The suggestion that black men in dresses is an attempt to neutralize black male masculinity, i.e. feminize it, is INSANE. It is actual insanity. Drag is not uncommon comedic repertoire around the globe. Monty Python's vicious bag-weilding ladies come to mind.

Really the debate has alot more to do with what the black community sees or wants to see in 'Their Men' and is about black obsession with one's OWN masculinity. Despite all the post-modernish and existentialist runinations that black men in drag is a sort of American Neo-Colonialism, A Psychological Thriller. Perhaps there is a bit of what might be called paranoia in such sentiments: that anything offensive has a root in American (and Worldwide) anti-black racism. For example: the supposition -- was it Welsing? -- that black men calling each other 'baby' was indicative of internalized inferiority complex instilled by white supremacy.

With all this talk, I have to think some of this has to do with homo-phobia whithin the so-called black community. Any egress into depictions of Black Men as fundamentally hetero-sexual and masculine is presumed to be an assault on mind and sensibility. Even better is the depiction of black men as raw and hyper masculine, and even though such depictions then represent him as being honorable and just, that masculinity, itself, is prerequisite seems, if anything, to be a neo-colonial wound in its own turn.

One must treat the CAUSES of mass alcoholism, much in the same way with crime and poverty. Any number of Northern European countries feature drinking as a frequent part of life, but the relative lack of poverty decreases potential social disenfranchisement.

The attack like this on Marketing as a tool has always been rather suspect, and nothing has been proven regarding it's impact on actual addiction.

But similar rates of alcoholism can be found in african mining and factory populations, in the notorious shebeens.

To make change here, significant attempts to alleviate the, to use a much maligned term, 'root causes'.

Regarding your point on homosexuality and Obama's religion:

Actually, UCC doctrine is FOR recognization of gay rights under the law and in the public sphere.

Just you know... I don't care much for religion, but you should at least do the minimum research before getting all aggressive about something.

"maybe just get them out of the party altogether? They're so embarrassing. Do we really need people who didn't go to college in the party, after all?"

Wow... that's pretty awful... I'd rather see the likes of you out of the party.

Secondly, it seems you know f-all about PA. And I am not sure that crying racism EVERY time Obama loses is exactly the politics of change.. after all, he has won many states.

Aye, he is indeed named 'Michael Nutter'...

And a little story from real life about 'politics of change' fo the people here accusing Hillary of being the advocate for 'politics as usual' and Obama being Mr. Change:

IN Philly, Nutter was the politician of change. He ran against Rep. Chaka Fattah, among other 'party' democrats. All manner of hipster came out pumping their fists for him.

A year later and still no sign of the radical change.

Now, I know it's your rhetoric, but surely you people don't think Obama is really some sort of bureaucratic jacobin...? He's a product of the same Party Machine, and Chicago is one of the finest.

Disappointing but not a surprise. Clinton does well and gets support in traditional Party Machine areas, PA, and especially Phillly, being such. We can see this being exacerbated by the endorsements she recieved from Murtha, Gov. Rendell (albeit in an even-handed sort of way) and from the former and current mayors of Philadelphia. The last two, are incidentally african american, and while one deoes not expect Mayor Nutter's 'contribution' to suddenly overwhelm all popularity of Obama's campaign, the collective effect ot ALL these endorsements is a slow syphoning-off off -- a person there, a person here -- which cumulatively does have an impact.

"To me this doesn't mean that Ferraro, or Clinton, are inherently racist as some claim and as they protest. In fact, I think that's a red herring. I think that this campaign, Clinton and her surrogates, have become simply shameless in saying virtually anything they think will help her" .... Or, seemingly, anything that will hurt her...

"The holding up of McCain, the Republican rival, over Obama was just as bad."

Eh.... Obama has parroted GOP party lines on many occasions.

Besides that, he has also pandered to the idea that social security is in trouble. And then there was his denegration of what 'the struggles of the past' have meant, and mean as he 'was not a part of them.' Were the situation reversed, and Hillary spouted that empty rhetoric Obama and Co. would have hit Clinton hard about dismissing the Civil Rights apex of the 60s and voting rights. There is no doubt about that.