Good ol' American partisanship. One side is always terrible. Blah blah. But your still cool Attila Girl!

Look, I bought Obama's speech. Doesn't mean I'm voting for him (I'm a black independent voter who's always voted third party to protest the Big 2). I bought it because it was one of the most rational speeches on racism I've seen. And he acknowledge white resentment very, very well. The speech stands on it's on and puts the man, Senator Obama, on a different level regarding racial dialog. Regardless if he wins or not (he won't get the nomination IMHO).

But what was needed wasn't a discussion of racism—or, for crying out loud, white "resentment"; what was needed was a discussion of why he's been going to that hateful church for all these years and subjecting his girls to "information" that was inflammatory and factually wrong.

Is it an apples/oranges thing to compare Wright's rhetoric with statements by people like Falwell, Hagee, Robertson and others who blame America for 9/11, Katrina and other disasters?

See, the problem is I may not be nodding my head in agreement when they say New Orleans was flooded or the World Trade towers were hit because of the immorality of this country, but I do understand where they're coming from. And even if I disagree, I may not be wishing to loudly condemn and distance myself from them (any more than I already have distanced myself from the social conservatives).

I keep reading and reading on this whole imbroglio, and I can't seem to get myself exercised about it to the degree that I am exercised about Obama's essentially communist/socialist underpinnings. To me, all this yak about race is serving to obscure the fact that this country could be taking a gut-wrenching lurch leftward if he were to be elected.

I, too, regret that this election is starting to boil down to race, and that the most salient feature of a candidate is starting to be the color of his/her skin.

And it is not apples and oranges. I know where you're coming from inasmuch as you and are both libertarians with SoCon streaks (yours, of course, a good deal larger than mine . . .). But I have condemned the Falwell and Robertson statements. At the same time I defend expressions of faith in the "public square," I resist vigorously any sort of "one size fits all" spiritual solution for this country. That isn't what we're about.

I know you're saying that the Wright thing was just rhetorical excess, but I see it differently: I think the factual wrongness of his statements, combined with the degree of hate they were likely to stir up, made them very dangerous. When you factor in that gullible black people sometimes fall for that stuff (AIDS as an agent of white genocide, etc.), I just cannot stomach that in a Presidential candidate.

I think the Obama is, sub rosa, trying to take the position that "there is no such thing as black racism." And I reject that position, just like I reject the man-hating elements of feminism, lesbian separatism, and all the rest of it.

Divisiveness serves no one.

I think gays at least, might be disinclined to agree that Wright's rhetoric is more dangerous than some of the rhetoric of the religious right. I mean you have to admit that some of us Bible-thumping redneck hicks might actually fall for the notion that faggots are an abomination before the Lord.

Or something.

You can't go to a church for twenty some years and turn around and condemn it. We don't have a choice about the religion we are given, just like we do not have a choice about our racist heritage or our name or the color of our skin (except Mr. Jackson). Obama did the right thing, he put the "wright" in its place. I mean I disagree with most of what my religion says. I even resent how others who are non-believers misinterpret my religion. Getting back to the point, this will cost Obama dearly, but in the long run that is Good for America, to put down a person and make them guilty by association is precisely what we want to see in this countries politics. That will make him a political martyr, and that in a Christian land is always a good thing.

DC--You might want to talk to Gay Patriot West about how accepting lefties are vs. Christians . . . contra Andrew Sullivan, most centrist/war-supporting gays get much more love from the right vs. the left.

Azmat--He may not have chosen Christianity, though according to the doctrine I follow one must do precisely that. He did, however, choose the particular local church he joined, and pastoral leadership had to feed into that decision.

Well partly I'm talking perception. Obviously the gays on the right side of politics have figured out somewhere along the line that most of us are not actually itching for a lynching. And I'm not really trying to draw an equivalence here, just noting that some of the huffing on our side looks a little over the top if we take a moment to consider how some of our stuff might look to the left.

BTW there's something wrong with the comments link on your top two posts. It gives me a 404 error when I click.

It is probably for the best. Darrell and I would doubtless be at each other's throats within the span of a couple comments, given the subject matter. ;)

A crack is a crack. No way to "prove" its cause. "It's natural settling," I would say. "For Nature, it's a good thing. . . Nature always settles." Of course I would gently clean out the crack and fill it with a specialty concrete crack filler (usually sold in a half-gallon size milk carton container. It adheres well, is super-fine in texture, and can be feather-edged and still remain crack-free. Try Sears. Paint afterwards. Then you won't have to explain.

Do I know how to lay down bait for you guys, or what?

We're like helpless monkeys caught in your spell. Or carp, to go with your metaphor.

I explain cracks in concrete walls by saying that I got mad once and punched it. "You wouldn't want to see me mad. So are you guys buying or what?"