Dear Larry: Barack Obama is now president of the United States. I know you have disagreed with many of his policy issues. Regardless of how anybody feels, he is still the president and will be in that position for a minimum of four years.
If you had to choose the biggest disagreement you have with him, what would you pick?
On the flip side, what would you choose as the thing you are looking forward to most in his presidency? — A Faithful Fan
Dear Faithful Fan: I am not sure from your letter to whom you are faithful. I will assume you are my faithful fan.
My biggest disagreement with the president is with his position on abortion. I am morally opposed to killing children. I do not split hairs trying to determine whether it's a child or a fetus. Regardless of the child's age, it is still a child.
The other problem I have with abortion is blacks are aborted at a higher rate than any other group. I do not understand why more black leaders do not speak out against this genocide against blacks.
The thing that I have the greatest hope about is the fact that 70 percent of all blacks now think Martin Luther King's dream has been realized. This is an outstanding revelation and gives me great hope that blacks will stop feeling like victims and blaming any failures on skin color.
I believe that if the media joined with me in extolling this positive achievement, we would have the possibility of ending this war of the races once and for all.
It is now time to silence the voices of any and all race baiters. The media should ignore the words coming from the likes of the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They never will admit to any black progress. They always will find and point out any real or imaginary slights.
America should stop being timid and find a backbone to speak out against deviant behavior. We need to find the courage to say what is right and what is wrong. We need to declare people who riot as criminals, rappers as uncouth, and men who father children without assuming responsibility as people to be scorned.
This social war, which has gone on for 50 years, will be over in a few short years if we merely use the new president as an example of where we are in modern America. It is time to say the days of the old civil rights struggle are over.
I pray that President Obama's presence in the White House will serve as a victory symbol in this long struggle. I hope and pray he will not fall prey to those who want to pull him into this imaginary fight. I hope he is smart enough to realize that many black leaders have vested interests in not letting the war end.
I look forward to the day when this column no longer will be relevant and people feel the need to say: "Dear Larry, we got your message. Thank you and goodbye."
To find out more about Larry G. Meeks and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Dear Larry,
I'm sorry but I have to pick up on your comment about abortion on this point. Yes it's a hugely divisive issue, and yes there are points on both sides. I used to be pro-life until I found myself having to make a choice that no woman should have to make. There are so many dysfunctional and damaged kids in the world today - and in the case of the abortion funding policy we are talking about abortions in the case where children would be born into grinding poverty, disease-ridden squalor, and where many of them would be born with HIV and sentenced to death anyway. I am glad I made the choice I did, when I did, because I would have been a useless mother at the time. Incidentally - I am a teacher, and I love children. I give more weight helping my students navigate the pitfalls of growing up than teaching them English, and I daily wonder at the judgement of their parents some of whom, for me, should never have become parents. Regardless of statistics sometimes quoted, no, there are not enough childless families to go around and pick up the fallout, and adoption policy being what it is, many of these kids brought into the world in the name of life will be shunted about from home to home until the majority ends up spending their life in therapy. Is that really the better choice?
Choose life we say, but is life really truly always the ultimate gift? Doesn't it depend on what kind of life it is? To those of faith, wherever we go after death is likely wherever babies come from too. Is that not sometimes a better option than the suffering that so many children are born into? I already know the flip-side of the debate but I would ask you, if not publically, at least to consider it. If we want to protect children then we should try to bring them into a world and a situaiton which is right for them, and if it is not, seriously question the wisdom of having them at all. We euthanize our pets when they are suffering. Why bring a child into the world just to add to the dysfunctionality of our Western societies, or the poverty and misery of developing ones? Let's educate and better equip potential parents for the job first, and then we can worry about whether life really is the ultimate gift.
I know you will disagree and I mean no offense. But I cannot believe that these issues are as cut-and-dried as more vocal debates make out.
With respect
Comment: #1
Posted by: non serviam
Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Larry, I usually agree with what you have to say but I was very disappointed by your stance on abortion especially since you lack the proper organs needed in order to have a valid opinion. Women are not baby making machines and there are too many people out there who are not equipped to be parents. If anything, that should be legally monitored. Regardless, women should have the right to choose. The sad truth is if men were the breeders this wouldn't even be an issue. Check your jock and your opinions at the door. Thanks.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Diana
Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Diana. Since when does having the right "organs" qualify one as an expert (or a novice) on abortion? What an arrogant, pigheaded thing to say.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:38 PM
|
|
|
|
As to Larry's actual response (which had very little do with abortion; he mentioned it only briefly)...I'm a little disappointed that he would connect Obama's election to MLK Jr's work. One of MLK's primary themes was that society should be completely color-blind. Wasn't there something about "judging people NOT by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?" Of course, the media are reluctant to mention this, since Obama is so badly deficient in these areas. He's the product of a corrupt-to-the-core Chicago political machine, and has surrounded himself with racist preachers, unrepentant domestic terrorists, assorted other ne'er-do-wells, as well as a pack of retreads left over from the failed Clinton administration. National reconciliation, my foot. Years from now, this will have been demonstrated to be one of the most divisive political events in American history. Those of us who care about lower taxes, smaller government, and retaining our most basic freedoms, bitterly oppose Obama, and it has nothing whatever to do with anyone's color.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Matt
Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:43 PM
|
|
|
|
I am more disappointed in your comments about black abortions as genocide. This is truly an inflammatory statement. First, where would these children be -- with parents who love them -- doubtful? Are the you comparing the number of white pregnancies with black pregnancies and proportionally, more blacks abort their children? Are the numbers of black pregnancies higher than whites, or just the number of abortions? Is making a choice to have an abortion "genocide"??? Is this your way to continue your anti-abortion stance or to somehow blame the right to an abortion for the number of unwanted pregnancies?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Julie
Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
