stop media grinder consumes us all and prevents an honest conversation on race.

It is the price we are paying for failing to heed the great historian Jacob Burckhardt, who said, 'Beware the terrible simplifiers.'