To the editor,
When I read the headline "Racism..." over Bob Meade's column of November 26th, I was expecting some insightful dialogue on an ongoing problem in our American culture; but once again Meade disappoints. His column becomes a political statement on how Obama's skin color is to blame for criticisms of his detractors and used "as a shield against legitimate criticism." Its purpose, however, was to make conservatives appear as the enlightened ones by demeaning and ridiculing liberals on the race issue. They like to project racism by taking it and accusing the liberals of using it first; often anti-racists are portrayed as racists.
His column is based largely on an interview done by Oprah Winfrey in which, when responding to a question posed, she states that the president's detractors, MAY be so, because of the color of his skin.
When it became apparent that Obama would be the Democratic nominee for president, racist and white supremacists were posting increasingly ugly and even threatening remarks on the Internet. Conservatives haven't been shy about attacking Obama because of his race; many have used racist comments when speaking about him. From deriding him as the "welfare president" and the "hip-hop president," to suggesting he wasn't actually born in the United States, to claiming he's "race baiting" when he speaks of his personal experience as a black man. Conservatives have no shortage of criticisms rooted specifically in the color of Obama's skin.
I found it very disconcerting that Meade, in his disingenuous comments about Obama being elected to the highest office in the land, emphasized the "enormous support from 'white' people." He continues in that same vain by attributing Opra Winfrey's success to her "mostly 'white' female audiences." Continuing, he relates that, "Both achieved their positions of stature, in part, because of the backing and support of the country's 'white' people." He places the success of these people of color at the feet of "white" people. The power of self determination is taken away from them, and regardless of his motives, it is still about white control. He may not be shouting racist epithets or actively discriminating against people of color, but he still experiences privilege based on his white skin color.
Further in his column, Meade talks of "unfounded charges of racism" and how they create "unnecessary divisions and animosity among the people ..." Could it be that he was referencing comments made by conservative icon Glenn Beck when he accused Obama as being "a person with deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture." Beck went on to say, "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. He has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist." I'm assuming that this, coming from a Fox commentator, must be true. Or could he be referring to another flag bearer of the conservative right, Rush Limbaugh? After Obama's election, in 2009, Limbaugh warned, "The days of them (minorities) not having any power are over, and they are angry. And they want to use their power as a means of retribution." This type of rhetoric represents the mind-set of the conservative right.
Although Meade accuses Obama of being deceitful, he himself is a practitioner of the art. He takes a statement by Joe Biden during the re-election campaign — "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive" — and labels it as "street talk." He further deceives the reader by suggesting that this statement played a significant role in "inciting rioters in the Middle East." I noted that he didn't follow his own advice, and "name names and offer proof."
The "race card" is used in an effort to devaluate and minimize claims of racism, and Meade proves that it can be played from both sides of the table.
Unfortunately, racism is part of our national fabric, woven in light to dark colors and too many patterns to count. We can't talk about it honestly because that would mean it EXISTS.
L. J. Siden
Last Updated on Friday, 13 December 2013 11:18
To The Daily Sun,
As I was reading the latest AARP, I happened on the databank column which told of the income of people in New Hampshire ages 45-64 being $77,833 and people over 65 income $41,445. I was so glad to see that. It meant that I could finally retire, or that someone had figured out that there were no low income people or that one was better off on the state dole.
Maybe my 1 percent Social Security raise will put me into a higher income bracket?
Last Updated on Friday, 13 December 2013 11:08
To The Daily Sun,
Regarding the recent turn of events relating to the former Gilford police chief's conduct and explanation: Why not tell the truth; be responsible for your actions; and try to live in peace with yourself and our fine community. Try it, please.
Let us all live accordingly. Does it matter? Yes.
William R. Morley
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 December 2013 11:28
To The Daily Sun,
How does one gain an audience with the President of the United States? How does one gain an audience with, arguably, the most power man in the free world. Can I just walk into his living room at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? How about just calling him on the phone and telling him how I think he ought to do things? Perhaps I can reference my awareness of his kids and that is sufficient to get access into his private chambers?
I just visited DC a year ago, and given the security surrounding the White House, I suspect any of the aforementioned actions will, at best, get me the bum's rush, and, at worst, incarceration. The president can only be approached on HIS terms, by HIS invitation, past HIS security, at HIS pleasure.
How does one gain an audience with GOD?
How does one gain an audience with the Creator of ALL things, both seen and unseen? Can I just walk into His throne room (metaphorically speaking)? How about standing in a pulpit and telling Him how I think he ought to do things? Perhaps I can reference my awareness of His Son and that is sufficient to gain access...?
If we cannot, with impunity, impose our "selves" onto a mere man, how much infinitely less qualified are we to stand before God Almighty? He dictates how! He dictates when! He dictates IF! But the good news is that He has said, "COME! and this is the road to get to my house." "Follow these directions and you will not get lost. Veer from them and you will not make it. Trust My words and believe in My goodness and you shall live with Me eternally!
PS, The gate is a tight fit, bring only your love for me. Also, the road is narrow, watch your step. By the way, I sent My Son to show you the way. There are no short-cuts, just follow Him past the cross. He is My gift to you, Merry Christmas!
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 December 2013 11:24
To The Daily Sun,
In October, we witnessed a 16-day federal government shutdown with extensive ripple effects. Thousands of federal workers were furloughed, not knowing if they would be paid for their forced time off, left to cover their household bills any way they could. This unnecessary drama that hurt the economy and impacted real people finally ended when the president and the Congress came to a short term budget deal to reopen the government and extend the debt ceiling limit.
This short-term deal continued Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 spending levels until January 15, 2014 and also created a conference committee comprised of members of both parties from each chamber of Congress. By December 13, this committee aims to set funding for FY2014 and also craft a longer-term budget plan to replace the across the board "sequestration" spending cuts. Our own senator, Kelly Ayotte, is on this committee.
Many assume that much of the conference committee debate will once again be about taxes and earned benefits, or so-called entitlement programs like Social
Security and Medicare. The fundamental differences between the parties on these issues could mean a stalemate yet again. There is one place to look for significant cost savings while providing funds for vital programs, and avoiding the recurring debate about taxes and entitlements. This is also the one area where the rate of spending has risen heedless of austerity imposed elsewhere. This is where well over half of the discretionary budget annually appropriated by Congress is: the Pentagon budget.
The Pentagon, like other departments and programs, is currently subject to sequestration cuts imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act. While the "meat ax"
approach of sequestration is not the best method to make cuts in any federal agency or program, strategic cuts are needed for sustainable and effective defense and security planning and budgeting. Outdated, wasteful, and unnecessary large weapons programs all need scrutiny and fiscal discipline. The Pentagon needs to be reshaped and strengthened for 21st century realities.
As a former state representative, I understand the challenges and complications in writing a budget, but I also know to be guided by the needs of my constituents. We need clean air and water, education, job training and health care, not weapons systems like a $1.5 trillion F-35 fighter jet that hasn't proven to be remotely useful. We need funds to support veterans and military families, not more dollars poured
into Cold War –era nuclear weapons programs.
I hope Senator Ayotte will work to ensure that a budget deal includes strategic cuts to the Pentagon. If Congress proves once again that it cannot compromise, the repercussions for our community, and for the country, could be disastrous. We need a common sense approach that addresses misplaced spending and prioritizes the needs of our constituents.
Kate Miller, Chair
Belknap County Democrats
Last Updated on Thursday, 12 December 2013 11:20