Thursday, February 19, 2009

Etymology of the Name God and Allah

Etymology of the Name God and Allah

Oddly, the exact history of the word God is unknown. The word God is a relatively new European invention, which was never used in any of the ancient Judaeo-Christian scripture manuscripts that were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin.

According to the best efforts of linguists and researchers, the root of the present word God is the Sanskrit word hu which means to call upon, invoke, implore.

Nonetheless, it is also interesting to note the similarity to the ancient Persian word for God which is Khoda.

The following is a survey of some of the efforts of those who have been trying to decipher the ancient roots of the word God:


Webster's 1913 Dictionary:

\God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. {Goodbye}, {Gospel}, {Gossip}.]

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/god



Catholic Encyclopedia:


Etymology of the Word "God"

(Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda).

God can variously be defined as:

  • the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
  • the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
  • the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm



Oxford English Dictionary:

"god (gρd). Also 3-4 godd. [Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guÞ (masc. in sing.; pl. guÞa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guđom neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word. The neuter sb., in its original heathen use, would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form anses, ON. ρss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.

The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *gubom implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are two Aryan roots of the required form (both *glheu, with palatal aspirate): one meaning 'to invoke' (Skr. hū), the other 'to pour, to offer sacrifice' (Skr. hu, Gr. χέειν, OE. yéotan YETE v.). Hence *glhutó-m has been variously interpreted as 'what is invoked' (cf. Skr. puru-hūta 'much-invoked', an epithet of Indra) and as 'what is worshipped by sacrifice' (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense 'sacrificed to' as well as in that of 'offered in sacrifice'). Either of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from the actual use of the word, 'an object of worship'.

Some scholars, accepting the derivation from the root *glheu- to pour, have supposed the etymological sense to be 'molten image' (= Gr. χυγόν), but the assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.

transcribed from The Oxford English Dictionary



Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

god

\God\ (g[o^]d), n. [AS. god; akin to OS. & D. god, OHG. got, G. gott, Icel. gu[eth], go[eth], Sw. & Dan. gud, Goth. gup, prob. orig. a p. p. from a root appearing in Skr. h[=u], p. p. h[=u]ta, to call upon, invoke, implore. [root]30. Cf. Goodbye, Gospel, Gossip.]

1. A being conceived of as possessing supernatural power, and to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc.; a divinity; a deity; an object of worship; an idol.

He maketh a god, and worshipeth it. --Is. xliv. 15.

The race of Israel . . . bowing lowly down To bestial gods. --Milton.

2. The Supreme Being; the eternal and infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe; Jehovah.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god


American Heritage Dictionary:

GOD

NOUN: 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot.

ETYMOLOGY: Middle English, from Old English. See gheu(): in APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I: ENTRY: gheu()-

DEFINITION: To call, invoke. Oldest form *heu()-, becoming *gheu()- in centum languages. Suffixed zero-grade form *ghu-to-, "the invoked," god. a. god, from Old English god, god; b. giddy, from Old English gydig, gidig, possessed, insane, from Germanic *gud-iga-, possessed by a god; c. götterdämmerung, from Old High German got, god. a–c all from Germanic *gudam, god. (Pokorny hau- 413.)


http://www.bartleby.com/61/21/G0172100.html


An Additional On-Line Reference:

Word origin: God - Our word god goes back via Germanic to Indo-European, in which a corresponding ancestor form meant "invoked one." The word's only surviving non-Germanic relative is Sanskrit hu, invoke the gods, a form which appears in the Rig Veda, most ancient of Hindu scriptures: puru-hutas, "much invoked," epithet of the rain-and-thunder god Indra. (From READER'S DIGEST, Family Word Finder, page 351) (Originally published by The Reader's Digest Association, Inc., Pleasantville New York, Montreal; Copyright 1975)

Now if the sources noted above are accurate, then the word that we use for the Supreme Being, God, comes from a very pagan origin. Thus the word god is used generically by many different religions to refer to their deity or "invoked one."

Some may laugh at the notion, the very idea that the word "God" has any origin or association with Hindu Sanskrit. To illustrate how this is possible, we again quote from 'Family Word Finder' on the historical development of our Modern English language:

Page 7, 'Word Origins' - "English belongs to the Indo-European family of languages, which consists of about 100 related tongues, all descended from prehistoric language of a pastoral, bronze working, horse breeding people, the Aryans, who inhabited the steppes of Central Asia about 4500 B.C. Scholars refer to their language at this stage as proto-Indo-European, or simply Indo-European.


http://www.bibleanswerstand.org/God.htm
This is what happens when you have partial information and attempt to speak as if you are an expert. You clearly do not understand Islam at all when you makes claims that the God written of in the Bible is different from Allah of the Qur'aan. If the English word God is new when compared to the Aramaic, Hebraic, and Arabic versions what sort of logic are you dealing with in trying to make it appear that the name or should I say the word God is the standard. How can you say that Allah is a generic form of God.
In fact, before you try to explain anything at all you should first properly define all of the words you use. Allah does not mean the god above God. Allah is actually a genderless being, unlike any other, with no limits that created everything. Allah (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤːɑːh]-is the standard Arabic word for God.[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".
Etymology
Medallion showing 'Allah' in Hagia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey.

The term Allāh is derived from a contraction of the Arabic definite article al- "the" and ʼilāh "deity, god" to al-lāh meaning "the [sole] deity, God" (ho theos monos).[4] Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[3] The corresponding Aramaic form is אֱלָהָא ʼĔlāhā in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܰܠܳܗܳܐ ʼAlâhâ or ʼĀlōho in Syriac.[10]

The contraction of al- and ʼilāh in forming the term Allāh ("the god", masculine form) parallels the contraction of al- and ʼilāha in forming the term Allāt ("the goddess", feminine form).

Photo of Rihanna While Her Dad Wants Her to 'Move On'

Photo surfaces of Rihanna after alleged beating at hands of boyfriend Chris Brown

Rihanna

The celebrity gossip Web site TMZ last night posted a photo purported to be of singer Rihanna after boyfriend singer Chris Brown is alleged to have beaten her. It shows her with cuts and bruises on her face, her eyes closed. The Web site does not say from whom it obtained the photo. (AP Photo / February 19, 2009)


This photo of pop singer Rihanna was taken after she was allegedly beaten by her boyfriend, Chris Brown, and has been obtained by TMZ.com.

A horrific image of the 20-year-old songstress shows bruises on her forehead and cheeks, and what appear to be cuts on the sides of her mouth. The photo was posted on TMZ.com Thursday night.

Brown and Rihanna allegedly got into a fight early in the morning hours of Feb. 8, the same day as the Grammy Awards. Both artists were scheduled to appear and both canceled at the last minute.

Rihanna's Dad Wants Her to 'Move On'

-- Not surprisingly, Rihanna's family is speaking out against Chris Brown following his alleged assault on the R&B superstar, PEOPLE is reporting in their cover story this week.
Ronald Fenty, the father of Rihanna, says she should "move on" from her relationship with Brown. He expounds even further, saying "I don't want her to go back to him. I don't think anyone does."
Another unidentified relative says that they were stunned to hear of the allegations against Brown. They tell PEOPLE he "flew so far under everyone's radar that we just didn't think he was that [abusive] type." They also say Brown "was always looking after her needs ... making sure she was happy."
Police are still investigating the Feb. 8 incident, for which Brown was charged with making criminal threats. Pending the results of the investigations, Brown may be hit with more charges.
Both Rihanna and Brown have kept mostly mum since the incident. Eventually, Brown released a statement in which he apologized and said he would seek therapy, but never directly addressed what exactly happened between himself and Rihanna.
Following the incident, various reports claimed that Rihanna suffered bruising, cuts and contusions on her head and face after Brown's alleged assault.
Roseanne Barr says that Chris Brown "uses language of the perpetrator just like every sleazy bastard who ever smacked his wife, kid mother or girlfriend around uses" in his first and only public statement. She also says his "lies and excuses make me want to beat the crap out of him."
In their cover story, PEOPLE speaks with the father of Rihanna, who says he hopes his daughter is done with boyfriend Chris Brown after his alleged assault. "I don't want her to go back to him. I don't think anyone does," the father said.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

22 Mummies Found in Egyptian Tomb

22 Mummies Found in Egyptian Tomb

By MAGGIE MICHAEL
,
AP
posted: 3 HOURS 53 MINUTES AGO
comments: 0
filed under: Science News
CAIRO (Feb. 9) -- A storeroom housing about two dozen ancient Egyptian mummies has been unearthed inside a 2,600-year-old tomb during the latest round of excavations at the vast necropolis of Saqqara south of Cairo, archaeologists said Monday.
The tomb was located at the bottom of a 36-foot deep shaft, said Egypt's top archaeologist, Zahi Hawass. Twenty-two mummies were found in niches along the tomb's walls, he said.
Next
This mummy is one of about 22 found in a 2,600-year-old tomb in Saqqara, Egypt, a vast necropolis near Cairo. The preserved remains were found Sunday in a new tomb discovered at the bottom of a 36-foot well. Click through the gallery for other archaeological finds.
(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)
Eight sarcophagi were also found in the tomb. Archaeologists so far have opened only one of the sarcophagi — and found a mummy inside of it, said Hawass' assistant Abdel Hakim Karar. Mummies are believed to be inside the other seven, he said.
The "storeroom for mummies" dates back to 640 B.C. during the 26th Dynasty, which was Egypt's last independent kingdom before it was overthrown by a succession of foreign conquerors beginning with the Persians, Hawass said. But the tomb was discovered at an even older site in Saqqara that dates back to the 4,300-year-old 6th Dynasty, he said.
Most of the mummies are poorly preserved, and archeologists have yet to determine their identities or why so many were put in one room.
The name Badi N Huri was engraved into the opened sarcophagus, but the wooden coffin did not bear a title for the mummy.
"This one might have been an important figure, but I can't tell because there was no title," Karar said.
Karar also said it was unusual for mummies of this late period to be stored in rocky niches.
"Niches were known in the very early dynasties, so to find one for the 26th Dynasty is something rare," he said.
Excavations have been ongoing at Saqqara for 150 years, uncovering a necropolis of pyramids and tombs dating mostly from the Old Kingdom but also tombs from as recent as the Roman era.
In the past, excavations have focused on just one side of the site's two most prominent pyramids — the famous Step Pyramid of King Djoser and that of Unas, the last king of the 5th Dynasty. The area where the current tomb was found, to the southwest, has been largely untouched by archeologists.
In December, two tombs were found near the current discovery of mummies. The tombs were built for high officials — one responsible for the quarries used to build the nearby pyramids and the other for a woman in charge of procuring entertainers for the pharaohs.
In November, Hawass announced the discovery of a new pyramid at Saqqara, the 118th in Egypt, and the 12th to be found just in Saqqara.
According to Hawass, only 30 percent of Egypt's monuments have been uncovered, with the rest still under the sand.


Monday, February 9, 2009

Rihanna 'Crying,' 'Screaming' at Hospital

Rihanna 'Crying,' 'Screaming' at Hospital


Pop Starlet Is Named As Victim in Chris Brown Assault Case

PopEater
posted: 6 MINUTES AGO
(Feb. 8) - Rihanna has been identified as the victim in Chris Brown's assault charge, TMZ first reported, and now there's more details coming out about what happened in the hours after the incident. A RadarOnline.com witness who was in the hospital with Rihanna says the 'Disturbia' singer "was clearly very upset by what had happened and I could hear her screaming."
The source also says that Rihanna's "staff was also very shaken by what had happened. Later on I saw one of the assistants crying into the shoulder of the security guard. I left at 4pm, happy to get out of the place, something terrible had clearly happened to Rihanna." Read the Full RadarOnline.com Report
TMZ first reported that Brown had surrendered to police. He posted $50,000 bail and was released, and according to one source, Rihanna "suffered contusions and bite marks."
The LAPD had stated in a release the 19-year-old R&B singer and a woman were in a vehicle in the Hancock Park neighborhood early Sunday when they began arguing. After they exited the car, the argument escalated. The LAPD has indicated they will not release the accuser's name.
"The identity of the victim will not be released," Officer April Harding said at the time. "Any victim who's involved in a domestic violence incident is entitled to confidentiality."
According to a PEOPLE source, Rihanna and Brown have had "lots of ups and downs" of late, saying that "one second they're all lovey dovey and then they're fighting like crazy. They're both pretty stubborn."
Brown has long been dating pop superstar Rihanna, who was slated to perform early in the Grammys show on Sunday night. But she dropped out, the Recording Academy said in a statement less than an hour before the show and she was not seen at the venue as the show was about to get under way.
"We have just been informed that Rihanna will not be attending tonight's 51st Annual Grammy Awards. We're sorry she is unable to join us," the academy said in a brief statement that did not offer any further explanation.
Numerous reports saying the two were involved in a car accident and a rep for Rihanna reportedly did not confirm or deny the story when asked for comment by MTV News. "Rihanna is well. Thank you for the care and support" her longtime record company spokesperson confirmed to BlackVoices.com via email. Read More From BV
"After stopping his car, Brown and the woman got out and the argument escalated," the Los Angeles police Department said. "The woman suffered visible injuries and identified Brown as her attacker."
The LAPD received a 911 call reporting the disturbance and, according to the statement, when officers arrived they found the victim, but Brown had already left the scene.
An LAPD spokeswoman declined further comment.
Brown, who released his first album in 2005 at the age of 16, the self-titled "Chris Brown," topped the charts with his hit single "Run It!"
Barbados-born Rihanna has already logged four No. 1 singles since breaking onto the charts in 2005.
She won a 2007 Grammy Award for her single "Umbrella," a collaboration with the rapper Jay-Z, and had been scheduled to perform her latest hit, "Disturbia," Sunday night.
2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-02-08 19:44:47
Click here to go to LASD Home Page Go Back
(The information was current as of: 02/09/2009 02:38 PST)



Booking No.: 1796176 Last Name: BROWN First Name: CHRISTOPHER Middle Name:

Sex: M Race: B Date Of Birth: 05/05/1989 Age: 19 Hair: BRO Eyes: BRO Height: 602 Weight: 195

Charge Level: F (Felony)

ARREST
Arrest Date: 02/08/2009 Arrest Time: 1830 Arrest Agency: 4207 Agency Description: LAPD-WILSHIRE DIVISION

Date Booked: 02/08/2009 Time Booked: 1941 Booking Location: 4207 Location Description: LAPD - WILSHIRE

BAIL
Total Bail Amount: 50,000.00 Total Hold Bail Amount: 0.00 Grand Total: 50,000.00

HOUSING LOCATION
Housing Location:

Permanent Housing Assigned Date: 02/08/2009 Assigned Time: 1941 Visitor Status: N

Facility:
Address: City:

Public Visiting Guidelines

For County facility visiting hours, Please call (213) 473-6080 at Inmate Information Center.

COURT
Next Court Code: M30 Next Court Date: 03/05/2009 Next Court Time: 0830 Next Court Case: 9999999999

Court Name: LOS ANGELES MUNI CT DIV 30
Court Address: 210 W. TEMPLE STREET Court City: LOS ANGELESUPT

RELEASE
Actual Release Date: 02/08/2009 Release Time: 2035

CASE INFORMATION
Case No. Court Name Court Address Court City Bail Amt. Fine Amt. Court Date Sent. Date Sent. Day(s) Disp Code
9999999999


50,000.00 .00 03/05/2009
0
Click on specific Case No. for detailed information.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

How Did 911 Affect The US Economy

How Did 911 Affect The US Economy

Many of us have forgotten 911. We tend to push aside the fact that 911 hurt us not only with loss of lives but economically. Please read the following.

Economic Costs to the United States Stemming From the 9/11 Attacks

Strategic Insights, Volume I, Issue 6 (August 2002)

by Robert Looney

Strategic Insights is a monthly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NPS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Click here for a PDF version of this article.

Introduction

Like all major disasters, natural or manmade, the terrorist attacks of September 11 resulted in a tragic loss of life and destruction of property, as well as short-term disruption of economic activity. In addition, because of the size and premeditated nature of the attack, there are likely to be more lasting effects in some industries and segments of the U.S. economy.

Conceptually, the economic costs to the United States stemming from the 9/11 terrorist attacks can be broken down into several categories, largely depending on their nature (direct and indirect) and on the time period examined (immediate, short-term, medium-term and long-term). Those costs that are short run and direct are clearly the easiest to identify and measure. Estimates covering longer periods of time and focused mainly on indirect costs require numerous assumptions concerning counterfactuals and hence are on less firm ground. Another area of controversy involves the anthrax scare following the attacks. The estimates below treat this as a separate event, although in some of the indirect cost estimates this factor may have had an influence.

Immediate and Short Term Direct Impacts

The September 11 attacks inflicted casualties and material damages on a far greater scale than any other terrorist aggression in recent history. Lower Manhattan lost approximately 30 percent of its office space and a number of businesses ceased to exist. Close to 200,000 jobs were destroyed or relocated out of New York City, at least temporarily. The destruction of physical assets was estimated in the national accounts to amount to $14 billion for private businesses, $1.5 billion for state and local government enterprises and $0.7 billion for federal enterprises. Rescue, cleanup and related costs have been estimated to amount to at least $11 billion for a total direct cost of $27.2 billion.

Immediate and Short Term Indirect Impacts

Immediately after the attacks, leading forecast services sharply revised downward their projections of economic activity. The consensus forecast for U.S. real GDP growth was instantly downgraded by 0.5 percentage points for 2001 and 1.2 percentage points for 2002. The implied projected cumulative loss in national income through the end of 2003 amounted to 5 percentage points of annual GDP, or half a trillion dollars.

With production disrupted in some areas (airlines) and consumers increasingly cautious, real GDP shrank in the third quarter of 2001. But in the fourth quarter, demand held up better than initially feared, and GDP increased. However, private sector fixed investment registered a steep decline, and inventories were slashed. Offsetting these forces, however, were household consumption, helped by falling energy prices, and government spending. Defense spending in particular grew by about 9.25% in real terms in the fourth quarter, at a seasonally adjusted annual rate.

Some sectors or firms actually witnessed an increase in demand, notably in the area of security and information technology. Still, while overall demand proved fairly resilient, a number of sectors were hit hard, with declining output and profits continuing into the mid-term.

Overall however the short-term adverse economic impact of the attacks was far less than feared initially, thanks in large part to good economic crisis management. The Federal Reserve, the Administration and Congress acted quickly to restore confidence, inject liquidity and provide resources to deal with the consequences of the attacks. The Federal Reserve by lowering the price of credit and temporarily providing vast amounts of liquidity helped safeguard the integrity of the financial system and saved many firms from bankruptcy.

Medium Term Impacts

Looking beyond the short term, the fact that the attack was premeditated and therefore could be repeated has had a significant impact on five main areas: (1) insurance; (2) airlines; (3) tourism and other industries associated with travel; (4) shipping; and (5) increased defense/security expenditures. In turn, developments in these areas have had a broader effect on wide areas of economic activity.

  • Insurance. The losses from the terrorist attacks for the insurance industry (including reinsurance) are estimated at between $30 and $58 billion with the main uncertainty concerning liability insurance. By comparison the losses associated with Hurricane Andrew's 1992 damage in Florida came to around $21 billion. Even if the final cost is close to the lower estimate, insured losses in 2001 are likely to have been the highest ever.
    Following the attacks, most primary insurers have increased their premiums and curtailed or dropped altogether coverage for terrorism-related risk. The increases in insurance premiums have adversely affected several key industries. The strongest impact has been on aviation, but other sectors, including transportation, construction, and tourism and energy generation have also been affected. Overall it is estimated that commercial property and liability insurance rates have been raised by 30 percent on average.
  • Airlines. The United States' airline industry was already in a weak financial position before the attacks with rising debt ratios and falling returns on investment. Even with cutbacks in service of the order of 20 percent and significant government support, airline passenger traffic has apparently remained below normal, 100,000 layoffs have been announced and employment in October and November fell by 81,000 (almost 8 percent). Equity valuations compared to the overall market illustrate these difficulties. The U.S. airline sector has lost around 20 percent of its relative value since September 10.
  • Tourism and Other Service Industries. Other industries have also been badly affected, such as hotels, tourism, automobile rentals, travel agents, and civilian aircraft manufactures. For example, hotels have reported higher vacancy rates and employment in the sector as a whole fell by 58,000 (about 3 percent) in October and November. Relative equity values for hotels and leisure facilities are off by around 15 percent.
  • Shipping. Shipping is an area where it is particularly hard to assess the impact of the terrorist attacks. The main problem is one of defining a credible counterfactual—i.e., what would the state of affairs been in the absence of 9/11? For example, in spite of new security requirements, six months following the attacks most available indices showed little evidence of an increase in shipping costs. Some rates had even declined. Maritime shipping rates increased by 5 to 10 percent on average in the two weeks following the attack, but that rise was soon reversed. Airfreight rates, on the other hand were bout 10 percent higher in late 2001 than before the attacks. Given the sharp deceleration of aggregate demand beginning in 2000 and the drop in fuel costs following the attacks, a steeper decline in freight costs should have occurred. The relative stability of freight rates, despite lower fuel costs and under-utilized shipping capacity would tend to suggest that underlying transportation costs may have increased as a result of the 9/11 attacks.
  • Increases in security and military spending. The President has requested a significant increase in security-related programs in the context of the budget for FY2003. Additional spending of $48 billion was proposed for national defense (an increase of 14 percent from the previous year). In addition the President asked Congress for an appropriation of $38 billion for homeland security, compared to $20 billion spent in 2001. This seeks to improve the preparedness of first responders (fireman, police, and rescue workers), enhance defenses against biological attacks, secure borders and improve information sharing and includes $8 billion for domestic defense spending.

While it is too early to say with any precision, the medium term costs to the economy may be considerable. The shrinkage of terrorism related insurance coverage may have a detrimental impact on investment as lenders become wary of greater potential risks, although there is no strong evidence yet of such a pattern. While providing a much needed short-run stimulus to the economy, the increased levels of fiscal deficits stemming from the acceleration in defense expenditures may, in the medium-to-longer term, retard growth by increasing interest rates and thus reducing private capital formation and productivity.

Long Term Impacts

The main channel though which the continual threat of terrorism could affect the long term potential of the global economy is by raising transactions costs, resulting in a reduction in potential output. These costs can be broken down as follows:

  • Higher operating costs. Businesses may experience higher operating costs owing to increased spending on security, higher insurance premiums and longer wait times for activities.
  • Higher levels of inventories. Business may be required to hold larger inventories than previously, owing in part to less reliable air and rail transportation. There is anecdotal evidence from the auto industry that production was interrupted because components were not immediately available from suppliers after the September 11 attacks, owing to delays in shipments crossing the U.S.-Canada border.
  • Higher risk premium. As a result of the attack, lenders' appetite for risk may decline, leading to higher risk premiums that may be passed on to businesses in the form of higher interest rates and lower equity prices, with an adverse effect on business investment, and a smaller capital stock.
  • Shift of resources away from the civilian labor force toward the military. More resources may be diverted toward the military for use in the containment of terrorism. In addition, research and development (R&D) resources may be shifted way from productive activities towards the development of new devices to thwart terrorism (although such devices may have beneficial spillover effects elsewhere).
  • Shift away from globalization. The attack may have effects on firms' investment decisions—in particular whether to invest domestically or abroad, in part because of potential disruption of cross-border flows of goods and assets. Costs for such transactions may rise owing to closer inspection of transactions and higher insurance premiums

While the immediate and short run impacts of the terrorist attacks were shown to be considerable, medium to longer term impacts are much more problematical. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee has compiled a comprehensive set of forecasts of the costs of terrorism. These studies vary based on assumptions about two key issues. The first is the extent to which transaction costs will increase—an issue that depends heavily upon whether further attacks occur, forcing high levels of constant vigilance, or whether September 11 turns out to be a relatively isolated incident, implying a smaller long-term change in behavior. The second is the degree to which any increase in transaction costs will disrupt economic activity.

For more insights into contemporary international security issues, see our Strategic Insights home page.

To have new issues of Strategic Insights delivered to your Inbox at the beginning of each month, email ccc@nps.navy.mil with subject line "Subscribe". There is no charge, and your address will be used for no other purpose.

Further Reading

John Helgerson, Chairman National Intelligence College, Global Trends and the Implications of the 11 September Attacks, January 22, 2002 (PDF)

Joint Economic Committee, Background Material on the Potential Economic Impacts of the Terrorist Attacks, September 21, 2001 (PDF)

University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, What's Next? The Economic Effects of September 11.

Alexander, Dean C., and Yonah Alexander, Terrorism and Business: The Impact of September 11, 2001 (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2002).

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Who really wrote The Terminator and The Matrix?

Screenplay writer Sophia Stewart is adamant that she is the author of the screenplay for the blockbuster movie, The Matrix, and her body of work was stolen. She is suing Warner Brothers, Joel Silver, Andy and Larry Wachowski in Los Angeles’ United States District Court in a case that has been defined as one of the largest suits for damages in the history of the film industry.
How should I begin this? Let us start with a few articles.
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publ...cle_1745.shtml
Monday, January 7, 2008

BLACK WOMAN WROTE THE MATRIX AND TERMINATOR AND WINS LAW SUIT!


Black Author wins The Matrix Copyright Infringement Case.

This little known story has met a just conclusion, as Sophia Stewart, African American author of The Matrix will finally receive her just due from the copyright infringement of her original work!!!

Monday, October 4th 2004 ended a six-year dispute involving Sophia Stewart, the Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and Warner Brothers. Stewart's allegations, involving copyright infringement and racketeering, were received and acknowledged by the Central District of California, Judge Margaret Morrow residing. Stewart, a New Yorker who has resided in Salt Lake City for the past five years, will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels. She will soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood, as the gross receipts of both films and their sequels total over 2.5 billion dollars. Stewart filed her case in 1999, after viewing the Matrix, which she felt had been based on her manuscript , "The Third Eye," copyrighted in 1981.

In the mid-eighties Stewart had submitted her manuscript to an ad placed by the Wachowski Brothers, requesting new sci-fi works. According to court documentation, an FBI investigation discovered that more than thirty minutes had been edited from the original film, in an attempt to avoid penalties for copyright infringement. The investigation also stated that "credible witnesses employed at Warner Brothers came forward, claiming that the executives and lawyers had full knowledge that the work in question did not belong to the Wachowski Brothers."

These witnesses claimed to have seen Stewart's original work and that it had been "often used during pre preparation of the motion pictures." The defendants tried, on several occasions, to have Stewart's case dismissed, without success. Stewart has confronted skepticism on all sides, much of which comes from Matrix fans, who are strangely loyal to the Wachowski Brothers. One on-line forum, entitled Matrix Explained has an entire section devoted to Stewart. Some who have researched her history and writings are open to her story. Others are suspicious and mocking. "It doesn't bother me," said Stewart in a phone interview last week, "I always knew what was true."

Some fans, are unaware of the case or they question its legitimacy, due to the fact that it has received little to no media coverage. Though the case was not made public until October of 2003, Stewart has her own explanation, as quoted at www.daghettotymz.com/matrix/matrix.html :

"The reason you have not seen any of this in the media is because Warner Brothers parent company is AOL-Time Warner... this GIANT owns 95 percent of the media... let me give you a clue as to what they own in the media business... Ne w York Times papers/magazines, LA Times papers/magazines, People Magazine, CNN news, Extra, Celebrity Justice, Entertainment Tonight, HBO, New Line Cinema, Dreamworks, Newsweek, Village Roadshow..many, many more!...

They are not going to report on themselves. They have been suppressing my case for years..." Fans who have taken Stewart's allegations seriously, have found eerie mythological parallels, which seem significant in a case that revolves around the highly metaphorical and symbolic Matrix series. Sophia, the Greekgoddess of wisdom has been referenced many times in speculation about Stewart.

In one book about the Goddess Sophia, it reads, "The black goddess is the mistress of web creation spun in her divine matrix" Although there have been outside implications as to racial injustice ! ( Stewart is African American), she does not feel that this is the case. "This is al about the Benjamins," said Stewart. "It's not about money with me. It's about justice." Stewart's future plans involve a record label, entitled Popsilk Records, and a motion picture production company, All Eyez On Me, in reference to God. "

I wrote The Third Eye to wake people up, to remind them why God put them here. There's more to life than money," said Stewart. "My whole to the world is about God and good and about choice, about spirituality over 'technocracy'." If Stewart represents spirituality, then she truly has prevailed over the "technocracy" represented in both the Terminator and the Matrix, and now, ironically, by their supposed creators.

Stewart is currently having discussions with CBS about a possible exclusive story and has several media engagements in the near future to nationally publicize her victory. June 13th 2004. Sophia Stewart's press release read: "The Matrix & Terminator movie franchises have made world history and have ultimately changed the way people view movies and how Hollywood does business, yet the real truth about the creator and creation of these films continue to elude the masses because the hidden secret of the matter is that these films were created and written by a Black woman... a Black woman named Sophia Stewart.

But Hollywood does not want you to know this fact simply because it would change history. Also it would encourage our Black children to realize a dream and that is... nothing is impossible for them to achieve!"

Artist malik seneferu
Matrix Lawsuit
Claim: Sophia Stewart won a large judgment in a copyright infringement suit over authorship of the film The Matrix.

Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2005]

Monday, October 4th 2004 ended a six-year dispute involving Sophia Stewart, the Wachowski Brothers, Joel Silver and Warner Brothers. Stewart's allegations, involving copyright infringement and racketeering, were received and acknowledged by the Central District of California, Judge Margaret Morrow residing.

Stewart, a New Yorker who has resided in Salt Lake City for the past five years, will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels. She will soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood, as the gross receipts of both films and their sequels total over 2.5 billion dollars.

Stewart filed her case in 1999, after viewing the Matrix, which she felt had been based on her manuscript, "The Third Eye," copyrighted in 1981. In the mid-eighties Stewart had submitted her manuscript to an ad placed by the Wachowski Brothers, requesting new sci-fi works.

[Remainder of article here.]

Origins: The Matrix was an immediate box office hit upon its release in March 1999, quickly grabbing the public's imagination and its movie-going dollars. Together with its two sequels it has grossed in excess of $2.5 billion, making it one of the most lucrative film franchises in cinematic history.

Controversy exists, however, over its authorship. Sophia Stewart, a native New Yorker who lives in Salt Lake City and works as a paralegal, has claimed in a lawsuit brought against directors Andy and Larry Wachowski, producer Joel Silver, Warner Bros., and Twentieth Century Fox that The Matrix and Terminator film franchises were based on her ideas. According to Stewart, in 1986 she responded to an advertisement posted by the Wachowski brothers in a national magazine soliciting science fiction manuscripts to make into comic books by sending them "The Third Eye," a short story she wrote and copyrighted in 1981. She never heard from them, nor did she receive her manuscript back. When she saw The Matrix in 1999 she was struck by how closely it resembled her story. She filed suit against the makers of the film, seeking over $1 billion in damages. This page provides links to a number of files and articles about her

lawsuit.

Stewart's case was dismissed in June 2005 when she failed to show up for a preliminary hearing of her case. In a 53-page ruling, Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central District Court of California dismissed the suit, saying Stewart and her attorneys had not entered any evidence to bolster its key claims or demonstrated any striking similarity between her work and the accused directors' films. As of this writing, Stewart's case is no longer before the courts. She has announced that she does not plan to let the matter drop, so possibly this case will someday be re-filed and heard, but for now it is over.

A less than accurate newspaper article about Stewart and her case caused many to believe the woman claiming authorship had won her copyright infringement suit and was about to receive a multi-billion dollar settlement. This 28 October 2004 article, penned by a second-year communications student for the Salt Lake Community College Globe, erred in mistaking Stewart's 4 October 2004 successful counter to a dismissal motion for her having prevailed in her suit. The article asserted Stewart "will recover damages from the films, The Matrix I, II and III, as well as The Terminator and its sequels" and would "soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood." What Stewart had won was the right to proceed with her case, but nothing more.

The Globe subsequently posted the following correction:
In reference to the recent article entitled "Mother of the Matrix Victorious," some information has been deemed misleading. Ms. Sophia Stewart has not yet won her case against Joel Silver, Time Warner and the Wachowski Bros. The decision on October 4th enabled Ms. Stewart to proceed with her case, as all attempts to have it dismissed were unsuccessful. Ms. Stewart's case will proceed through the Central District Court of California.

Thanks,
The Globe Staff

Barbara "case closed" Mikkelson

Last updated: 7 August 2005

The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/matrix.asp

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2009 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

Sources Sources:
Carter, Martha. "'Mother of the Matrix' Victorious."
Salt Lake Community College Globe. 28 October 2004.
Gordon, Ed. "News & Notes: Sophia Stewart Discusses Her Lawsuit Against Warner Bros."
National Public Radio. 24 May 2005.
Powers, Kemp. "The Billion-Dollar Myth."
Los Angeles Times. 31 July 2005.
Wright, E. Assata. "Fact or Fiction: Is There Any Truth to the Latest Urban Legends?"
Essence. May 2005 (p. 46).



What are your thoughts on this subject?

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Obama Race Speech: Read The Full Text

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave owners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.