(Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

Some of you are going to be surprised to see these words coming from me, and I implore you to read the entire diary before you begin throwing flames.

I've been defending Obama at every turn since late March. I defended him against the people who were using Wright to attack him; I defended him against bittergate; I scoffed at fingergate. I defended him until I pissed off at least half the Clinton supporters on this site. I made myself pretty unpopular with people I once liked, but I didn't care. I felt I was doing the right thing by defending him because I thought it likely that he'd become the nominee. I was trying to be fair, attempting to be moderate. I probably spent more time criticizing Hillary than Obama because she was my candidate, and I held her to a higher standard. So through my efforts to remain rational and speak in measured tones, I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt - always - for approximately three months. I stuck my neck out for him on MyDD and in my personal life, much to the displeasure of my Hillary supporter friends and my Republican parents (who came to grudgingly respect my admiration for Hillary, but felt nothing but disdain for "the empty suit"). I defended him and didn't mind doing so. I kept my doubts to myself.

But I'm profoundly upset right now, and I refuse to lie or mask my disappointment.

There's more...

Censorship is a reality of our times, and its connections are seemingly unrelated, unless looked at in its entirety in historical and relevant events. Shostakovich died a mere thirty-one years ago. He feared for his life composing music that told "truth" about historical and political matters under Stalin's regimen at times. Stalin would have ordered him murdered, if it were not for Shostakovich's immense popularity. A notorious Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Non-related but disturbing, are the President's "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," which have enabled numerous "government-funded social service jobs explicitly refuse to hire Jews, gay people, and other undesirables ...in the name of religious freedom." (Michelle Goldberg: "Kingdom Coming." P.107). I experienced something similar in an interview from a local pastor for a church job. I was asked questions about my beliefs that were none of his business, and was required to participate in religious activities, despite the fact I was only being hired to play music. Gaining prominence, constituents and their elected officials who condone these discriminatory practices of the "Faith-Based Initiatives" have accomplished the following: elected a president, had two amendments be presented to amend the Constitution, and all but hand-selected the newest members of the Supreme Court (which can now be sued in an International Tribunal). Faith-Based Initiative Programs or its supporters may possibly hire composers and musicians, too. Also partially related is the recent Supreme Court ruling that the president overreached his constitutional authority, not to mention international opinion of these facts. Are these the "right conditions" for a future and possible storm of censorship? Maybe it is or maybe it's not. One possible scenario based out of factual accounts: since a woman was reported by her neighbor to federal authorities for having an "unpatriotic" poster in her home, would that same woman have been reported to federal authorities for having "unpatriotic" music? Maybe she would have been for listening to "The Star Spangled Banner" by Jimmy Hendrix. What's the difference between an "unpatriotic" poster and an "unpatriotic" song? Next, she might be strip-searched in full public view the next time she tried to fly, hypothetically speaking.  
  I suggest exploring www.freemuse.org,   http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorshi p/11454res20050926.html, and develop a view on these topics. It greatly disturbed me when I learned years ago that the composer I admire most lived in the already stated conditions during my lifetime: "audience-friendly" to the citizens of Russia, while Stalin's regimen attempted to subjugate Shostakovich to their repressive ideology. Telling the audience the "truth" isn't always easy, but that's what true friends are for.

To view my justification for my "possible scenario":

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info /article13176.htm

There's more...

Censorship is a reality of our times, and its connections are seemingly unrelated, unless looked at in its entirety in historical and relevant events. Shostakovich died a mere thirty-one years ago. He feared for his life composing music that told "truth" about historical and political matters under Stalin's regimen at times. Stalin would have ordered him murdered, if it were not for Shostakovich's immense popularity. A notorious Stalin quote is, "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Non-related but disturbing, are the President's "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," which have enabled numerous "government-funded social service jobs explicitly refuse to hire Jews, gay people, and other undesirables ...in the name of religious freedom." (Michelle Goldberg: "Kingdom Coming." P.107). I experienced something similar in an interview from a local pastor for a church job. I was asked questions about my beliefs that were none of his business, and was required to participate in religious activities, despite the fact I was only being hired to play music. Gaining prominence, constituents and their elected officials who condone these discriminatory practices of the "Faith-Based Initiatives" have accomplished the following: elected a president, had two amendments be presented to amend the Constitution, and all but hand-selected the newest members of the Supreme Court (which can now be sued in an International Tribunal). Faith-Based Initiative Programs or its supporters may possibly hire composers and musicians, too. Also partially related is the recent Supreme Court ruling that the president overreached his constitutional authority, not to mention international opinion of these facts. Are these the "right conditions" for a future and possible storm of censorship? Maybe it is or maybe it's not. One possible scenario based out of factual accounts: since a woman was reported by her neighbor to federal authorities for having an "unpatriotic" poster in her home, would that same woman have been reported to federal authorities for having "unpatriotic" music? Maybe she would have been for listening to "The Star Spangled Banner" by Jimmy Hendrix. What's the difference between an "unpatriotic" poster and an "unpatriotic" song? Next, she might be strip-searched in full public view the next time she tried to fly, hypothetically speaking.  
  I suggest exploring www.freemuse.org,   http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorshi p/11454res20050926.html, and develop a view on these topics. It greatly disturbed me when I learned years ago that the composer I admire most lived in the already stated conditions during my lifetime: "audience-friendly" to the citizens of Russia, while Stalin's regimen attempted to subjugate Shostakovich to their repressive ideology. Telling the audience the "truth" isn't always easy, but that's what friends for.

To view my justification for my "possible scenario":

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info /article13176.htm

There's more...