The Way of the Bodhisattva

I recently came across these verses and found them inspiring. So I thought I would share them:

For all those ailing in the world,
Until their every sickness is healed,
May I myself become for them
The doctor, the nurse, the medicine itself.

Raining down a flood of food and drink,
May I dispel the ills of thirst and famine.
And in the ages marked by scarcity and want,
May I myself appear as drink and sustenance.

For sentient beings, poor and destitute,
May I become a treasure ever-plentiful,
And lie before them closely in their reach,
A varied source of all that they might need.

My body, thus, and all my goods besides,
And all my merits gained and to be gained,
I give them all away withholding nothing
To bring about the benefit of beings.

Like the earth and the pervading elements,
Enduring like the sky itself endures,
For boundless multitudes of living beings,
May I be their ground and sustenance.

Thus for everything that lives,
As far as are the limits of the sky,
May I provide their livelihood and nourishment
Until they pass beyond the bonds of suffering.

- Shantivadea, The Way of the Bodhisattva
(quoted in Joseph Goldstein, One Dharma)

'The Green Thing': A Response

I have now received the same email (posted at the bottom of this post) several times. In a way, it is sort of cute, just as so many of the ones are that make their way around that essentially should all begin with "Why in my day..."Aside from the cute aspect, I always have the same internal reaction to it, and this time decided to reply. Here are my thoughts:

This is an interesting look back at the ways that society used to make reusing and recycling the norm. The current 'green thing' is a reaction to the tragedy of many wasteful and damaging practices that have been accelerating since the advent of the industrial revolution and the triumph of hyper-consumerism - particularly within American culture, which has accelerated since the 1950s. Quite right on all of the observations that are made.

The unfortunate part of it (as well as the pleasure and vindication that it gives to those who repeatedly circulate this email) is that it is entirely beside the point. Sure, one might be able to find the 'clerk' who makes this sort of comment (which is counterproductive), and then fixate on why 'it wasn't our fault'. But defensiveness about what was done 50 years ago is absolutely useless for moving forward with 'the green thing' today.

What are you doing now? Our planet is in peril. Our society and economy are in serious jeopardy because our patterns of consumption are both unsustainable and self-destructive. This sort of defensiveness as well as the denial of the problem and the absolute necessity of the solution that is perpetuated by those who stand to financially lose to social and environmental responsibility contributes nothing constructive. And what we need is constructive contribution. We need personal responsibility.

So bring your own grocery bags to the grocery store, instead of relying on petroleum-made plastic bags that are thrown on top of our overflowing landfills.

Recycle, your bottles, cans, etc. when you use them, and think about ways to reduce your reliance on them.

Walk up the damn stairs. They're still there.

Dry your clothes on a drying line when it is reasonable to do so. They are still there.

Use cloth diapers. They are still there (and made even better than they used to be).

Give clothes and other items that you are done with to friends, family, Goodwill or some other resale location, so that they can be reused.

Get clothes and other items that you need and that can be used from friends, family, Goodwill or some other resale location, so that you are reusing.

Don't put a TV in every room. It is not only bad for the environment, it is bad for your mind and your family's relationships.

Pack fragile things in newspaper. It is a great way to reuse it, and to avoid styrofoam, bubble wrap, etc. Used newspaper and other other forms of paper are still there.

Use a push mower. They are still there.

Walk or ride a bike when you can.

Exercise outside if you can.

Be a part of your community. Get out there. Take responsibility. Not only will you figure out on your own where the nearest pizza joint is, you will develop relationships that TV and the Internet don't replace.

More than this, figure out what else you can do to make your community and our planet more healthy. The time is now. Get over who is at fault and your gut impulse to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Sure. It seems really inconvenient and painful to change your habits. But once you make these sorts of changes, they don't seem so overwhelming.

Don't expect that it will all happen immediately. Treat it as an ongoing process of becoming more socially and environmentally responsible. God knows that none of us are perfect. We are all working on bettering ourselves.

BUT DO IT! Our children and grandchildren are depending on us. If for nothing else, do it for them.

And here is the email to which this is responding:

THE GREEN THING!!!

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the 'green thing' back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn't have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby's diapers because they didn't have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right, they didn't have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right, they didn't have the green thing back then.

They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn't have the green thing back then?

Let It Be

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is in the midst of a set of rapidly unfolding events that are both inspiring and unsettling. After decades of corrupt and repressive rule by most of the dictators and monarchs of the region, the populations are standing up and calling for change.

They want what everyone wants. That is, they want work. They want to be able to afford to provide their families with a decent standard of living rather than to be excluded from the vast wealth that is accumulated and hoarded by the autocrats of virtually every country in the region. They want the ability to express themselves without the fear of prison, torture, or disappearance. They want a role in the decisions that are made that affect their lives. They want ownership of their own countries, rather than their long experience of subjugation to the selfish motives of autocrats and external powers. They want hope that their children will have an even better life than they do - that things are going to get better. Most of all, they want to be afforded the dignity that they so deserve and that they so feel has been disallowed for so long.

At least, that is how I read it as an outsider who shares in their hopefullness as a fellow human being and as one who has been inspired by so many of the young and bright men and women who live here in Sharjah, UAE and who are from all around the region.

This is at once NOT America's moment and the moment that America has hoped for. To explain, this is not for Americans or by Americans. It is a set of social movements that are internal to the MENA states. That is as it should be, if they stand a chance of truly achieving the outcome that they hope for (something that is far from certain). One of the problems that the US has faced in this region and beyond is its tendency to think that it can direct events in the way that it wants. It not only has an extraordinarily poor record of doing so, but this also has contributed significantly to the situation that many of these countries find themselves in today. Part of the challenge for the US now is to let go. It must stop trying to determine who rules within the states of the Middle East. It is only by doing so that it can hope over the long term to reconstruct its relationships with this region in a manner that actually serves its and their interests.

On the other hand, America and particularly President Obama do have a possible role to play. The ideas of freedom and opportunity that the US was founded upon are those that are being sought by the people of the Middle East. The power of the United States and the inspiring potential that President Obama had in the wake of his historic election and his speech in Cairo combine with these ideas to provide a unique platform from which America can express its support for these movements. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has flailed about in its various responses to the events of the past couple of months. It has come across as tone deaf, lacking in vision, and distinctly un-courageous. Dropping bombs on Libya doesn't compensate for this.

It was slow to respond to the will of the Egyptian people to rid themselves of the corrupt tyrant that the US had propped up for decades due to his malleability on the Israel issue. It has been less than assertive in criticizing the sectarian massacres by its 'allies' (Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) against unarmed Shia protesters. It has been less than impressive in its opposition to the massacres by the Yemeni government against innocent protesters as well. Nevertheless, it has entered as a participant into a civil war in Libya. As I will comment on further in another blog, this is not likely to end well.

What a missed opportunity to be on the right side of history at a moment when the spokesperson could be such an inspiration. But he is paralyzed by trying to figure out, what if Islamist groups come to power if they actually do get democracy? What will Israel think? What will the Saudis think? What will happen to oil prices? What is Iran's role in all of this? Of course, these are all strategically reasonable questions to ask. The problem is that the analysis of these questions seems always to be done with an eye toward the very short-term. While it is far too soon to see which of these states will emerge from these events as more free, prosperous, and perhaps democratic, such an outcome would go a long way toward providing answers to these questions that are conducive to US interests - even if there is a bumpy ride to get there.

The bottom line is that the US must find a delicate balance between keeping its fingers out of the actual internal processes that are going on but using its 'bully pulpit' to stand up for those who seek dignity and freedom and against those who would brutally deny it. Such an approach takes patience, courage, and a little bit of faith to be sure. I am convinced however, that it is the only way that the US can be a help rather than a hindrence and can achieve what it has never been able to - that is in building a positive and mutually respectful set of relationships with the societies of the MENA region that are conducive to America's strategic interests over the long term.

There is still time to get this right. In the end, that will be what is remembered, even if it took the US a bit too long to catch on. I do see signs that the comments coming out from the Obama administration point in that direction. The delicate balance and consistency though, will be the key.

Political speak – whats being said when its not said : DubaiEye103.8

Political speak – whats being said when its not said : DubaiEye103.8

I was interviewed on DubaiEye 103.8 on Thursday, March 3 about political discourse surrounding the ongoing violence in Libya. Here is the podcast of the interview.

Egypt Isn't Ours to 'Lose'

These are exciting times indeed. The demonstration of success in Tunisia of bringing down the Ben Ali regime of 23 years has given hope and confidence to people throughout much of the region to voice their frustrations, which has so long been repressed. Indeed, Egypt appears to be the next in line to see the 30-year authoritarian rule of Hosni Mubarrak to fall.

I, like many people, am engrossed in watching these events unfold; and am giving thought to the implications of whatever changes arise. There are so many directions that I could take a blog on this subject. Nevertheless, I will start with this because the following status update by one of my 'friends' on facebook has been bugging me since I first read it. It stated,

"I am seeing some real anti-Semitic pressure groups at work in Egypt. The Communists and Muslim extremist groups are far too happy about the riots. Can't say I am happy about the status quo. I give a new Egyptian government less than a year before it's toppled by terrorists already entering the country."

A number of people commented on this post - all in agreement. One person posted an article by Pat Robertson's CBN News, profiling the Muslim Brotherhood in an utterly skewed and dishonest fashion. Another said, "Really?? They're called the Muslim Brotherhood...whatever gave you the impression they were anti-Semitic?"

Such comments are ignorant and bigoted on a number of levels. To begin, the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Israeli sentiment is both erroneous and strategic. For one, Arabs are also Semitic. Thus, the accusation of anti-Semitism is conceptually flawed. Aside from the rhetorical point, criticism of Israel is not necessarily grounded in animosity toward Jews (though surely in some cases it is). To remove the basis of Arab grievance against the taking of Palestinian land as well as the behavior of the Israeli state since its formation by attributing all opposition to anti-Semitism allows for pro-Israeli individuals to escape real discussion and introspection.

Beyond this, the assertion that all Islam-based political groups are 'terrorists' reflects a lack of knowledge of what one is talking about. Many people within the Middle East believe that society should be guided by a system that is based upon a strict and conservative reading of Islamic law. In this way, they are quite similar to Pat Robertson's own followers in the United States as well as the broader 'Christian right'. While I do not share in the worldview of Islamic fundamentalists any more than I do Christian fundamentalists, I do believe that they should both be allowed to participate in the political process. It is a fundamental basis of a free society that they should.

I watched Pat Buchanan on MSNBC last night echo the basis of this negative sentiment toward regime change, explaining that there would be a price to pay for President Obama 'losing Egypt' to such groups and allowing the majority of the populations throughout the Middle East to have democracy because they 'hate America'.

First of all, 'they' do not hate America. 'They' (at least the majority of 'them') resent American foreign policy in the region and the fact that it has suppressed self-determination for years in favor of brutally repressive regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel. While the opening of democracy might mean less favorable regimes in the short-term (a la the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections in 2006), it would mean the removal of one major grievance against the U.S. in the region. Over the longer-term, this would be a positive strategy for the United States. We simply have to have the imagination and courage to move beyond a foreign policy orientation that has become rigidly and thoughtlessly clinged to by so many.

Second, the very idea that Egypt is ours to lose is reflective of the condescending position that 'they' resent. That the United States would think that it could place a pro-Israeli pre-requisite upon Arab self-determination is utterly absurd and damaging. Not only does it fly in the face of American principles, but it also diminishes Washington's ability to bring about any sort of settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether such a settlement is possible or that the U.S. will be the central player in bring it about, I do not know. What I can say is that this attitude undermines American legitimacy as an honest broker.

Third, I would argue that much of the appeal of Islamist groups in the region is that they have provided the only venue through which anger can be expressed. Mainstream political criticism has been utterly suppressed for so long in Egypt and beyond. This has driven many into such groups as a result. Moreover, the reactive repression of Islamist groups has served to increase their legitimacy. If people were allowed to express their views freely, over time there would likely be a moderating trend over time.

President Obama is not losing Egypt. It is not his or anyone's (aside from President Mubarrak) to lose. The Egyptian people are hopefully claiming Egypt as their own at long last. We should support this, whatever party wins in the near future. If anything, the Obama administration should play a much less overt role in negotiating whatever transition comes about. The Egyptians must have ownership of this.

Fear and Loathing in the USA

I received this piece via email yesterday, and thought that Rabbi Warshal's comments were worth sharing. Make no mistake about what this movement is, regardless of the legitimacy it has been granted by the "mainstream media." The people who are arguing against this community center are not being good Christians or Jews. They are not being patriotic. They are not using "common sense," unless that refers specifically to the lowest common denominator of society.

They are succumbing to politically motivated fear mongering. This is not a new practice. We know what it is, and how effective it can be. We can see it in some of the most horrendous events of the last century, from Rwanda to Bosnia, and from Germany to Argentina. We can see it in the opportunistic use of anti-Americanism in places like Iran and North Korea. We can see it in many many places in which political entrepreneurs use fear and loathing of an "other" in order to whip their population into a frenzy such that the power of said political operatives is increased. That is it. Nothing more.

In this case, Americans with political motivations, who whether sincere in their loathing of Islam or not, understand fully the power of promoting fear and a sense of insecurity amongst the wider population. Most people who are selling and buying this line of argument have very little understanding of either Islam or transnational terrorism. Yet they either are scared or benefit from people being so. It is, as the Rabbi says, shameful. It is disgusting. And it is dangerous.

Here is Rabbi Warshal's piece, which originally appeared in the Florida Jewish Journal:

Shame on America , Jews & the ADL

By Rabbi Bruce Warshal*

To begin, the mosque controversy does not involve a mosque. It is planned as a 13-story community center encompassing a swimming pool, 500-seat performing arts center, gym, culinary school, restaurant and, yes, a prayer space for Muslims, which already exists in the current building. A formal mosque would forbid eating or the playing of music on the premises. I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

There is also the controversy over the proposed name, Cordoba House. The hate-mongers have described this as a reference to Muslim designs to attack western culture, hearkening back to the Muslim-Christian wars of domination in medieval Spain . The name was chosen for precisely the opposite reason. In the tenth century Cordoba was the center of the most liberal and sophisticated Caliphate in the Islamic world. All religions were not merely tolerated but respected.

The caliph, Abd al-Rahman III, had a Jew as his foreign minister and a Greek bishop in his diplomatic corps. He also had a library of 400,000 volumes at a time when the largest library in Christian Europe numbered merely 400 manuscripts. There were also 70 other smaller libraries in Cordoba . The very reference to Cordoba reflects the sophistication and liberality of the Muslims behind this project. They have changed the name of the center to the address of the building, Park 51, to deflect criticism. This was unfortunate, since nothing will quiet a hate-monger.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam behind the proposed community center, has been attacked as an Islamic terrorist, even though he is a practitioner of Sufi Islam, which reaches out to all other religions as manifestations of the Divine. My God, the conservative Bush administration utilized Rauf as part of an outreach to the Muslim world. You can bet your life that he was thoroughly vetted by our government. He is currently being used by the Clinton State Department as well in the same capacity. Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN succinctly put it, “His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.”

And what is Rauf’s sin? He will build a Muslim community center two blocks away from Ground Zero, variously described as a “hallowed battlefield,” “holy ground,” and a “war memorial.” Even President Obama in his defense of religious freedom commented that, “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” I beg to differ.

If Ground Zero is holy ground, then the railroad station in Madrid , the Underground in London , the federal building in Oklahoma City , the Pentagon (where there is presently a prayer space for Muslims – yes, patriotic, religious Muslim Americans work at the Pentagon) and every other physical location that has been the object of terrorism is holy ground. If Ground Zero is holy space why plan for it to be developed with office buildings (in which the object will be to amass money – obviously a holy pursuit), a shopping center (in which consumer goods will be peddled to continue to gorge the American appetite for material possessions), and with a theater for modern dance (a project to which I personally look forward as a devotee of the Joyce, the modern dance Mecca of New York)? I’m sorry, but someone has to tell America that this designation of holy space is merely part of a mass hysteria that really scares me.

The question which must be asked is why this hysteria? The impetus comes from a triumvirate of right-wing Christians, Jews and politicians. Fundamentalist Christians are still fighting the crusades, still vying to convert the world to their truths. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, to the distress of these Christian proselytizers. What better way to win this battle than to brand all Muslims as terrorists?

Right-wing Jews think that they are doing Israel a favor by painting Islam as a terrorist religion thereby proving that Israel need not negotiate with the Palestinians. The idea is to project the concept that we are civilized and they are not. This theme is picked up in the right-wing press of Israel . Commenting on the New York proposed “mosque,” a columnist in the Jerusalem Post declares that “Islamism is a modern political tendency which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s.” Ground Zero isn’t Israel ’s “holy ground.” Why would he be involved with this discussion? Simply because right-wing Jews in Israel as well as the United States believe that demonizing the religion of 1.3 billion people is good for Israel . God help us.

Right-wing politicians join the fray. On Fox News Newt Gingrich compares a mosque at Ground Zero to Nazis protesting at the United States Holocaust Memorial. The Democrats are cowed by the American outpouring of hate and even Harry Reid voices disapproval of the Park 51 site. It’s a perfect storm of hate.

Periodically we go through this in America . The anti-Catholic No-Nothing party ran ex-President Millard Fillmore in the presidential election of 1856 and garnered 27 percent of the votes. We deported over 10,000 people during the First World War because they opposed our entry into that war and we incarcerated loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Now during this “war on terror” I shudder to think where we are headed.

The tool used in this hate campaign is the concept of collective guilt. Based on that, all Jews are traitors since Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sold out this country. All Christians are terrorists sinceTimothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City . Neither are all Muslims traitors nor terrorists. Islam is not monolithic. Its forms are as varied as Judaism or Christianity. I do not practice Judaism the same as a Satmar Hasidic Jew. A Catholic does not practice Christianity the same as a Jehovah Witness. Imam Rauf does not share the same Islamic beliefs as bin Laden.

Of all people Jews should beware of collective guilt since we have suffered from it for millennia. Yet the organization that started this hysteria is headed by a right-wing Jewish supporter of Israel by the name of Pam Geller. She is quoted in the mainstream media (including the Jewish Journal) as if she is a legitimate political voice. Yet on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, she has declared that “Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcom X.” She has written that we have “an American-hater for president.” She has proposed that devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. She asks, “Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?” To all of the rabbis quoted in the Jewish Journal urging that the “mosque” be moved, know who is pulling your strings.

Finally, to the role of the Anti-Defamation League and its director, Abe Foxman. The world was literally “shocked,” that’s the word used by the Associated Press, by ADL’s call for the mosque to be moved. Fareed Zakaria called it a “bizarre decision.” Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said, “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” Referring to loved ones of the September 11 victims, he continued: “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

How dare Foxman use the Holocaust to justify prejudice. He does blasphemy to the memory of Jews and other oppressed minorities whose lives were sacrificed on the altar of bigotry. Zakaria responds: “Does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?”

Five years ago the ADL honored Zakaria with the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. Incensed over ADL’s succumbing to bigotry, he has returned the award with the $10,000 honorarium that came with it.

The last word was recently written by Daniel Luban, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago , in Tablet Magazine: “While activists like Pam Geller have led the anti-mosque campaign and the broader demonization of Muslims that has accompanied it, leaders like Abe Foxman have acquiesced in it. In doing so they risk providing an ugly and ironic illustration of the extent of Jewish assimilation in 21^st-century America . We know that Jews can grow up to be senators and Supreme Court justices. Let’s not also discover that they can grow up to incite a pogrom.”

Race and Political Subtext

There has been a lot of talk this week about the issue of race in American politics. It is not necessary to run through the political hack job that Andrew Breitbart and FOX News did on Shirley Sherod, and the follow-on rush to judgment (cowardice) by the White House, the N.A.A.C.P., and the Department of Agriculture.

This all followed on to an N.A.A.C.P. condemnation of racist elements within the Tea Party movement. This was greeted with shock and dismay by spokespeople like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Later, the movement had to jettison Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express given his clear demonstration of outright racism in the form of his self-authored 'note from N.A.A.C.P. head Ben Jealous to President Lincoln'.

Whether or not or to what extent the Tea Party movement is inclusive of a racist element is really not the central issue, in my mind. The problem with such an angle is that it avoids the broader issue. That is that there is clearly a significant segment of the population that is disposed toward a pretty high level of racial animosity - a level that most Americans are uncomfortable discussing. The Tea Party and much of the concern that is being expressed over growing government programs, spending, and debt relates to an important discussion too. But the visceral nature of the language and the response by too many people, as well as the lack of reason that is demonstrated in their accusations and conspiratorial ideas about the Obama administration bespeaks troubling levels of fear and disdain.

One could chalk up the vitriol to concerns about socialism, or oppressive government, or too little attention to the border, etc. if it were not for two uncomfortable things: (1) the level of hatred that is being spewed by this movement is not consistent with its response to the same sorts of policy orientations by the previous administration, and (2) the issue of race just keeps emerging in overt as well as more subtle ways in the opposition's narrative.

I found Professor Harris-Lacewell's comments in the Hardball segment posted below to be particularly thought-provoking. While I think that it is going too far to say that reverse racism is a complete myth, I do think that a couple of her points are right on the mark. First, the fact that the story got the initial reaction and coverage that it did reflects the reality that a sizable portion of American society operates at a steady simmer about what it believes to be double-standards when it comes to race. These double-standards relate to both opportunities and standards.

The opportunities narrative is displayed clearly in the clip from the movie, Crash. The narrative is in many ways a reaction to and resentment over affirmative action programs. It is one that I frequently hear in public and private discourse. It comes in many forms, some of which I genuinely believe are quite reasonable. It also often comes in the form of personal experience in which one strongly feels that he/she was 'passed over' because he/she was up against a minority (perhaps even one who is viewed by the offendee as less qualified). The core perception is that minorities get jobs and promotions unfairly. The resulting common assumption is that black people in high positions got there because of race, not ability. Such was part of the context, I think, with Shirley Sherrod. The lens through which many people saw the small segment of her speech was one that held that she did not belong in the job she was in in the first place.

The other part of the opportunities narrative that people are less open about is the perceived exploitation of public programs by minorities. This view is typically bolstered by anecdotes about black mothers (in particular) with multiple children who are abusing the social welfare system, and is generalized as a systemic reality. One can see this demonstrated in Mark Williams' letter mentioned above.

But is the opportunities narrative really valid in broad terms? I don't mean do you know someone or were you personally 'passed over' by an affirmative action hire or promotion. I mean in the broad terms that relies upon such individual stories and generalizes them into a more systemic truth.

Look at outcomes and overall experience. Don't limit yourself to before the Civil War. Don't stop at the Civil Rights Movement. Don't even stop when you find out that the U.S. elected a black president. Look at in terms of socio-economic, health, educational, criminal justice, or whatever other data you want to. Once you have done that, in all honesty answer the following question. Do 'they' really have it so easy, and get all the breaks?

The standards narrative is even more relevant to the Sherrod story. The subtext was that she was an angry black woman who operated out of spite for white people. It is easy to jump to such a conclusion when you are already operating from the assumption that this 'reverse racism' permeates black society in America, and the clip that 'we' saw was a window into how 'they' talk about us when we're not there. As Harris-Lacewell argues, this was the reason for the resonance among the same group when Michelle Obama said that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

Second, the assertion that such expressions of criticism and even anger by black people reflects racism rather than a justifiable resentment about one's experience as a minority - and particularly a black minority - in the United States, is as ridiculous as it is widespread. To argue that there are not both historic and contemporary reasons for such a perspective is to stand in the face of facts and say, "but I heard on (name your favorite pundit's show) that this one black woman was totally doing (choose your favorite stereotypical tendency), and that this is part of a big trend." As Harris-Lacewell points out, the utitlity of this belief is that it justifies one's own racist feelings by working on the assumption that everyone really is kind of racist.

I heard someone say once that slavery is America's original sin. The racial division that was borne out of this historic wrong has permeated American society since that time. It is an issue that we have not for a long time had open and honest conversations about. Many of us like to tell ourselves that it is a problem that has gone away. It seems to me that the Sherrod story and its underlying subtext is evidence that it has not.

I intend to post another blog soon relating to the parallel story that is being ginned up by FOX News and the standard sources about the Obama administration's dual treatment of civil rights offenses, as displayed by the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. Needless to say, I think that the very same subtexts can be seen underlying the accusations that are being made. I began this blog thinking it was going to be short and to the point. It is clearly not, and there is more to be said. I will continue to do in coming blogs.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy