Obama explains the many exciting new ways we will violate human rights from here out

This abcnews article runs through Obama's plan to continue the sort of rationalizations and abuses that lead a President to violate national law and human rights in the name of keeping us "safe." This is nearly the same rationale used by Bush and ought to further disappoint anybody who expected the excesses of the Bush presidency to cease under Obama:

But apparently over-ruling his FBI director, President Obama today said that "where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders; namely, highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact. Nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal super-max prisons which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists."

Detainees, he said, fall into five distinct categories. Those include those guilty of US criminal law who could be tried in US federal courts, those "who violate the laws of war and are, therefore, best tried through military commissions," 21 detainees ordered released by the courts, 50 detainees that his administration has judged suitable for transfer to other countries for "detention and rehabilitation."

Lastly, describing the "toughest single issue that we will face," the president described those who face indefinite detention, "people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases, because evidence may be tainted, but who, nonetheless, pose a threat to the security of the United States." [Emphasis added]

Sigh. . .

Bush in Memoriam

Image and quote reprinted from The People's Voice (in loving memory of Bush's legacy. (Note: If they turn out to be a little crazy I take no responsibility - it's the only place I could find the article in full, and with such a neat image to boot):

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I could rant once again about what Bush did in response to his disregard for the Constitution, but I'd rather let this speak for itself (besides, see some tasty links below). Let's look beyond this individual and concentrate on paying attention and bettering ourselves and our government now. We'll have plenty to hold Obama accountable before despite the less-than-stellar last eight years. Still, I don't think my disagreements with the upcoming administration will give me quite that same sick feeling in my heart.

Relevant Links:

The Bush Legacy in Numbers (Harpers)

The Bush Legacy: My Analysis

The Daily Show's John Oliver on Bush's "Decomplishments"

How We're Destroying Ourselves

Gitmo Detainees Released, Chastened

Harness the Bush hatred

And in honor of the Bush legacy, this classic Achewood (click to enlarge):



Another golden Achewood: The power of sentences

Penn Jillette on Libertarianism

(photo credit: NPR)

Libertarian publication reason did a nice interview with Penn Jillette (of the illustrious magic/skeptic duo Penn and Teller) on government, libertarianism and Election 2008. I've always found Penn intelligent and open-minded, regardless of my opinion of the issue he's discussing at the moment, so rediscovering his fervor for individual rights was once again invigorating.

The exciting thing about libertarians is that they can be gun nuts, hippies, Conservatives, communalists, atheists, skeptics or peaceniks, but they're united by a common philosophy. Their shared belief in small government doesn't smooth over their other beliefs or force them into some kind of homogenous mess the way a party affiliation can. In our society libertarians (and their little brothers, constitutionalists) are the real outcasts, shunned by two competing philosophies of government expansion, so it's nice to read somebody who's excited and principled and maybe a little nuts.

Liberty Maven, where I found the interview, has the selection I'd like to reproduce so you can click through to the article if you wish:

reason: But you’d enjoyed the Paul movement (or moment)?

Jillette: I was just thrilled! I love it when people are seeing a point of view that they’ve never seen before. I had people coming to me and explaining RP’s positions in a way that I couldn’t explain them. I loved that! I love listening to somebody talk about liberty so much better than I ever had. I am such a believer in marketplace of ideas. What troubles me most about politics is this feeling that you shouldn’t waste time with anyone but the frontrunners. The fact that we had this little glitch in the system, that people might listen to somebody else who wasn’t at the top of the polls, it just fills me with such incredible joy to think about it. There were people who considered me a nut for not going with one of the two major party candidates who were, all of a sudden, supporting Ron Paul.

The thing is, I don’t think any of libertarian ideas are very far out of actual spirit of our culture. The reason I use the word “nut” positively is that I think a lot of people really do believe in libertarianism, and small government, and they just need to be told that it’s OK. Paul found ways to say talk about it. I don’t think winning or even running a good race was that important. I don’t even think the million-dollar fundraising days were important. What was important was people being able to say in their own words stuff I agree with about individual rights. I think we need somebody that has charisma and clarity to make people think that’s ok. I have always, like the singers and songwriters of country western music, identified with the losers. A lot of people are not like that. A lot of people watch the Olympics to see people pick up medals.

Smoke-filled rooms. . .

Bush is angry that Obama's people have leaked details of a conversation between the two involving auto industry bailouts, rather than keeping these types of conversation in the smoke-filled rooms where they belong.

"Senator Obama would be wise to keep close counsel," a top Bush source warned.

It kind of sucks that Obama wants to bail out yet another corporation, but I view this step toward transparency as an unambiguously positive sign. Is there a chance that we could have Obama himself discuss his plans and policies next time (those not directly involving national security) rather than hearing about them through anonymous leaks? The Bush administration has been about as transparent with the American people as a lead-lined bunker, so even leaks are a step up.

Feds Refuse to Identify Over $2 Trillion in Illegal Loans

Anybody who thought the $700,000,000,000 bailout was the end of massive misguided government handouts to failed businesses under the cloak of helping our economy should prepare to be disappointed - according to Bloomberg, the Feds have squirreled away nearly $2,000,000,000,000 of our tax dollars and, as usual, don't feel any particular need to share the specifics with us. (And don't worry - Barney Frank plainly doesn't feel penitent for his hand in this.)

Here's a mere $315 billion for reference (from here):

The miniscule dot near the corner of the stack is a person. The larger shape is a car. This stack is 450 feet tall (38 stories) and 25,000 square feet in area. To turn it into 2 trillion dollars, either imagine 6.4 stacks just like this, or enough dollar bills to wrap around the Earth's equator 5.1 times. That's how much your government is taking (actually, let's just call it "stealing").

Alternatively, you could use $20 bills and merely imagine a football field buried in sixty-three feet of cash, or 300 dollars for every single person living on this Earth. That's not quite as bad, right?

The stack depicted in the image represents only the cash spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, money the president is legally authorized to approve (I won't get into the ethics of this spending today). This $2 trillion, on the other hand (let's write it out again: $2,000,000,000,000) is not only unethical and shortsighted, but completely unconstitutional.

And does anybody really think that this type of thing will stop under any administration?

Musings on Age. . .

Barack Obama will be the first U.S. President who is younger than my father. I wonder how it will influence my opinion of the then-current president when the same thing happens to me.

Time to go. . .

Whoever your current pick is for the next president (tomorrow!), if you're like the vast majority of Americans you won't miss the current one very much. It took war, death and destruction to keep Bush's poll numbers up from 2001 to 2003 - poll numbers which quickly dropped when it came time for him to actually govern and the American people got a glimpse inside his head. Finally, we arrive at five years of sub-50% polls that culminated in the lowest presidential approval ratings of modern history, and for good reason.

Bush hasn't had much time lately to work on what his team calls "legacy stuff", so let's do a little recap for his benefit:

• A 58% increase in the federal budget, the largest since the last two-term "conservative" president, Ronald Reagan.
• Little to no transparency in government, defense of cabinet members who have committed felonies and made gross errors in judgment, and a belief that going with your "gut" is the same as doing the "right" thing. This leads to excuses, redefinition of words and outcomes, demonization of countries and individuals who don't prescribe to your worldview and a dangerously shortsighted view of the world at large.
• A massive increase in the American military industrial complex all over the world, with all of the lapses in responsibility that this entails. Equivocating the deaths of soldiers with a jingoist fight for "freedom" that results in hundreds of thousands of dead on their side, thousands dead on our side, and a huge economic and moral burden on our country, all while undermining American freedoms and liberties at home.
• Dragging irresponsible Blackwater goons into war zones and New Orleans.
  
• Doing much to undermine the moral character of our country by endorsing and authorizing torture methods prohibited by international conventions and basic decency, performed on people in secret prisons who have had no charges levied against them, all in the name of freedom and liberty. Assertion of the States Secrets Privilege whenever your actions are questioned, effectively removing any recourse your citizens or other branches of government might have to question your methods.
  
• Secret unconstitutional wiretapping programs undertaken with private corporations, massive unconstitutional powers given to the TSA and a million-name-strong terrorist watch list that burdens the lives of ordinary Americans, most of whom are innocent and have had no formal charges pressed against them.

Most of us should agree that, whatever their faults, neither McCain nor Obama will do as much to damage our country as Dubya managed. Still, it worries me that both candidates seem very, very sure of themselves and their moral prerogative toward election (arguably W's greatest failing). Whatever DailyKos might say, Election 2008 isn't really a choice between an unambiguous nincompoop (four more years of Bush!) or a perceptive, miracle-working Golden Boy sent from above to assuage the memory of Bush. (As much of the tired Obamessiah rhetoric you hear from the Right, it's hard to deny that Obama seems that much more appealing to America after a failure like Bush.) Still, it's a testament to the appeal of Bush that despite his knowing participation in modern travesties of liberty and due process, I still like the guy personally.

They've Gone a Long Way Since "This Land"

It's been awhile since 2004's This Land, and I'll admit I've lost track of the JibJab crew over the last few years, mainly because most of what I saw seemed slickly-animated but terrible. But thank God for impulse clicks, because their new animation "Time For Some Campaignin' " is really, really excellent. It's nice to see these guys unafraid to go for the low jokes and slapstick humor (down to the running Clinton/Hillary joke) despite their worldwide sensation status. This one's downright epic - needless to say, I won't wait nearly so long next time.

Time For Some Campaignin' (JibJab)

Obama Campaign Revealed Talking Points To Media Before Final Debate

Anyway, it's on Drudge. Many of the points have more than a little truth to them, but this kind of thing doesn't seem ethical to me. Still, I'm not sure I buy into Drudge's assertion that the media has been taking secret orders from Obama-Biden. After all, McCain probably has a nearly identical series of talking points (whether potential points or actually written).

I don't know how widespread this sort of thing is, but if the media can't see the obvious bits of this memo for themselves, they're not bright enough to comment on the debate, and if they put the more subjective stuff to paper before they've even seen the debate, they don't deserve to be.

My Grandpa Sense is Tingling (An Old Man vs. Obama vs. Hitler vs. Godwin's Law)

My wonderful BYU college paper printed the following editorial this morning:

Hitler and Obama

My wife and I took a trip down to St. George this weekend and we had an opportunity to talk with a great uncle who lived in Austria during World War II. He remembered he was six years old when he heard Hitler speak for the first time. He told us he had a very distinct feeling of how evil Hitler was. The conversation switched to politics later on and he told us that he had the exact same feeling when he heard Obama speak for the first time. There's the common saying that those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. I'm not a hard-core Republican or anything like that, but since he received the same revelation for these two people, shouldn't we be doing something?

CHRISTIAN ANDERSON
St. George

The wonder of this letter pretty much speaks for itself. Were it an anonymous letter, I would presume it some sort of sly satire against the sort of people who might actually write something like this. Unfortunately, this student has elected to have his name attached to the actual letter, something that no sly satirist would ever allow without some sort of winking comment in the letter itself to indicate that, no, I am not in fact that stupid.

I was immediately inspired to fire off the following response, which undoubtedly will not be published on Monday:

My Grandpa Sense is Tingling

Daily Universe,

Friday's letter from Christian Anderson has set a good many of us straight. After all, if his great uncle in St. George feels that Barack Obama is eeeevil - the same way he felt as a child in Austria when he heard Hitler (gasp!) speak - then all of this debate, issue-weighing and consideration of the abuses of the current administration is naught but a waste of time.

As Christian said, "I'm not a hard-core Republican or anything like that, but since he received the same revelation for these two people [Hitler and Obama], shouldn't we be doing something?" As a man of unrestrained passion and principle, I felt compelled to punch out a couple of bull moose and read the collected works of Walt Whitman before issuing a resounding "Yes!"

I'd like to thank the Daily Universe for printing that cogent, astute letter, but there's still a long way to go. Now that secondhand accounts from octogenarian immigrants are the standard, I'd like to suggest an elite force of such individuals determine the next election, rather than the farce we currently have in place called the electoral college. "McCain is a kind man", one might say, prompting a hundred thousand people in Miami to register Republican and watch reruns of the Dick Van Dyke show on Nick at Nite.

Dustin Steinacker

Christian's letter has been the butt of many jokes around campus. I left the following line out in the hopes that it wouldn't be venomous enough to entirely dismiss for publication: "I am inspired by the thought that this "Christian Anderson", an honest-to-God college student, may be receiving an actual University Degree in the foreseeable future. Good luck with that, Christian, though I wouldn't stick with a major until you consulted Herr Unkle Anderson first. One must not be a hardcore Republican to maintain a personal status as a dedicated idiot."

Hey - Don't We All Want a "Deferential" Media?

(image from thirdworldtraveler.com)

The McCain campaign has decided to keep Sarah Palin away from reporters and other agents of the media who will not treat her with the proper "deference." As important as it is to treat the possible future leader of the free world with the proper veneration, shying away from any unpleasant or impolite questions about difficult topics or her questionable past actions, we present the following guide for journalists who may find themselves in the path of this possible future Vice President, the heartthrob a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency:

. . . The problem of gotcha journalism has recently become so pronounced that, now, it’s being engaged in not merely by journalists, but also by voters themselves (though, we should note, we have yet to see any convincing proof that such “members of the electorate” are, in fact, concerned citizens, rather than self-interested partisans and/or individual organs of the liberal media elite out to spread their socialist agenda to freedom-loving Americans). Take, for example, the Temple University grad student who, while waiting in line for a Philly cheese steak on Monday and finding himself face-to-face with Sarah Palin, asked her about Pakistan. (“How about the Pakistan situation?” the sweatshirt-swathed scamp demanded. “What are your thoughts about that?”) Which is shameful. Just shameful. His lips may have said, “Pakistan,” but his eyes said, “Gotcha.”

Where is the deference, Random Grad Student? Sarah Palin has done nothing but volunteer to serve the nation—our nation—by being A Heartbeat Away From The Presidency; how dare you ask her about the situation in some foreign country? Have you left no sense of decency?

This behavior simply cannot continue. The audacity we’ve seen in our media of late—Katie Couric, as you may have heard, recently had the temerity to ask Palin about the economy—is becoming a disgrace to the profession, and an insult to all Americans. Those who care about journalism and its future must unite against such misbegotten attempts to inform the electorate.

...

CJR’s new software guards against gotcha-ism (Megan Garber for Columbia Journalism Review)

American's Immigration Process Explained

If I had a nickel for every time that an immigration opponent struggling to appear openminded told me that they have "no problem" with immigration as long as it's done legally, I'd have died by now of some kind of copper-nickle alloy poisoning. It's an old trope but I'm sure that the people who say it really believe it.

Never mind the fact that neocons who don't really get too worked up about lawbreaking suddenly find this border dispute terribly important, the one law that must never, ever be broken, under penalty of deportation. Those who don't feel that illegal immigrants should be deported at least want to make their life a living hell for a long, long time; even McCain's waffling on the issue, pretending to worry about brown people to keep his base comfortable. Remember, it's okay to burden the lives of Americans, as long as you do it while speaking English. If we celebrate "legal" immigration while keeping it a very, very difficult and time-intensive activity, all while throwing out illegals, we get the benefits of looking open-minded while keeping People Who Are Different far, far away from our homes. And what's more All-American than a little good, old-fashioned doubletalk?

All while our leaders are attempting to implement the most socialist, authoritarian, freedom-hating thing that has ever been done in my country. I had a casual respect for the Republicans back when they were all about cruel economic efficiency, but totalitarianism just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But never mind that (actually, mind that very much, but let's move on for now).

Jumping back to the immigration issue, this nice flowchart from Reason.com gives you a good look at just how easy and humane our immigration process really is. Take a look at the amply-titled What Part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand? and maybe shed a little light on the issue in future debates. Remember, a lie repeated enough times becomes truth and eventually common knowledge. . . unless you reject it.

Flowchart: What Part of Legal Immigration Don't You Understand? (reason.com via BoingBoing)

No Charak Obarkley

In an election already oversaturated with sleazy politics but little outright mudslinging from either candidate, it's been interesting over the last couple of weeks to watch people pretend to get worked up about a corny joke from a McCain advisor, idiots who analyze Obama's body language or try to claim that Sarah Palin (a mere cardiac arrest from the Presidency) has foreign policy experience because she's been able to see the thin outline of Russia from the seas of Alaska (an idea so mind-bogglingly stupid it could only be a Neoconservative talking point).

This SNL sketch, partially penned by professional polemic Al Franken, does an admirable job of pointing out the sort of misdirection, sleight of hand and intellectual dishonesty that permeates a campaign season:

The Sarah Palin Stupid Baby Name Generator

The stupid names of Sarah Palin's children have garnered more media attention than the $25 million deficit she incurred for a town of 5,000 people. They'd certainly be more interesting, if she wasn't a heart attack away from the presidency.

At any rate, the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator gives you a peek at the inane identity you may have been given as one of the Palin clan. The results are pure retard poetry. See how much more interesting life would be if Palin was in charge of worldwide baby-naming:

Archibald Clumpy: Commando Coalfire Palin
Richard Nixon: Strike Chipper Palin
Barack Obama: Tarp Lazer Palin

And my favorite:

Fiscal Mismanagement: Bash Budweiser Palin

McCain Was NOT Tortured According to Bush's Definition

Much as some of you may hate the site, I read Daily Kos for interesting points like this. From a paraphrase of an illuminating article by Andrew Sullivan (emphasis and relevant links added):

In all the discussion of John McCain's recently recovered memory of a religious epiphany in Vietnam, one thing has been missing. The torture that was deployed against McCain emerges in all the various accounts. It involved sleep deprivation, the withholding of medical treatment, stress positions, long-time standing, and beating. Sound familiar?

According to the Bush administration's definition of torture, McCain was therefore not tortured.

Cheney denies that McCain was tortured; as does Bush. So do John Yoo and David Addington and George Tenet. In the one indisputably authentic version of the story of a Vietnamese guard showing compassion, McCain talks of the agony of long-time standing. A quarter century later, Don Rumsfeld was putting his signature to memos lengthening the agony of "long-time standing" that victims of Bush's torture regime would have to endure. These torture techniques are, according to the president of the United States, merely "enhanced interrogation."

No war crimes were committed against McCain. And the techniques used are, according to the president, tools to extract accurate information. And so the false confessions that McCain was forced to make were, according to the logic of the Bush administration, as accurate as the "intelligence" we have procured from "interrogating" terror suspects. Feel safer?

I don't intend this as a specific hit against McCain (though it's clear Sullivan has a position on the veracity of his wartime claims), whose record on torture is appropriately condemnatory, but as scathing commentary on the lax nature of the current administration's attitude toward torture. Personally, I'd rather have a couple of fingernails torn out rather than suffer systematic sleep deprivation, or any of the other psychological torments that Bush and Cheney find perfectly humane.

Pants-On-Head Retarded Politicians on Petroleum Panic

With oil prices rising and not a clue in the world what to do about it, it only makes sense that politicians have started incorporating the blame game into their discourse. Actually, what they've started is blaming the most humorously-inappropriate people that they can think of for our petroleum woes. I think it's supposed to be a game, or perhaps a basic intelligence litmus test.

We begin with a scintillating McCain campaign ad:

The announcer in the ad says, "Gas prices — $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?"

A photograph of Obama appears on the stage as a voiceover of a crowd chants: "Obama, Obama, Obama!"

Hmm. . . all this time, I was under the delusion that oil tycoons already had permits for drilling to the tune of 44 million acres. Besides, doesn't it take something like a decade to build a refinery? Either the many sources reporting this (including many government sources) are incorrect, or McCain's counting on America's talking point-fueled ignorance to make the actual data a moot point. Hey - all of the major candidates this time around supported ethanol-based corn fuels, so Election 2008 isn't exactly a meeting of the minds.

Still, I've gotta give McCain credit for knowing his audience - a spot criticizing the free market for creating a situation where oil companies have an incentive to limit supply wouldn't have flown too well with the Sean Inanity crowd.

Then we have newly-elected Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz's prodigious utterance last week:

"There's no doubt that Democrats are the problem. We've done what they've suggested, and look at the results — since (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi took over, gas prices have doubled," Chaffetz said. "Energy is our most pressing need — and ANWR appears to be part of the solution."

Oi! - Again with the ANWR stuff! And what's with this Nancy Pelosi business? Is she the one who's been running the country for eight years? Is there just the smallest smidgen of a chance that oil prices were increasing before Pelosi started her run as speaker? Or is this just stupid dishonest muckraking from a party team player who's going to do his damndest to continue to demonize the other side and make things even worse?

Tell me what I've won!

Hmm. . . I wrote often last year about the role of context in daily life. Only the dishonest have to lose from a lack thereof.

Politics and Expediency

John McCain has recently criticized comments made by Charlie Black, a top adviser to his campaign, to the effect that his campaign would benefit from another terrorist attack in the United States.

Why the heck not? What everybody knows privately and what everybody knows that they should never speak publicly is that a hawk like McCain stands to gain from perceived threats against our nation. Without getting into whether war and "us vs. them" rhetoric protects the country, the simple fact is that horrible things can have a positive benefit to those whose job it is/will be to take care of them. The Republicans have always been masters at wartime speechery, but often flounder when the explosions stop. Imagine Barack Obama in a fighter jet and then tell me who's going to have the tougher time convincing the American people that they love the smell of napalm in the morning.



Bush's poll numbers were never higher than after 9/11; despite the fact that he hadn't done anything in particular to warrant such respect, he seemed decisive and confident and America rallied behind its leader. After some time we realized that he'd just been staring into the sun for so many years and began to grow bored. Finally, years after all of this messy Iraq-Halliburton-Abu Ghraib-waterboarding-wiretapping and much, much more, his polls have finally hit rock bottom. And it's not because of all of that stuff - it's because we got bored. Mercy me - bored. I mean it - ask that 75% why they disapprove of Bush and they sure as shooting won't give you anything recent. Bahhhh. Explosions and good haircuts win over issues any day.

So go ahead, McCain. Do the smart thing and denounce this man's comments even though they're obviously true. Judging by this what Charlie Black has said, it's plain that you have a smart opportunist working for you. We all know that you can't wish for a terrorist attack or assassination, but only a fool wouldn't plan for the eventuality.

Stupid Lies

Every "talking head" political pundit does it, and we've covered examples from Drudge in the past, but I've long since lost my patience for headline misrepresentation. Think for just a second about the image generated by the following headline, printed in the Drudge Report:


The actual blasted story puts the story in context, painting a different picture:



There's no excuse for this.

It's the same with the reaction to the recent Obama "controversy": two low-level campaign aides at a rally refused seats directly behind Obama, near the cameras, to a couple of Muslim women wearing head-scarves. Sean Hannity proceeded to harp on this issue on his show, painting this as an example of oppression and discrimination in Obama's campaign - implicating the Democratic candidate in a controversy with which he had no direct involvement and about which he immediately condemned when he found out about it.

Mr. Hannity, what would you have done if these women had been permitted to remain directly behind Obama? You and your ilk (I would like you to imagine me saying the word "ilk" with the greatest disgust) already treat all examples of equal treatment towards Muslims as examples of catering toward them and betrayal of America's values - would you have praised Obama for his inclusiveness and understanding, or taken the Sean Hannity route: "SEE!? Muslims sitting right behind Barack Hussein Obama! Is this the President that you want to vote for!?"

Sorry, but being a smug, smirking hateful liar is nothing new.

Why The "Reverend Wright" Controversy is a Sham

Orson Scott Card has proven himself adept at debating the subject of immigration, but his column on the recent Obama/Reverend Wright controversy may top even that. It's a succinct (and typically-lengthy) answer to those still harping on this issue:

"The real issue is: Should we be suspicious of Obama because of Wright's teachings?

Obama has made it plain that he rejects Wright's racially divisive teachings. But he is tied to Reverend Wright by bonds of friendship that transcend doctrines.

They are friends. Reverent Wright and Obama worked together trying to make life better for poor blacks in Chicago. Wright was part of Obama's spiritual awakening and of his search for an identity as a black man. Obama hardly knew his father. Wright took on some of that role in his life.

It's not as if Wright has been accused of a crime other than saying things that make white people mad. I'm a white person. It makes me mad. So what? Wright's not running for president; if he were, I wouldn't vote for him.

Here is my question to those who think Obama should have broken off his friendship with Wright over Wright's offensive statements:

Do you want as President the kind of person who would deny and abandon his closest friends in order to win that political office?"

Orson Scott Card: Answers About Obama