Bishop Eddie Long #2

Mickey Nardo has been doing a great job of digging out the true character of the real Eddie Long, and it is not a pretty picture. Let me state up front: we do not know as a fact that he is guilty of the charges of inappropriate sexual activities with young men under his spiritual influence. But the more we learn about him, the more likely it seems that it is true. If you want to read more about him, go to 1boringoldman.com.

What I want to comment on today is his perversion of the Martin Luther King legacy. He has tried to co-opt the mantle of the great and humble civil rights leader, while being himself the very antithesis of that. His is a "prosperity ministry" and he is all about exhibitionism, financial wealth, entrepreneurism, show biz, and lots and lots of "bling" (cars, clothes, and jewelry). Not only is he the antithesis of King's image, he has co-opted King's daughter, the Rev. Bernice King, and together they persuaded the rest of the family to hold Coretta Scott King's funeral at their megachurch, with four presidents in attendance along with many civil rights leaders and celebrities.

I've just read a Huffington Post blog by writer David Love, in which he states that

"Civil rights giants Harry Belafonte and then-NAACP-chair Julian Bond were so mortified by this fact that they boycotted the funeral." They knew what Long represented, and they wanted no part in associating themselves with this "misappropriation of the King legacy."

David Love continues:

But Bishop Long's sexual orientation ultimately is not the subject of this commentary, although it provides some valuable context. Now, if these accusations are true, then Bishop Long is at least guilty of hypocrisy and self-hatred. And if the charges are not true, he is still an anti-gay minister who has damaged many people. Either way, he is a prosperity preacher who preys on the black community and shames the legacy of the civil rights movement. And that's most of what we need to know. . . .

When the Southern Poverty Law Center decides to write an intelligence report about you, you know you've done something wrong. SPLC calls Bishop Long "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement." In one sermon, he says to gays and lesbians, "God says you deserve death!" The message of "hate the sin and the sinner" are strong words in a religion that is supposed to teach love, healing and redemption. . . .

Surely, Bishop Long and his supporters would maintain that his reputation is being dragged through the mud. But his reputation was already muddied via his homophobia and corrupt bling theology. Rather, Long should worry far more about what Dr. King would say about him.

Although King fought against and even disobeyed unjust laws, Long supports them. Dr. King decried the triple evils of racism, materialism and militarism, and called for a radical revolution of values, from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. Figures such as King and Malcolm X walked the talk by fighting for the people -- and for causes greater than their personal bank account -- through great personal sacrifice and a modest existence. Remember that Dr. King donated all of his $54,000 Nobel Peace Prize money to the civil rights movement. I dare say it would be hard to find many leaders today -- black or otherwise -- who would follow in the footsteps of this great man. How many of them would lift a finger to help the downtrodden?

Eddie Long apparently is another huckster who found a route to fame and wealth for himself. To try to associate himself with Martin Luther King may be an even greater hypocrisy than his anti-gay crusade.

Ralph

But will it matter . . . ?

When Sarah Palin was plucked from (blessed) obscurity up there in Alaska, her bio was confusing as to her educational background. She had a bachelor's degree in journalism, but it took her five different colleges to do it, some of which she attended only briefly. Anyway, it was less than a stellar educational record. But did it hurt or help her image? Probably for the groups she appeals to, it helped. You betcha! No pointy headed, academic, liberals in her orbit.

Now comes Christine O'Donnell, who seems even more challenged in providing her college background -- as well as more challenged with telling the simple truth. As of today, four colleges have disputed her claims to have studied in their programs.

First she claimed she graduated from Fairleigh Dickenson University in 1993. Seems she went through the graduation ceremony but did not get a diploma -- she says because of a dispute over tuition payments. The university later sued her for unpaid bills. She was subsequently allowed to take one additional required course and was awarded her bachelor's degree in the summer of 2010, well after her claims. OK -- maybe that's a gray area.

Then she claimed to have studied at Oxford University. Turns out that she took a summer course sponsored by the Phoenix Institute that merely rented space at Oxford, which had no educational connection with the course.

Then she claimed to have taken graduate courses at Princeton. Seems she once audited one undergraduate course there. And now the latest: Clairemont Graduate School? Not so. They have no record of her ever being a student. It was actually the conservative think tank Clairemont Institute, which has no connection with Clairemont University.

The big question: The group that Palin and O'Donnell most excite couldn't care less about formal education (or, if at all, it's a negative factor). So why go to these lengths to appear more educated than she obviously is?

Beyond that, there is the basic question of lying. Don't bet the farm on her defeat, though.

Ralph

Jimmy Carter

Friends, my day job has been taking more of my time lately, and I haven't had much left to think or write on this blog. However, I do want to share this op-ed written by Jimmy Carter in USAToday of Sept. 29. He addresses some of the concerns I have had and expressed here about the difficulties facing Obama, or any Democratic president today.

A number of readers of my new book have noted parallels between today's frustrated and even angry mood and a similar mood in the mid-1970s. Indeed, in some ways my successful campaign for the presidency in 1976 resembled the Tea Party movement of today. We capitalized on deep dissatisfaction with the policies and practices of government officials, especially those who served in Washington.

Thirty-five years ago, the American people were eager for fundamental changes after the embarrassment and lies of Watergate and the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and the Kennedy brothers, and revelations that the CIA and top leaders had been involved in criminal acts, including murder. As a Georgia farmer, I was considered by many to have no association with these stains on our national character, while most of my opponents were stigmatized, although unjustly, because they were incumbent politicians.

My basic campaign themes were simple: to tell the truth and to guarantee that our government would be as good, honest and competent as the American people.

Big donors carry clout

Other factors are very different now. Much of the financial support for the "grassroots" Tea Party movement has come from extremely wealthy owners of petroleum and energy companies whose profits depend on preventing strict environmental standards and regulations that promote safety and competition. Another is that a powerful news organization has provided the requisite publicity and promotion for the Tea Party movement.

As president, I had the advantage of strong bipartisan support in the Congress, which made substantial legislative success possible. Now, unfortunately, political polarization throughout the nation and especially in Washington has reached an extraordinary level, making it almost impossible for President Obama to secure even a few token votes from Republican members of the House or Senate — even when his proposals match those previously espoused by those same legislators.

What has caused this quagmire? For one thing, the political center has disappeared: Almost all of the relatively large number of moderate Democrats and Republicans have been defeated at the polls or resigned in despair.

For another, huge amounts of money now flood into election campaigns, and the need for these contributions makes candidates amenable to supporting the policies of the special interests who fill their coffers. In fact, these "legal bribes" will now play an even greater role because of the Supreme Court ruling in January that permits unlimited campaign contributions from corporations and labor unions. Much of this campaign funding, unfortunately, is spent on negative advertising, which is designed to destroy the reputation of political opponents. Although almost everyone deplores this practice, it works — and as a result, even final victors are seen by many constituents as unfit for office.

This partisan alienation carries over to governing, where unofficial and friendly contacts between Democrats and Republicans are infrequent. Legislative decisions — once made after substantive public debate — are now made in closed party caucuses. A bare majority becomes a party's uniform position, and those who dare deviate from a bloc vote can lose both choice committee assignments and support for attractive projects in their state or district.

Frozen government

The Senate has become particularly dysfunctional. The previously rare use of filibusters has become routine, and now 60 votes are required even to bring a controversial proposal to the floor for debate. With just 41 members out of 100, a cohesive minority party can block almost any legislation; meanwhile, the majority party needs virtual unanimity to pass a bill. This gives enormous power to those who cast or control swing votes, and powerful lobbyists are quick to exploit this opportunity for influence.

Another polarizing factor is the increasing tendency by state legislatures to gerrymander congressional districts to create safe seats for members who parrot and support the most extreme partisan positions.

The genius of our democratic system is that it is self-correcting, which is why extreme and ill-advised political trends have never prevailed. We face enormous budgetary and social challenges, and I believe it is all but inevitable that constructive governance will ultimately emerge. Surely our government will, once again, be as good, honest and competent as the American people.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter (1977-81) is the author of the new book White House Diary.

You gotta wonder . . .

There are so many times when supposed "men of God," i.e. Christian ministers, fall from grace through sexual scandals, and there seems to be a pretty high proportion of them with young men or teen age boys. Bishop Eddie Long is the most recent example. And it is all the more ironic when such a man has been an active anti-gay activist, supposedly in the name of God and the Bible. Yes, we don't know if he has done what he is charged with doing by four different young men. But what has come out so far does not convince me that this is totally made up. And his response today only increased my tendency to believe the young men are telling the truth.

Bishop Eddie Long has led marches in protest of gay civil rights. He even had Martin Luther King's daughter, the Rev. Bernice King under his sway in some sort of affiliated minister position in his megachurch -- and that's where they held the funeral for her mother, Coretta Scott King, with presidents and other dignitaries in attendance.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was not anti-gay, nor was Coretta. In fact, after MLK's death, Coretta and the movement took up gay rights along with their continuing fight for racial justice and the plight of the poor. So I thought at the time of her funeral that it was inappropriate to have it in that church -- but it is her daughter's church, and the facility could handle the crowds.

So -- I have to wonder: is God trying to send them a message? Trying to open the eyes of these preachers to stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin? Exposing them in their hypocrisy, because -- if God is all-knowing, as they seem to think -- don't they know he is watching them? So is he exposing them in order to expose their hypocrisy? I gotta wonder. Of course, that's not what I think -- but the point is: I wonder what they think? After all, they know whether they did it, whether they are struggling with the guilt, what their god thinks about what they've done.

Here are some excerpts from what Bishop Long said to his congregation this morning.

"There have been allegations and attacks made on me. I have never in my life portrayed myself as a perfect man. But I am not the man that's being portrayed on the television. That's not me. That is not me."

"I've been accused; I'm under attack. I want you to know, as I said earlier, I am not a perfect man. But this thing I'm going to fight."

Note: he does not say, "I am innocent; I didn't do what I am accused of." Only "I am not the man that's being portrayed on television . . . ." I am not a perfect man . . ." But "I'm going to fight."

Read closely: he doesn't say he didn't do what the young men said he did. As I read it, he says he is not the man that is being portrayed "in the media."

But it is the perfect defense for him to make to his congregation, who are disposed to believe him. He says, in effect: I'm humble, I'm a sinner, but there is a conspiracy to bring me down; I'm not perfect, but I am not who they (?) say I am.

Sounds highly likely to me that he did something inappropriate involving young men and sex. This is bad on two counts, not simply because it involves same-sex sex, but: (1) Even if the young men were of legal age of consent, it was an unequal relationship, one of power and trust and undue influence, so it's difficult to say it was by mutual consent of two mature adults; and (2) It is once again the huge hypocrisy where you have a man of god or a man of science or a political leader preaching one thing and doing another.

The walls of hypocrisy and prejudice are falling. This may just be one more. And maybe ??? God is making it happen??? Think about that, Bishop Long.

Ralph

"Obama's Could-Have-Been-Worse Presidency"

Newsweek Senior Washington correspondent and political columnist Howard Fineman is leaving the magazine to join The Huggington Post. Here are some excerpts from his final article for Newsweek that are worth pondering -- especially here on ShrinkRap, where the arguments over Obama's performance often become contentious and reflect two caring liberals, one more half-glass-full and one more half-glsss-empty. Watch for those in the Comments from Richard and me, with Mickey joining in occasionally. Now let's listen to what Finemant tells us. He began with the Katrina disaster.

"Obama was elected as a sensation, but he isn’t governing as one. He is putting points on the board, sometimes with little notice and comparatively less fuss than either was anticipated or was the case in the past.

". . . . The BP crisis and its political aftermath are apt symbols for what ails, and what ultimately might save, the president and the Democrats. They are going to get hammered in November. He and they overpromised and underperformed. But if they avoid a blowout it will in part be because voters see the Obama that is, not the fiction they worshiped or dreaded. He is the plodding “national incident commander” for our beleaguered era, and his accomplishments—to the extent he has them—so far are mostly about how our predicament would have been worse had it not been for his bailing of water. It’s a hard message to sell in the midst of 9.5 percent unemployment, when dollar discount stores are all the rage, and the gap between the rich and everyone else in the country is as wide as it has been since the Progressive Era.

But he is what he is. To get a real fix on our 44^th president and what he has done—or not done—it’s best to leave behind the grandiose language and grand expectations. He is a singular, history-making character, yet he is best defined by what he is not. He is neither the we-are-the-change savior his acolytes saw early on, nor is he the radical his foes see now. Obama is labeled a socialist by the hungriest recipients of government welfare in the history of commerce—Wall Street banks—but he is nothing more nor less than a legalistic believer in the regulatory state.

He is branded an alien Islamist by the same conservatives who would, in another context, celebrate his Alger-like rise to prominence from ethnic obscurity. And he is derided as timorous and unskilled by the same Democratic insiders whose clocks he cleaned in 2008—and by the same reporters (including me) who didn’t see him coming, and who had no real idea what Facebook was until it hit 'em in the face. Oddly, his foes think he is viciously effective; it’s only his friends who think he is ineffectual.

In fact, he’s neither. Halfway into his second year, we can see that he is just a smart but cautious guy who succeeds by dogged effort and not by eloquence (he really isn’t very eloquent) or by grand gesture. Critics on the left and right—from Paul Krugman to Sarah Palin—can say what they want, but the truth is that Obama and his team did help avoid, or forestall, a global economic collapse, in part because his demeanor was cool and his ability to grasp the details (and desire to do so) was evident well before he was even elected.

That told “the markets” that adult supervision and a steady hand were on the way. Yes, the “stimulus” was a throw-it-against-the-wall mess, but it also had some tangible results in jobs saved and deeper recession avoided, and those results came and now come, and at a time when a sense of governmental motion was critical. The official arbiters of business cycles just declared that the recession ended in mid-2009. Recovery is anemic, to be sure, but the system survived.

"Obama is a victim of the overheated rhetoric of his aides (“never let a crisis go to waste”) and his own evident desire to make more history than he made by merely being who he was. The vast health-care and financial-services bills were, taken as a whole, a political disaster when described in grand terms. But in their granular details are specific measures that do specific good for specific Americans: family-based insurance for kids up to 26; no dumping or automatic denial of beneficiaries; tight supervision of credit-card rates and of the deliberately impenetrable terminology banks use in consumer transactions. The health-care features go into effect this week. The president doesn’t have the rhetorical chops to tout such items with Clintonian, kitchen-table vividness (you can just imagine Big Dog with all this material to work with). But that doesn’t mean the incremental achievements aren’t real.

"Obama was elected as a sensation, but he is isn’t governing as one. He is putting points on the board, sometimes with little notice and comparatively less fuss than either was anticipated or was the case in the past: a pay-equity law for women; two quite liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court (without a filibuster in a filibuster-mad Senate); a renewal of Mideast peace talks. Road and bridge projects, however delayed, are now underway—bright spots in the much-derided Stim. “I didn’t vote for it because I wasn’t in the Senate yet,” says Sen. Al Franken. “But everywhere I go in Minnesota the people thank me for it.”

"On a personal level, there is much to be said for Obama—though little of it has been said. Again, his achievement is in the negative: the absence of disaster or embarrassment. He isn’t the egregious and impeached glamour hog/party guy that Clinton was, to be specific. For all his purported charisma, he’d rather shoot hoops and watch ESPN and play horse with his daughters than go to a party. He has an odd but useful gift for siphoning the tension out of things, including his own private life.

"I write this knowing that it will be seen by some as a parting valentine to the president. It isn’t meant as such. As a NEWSWEEK reporter and columnist for more years than I can count, I am paid to make judgments, some of them harsh. But I try to remember to step back and try to see the panorama, not just the particular. I hold no brief for any politician or persuasion, and never have. When Bush was president, I was widely accused of giving him too many breaks early on. Same with Obama now. But as I leave the magazine to write full time for the Huffington Post, I can say this about the president. It could have been worse. And if we aren’t careful, it probably will be.

Welcome to the HuffPost, Mr. Fineman -- and to frequent quotes here on ShrinkRap.

Ralph

"Rentboty" Rekers gets overturned

A Florida District Court of Appeals has overturned the state's ban on gay parent adoptions. This is long-overdue; many much more conservative states than Florida allow it, even those that have a ban on gay marriages.

Gov. Charlie Crist welcomed it, but the plaintiffs and the ACLU who represented them are hoping the state will appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court so they can get a higher level decision, which they assume will be in their favor and would do away with this odious law statewide.

A side note of interest. It was in the hearings for this trial that Dr. George Rekers was the highly paid expert witness who testified for retaining the three-decade old law, using discredited "evidence" and outmoded thinking more typical of right-wing, religious idealogy than of science. When asked why he spent so much taxpayer money on this witness, the District Attorney said he had trouble finding an expert who would testify for the state's defense, implying that others were intimidated. I think, rather, there were no other experts willing to prostitute themselves by presenting bogus science. Another side note of interest: the District Attorney lost his race for the Republican nomination for governor.

Whether Rekers' now-notorious journey to Europe with a paid "rentboy" had any influence on the judge as she deliberated the case would be merely speculation. Rekers' attempts to explain this were just as bogus as his testimony in court: he needed help with his luggage because of a bad back. I understand bad backs, but why go to a gay-oriented escort website and choose a baggage handler with impressive penis dimensions rather than big biceps? When the world laughed at that, he then said, "I deliberately spend time with sinners in order to lovingly try to help them." OK, but a paid trip to Europe and daily nude massages as the form of help? The world laughed even harder.

Perhaps the judge was a grown-up who could actually think for herself and would have made the same decision anyway. Her opinion stated that she could find "no rational basis" for the ban.

One more anti-gay law bites the dust. Anita Bryant*, are your paying attention?

Ralph

* In 1977 singer Anita Bryant led the anti-gay "Save Our Children" campaign that eliminated Miami/Dade County's anti-discrimination law. In that climate of mass homophobia, the Florida legislature passed the 1977 law that banned adoption by gay parents. This prompted a nationwide boycott of the Florida Citrus Commission that featured Anita Bryant in its advertising campaign; she became an icon of ridicule nationally, and it effectively ended her career as a popular singer. It is this same 1977 law that the Circuit Court overturned in 2008 and that has now been sustained on appeal.

Fair and Balanced #2

The funeral I went to this morning was of Nell, who was married to my father's younger brother. There was a connection, which I don't have quite straight, but it involved the Deal family. I have noted here before that Nathan Deal grew up in Sandersville.

Anyway, I've always had it in my mind that Nell was either related to, or very close friends with, Mrs. Deal, Nathan's mother. It turns out that she was not related but was close friends with a sister of Mrs. Deal, or something like that.

Anyway, it was ironic to be back there in the midst of all this controversy. My sister, who lives there, is as vehemently opposed to him as I am; but she tells me about her friend Hazel Metts, an otherwise liberal woman who plans to vote for him because she taught him in high school, and she just can't believe anything bad about him. This is the same woman who was not going to vote for Obama because she "didn't think he was very smart," but then denied that she had any racial prejudice.

Go figure. Who could possible think that Obama was not smart, unless you think all black people are inherently "not smart." My sister worked on her, kept trying to get her to watch the debates, but she had her mind made up.

Hazel taught me English in 10th grade; she was straight out of college at the time and pretty good, I thought at the time. Now she's pushing 90 and uses a walker and is getting 'forgetful.' She's liberal in theory and in general, but she votes against her own interests without realizing it. Signs of the times. Halfway there, but a long way to go.

Ralph