It’s what happens when you become so much a part of what you are doing that the parts of you that are needed for the job at hand are imbued with all of the energy and focus you can muster, while the rest of your unneeded body and mind stand so silent that they seem to disappear.

We all have different gifts, and can enter this flow state at certain times. Certain people only hit this stride while creating art, or playing sports. Others hit this state while working on difficult math problems or while telling stories to a playful crowd of friends. Some people, like Martin Luther King, and like many other preachers before and after him, enter this flow state from behind the pulpit or the podium.

After watching Barack Obama’s speech, it’s clear he’s one of those people. His speech started off slowly and at times he felt cold, listing off his well rehearsed hopes. But he gathered his momentum with great skill, playing the crowd in an expert crescendo. And as he entered the last minutes of his time, with his supporters reaching an ever increasing frenzy, he hit his stride.

He found flow.

And that’s a magical thing. That’s a really magical thing. It’s the difference between craft and art.

I know people say there’s more to being president than speaking well. And they’re right. But he’s got good judgement, a good heart, and he’s spent a lot of years working to better government from without and within.

And those things, in a person who can truly speak to people, is about all I need in a president.

21 May 2008

General Clark,

My name is Michael B. I am an Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran. I served with the 89^th Military Police Brigades in Baghdad, Balad and Ashraf, Iraq in 2004 and 2005. I was only 18 years old when I left my home to go and serve my country. I was a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard for six years and was just separated in April. I am now 23 years old and cannot use my GI Bill anymore. According to the VA, the chapter 1607 GI Bill that I was using is only available to drilling reservists. And I’ve been told that I cannot use the Chapter 1606 GI Bill anymore. and 42

I’m telling you these stories so that you can hear from someone on the ‘front lines’ of this battle. I’ve sent letters to both Senator Bob Casey and Senator Arlen Specter (my senators) asking them to support the new GI Bill. I’m spreading the word among my fellow vets and my family and friends, asking them to spread the word about Bush and McCain not supporting the GI Bill. I’ve heard that they won’t support it because they fear that too many soldiers will want to get out of the military to use their new GI Bill. The net effect of that would be that retention rates drop. Should anyone ever doubt that Americans will stop answering their nation’s call?

Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain are misguided and fearful. I helped three young men join the Army National Guard recently. All three are satisfactory recruits with bright futures. Never should anyone doubt that our military will crumble because of college tuition assistance. If anything, the new GI Bill will help make the decision to join the military easier.

I greatly admire you sir and have appreciated the work that you do for veterans across America. Thank you for your time. God bless you!

Your Fellow Vet,

Michael B.

On a semi-unrelated note, Clark may be Obama’s running mate.

I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on, she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. Theres a pattern emerging here, she said. (USA Today)

Latoya Peterson over at Racialicious has a great analysis of this comment. It’s true that Clinton has some (marginal?) advantage amongst white working class voters. That means she may be better qualified to compete for the white, working class vote in the general election. If that’s all she was trying to say, I think it’d be a pretty uncontroversial comment.

But that’s not the conclusion she is trying to reach. She is trying to make a point about the breadth of her coalition and therefore her electability as compared to Obama’s. As Peterson points out:

It doesn’t matter that Barack has more delegates and Clinton and Obama are neck and neck in the popular vote. No, fuck that. He still isn’t electable. The white vote is important, but it is not a monolith. But that doesn’t seem to matter. Obama will lose white votes (despite showing more than respectable numbers) and that alone should show us that he’s not electable. (Latoya Peterson)

Peterson also points to this quote from dnA over at Too Sense, which I think sums up Clinton’s intentions (conscious or not) quite well:

This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it’s meant to give white voters the impression that they would be disenfranchised by an Obama win. It’s a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama’s success. (dnA)

If The Boss is endorsing Obama, my mind is made up.

The core of the conflict is that many Kenyans feel that the recent elections, which kept president Mwai Kibaki in office, were rigged. Mr. Kibaki belongs to the Kikuyu tribe, the largest in Kenya with about 20% of the population.

Violence is erupting across the nation, often across ethnic lines. On January 1st, 35 Kikuyu people were burned to death in a church which was acting as a refugee shelter.

More recently, Mellitus Mugabe Were, a 40 year old member of the Orange Democratic Movement, was dragged from his car and shot to death in front of his house on Monday. Were had been working hard to bring about peace, shuttling between tribes to try to bring about a peaceful resolution to the violence. Were was Luhya, and his widow is Kikuyu.

Melitus Mugabe Were, 1968-2008

Sentenced to death.

This is a country in which George W. Bush has declared victory over terrorism. Bush called Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s current leader a man of “honor, courage and skill helping to build a new and democratic Afghanistan.

Fuck that noise.

This is scary to me for two reasons. First, the constitution grants us the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be informed of the charges against us and the proceedings of our trial. Padilla was declared an enemy combatant and denied his right. What this means is that the US military can detain any American citizen, based on whatever definition of “military combatant” they want, for years, with no recourse from congress or the judiciary.

The second reason it is scary is that there is no evidence Padilla actually participated in any sort of attack. He applied to attend (but did not, as far as I can tell) a terrorism training camp, and he was in contact with terrorists.

But the constitution also grants us freedom of association, and freedom of speech. American citizens must be able to communicate freely with others, and they must be able to spread ideas freely. Even if the ideas they are spreading are how to make bombs and the people they are associating with are criminals. These are the rights the constitution lays out, which provide an important check to the government’s power.

Now, when there is clear conspiracy to commit a crime, that’s a different story. When the ideas being spread are plans to kill someone, or a person’s activity goes beyond associating with someone to funding their activities, then that’s a crime. Trial should be brought and carried out under due process of law.

But that was not the case here. Former Reagan staffer Paul Craig Roberts said it well:

“The incompetent ‘Padilla Jury’ has done Americans and their liberty far more damage than will ever be done by terrorists, other than those in our criminal justice (sic) system who now wield the powers that Bentham wanted to give them.”

Please spread the word: our right to a speedy trial, our right to be informed of charges against us, our right to free speech, and our right to association are getting weaker every day.

watch

X addresses the failure of the legislature to follow through on campaign promises made to black Americans:

In this present administration they have in the House of Representatives 257 Democrats to only 177 Republicans. They control two-thirds of the House vote. Why can’t they pass something that will help you and me? In the Senate, there are 67 senators who are of the Democratic Party. Only 33 of them are Republicans. Why, the Democrats have got the government sewed up, and you’re the one who sewed it up for them. And what have they given you for it? Four years in office, and just now getting around to some civil-rights legislation. Just now, after everything else is gone, out of the way, they’re going to sit down now and play with you all summer long — the same old giant con game that they call filibuster. All those are in cahoots together. Don’t you ever think they’re not in cahoots together, for the man that is heading the civil-rights filibuster is a man from Georgia named Richard Russell. When Johnson became president, the first man he asked for when he got back to Washington, D.C., was “Dicky” — that’s how tight they are. That’s his boy, that’s his pal, that’s his buddy. But they’re playing that old con game. One of them makes believe he’s for you, and he’s got it fixed where the other one is so tight against you, he never has to keep his promise.

I grew up hearing that Malcolm X advocated violence. But reading this speach, I see that X is advocating something much more profound:

When ever you’re going after something that belongs to you, anyone who’s depriving you of the right to have it is a criminal. Understand that. Whenever you are going after something that is yours, you are within your legal rights to lay claim to it. And anyone who puts forth any effort to deprive you of that which is yours, is breaking the law, is a criminal. And this was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision. It outlawed segregation. Which means segregation is against the law. Which means a segregationist is breaking the law. A segregationist is a criminal. You can’t label him as anything other than that. And when you demonstrate against segregation, the law is on your side. The Supreme Court is on your side.

Now, who is it that opposes you in carrying out the law? The police department itself. With police dogs and clubs. Whenever you demonstrate against segregation, whether it is segregated education, segregated housing, or anything else, the law is on your side, and anyone who stands in the way is not the law any longer. They are breaking the law, they are not representatives of the law. Any time you demonstrate against segregation and a man has the audacity to put a police dog on you, kill that dog, kill him, I’m telling you, kill that dog. I say it, if they put me in jail tomorrow, kill that dog. Then you’ll put a stop to it. Now, if these white people in here don’t want to see that kind of action, get down and tell the mayor to tell the police department to pull the dogs in. That’s all you have to do. If you don’t do it, someone else will.

As I understand it, X is not advocating violence, X is advocating self defense. X is saying that if someone’s rights are being infringed upon by the very people who are supposed to be protecting their rights, they are then forced fight for those rights, and should not be ashamed to die for them.

Tonight I was also reading about the violent resistance which broke out in Brooklyn in 1966 in response to the city’s failure to follow through on promises to create a review board that would create some accountability for the city’s police. When you cannot trust the police to protect you under the law, and when you have no representation in the government, and when you are systematically excluded from voting, where else can you turn but violent resistance?

Reading all of this, I’m constantly reminded of current events. Voter disenframchisement. Racist police. Lack of political representation and failure to follow through on campaign promises.  I’ve seen them all in the news in the last few years, if not months.