Filkertom got me thinking

I watched Barak Obama's speech last week.  I think if you haven't watched it, you should.  Yes, it's 40 minutes.  It's worth it.  If you don't have time (or if you're on dialup; I had to go to the college library to watch it), there's a transcript here.

And as filkertom pointed out, here, and here, we're getting bogged down, again, in issues of race. 

And as randwolf made me aware, there's a current among us to think that supporting someone other than Clinton indicates sexism. 

We're not helping anyone but the Republicans when we savage each other over these issues.  Yes, as Obama's graceful and nuanced speech makes plain, racism is an issue both for the indelible marks its history has left on people of all races living today and for the way it conveniently inflames resentments on both sides to get us to turn on each other.

We mustn't turn on each other.

Yes, as ozarque pointed out (alas, I can't find where now, but she gave me the idea and I want to give her credit), many parts of Obama's speech can be applied to sexism as well.  That too is an issue both for the indelible marks its history has left on living men and women and for the way it can conveniently be used to inflame resentments on both sides to get us to turn on each other.

We mustn't turn on each other.

DailyKos has a good post on what the real issues in this election are, and if the writer took a section from Obama's speech, it's a good section and it deserves to be foremost in our minds, because it's about what we all, Clinton supporters, Obama supporters, and hopefully even McCain supporters of good will, everyone, want from this election.  I'm going to reprint that excerpt here:

Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "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 want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Barak Obama "A More Perfect Union"  March 18 2008 (emphasis added by TocquDeville)

Isn't it more important to address issues like these, than to tear at each other over whether we are perfectly not-sexist, perfectly not-racist?  Especially when the people most helped by such a battle are our opponents?

Just in case you hadn't heard

There are a bunch of people who told a bunch of biological scientists they were making a documentary about evolution and religion, called 'Crossroads."  Being the nice guys they were, several of the scientists agreed to be interviewed.  Two of the scientists were Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers.

The film came out with a different name.  There were special previews you could sign up on the internet to go see.  Being curious about how it came out, P.Z. signed up online and said he was bringing guests, one of whom turned out to be Richard Dawkins.

The producer of the film had one of his security goons throw P.Z. Myers out of the theater.  The story is here.  And a follow up here. It's understandable, because PZ. had been lied to, and the film wasn't actually about evolution; it was actually promoting Intelligent Design, which is to say, Creationism, stuffed into an unfamiliar white garment and claiming that scientists really aren't so smart "I mean, look at this lab coat; the buttons and pockets are on the inside!  How stupid is that?"

The weird thing is--they threw out the mildly famous blogger scientist, but let the truly famous author and speaker scientist, Richard Dawkins, in.   He just reviewed the film.

Now the producer is just saying he just wants P.Z. to pay to see the movie (it's in paragraph 8 of this piece if you don't want to read the whole thing, though I think it's worth your time).  Gosh, I thought usually a contributor gets a free copy--what happened to common-sense good manners?

But the really funny part of the whole thing?  The film's name: "Expelled" .  And the subtitle is even funnier: "No Intelligence Allowed."

Who the heck IS this and how did zie get catsittingstill's password?

Okay, I know I've been posting a totally uncharacteristic amount today.  What can I say; things keep catching my eye.  The most recent?  This brief analysis of McCain's proposed tax policies.  Brief version: costs the Feds 210 / 400 billion a year (according to the Gordon/Kvaal report / the Wall Street Journal).  Only 180 billion paid for by any sort of spending cuts. Benefits heavily skewed toward the richest 1%. of taxpayers.

Wow.