President

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

OK, I'll start a thread.

My question is, why does it have to be only black, or white? As we all know, Sen. Obama is bi-racial. He is neither black or white. He is both. So why is everyone claiming that he is our first African-American president when he is not? He is our first Bi-Racial president. Don't get me wrong, it is a tremendous moment in the history of our nation, and I'm glad I could be a part of it by voting for him. But when the day comes that we vote in a truly African-American president, a president who has come from two African-American parents, I think people will look back on this moment and say we jumped the gun. And I think the history books will be re-written to reflect that, so why not call it as it is, now.

As Tiger Woods put it, when people were referring to him as African-American, he would say that that is terribly disrespectful to his Korean mother, to only refer to him as black. I think the same holds true here. His recently deceased grand-mother, whom he credits so much to, was white. Is that disrespecting her?

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jeff, when in doubt, ask the person how they wanted to be referred to. I can introduce you to people who you may see as "African-American" that don't want to be called that.
What determines African-American? Italian-American? Irish-American? How many generations do some people have to trace back?.....

His father is from Kenya, his mother is from Kansas........ That would be Africa and America, I think that's a fairly decent representation.

Why do we have to define him by skin color or ethnic background at all? Doesn't it say something about how far we still have to go if the day after he got 52% of the people who took the time to vote, to chose him, ..... and the conversation resorts back to race and labels?

If you want to talk about labels I don't like...... put bi-racial down. One day we'll all be one race, the human race......
Oh and Jeff, Charlize Theron, is African,...... born and raised, look it up. If she became a US Citizen, she would be African American.

[AMTCM John Long]

Oh and Jeff, Charlize Theron, is African,...... born and raised, look it up. If she became a US Citizen, she would be African American.

Stu,

Excellent point!! I've always wanted to bring that up in a conversation one day. If my last name is DeBeers, I'm white and I'm from South Africa, what am I?

That is the one main point I dislike about govt sponsored ethnic observations. They inadvertantly promote polarization of Americans by skin color or origin. I hope one day we as a country can get past that. Sorry for the digress.....

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

See, to everyone else in the world, regardless of where your bloodline might have come from, when you travel abroad, .... they think of you as an American..... no -s.

It's the labels we put on things. There are five boroughs that make up New York City, but many of the people in Manhattan claim that they are the only New Yorkers. In many places lots of people won't accept you calling yourself by the state or city name if you weren't born there.

I have a house down in Puerto Rico. I'm going to retire there. I've paid taxes there for more than seven years. I will probably be buried on that island, but will never be able to pull off being called a Puerto Rican. However..... I've met lots of people, born and raised all over the country, many of them who speak no spanish at all, never been to the island, have no real intention of ever visiting,.... and when asked, how do they refer to themselves?????? Puerto Rican........

Again, I'm sorry, I tend to over simplify things, call yourself anything that you want, but if you were born in America..... you're an American. If someone asks you where are you from, and you start the answer with.... well my family was ....... you didn't hear the question.

We're all Americans. We need to be "just" Americans. Our ancestors came from around the globe by many different means..... but we're all from here.

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Jeff, when in doubt, ask the person how they wanted to be referred to. I can introduce you to people who you may see as "African-American" that don't want to be called that.
What determines African-American? Italian-American? Irish-American? How many generations do some people have to trace back?.....

His father is from Kenya, his mother is from Kansas........ That would be Africa and America, I think that's a fairly decent representation.

Why do we have to define him by skin color or ethnic background at all? Doesn't it say something about how far we still have to go if the day after he got 52% of the people who took the time to vote, to chose him, ..... and the conversation resorts back to race and labels?

If you want to talk about labels I don't like...... put bi-racial down. One day we'll all be one race, the human race......
Oh and Jeff, Charlize Theron, is African,...... born and raised, look it up. If she became a US Citizen, she would be African American.

Well, I guess the underlying point of my original post is right on with what you're saying. You just said it better. I'm all for that we are all American, no dispute there. But, if the media and everyone else HAS to jump on the racial bandwagon, and milk it the way they are, than do it right, is all I'm saying.

And yes, in the literal sence, Sen. Obama is African-American. More so than most. But unfortunately, if it's not explained THAT way, people are going to think of it in the typical way, which I feel isn't exactly right.

[BMCM Bruce Bradley]

Just a little side note I picked up watching the news last night, our President-elect's birthday is August 4th (1961).

[AMTCM John Long]

Again, I'm sorry, I tend to over simplify things, call yourself anything that you want, but if you were born in America..... you're an American. If someone asks you where are you from, and you start the answer with.... well my family was ....... you didn't hear the question.

We're all Americans. We need to be "just" Americans. Our ancestors came from around the globe by many different means..... but we're all from here.

Stu,

Well said! IMO.....this is why I am suspect of diversity programs. It seems the broad intent is one thing and the results can lead to another. The selective manipulation of inclusion/exclusion based on race, ethnicity and gender conflicts with our national premise we are all equal. We won't achieve national equality if we keep emphasizing and embracing individual diversity. We are Americans.

And yes, in the literal sence, Sen. Obama is African-American. More so than most. But unfortunately, if it's not explained THAT way, people are going to think of it in the typical way, which I feel isn't exactly right.

Jeff,

I'm not sure what you mean by the "typical way". P-E Obama is of a mixed race. His black birth father was from Kenya and his white mother from Kansas. When you say he is "African-American", what is his other half (mothers side) of ethnic origin called? Kansas-American? See what I'm getting at?

I'm not picking on you....just trying to illustrate how labeling someone anything other than an "American" can lead to other competitive interpretations. That ties into what Stu was getting at.

Interesting discussion......John

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

I'm not picking on you....just trying to illustrate how labeling someone anything other than an "American" can lead to other competitive interpretations.

Yep, exactly. I brought this up because a local TV station here in the Twin Cities talked about this. I thought it was interesting. An educator from the U made a point, that today, the racial terms such as "black man/woman" has become more of a social label than a biological one.
Check it out here if you wish. http://wcco.com/goodquestion/obama.black.president.2.857504.html

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jeff, maybe the next time someone runs for office we'll be able to just look at their policies......
maybe now that this hurdle has been passed, it won't be an issue in our future.

John, sorry... gotta say it..... he's not of a mixed race...... one race... human. Little story....... I was pushing my son around in a stroller on Staten Island, got up to a group of Coasties and their wives...... one of the women asked if my son was "mixed" ? I said "No, he's 100% human".
I think that scientists have already determined that all DNA can be traced back to a single point of origin. We all come from much more diverse ethic backgrounds than may be readily apparent.

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

According to a Talk of the Town article in New York magazine by Toni Morrison published in October 1998 during the Clinton Impeachment hearings, Bill Clinton was the first black president.

Quoting from the article.

"African –American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas."

Pres. Elect Obama is not the first black president.

[BMCS Burt Ford]

Stu,

Well said! IMO.....this is why I am suspect of diversity programs. It seems the broad intent is one thing and the results can lead to another. The selective manipulation of inclusion/exclusion based on race, ethnicity and gender conflicts with our national premise we are all equal. We won't achieve national equality if we keep emphasizing and embracing individual diversity. We are Americans.

It will never change until we remove race and sex from all applications, ie job, credit, housing etc. Once we can do that, maybe people wont judge you based on your race or gender.

[AMTCM John Long]

It will never change until we remove race and sex from all applications, ie job, credit, housing etc. Once we can do that, maybe people wont judge you based on your race or gender.

I agree but I think it goes deeper than just applications. IMO maybe in a few generations we will all be Americans.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, I don't think it's going to take that long, ...again just going off the different election findings..... consider the source.... but they were saying the biggest difference in viewing race came from people over or under 45 years old.
Taking away all social or economic divides..... it came down to a generational difference....

[ETC Mark Henry]

if the concern is media obsession with labels then why don't we all set the example and hit them where it hurts - stop giving it a revenue-generating headline by starting lengthy controversies. We elected a liberal Democrat. Nuff said.

[DCCS Todd Holcomb]

I don't care if you're green as long as the best intrest of Joe the Plumber and our nation is your top priority. Bottom line to me is how is this going to affect my wallet? If I agree with candidate "A" that's who I vote for. As a nation race, religion and gender may still be a big part of how many make their decision, can't say for sure since I haven't gotten any documented info or canvassed neighborhoods for research to say that, but it would be my guess. It would be interesting to run a political campaign in which no faces were put with ideology, policies or economic plans and see how it played out. Only a "Candidate A has these plans, ideas, associations, etc" and "Candidate B has these plans..." type of campaign and make decisions based solely on that. I do believe that someones past and present associations should come into play, in my mind that gives me an idea of who a person will draw ideas and inspiration from. My dad always said "no matter what type of a person you are, you will always be linked to and judged by the company you keep!"

Just my thoughts on the whole deal,
Todd

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

....wouldn't it be better if the candidate actually had to deliver on the promises they made? I'd like to see what they were willing to commit to if they were required to keep it. I think you'd hear alot more "I'm going to TRY and do this..." than the "Read my Lips, no new taxes" that we've heard for years.
How many people do you think have gotten elected over the past 16 years because the were going to get a universal health care plan together? How many people have gotten elected because they were going to change Washington?

It would also be nice if the media had to answer to the claims that they made... How many times did you hear, see, or read about them misquoting someone over the past two years?
Did you remember back when you could watch the national news without wondering how much of it was actually true?

[AMTCM John Long]

....wouldn't it be better if the candidate actually had to deliver on the promises they made? I'd like to see what they were willing to commit to if they were required to keep it. I think you'd hear alot more "I'm going to TRY and do this..." than the "Read my Lips, no new taxes" that we've heard for years.
How many people do you think have gotten elected over the past 16 years because the were going to get a universal health care plan together? How many people have gotten elected because they were going to change Washington?

It would also be nice if the media had to answer to the claims that they made... How many times did you hear, see, or read about them misquoting someone over the past two years?
Did you remember back when you could watch the national news without wondering how much of it was actually true?

Stu,

Yes it would be better if the Prez delivered on the campaign promises, provided I agreed with them in the first place. Otherwise, I would count on my elected reps to stop what I consider bad proposals by a Prez. The candidate can make any promise he/she wants, unless Congress goes along, it won't happen.

I watched a Chris Mathews clip tonight where he said he will do whatever he can to make the new Prez successful. Him being a journalist, I think he made a mistake taking that position. That will hurt his credibility, especially in his reporting. I will give him credit though, at least he was honest about his future intentions.

John

[CWO Charlie Rice (BMC)]

Actually, by the One-Drop rule, he is the first black President.

but, I do like the post that said he is the first bi-racial President. Next up is the first multiracial President. Heck, I'm Irish, Korean, Scot, German, Mongolian. I would fit the bill perfectly. :)

I wonder if Karl Rove is available to be my campaign manager? :D

Nahhh...too much stress and too much political correctness. It wouldn't look good on the news when I tell the first person that ticks me off to "f--- o--". :eek:

[AMTCM John Long]

Actually, by the One-Drop rule, he is the first black President.

but, I do like the post that said he is the first bi-racial President. Next up is the first multiracial President. Heck, I'm Irish, Korean, Scot, German, Mongolian. I would fit the bill perfectly. :)

I wonder if Karl Rove is available to be my campaign manager? :D

Nahhh...too much stress and too much political correctness. It wouldn't look good on the news when I tell the first person that ticks me off to "f--- o--". :eek:

Charlie,

Plus once you announce, a boatload of lawyers, investigators, media types and others of ill repute would descend on your home and go thru your trash looking for dirt.:eek:

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, if the Elected Offical stuck to their word, they would still be meeting the expectations of the people who elected them...... your side would have lost. You would have to hold the people that you voted for who actually got elected to hold up their part to stop them.
But everybody should support the people who won, their policies would have been the ones that the majority of the people who took the time to vote wanted. Do you support Democracy, or only support it when your side wins?

With Chris Matthews? Did he have any credibilty left ? (no pun intended) I'd like to see what kind of viewer numbers the networks pull in, but they're too busy reporting celebrity news to tell us that.

Just something funny for you to look at..... as it was reported, sooooo many Americans were looking for change, ready for change, hoping for change, voting for change......... how many members of Congress, with it's dismal approval rating, were RE-elected? But let's not talk about that..... I saw a clip this morning..... a rather famous former governor will NOT be facing charges for his admitted solicitation of prostitution,... as it was reported... he did not use public funds in those transactions,....... so I guess it wasn't illegal. And where's the outrage? I guess prostitution is a victimless crime as long as its in an upscale hotel and the "john" is rich enough.

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Don't forget the felon Senator who was re-elected. Now THAT is one I can't figure out.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

It just shows there are stupid people everywhere.. Let's not forget the DC crowd that re-elected Marion Barry :rolleyes:

What ever they get.. they deserve.

Wray... :cool:

[BMCS Jeff Lucas]

Let's hear it for term-limits!!!!

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Jeff, "term limits" are already in place, just not utilized...

They are called voters

Wray... :cool:

[HSC Chris Fly]

Stu,
If my last name is DeBeers, I'm white and I'm from South Africa, what am I?



Very rich and not in the military! :D

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Jeff, at least he went to trial.... we have sitting elected officials that have tax evasion scandals going on that will never have to answer for them. And as Wray points out, he isn't the first convicted felon to get re-elected.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

I'm sure most have seen this e-mail, but... here it is one more time...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

Wray... :cool:

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

if the concern is media obsession with labels then why don't we all set the example and hit them where it hurts - stop giving it a revenue-generating headline by starting lengthy controversies. We elected a liberal Democrat. Nuff said.

No, we elected a liberal democrat that won by running on conservative principles, like cutting taxes, cutting the budget, increasing the size of the military, supporting the troops. If Pres-Elect Obama would have run on his liberal record he would have lost.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ray, you sound a tad bitter......
President-Elect Obama won because more people voted for him. His record is a matter of public record. Anyone who wanted could have looked it up.

I think everyone runs on a promise of lowering taxes. Everyone says they support the troops, ... their voting record might not agree with that, but once they spin it, they can show where voting NO on something was actually in the best interest of the troops. And I don't remember hearing him say that he was going to cut the budget..... I did hear him or his advisors say that they they had somewhere around 800 billion in "NEW" spending.......
I heard over and over again that he had the most liberal voting record in Congress,.... right up there with his VP pick and Senator Kerry..... he was tagged as a liberal.

And Ray, he ran to the left of Senator Clinton in the primaries....... and he won.
The talk about him running on conservative issues, is political spin. Our country is still right leaning in our values.

[CWO Shad Hudgins (MSTC)]

Don't forget the felon Senator who was re-elected. Now THAT is one I can't figure out.

Actually, its pretty smart politically. The Alaskan GOP urged voters to support him to keep the seat. He'll likely resign or be expelled from the Senate and the Governor will be able to appoint a new Senator. Either way he's history.

Truth be told, to prevent a Supermajority in the Senate, I would have voted for him.

[BMCM Wray Gillette (Ret)]

Truth be told, to prevent a Supermajority in the Senate, I would have voted for him.

I don't think voting the "party" line is the way to go... at least nothing I would ever do.. I prefer to vote for a person...

Wray... :cool:

[FSC Jayare Parker (Ret)]

It's so redicules to me that SO many people in the lower 48 don't have a clue as to what happens in ALASKA and think they know it all. All the bad press Sarah Palin got from people that have no idea who she is or what she has done. Here is a piece I recieved in my e-mail a while ago about what Really happened with Sen. Ted Stevens.

Here is why Senator Stevens did not Receive a Fair Trial and why his Conviction will likely be Reversed on Appeal:



· The government presented false evidence to the jury, even though, according to Judge Emmet Sullivan, the government knew the evidence “was a lie.” To show the costs incurred in improving Senator Stevens’ home, the government used VECO’s internal accounting records even though the government knew that VECO’s records drastically overstated the hours spent on the project. VECO’s records showed that an employee was working almost full time on the Stevens house, when he was in fact in Portland, Oregon, for two to three months during the relevant time.



· The government violated Senator Stevens’ federal constitutional due process rights by concealing critical exculpatory information from his attorneys. The government’s star witness, Bill Allen, told the government more than once that Senator Stevens would have paid his VECO bills if he had received them. But before trial, the government never disclosed these crucial exculpatory statements to Senator Stevens’ attorneys, as required by law. In fact, the government redacted exculpatory information from an interview memorandum that was later given to Stevens’ attorneys, making it clear that the government knew that the statement was relevant to Stevens' defense and that the government had intentionally withheld it.



· The government used fabricated testimony to convict Senator Stevens, even though it must have known that the testimony was false. Allen testified that he ignored Senator Stevens’ numerous explicit requests to be billed for the work done on his home because a friend of Stevens’ had told him, “Ted’s just covering his [behind].” But in more than 20 interviews with the government before the trial, Allen never mentioned this conversation, nor did the government ever take advantage of numerous opportunities to ask Stevens’ friend about the veracity of Allen’s claims (at trial, this friend fervently testified that he had never made that statement to Allen).



· The government used coercive promises and extravagant financial incentives to induce Allen’s cooperation in testifying against Senator Stevens. The government promised Allen that his adult children would not be prosecuted for criminal conduct if his trial testimony provided “substantial assistance” to the government’s case against Senator Stevens. In addition, Allen’s cooperation with the government facilitated the sale of VECO for $385 million, which has made Allen and his children incredibly wealthy.



These excerpts of the letter from Senator Stevens' lead attorney to the Attorney General of the United States, requesting an investigation into the misconduct of federal prosecutors in Senator Stevens' trial, were edited by Charles E. Cole, former Attorney General of the State of Alaska.



A copy of the full letter to the U.S. Attorney General can be found here.

Jayare

[SKC Raymond Kurtz (Ret)]

Ray, you sound a tad bitter......
President-Elect Obama won because more people voted for him. His record is a matter of public record. Anyone who wanted could have looked it up.

I think everyone runs on a promise of lowering taxes. Everyone says they support the troops, ... their voting record might not agree with that, but once they spin it, they can show where voting NO on something was actually in the best interest of the troops. And I don't remember hearing him say that he was going to cut the budget..... I did hear him or his advisors say that they they had somewhere around 800 billion in "NEW" spending.......
I heard over and over again that he had the most liberal voting record in Congress,.... right up there with his VP pick and Senator Kerry..... he was tagged as a liberal.

And Ray, he ran to the left of Senator Clinton in the primaries....... and he won.
The talk about him running on conservative issues, is political spin. Our country is still right leaning in our values.


Cutting taxes is a conservative issue that democrats run on then rarely act upon if they are elected. Plus Pres-Elect Obama ran commercials implying he was pro-second amendment, his record indicates otherwise.

You do make a good point, some people did vote for him because he is a democrat. Or because he is black. Wrong reasons IMHO.

I refuse to use my precious vote on someone without first finding out where he or she stands on the issues that are dear to me. Like abortion. Gun control. Taxes. Spending and the military, not necessarily in that order.

I am not bitter (even though it appears that I am). I support Obama because he will have to lead us for the next 4 years, and will be my CIC for roughly 5 months. I will also pray for that man because he needs all the help he can get.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Ray, you're spinning again. He can be Pro Second Amendment and still want to control guns. The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to simply buy guns.... there was something in there about "to form an organization militia..."
Republicans and Democrats discuss gun control differently, depending on their audience, and how their vote effects their chance of re-election.

Again, Ray, if his promises and his past differ, .... and a person choses to believe one of the other, who is to blame?

And for the people who were worried about a super-majority...relax.... it wouldn't have mattered. Look back at how many votes have gone COMPLETELY down party lines. Find a vote that every Democrat or every Republican voted either for or against. Just look at the bailout/buy in (whatever you want to call it). An unpopular plan that could have gone through the House just with Democrats........ but they didn't want to take the heat so close to an election. People not up for re-election were expected to vote with the party, people who were looking at re-election were told they vote for what their people wanted. When the plan got revised, both parties took credit and said that the revised plan would meet our needs.
A super majority wouldn't have mattered...... because some people are up for re-election in two years, and no one wants to be solely responsible if things go wrong. Both sides need to be able to point the finger across the aisle to show that it isn't their party's fault.

edited to add.
And for those of you waiting for the HUGE changes that are going to happen..... you might want to wait for some of these cabinet positions that don't have a history in the Bush or Clinton Administrations. This was the first presidential ticket in the past 28 years that didn't have a Clinton or a Bush on it,..... but look at the names that are being paraded out to head up our future now......

[ETC Joe Jester (Ret)]

The Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to simply buy guns....

The courts, not the Supreme Court, has ruled the Second Amendment is an individual right. This is consistent with the rulings of the First Admendment and the others where the people refers to an individual right.

You can thank the Great Southern State of Connecticut for the classifying of people, as it was a political decision to keep the southern states from counting "other people" as a whole of a person for the purposes of representation in the lower house of congress. As it turns out, the states above the Mason-Dixon line had a one-vote majority in the House. The Connecticut Compromise started all this discriminating.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

Really Joe? So discrimination....around the world...... can be traced back to the Connecticut Compromise. That's interesting. Did that writing refer to skin color or whether the person was free or a slave?

[CWO Shad Hudgins (MSTC)]

I don't think voting the "party" line is the way to go... at least nothing I would ever do.. I prefer to vote for a person...

Wray... :cool:

Wray,
Don't disagree a bit and party line voting is something I rarely if ever do. However, its one thing to have one party in control, its whole other to one party in absolute control. If I were voting in Alaska, it would have been tough to even vote for Stevens if he wasn't having legal troubles. He is, after all, the pork king of the Senate! It would have been big picture thinking for me and holding my knows and voting for him would be something I would have done to prevent absolute power with one party.

Catherine Harris is perfect example of me not voting down party lines!!!:D

From I've heard, he'll be gone anyway. I'd say it would have been much more democratic to replace him on the ballot and not put the voting public in Alaska in that situation.

[AMTCM John Long]

There's a political strategy for Stevens to be re-elected. If he is in office and has to go (to jail), the Gov can then put in the job whomever she wants without having to do a special election.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, do you really think he's going to jail?
Again what's NEWS? The Senator who accepted free stuff from the oil industry for his mansion, or the Governor who flew around the country hooking up with the syndicate backed international prostitution ring.

[AMTCM John Long]

John, do you really think he's going to jail?
Again what's NEWS? The Senator who accepted free stuff from the oil industry for his mansion, or the Governor who flew around the country hooking up with the syndicate backed international prostitution ring.

Stu,

If he looses his appeal, I believe he will do some jail time.

John

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John,
option A. He wins on appeal
option B. He pays a fine or gets probation
option C. There's always that Presidential or Gobenatarial(sp?) PARDON

anyway you look at it, I can't see him going to jail. At the end of the day (and I just say that because that phrase was in the News friday as one of the things Oxford disagrees with) but, at the end of the day, he was a politician who took money,.... it wasn't like he drove his car into a river in New England where someone died....... and sought re-election again, and again, and again.......

[AMTCM John Long]

Stu,

I just read that in Alaska, if he resigns or is rejected, the state will have to hold a special election within 90 days. So what I said earlier appears to be incorrect...at least as far as Alaska rules are concerned.

The Washington Times has posted an online article that is coming out tomorrow (I guess in print) talking about Sen Stevens. I read the article. It states the prosecutor withheld some evidence that was helpful to Stevens. In another article a juror lied about having to go on emergency leave due to a death in her family. Turns out she went to a horse race instead.

I can see his conviction getting thrown out at this rate.

[BMCM Stuart S. Slesh]

John, go back and read Jayare's post #32.......