I'll return to my own main topic later, but it may be a few days. It's going to be a post that I need to compose carefully, and I have very little time this week.

Meanwhile, though, regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I find it hard to take offense.

There are two ways of looking at blacks (and for that matter, women) in the American society. Both groups have had some of their rights taken away from them (blacks have arguably have pretty much all their rights taken away from them in the past). Both groups have made strides toward equality, but both groups still suffer from, well, being-treated-less-than-equal. There are, as I said, two main lines of attitude you can take to that, if you yourself are either black or a woman (or both). You can say to everyone that, yes, this is me, I'm black, or I'm a woman, but that's no big deal, since we've all agreed that all people are equal and have the same value. Or you can still rant and rave about unfairness and inequality. Me, I would recommend a combination of these two approaches, where, however, the "we-have-the-same-value" approach would dominate. It's better to talk about the future, to be sure, than to hang on to old wounds. Nevertheless, if you see people that still want to beat you up because of your race or gender, you have the right to speak up about old grievances.

It seems to me that Barack Obama is all for talking about what unites Americans, not what separates them. That's fine with me. Reverend Wright, however, still wants to focus on the bitter legacy of the past and the inequality that still makes blacks suffer. I don't blame him.

I don't quite believe Barack Obama when he says that he wasn't aware what views Reverend Wright holds. I think he knew. I think that a part of him agrees with Reverend Wright. Surely Obama must be aware of the injustice that is still there at least in parts of the American society. But for all of that, I believe that Senator Obama himself does not believe that confrontation is going to be the best way to further either the interests of the blacks in the United States, or the interests of the United States as a nation.

In other words, I think that what Reverend Wright may have said is, honestly, no big deal, and it does not reflect Barack Obama's own approach to himself and other blacks in the American society.

Last year, or maybe two years ago, the woman who was director of the shelters for battered women in Sweden put her foot in her mouth so badly that women's organisations in Sweden are still reeling. This woman, Ireen von Wachenfeldt, said in front of TV cameras that men are animals. Ahhhh gaaaahhhh!!!! Of course, because she spent all her time working with battered women, she had heard so many horror stories about brutal men. Nevertheless, everybody was totally outraged and horrified, and her incredible faux pas meant that her organisation got less money from the government the next year, would you believe it, even though the number of battered women in need of shelter has definitely not gone down.

People sometimes say things that horrify others. We can choose to focus on their incredibly unfortunate choice of words. Or we can try to understand what they really meant and why they said what they said. Last but not least, we can ask ourselves if these statements should be allowed to smear and call into doubt a much wider issue, such as if the shelters for battered women in Sweden still need as much financial support as before, or if Senator Obama is still reasonably trustworthy (at least as trustworthy as other politicians). I answer both questions in the affirmative.

Ann