The indispispensable John McWhorter, on Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" comment, with regards to our conversation (or lack thereof) about race. My view is not only that Holder's words were an inappropriate way of making a legitimate argument, but also that he is too harsh, even on the substance. McWhorter handles this better than I could:
This idea of a "conversation" (conversion) on race forever just out of reach is interesting in an intellectual sense. However, all evidence is that the only conversation that's going to happen already is. It is a sometimes messy exchange, conservative and liberal going head-to-head, gradually settling on a centrist position.
Namely, racism must be reviled, the government can do things to help people, but much of what ails black people today is too abstractly connected to racism for whites to feel guilty about it anymore. That centrist position is no longer heresy among an ever-growing number of blacks or whites, and is underscored by a black man running the United States.
Yeah. The fact is, we've been having a conversation about race for a while now, and there is of course a lot more tht ought to be addressed. but I suspect Holder's beef is that we're not havig the one he would like us to have.
Read the whole thing.
HT: Jac
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
"That a part of my family started Jim Crow is kind of a load to carry, " she said. "I wish I could change that."
That's from Phoebe Ferguson, the great-granddaughter of Judge John Ferguson, who ruled against Homer Plessy in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson. The descendants of Plessy and Ferguson met in New Orleans, to remember the historic event of Homer Plessy's act of courage:
People often think that his ancestor held some responsibility for the legalized segregation known as "separate but equal, " said Keith Plessy, 52, a longtime New Orleans hotel bellman whose great-grandfather was Homer Plessy's first cousin. In actuality, Homer Plessy boarded that train as part of a carefully orchestrated effort to create a civil-rights test case, to fight the proliferation of segregationist laws in the South.
Keith Plessy first learned about his relationship to the case from his teachers at Valena C. Jones Elementary School, who called him to the front of the room as they discussed the case. But his textbooks simply listed the name of the case and its result: a half-century of "separate but equal" schools, drinking fountains and buses.
Phoebe Ferguson, 51, a documentary filmmaker, left New Orleans in 1967 but moved back after discovering her great-great-grandfather's role in the infamous legal fight.
Judge John Howard Ferguson ruled against Plessy from his bench in Orleans Parish Criminal Court. The judge was born in Massachusetts and had strong ties to abolitionists, she said. So she doesn't think he was a racist.
Still, Phoebe Ferguson can't quite get over the powerful impact his decision had on the black community, which would endure a half-century of government-sanctioned segregation.
"That a part of my family started Jim Crow is kind of a load to carry, " she said. "I wish I could change that."
Read the whole thing.
HT: Althouse
People often think that his ancestor held some responsibility for the legalized segregation known as "separate but equal, " said Keith Plessy, 52, a longtime New Orleans hotel bellman whose great-grandfather was Homer Plessy's first cousin. In actuality, Homer Plessy boarded that train as part of a carefully orchestrated effort to create a civil-rights test case, to fight the proliferation of segregationist laws in the South.
Keith Plessy first learned about his relationship to the case from his teachers at Valena C. Jones Elementary School, who called him to the front of the room as they discussed the case. But his textbooks simply listed the name of the case and its result: a half-century of "separate but equal" schools, drinking fountains and buses.
Phoebe Ferguson, 51, a documentary filmmaker, left New Orleans in 1967 but moved back after discovering her great-great-grandfather's role in the infamous legal fight.
Judge John Howard Ferguson ruled against Plessy from his bench in Orleans Parish Criminal Court. The judge was born in Massachusetts and had strong ties to abolitionists, she said. So she doesn't think he was a racist.
Still, Phoebe Ferguson can't quite get over the powerful impact his decision had on the black community, which would endure a half-century of government-sanctioned segregation.
"That a part of my family started Jim Crow is kind of a load to carry, " she said. "I wish I could change that."
Read the whole thing.
HT: Althouse
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Etta James vs. Beyonce (and Barack Obama)
This is all still in the gossipy stage at this point, but the word on the street is that Etta James was not at all pleased about Beyonce singing the song she made famous, "At Last, " at the Inauguration. Based on her rant though, something tells me the real focus of her ire lies elsewhere:
"You guys know your president, right? You know the one with the big ears? Wait a minute, he ain't my president, he might be yours, he ain't my president," James told fans during a Seattle concert last week.
"You know that woman he had singing for him, singing my song -- she's gonna get her a-- whipped. The great Beyonce...But I can't stand Beyonce," she added. "She has no business up there, singing up there on a big ol' president day...singing my song that I've been singing forever."
I think her real issue is Obama. For some reason, she has beef with Obama. I suspect she didn't want Beyonce singing her song, but I don't think she's mad at Obama because Beyonce sang at his Inauguration, rather I think she's mad at Beyonce, because she sang at his Inauguration. She started off by dissing Obama, renounced him as her President, and didn't mention his name.
It's as if she saying, "You sang my song there? For that guy?"
Again, this is all gossip at this point, but I think Etta James has ought with our new President. Ideology? Disgruntled Hillary voter? Just doesn't care for the guy? Who knows.
"You guys know your president, right? You know the one with the big ears? Wait a minute, he ain't my president, he might be yours, he ain't my president," James told fans during a Seattle concert last week.
"You know that woman he had singing for him, singing my song -- she's gonna get her a-- whipped. The great Beyonce...But I can't stand Beyonce," she added. "She has no business up there, singing up there on a big ol' president day...singing my song that I've been singing forever."
I think her real issue is Obama. For some reason, she has beef with Obama. I suspect she didn't want Beyonce singing her song, but I don't think she's mad at Obama because Beyonce sang at his Inauguration, rather I think she's mad at Beyonce, because she sang at his Inauguration. She started off by dissing Obama, renounced him as her President, and didn't mention his name.
It's as if she saying, "You sang my song there? For that guy?"
Again, this is all gossip at this point, but I think Etta James has ought with our new President. Ideology? Disgruntled Hillary voter? Just doesn't care for the guy? Who knows.
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Pajamas Are Back In The Drawer?
Apparently, Pajamas Media, the mostly-right wing blogging outfit is going belly up, and there's a whole lot of wailing, and gnashing of teeth going on, along with the schaudenfreude. Roy Edroso over at the Village Voice is having all kinds of fun chronicling this thing, and I think offers up the coolest, snarkiest, smackdown I've seen in a while (you'll need to read the comments for the context):
Keep this under your hat, but the Voice sells ads and uses the money to pay us. That's capitalism, comrade, and as much as you and I dislike it, it's the deal we're stuck with. (The Voice also saves money by "crowdsourcing" other editorial functions, so thanks, Nikki, for the proofreading!)
The thing is, PJM has embraced, with a few notable exceptions, full-on, right-wing anti-Obama attack mode, culminating in the ascendancy of celebrity journalist/one-man-ego-trip/righty icon JTP as their special reporter for Israel. Waging war on the MSM is one thing, but it does help to make sure you can pay your bills first, you know? No gloating here, though. Besides, they do have a few really good bloggers who still work there.
Read the whole piece. You won't regret it.
HT: Althouse
Keep this under your hat, but the Voice sells ads and uses the money to pay us. That's capitalism, comrade, and as much as you and I dislike it, it's the deal we're stuck with. (The Voice also saves money by "crowdsourcing" other editorial functions, so thanks, Nikki, for the proofreading!)
The thing is, PJM has embraced, with a few notable exceptions, full-on, right-wing anti-Obama attack mode, culminating in the ascendancy of celebrity journalist/one-man-ego-trip/righty icon JTP as their special reporter for Israel. Waging war on the MSM is one thing, but it does help to make sure you can pay your bills first, you know? No gloating here, though. Besides, they do have a few really good bloggers who still work there.
Read the whole piece. You won't regret it.
HT: Althouse
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
President Obama.
It's the day after the Inauguration, and the first fully day of the Obama Presidency. I plan to offer more thoughts on everything later, but I'll just say now that it was a great day. The speech was good. Not hisbest one, but it was good. The real indeliable moments wre in the moments themselves, and the overall theme of the speech, which was the America will prevail, despite the challenges we face, because she always has prevailed by the strength of our values, and her people.
Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer had to be the moment I'll probably remember most. It was an emotional moment, and had more smoother poetry than Elizabeth Alexander's/ I though she was a bit too clunky.
Agaun, more later, but I thought this was worth noting:
"Those who doubted that a black man could be elected to the highest office in the land no longer have a leg to stand on. That can be a force for good, when young blacks can no longer be told that there is no point in their trying to get ahead in this society because 'the man' is going to stop them. In another sense, the Obama presidency may not be nearly as big a change in the country as some might think. Colin Powell could probably have been elected eight years ago. But you don't know it can happen until it happens. No doubt the race-hustling industry will continue, and no doubt their chief victims will be blacks, especially young blacks, who buy the paralyzing picture of victimhood and the counterproductive resentments which sap energies that could be better used to improve their own lives. Now that we have the first black President of the United States, maybe we can move ahead to the time when we can forget about 'the first' whatever to do what. There is too much serious work to do to spend more time on that."
That's from Thomas Sowell, whom as we all know, was no fan of Obama.
Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer had to be the moment I'll probably remember most. It was an emotional moment, and had more smoother poetry than Elizabeth Alexander's/ I though she was a bit too clunky.
Agaun, more later, but I thought this was worth noting:
"Those who doubted that a black man could be elected to the highest office in the land no longer have a leg to stand on. That can be a force for good, when young blacks can no longer be told that there is no point in their trying to get ahead in this society because 'the man' is going to stop them. In another sense, the Obama presidency may not be nearly as big a change in the country as some might think. Colin Powell could probably have been elected eight years ago. But you don't know it can happen until it happens. No doubt the race-hustling industry will continue, and no doubt their chief victims will be blacks, especially young blacks, who buy the paralyzing picture of victimhood and the counterproductive resentments which sap energies that could be better used to improve their own lives. Now that we have the first black President of the United States, maybe we can move ahead to the time when we can forget about 'the first' whatever to do what. There is too much serious work to do to spend more time on that."
That's from Thomas Sowell, whom as we all know, was no fan of Obama.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
"Three New Jersey siblings whose names have Nazi connotations have been placed in the custody of the state,"
You know, based on the names these children were given, it's pretty likely these parents have Nazi sympathies, but am I off base if I wonder if removing these children, sans any physical abuse, sets a dangerous precedent? It's pretty horrible to subject young minds to that garbage, but you can the state just up and decide to take your kids away, based on what they're being taught? Slippery slope doesn't quite cut it.
I don't condone what these parents are most likely doing at all, but...
UPDATE: I've been thinking this over, and I cannpt get this out of my head. Assuming these kids are being bombarded with hateful Neo-Nazi doctrines at such a young age, couldn't that count as child abuse? Assuming the case turns out to be what I think it is, these children are in really bad spot. Yet, if we set the precedent here, even for children this young, where do you draw the line?
I don't condone what these parents are most likely doing at all, but...
UPDATE: I've been thinking this over, and I cannpt get this out of my head. Assuming these kids are being bombarded with hateful Neo-Nazi doctrines at such a young age, couldn't that count as child abuse? Assuming the case turns out to be what I think it is, these children are in really bad spot. Yet, if we set the precedent here, even for children this young, where do you draw the line?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
“He’s misguided sometimes, but when you read him, you finish the whole article.”
A pretty spot-on, and unexpected take on Christopher Hitchens. Spot-on, because it's correct and concise. Unexpected, because it comes from Rush Limbaugh.
The piece is an old one, from last July, but it was near the top over at Hitch's website, so I checked it out.
BTW, It's not that I can't believe Limbaugh can get it right at least once in a while, rather it's just that Hitchens doesn't seem like the guy Limbaugh would read. Or Camille Paglia, for that matter.
The piece is an old one, from last July, but it was near the top over at Hitch's website, so I checked it out.
BTW, It's not that I can't believe Limbaugh can get it right at least once in a while, rather it's just that Hitchens doesn't seem like the guy Limbaugh would read. Or Camille Paglia, for that matter.
Bernie, Let It Go
Bush's Presidency ends in less than seven days, and his official potrait has been prepared. Apparently, there's an issue with the inscription on the bottom. Sen. Bernie Sanders has cried foul:
"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."
It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.
Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.
Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.
"When President Bush and Vice President Cheney misled our country into the war in Iraq, they certainly cited the attacks on September 11, along with the equally specious claim that Iraq possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The notion, however, that 9/11 and Iraq were linked, or that one "led to" the other, has been widely and authoritatively debunked. ... Might I suggest that a reconsideration of the explanatory text next to the portrait of President Bush is in order."
It appears that people may be taking Sanders seriously on this. Look, I'm not exactly a fan of Bush, and I didn't vote for him in either election. I've commented elsewhere and often, on the final verdict of his legacy. The thing is, it's his potrait, and his vision. He's the outgoing President, and he deserves his portrait, with his vision on it. You may not agree with it, but it's his vision, and Sanders ought to let this go.
Maybe my bias is showing, in that I do believe, as a supporter of the Iraq war, that the threat Saddam posed was unacceptable in a post-9/11 world, but I'm just not sure what this accomplishes. It's like picking at the man's bones. Besides, I'm also a bit concerned about the fact that one Senator can object, and the Nation Museum basically caves. Better men than Sanders have spoken out on bigger things, and have been thwarted. Maybe I answered my own question in here somewhere, as this whole issue is so small, and so is Sanders apparently, for bringing this up.
Sen. Sanders, let it go. Let it go.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: As for people with personal agendas and their intruding on the proper processes of the Presidency, some hit you on the way out, and some hit you on the way in.
Monday, January 12, 2009
"I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell."
More from PJM's new Israel correspondent, and conservative uber-celebrity. Can someone explain to me again, what is it exactly, that makes certain people take this guy seriously? Are you kidding me?
Look, a lot of us have seen that the MSM has a habit of screwing up the reportage, but it's absurd to make a blanket declaration that all journalists need to go. Is that just the MSM journalists (are only MSM reporters journalists?), or anyone? What the Hell is this guy talking about?
Look, a lot of us have seen that the MSM has a habit of screwing up the reportage, but it's absurd to make a blanket declaration that all journalists need to go. Is that just the MSM journalists (are only MSM reporters journalists?), or anyone? What the Hell is this guy talking about?
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Joe The Reporter?
You know, I almost didn't want to blog on this, but I just had to share a few thoughts on JTP's new job as foreign policy analyst, with PJTV. I'm getting a negative vibe from this whole outfit, although not enough to lose any sleep over. Look, the professional media has certainly made, and continues to make big mistakes in their Israel-Palestine coverage. That much is clear. I certainly have no objection to bloggers, or anybody exercising their right offer up their perspective. That being said, assuming JTP's coverage is supposed to have some meaningful value, I cannot shake this feeling that this will turn out to be less about covering Israel, than pumping of Joe Wurzelbacher's image. I'll be honest, the guy just rubs me the wrong way, and it's not just his lack of gratitude, or his seemingly inflated sense of self-importance. I mean, there are a lot of solid journalists and bloggers who have proven themselves reliable voices on the region. My favorite Mideast blogger even works for Pajamas Media, BTW. Maybe it's just that I have this feeling that this Israel tour will turn out to be more of an attempt to bash Obama, then an attempt to show the Israeli side of things.
I'm not going to get bent out of shape over this, and qho knows, maybe he'll do a good job, but nonsense like this covers JTP's credibility in something of a dark cloud, or rather, a miasma.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: I was reading the comments over at Althouse's place, I felt compelled to add a bit more. Let me say again that my main beef with JTP is that I think he comes off as an ego-driven, self-important, celebrity hound. It's clear why some many righties like him, because he basically shares the views of the base. Heck, he may yet offer up something meaningful, and you know what, I hope I'm wrong about the guy (although I doubt it). I think in one sense he has perceived the utterly wayward media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that much like the Lebaon war is as compromised as ever. The thing is, his utterly insane support for the idea that Obama means death for Israel totally wounds his perspective.
I'm not going to get bent out of shape over this, and qho knows, maybe he'll do a good job, but nonsense like this covers JTP's credibility in something of a dark cloud, or rather, a miasma.
HT: Althouse
ADDED: I was reading the comments over at Althouse's place, I felt compelled to add a bit more. Let me say again that my main beef with JTP is that I think he comes off as an ego-driven, self-important, celebrity hound. It's clear why some many righties like him, because he basically shares the views of the base. Heck, he may yet offer up something meaningful, and you know what, I hope I'm wrong about the guy (although I doubt it). I think in one sense he has perceived the utterly wayward media coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that much like the Lebaon war is as compromised as ever. The thing is, his utterly insane support for the idea that Obama means death for Israel totally wounds his perspective.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
"Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something."
Ouch. Apparently, the fallout over Obama's choice of Rick Warren to perform to invocation at his inaguration has yet to subside, and many of Obama's committed supporters are damn near close to having buyer's remorse:
Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.
Richard Cohen explains further, why his sister has called the party off:
Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment. He likens my sister's relationship -- three children, five grandchildren, so loving as to be envied and so conventional as to be boring -- to incest or polygamy.
The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.
OK, then. Now, I come at this issue from a different perspective, and I happen to have a much more positive view of Warren than most involved here. I'm an evangelical Christian myself. I've discussed my views on gay marriage elsewhere, and yet I understand why people have taken issue with many of Warren's statements here. I think many of his statements are problematic, to be polite. That being said, I don't see Warren as the raving bigot many others see him as, and I don't think Obama does either.
There's no doubt that Obama (and most of his supporters) and Warren, on many key social issues don't end up in the same place, but I think Obama has made it clear that he is going to try to build bridges to various constituencies that haven't exitsed in a long time. Most of the political moves Obama has made regarding his new administration have been basically those of a pragmatic centrist liberal. This is good news in my book, although there is something to be said of the limits of pragmatism. Pragmatism only gets you so far, and there is a difference between cautious moderation and self-serving political calculation. I'm saying he's anywhere near that point yet, but a lot of his supporters voting him into office expecting a sweeping revolution. This is the view they imposed upon him, not so much what he promised, although he did not do that much during the campaign to dispel those notions, and frankly used them to his benefit. I voted for a centrist, so I'm not upset, although some lefties are starting to feel like they've been hosed.
I'm also not disappointed, because what I've seen from the President=elect so far hasn't fallen below my expectations. I voted for Obama, because I liked most of what he brought to the table. I did not however, fall in love with him to the extent that others did. Like I've said before, we may have elected a new kind of politician, but we still elected a politician.
HT: Simon
UPDATE: Mileage is your own, and I'll have to check this out as far as Warren's views on torture and global warming are concerned, but as Sara Robinson explains here, it's not just gay marriage that's the issue here.
UPDATE#2: Via Pat (with clear-headed wisdom as usual), comes this spot-on defense of Rick Warren, from that crazy, closeted right-winger named....Melissa Etheridge. Read it folks. Like I told you, things aren't always what they seem at first:
I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.
Not the hate-monger you might have been expecting, huh? Now, as noted earlier, others may still take issue with Warren's pro-life views, or his supposed squishiness on global warming, or his supposed endorsement/non-rejection of torture. I choose to take those with a grain of salt at this point. At this point, Obama has embraced someone with whom he disagrees. Wow, who knew he'd get so much heat for living up to his campaign promises?
Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister's inauguration night party -- the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch -- has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She's gay.
Richard Cohen explains further, why his sister has called the party off:
Obama has chosen above all other religious figures to represent him in this most solemn moment. He likens my sister's relationship -- three children, five grandchildren, so loving as to be envied and so conventional as to be boring -- to incest or polygamy.
The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem -- first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama's inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.
OK, then. Now, I come at this issue from a different perspective, and I happen to have a much more positive view of Warren than most involved here. I'm an evangelical Christian myself. I've discussed my views on gay marriage elsewhere, and yet I understand why people have taken issue with many of Warren's statements here. I think many of his statements are problematic, to be polite. That being said, I don't see Warren as the raving bigot many others see him as, and I don't think Obama does either.
There's no doubt that Obama (and most of his supporters) and Warren, on many key social issues don't end up in the same place, but I think Obama has made it clear that he is going to try to build bridges to various constituencies that haven't exitsed in a long time. Most of the political moves Obama has made regarding his new administration have been basically those of a pragmatic centrist liberal. This is good news in my book, although there is something to be said of the limits of pragmatism. Pragmatism only gets you so far, and there is a difference between cautious moderation and self-serving political calculation. I'm saying he's anywhere near that point yet, but a lot of his supporters voting him into office expecting a sweeping revolution. This is the view they imposed upon him, not so much what he promised, although he did not do that much during the campaign to dispel those notions, and frankly used them to his benefit. I voted for a centrist, so I'm not upset, although some lefties are starting to feel like they've been hosed.
I'm also not disappointed, because what I've seen from the President=elect so far hasn't fallen below my expectations. I voted for Obama, because I liked most of what he brought to the table. I did not however, fall in love with him to the extent that others did. Like I've said before, we may have elected a new kind of politician, but we still elected a politician.
HT: Simon
UPDATE: Mileage is your own, and I'll have to check this out as far as Warren's views on torture and global warming are concerned, but as Sara Robinson explains here, it's not just gay marriage that's the issue here.
UPDATE#2: Via Pat (with clear-headed wisdom as usual), comes this spot-on defense of Rick Warren, from that crazy, closeted right-winger named....Melissa Etheridge. Read it folks. Like I told you, things aren't always what they seem at first:
I told my manager to reach out to Pastor Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him." They gave him my phone number. On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife's struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine.
Not the hate-monger you might have been expecting, huh? Now, as noted earlier, others may still take issue with Warren's pro-life views, or his supposed squishiness on global warming, or his supposed endorsement/non-rejection of torture. I choose to take those with a grain of salt at this point. At this point, Obama has embraced someone with whom he disagrees. Wow, who knew he'd get so much heat for living up to his campaign promises?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
"If we are to have a liberal President, it's better for it to be Obama, for so many reasons."
Ann Althouse elaborates on why she voted for Obama, and yet is in the running for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva. Interesting.
BTW, I made my case here. My reasons aren't the same as hers, but similar in many ways.
Also, if I had to make a choice as to the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, I'd pick Althouse, Shay from Booker Rising, or a few others I had in mind, but I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, so I'm not sure how much weight that carries.
BTW, I made my case here. My reasons aren't the same as hers, but similar in many ways.
Also, if I had to make a choice as to the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva, I'd pick Althouse, Shay from Booker Rising, or a few others I had in mind, but I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, so I'm not sure how much weight that carries.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Illnois Governor Rod Blagojevich Faces Corruption Charges
In case you haven't heard, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is facing federal corruption charges for numerous pay-to-play political games, with the culmination being an attempt to sell off President-Elect Obama's vacated Senate seat. No I'm not fucking with you. This dude tried to sell off the Senate seat of the President-Elect of the United States. You keep thinking that no one can out-crook the last super-crook, and then along comes this scumbag.
Keep in mind, Blagojevich was already under investigation, for three years, by Patrick Fitzgerald (yep, that guy). He knew about what happened to George Ryan. I mean, in the wake of all the scandals that we've seen in the last few years, how do you say to yourself, "Hey, let's do more dirty shit. Let's sell Obama's Senate seat?" This is just mind-blowing.
There's a round up of blogger reactions over at Sully's place. This one from Kathryn Jean Lopez caught my eye:
This Illinois Senate-seat news is outrageous and shameful. That said, it warms my heart. Finally, a political scandal you can talk to your children about. No room at the Mayflower. No myspace page. No Gay-American announcement. Just good and evil and money and power corrupting.
Well, there's always a bright side, I guess...
BTW, there is no mention of Obama being directly involved in this thing in the complaint, and absent any evidence to the contrary, I'm convinced he had nothing to do with this, except of course in that it was his seat being offered up.
ADDED: Just to be clear, while there is no evidence revealed yet that Obama was involved in this crooked deal, the investigation isn't over yet, and while I don't believe Obama was involved, Michael Scherer has a point here:
To be clear, the bugging and wire tapping of Blagojevich suggests that Obama was not playing in the corruption scheme. The complaint states, "Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but 'they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.' " But that is not the operating factor here. U.S. Attorney investigations often end with indictments far from where they start. (See the cases of Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff.) And Fitzgerald is going to continue to follow the facts, which means many more questions for people close to Obama. So regardless of Obama's innocence, this will continue to be a burden for the president-elect and those around him. Politics, like life, is not fair.
Nope. (HT: Instapundit)
Keep in mind, Blagojevich was already under investigation, for three years, by Patrick Fitzgerald (yep, that guy). He knew about what happened to George Ryan. I mean, in the wake of all the scandals that we've seen in the last few years, how do you say to yourself, "Hey, let's do more dirty shit. Let's sell Obama's Senate seat?" This is just mind-blowing.
There's a round up of blogger reactions over at Sully's place. This one from Kathryn Jean Lopez caught my eye:
This Illinois Senate-seat news is outrageous and shameful. That said, it warms my heart. Finally, a political scandal you can talk to your children about. No room at the Mayflower. No myspace page. No Gay-American announcement. Just good and evil and money and power corrupting.
Well, there's always a bright side, I guess...
BTW, there is no mention of Obama being directly involved in this thing in the complaint, and absent any evidence to the contrary, I'm convinced he had nothing to do with this, except of course in that it was his seat being offered up.
ADDED: Just to be clear, while there is no evidence revealed yet that Obama was involved in this crooked deal, the investigation isn't over yet, and while I don't believe Obama was involved, Michael Scherer has a point here:
To be clear, the bugging and wire tapping of Blagojevich suggests that Obama was not playing in the corruption scheme. The complaint states, "Blagojevich said he knew that the President-elect wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but 'they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. [Expletive] them.' " But that is not the operating factor here. U.S. Attorney investigations often end with indictments far from where they start. (See the cases of Valerie Plame and Jack Abramoff.) And Fitzgerald is going to continue to follow the facts, which means many more questions for people close to Obama. So regardless of Obama's innocence, this will continue to be a burden for the president-elect and those around him. Politics, like life, is not fair.
Nope. (HT: Instapundit)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
For Veteran's Day
I found this gem, from Whitman's Leaves of Grass:
Never forget.
1
The last sunbeam
Lightly falls from the finish’d Sabbath,
On the pavement here—and there beyond, it is looking,
Down a new-made double grave.
2
Lo! the moon ascending!
Up from the east, the silvery round moon;
Beautiful over the house tops, ghastly phantom moon;
Immense and silent moon.
3
I see a sad procession,
And I hear the sound of coming full-key’d bugles;
All the channels of the city streets they’re flooding,
As with voices and with tears.
4
I hear the great drums pounding,
And the small drums steady whirring;
And every blow of the great convulsive drums,
Strikes me through and through.
5
For the son is brought with the father;
In the foremost ranks of the fierce assault they fell;
Two veterans, son and father, dropt together,
And the double grave awaits them.
6
Now nearer blow the bugles,
And the drums strike more convulsive;
And the day-light o’er the pavement quite has faded,
And the strong dead-march enwraps me.
7
In the eastern sky up-buoying,
The sorrowful vast phantom moves illumin’d;
(’Tis some mother’s large, transparent face,
In heaven brighter growing.)
8
O strong dead-march, you please me!
O moon immense, with your silvery face you soothe me!
O my soldiers twain! O my veterans, passing to burial!
What I have I also give you.
9
The moon gives you light,
And the bugles and the drums give you music;
And my heart, O my soldiers, my veterans,
My heart gives you love.
Never forget.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Once A Starbucks Republican...
Now a Scoop Jackson Democrat. Read on, this is good:
The Democrats are on the right track. They got their problems, and the biggest ones have names like Pelosi and Boxer, but all in all their approach fits my political persuasion. We need to start thinking about public policy again, something that Barack Obama has preached. It isn't about big government or small government, but good government. I think Mike Bloomberg said it best during the financial crisis when he said the question is not do we bailout companies or do we not, but which ones and why.
So why not be an independent? Because it isn't practical. I will continue to vote for Republicans when I see fit, but we are a two party country. The way I see it is that you are either on one side or the other.
Why Scoop Jackson Democrat? Senator Jackson was from Washington State. He was a fiscally responsible, pro national defense, anti-communist social justice crusader who cared deeply about protecting the environment. In other words... my kind of Democrat. The emergence of Obama and other politicians like Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Steny Hoyer, Harold Ford, and many of the pro-gun, fiscally conservative moderates in the Democratic Party, has replaced what was once the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Repbulican Party. The loss of Congressman Chris Shays was symbolic somewhat... he was the last of a dying bread within the GOP.
Indeed.
The Democrats are on the right track. They got their problems, and the biggest ones have names like Pelosi and Boxer, but all in all their approach fits my political persuasion. We need to start thinking about public policy again, something that Barack Obama has preached. It isn't about big government or small government, but good government. I think Mike Bloomberg said it best during the financial crisis when he said the question is not do we bailout companies or do we not, but which ones and why.
So why not be an independent? Because it isn't practical. I will continue to vote for Republicans when I see fit, but we are a two party country. The way I see it is that you are either on one side or the other.
Why Scoop Jackson Democrat? Senator Jackson was from Washington State. He was a fiscally responsible, pro national defense, anti-communist social justice crusader who cared deeply about protecting the environment. In other words... my kind of Democrat. The emergence of Obama and other politicians like Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Steny Hoyer, Harold Ford, and many of the pro-gun, fiscally conservative moderates in the Democratic Party, has replaced what was once the Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Repbulican Party. The loss of Congressman Chris Shays was symbolic somewhat... he was the last of a dying bread within the GOP.
Indeed.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Victory.
Obama has won the Presidency!
OK, it's not quite official yet, but he just won Ohio, and he's got 200 electoral votes. McCain's got no real chance, at this point.
More to come.
UPDATE: Victory. Obama has won it. 338-153.
McCain has conceded, and was a class act.
OK, it's not quite official yet, but he just won Ohio, and he's got 200 electoral votes. McCain's got no real chance, at this point.
More to come.
UPDATE: Victory. Obama has won it. 338-153.
McCain has conceded, and was a class act.
Monday, November 03, 2008
The Case for Barack Obama (Or At Least, Why I'm Voting For Him)
This isn't really a secret at this point, but I am voting for Obama tomorrow. I guess this is the official endorsement. I put this off to the end for a variety of reasons, mainly due to a lack of time, but I'm not worried about it being too close to Election Day to influence any votes, as it's clear most here have made up their minds already, and I don't suspect I'll be changing them. No big deal. In effect, this is the answer to the question, "Why are you voting for this guy?"
First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.
Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.
What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.
To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.
The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.
On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.
There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.
Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?
Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.
As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.
This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.
I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.
Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).
If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.
And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).
And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.
First off, let's get some preliminaries out of the way. I'm a moderate liberal Democrat, who generally comes from the center-Left, DLC/hawkish end of the Party. I'm pro-life, I think the MoveOn-Kos wing of the party has too much influence, and while I've disagreed with most of his policies, I don't have a pathological contempt for Bush.
Ok, so why Obama? To put it bluntly, I think on most of the core issues that are facing the country right now, I think Obama is best equipped to deal with those issues, meaning he has the policy vision, and temperament to lead. I like the guy. What I saw him in 2004, and in the early days of this campaign, I see in him now. He's got skills. You may not agree with Obama's economic and fiscal policies, but he has been pretty consistent throughout on the key issues, and not just on the economic crisis. McCain on the other hand, has been all over the place. McCain is not Bush, and I do agree that the Dems have used the McCain as Bush meme a bit too much, but with the exception of earmark reform and talks about a spending freeze, he really hasn't clearly laid out how his economic approach will be different than the standard GOP platform. If you're for that platform, that's fine, but a lot of us Dems see things differently. On the recent economic crisis, McCain has been all over the place. First he said everything was fine, the he recognized the crisis, then he was against the bailout, then for it. He suspends his campaign, and tries to postpone the debate, in what has to be called one of the most ill-executed moves in a while. He tries to paint Obama as being on the sidelines, but Obama always argued that one could deal with the crisis and run the campaign. At the meeting with Bush, Obama was engaged, but McCain didn't say much. McCain suspended his campaign, but sat back in the meeting, and when it came time to actually do what he suspended his campaign to do, he didn't get it done. Surely, the bill eventually passed, but it was a more bloated one. What's my point here? While Obama was consistent on the issue, McCain shifted positions several times on this, and then tried to paint Obama has the big spender, while voting for the bill that he once opposed, not mention adding another $300,000 plan to buy bad mortgages. Again, mileage is your own, but I think Obama showed real leadership.
What about foreign policy, you may ask. Let's be clear. I, for all intents and purposes am a supporter of the Iraq war. Obama, for all intents and purposes isn't. I wish he was as I am on this, but he's not. I have noticed though, and I'm not the only one to notice this, that Obama has always left wiggle room on his support for ending the war. He has always resisted the more aggresive pullout approach from the MoveOn crew. In fact, although Obama does get a lot of support from the anti-war faction, if they're looking for a Carteresque dove, they're deluding themselves. Obama has always been on target about Afghanistan, and contrary to McCain's distortions, he has it right on Pakistan.
To be fair, McCain has consistently supported the surge, and did so when it wasn't popular. He has my utmost respect for that. If this election were just about Iraq, or if I genuinely felt that Obama would somehow surrender to terror, things would be different. Obama was wrong on the surge, and he has yet to openly admit that, but he has acknowledged its success, for the most part. On Israel, I'll say again that if I doubted for a second that Obama wasn't committed to Israel, I couldn't vote for him. As to Iran, he did prevaricate on preconditions, but I think he has come around to an acceptable position.
The McCain camp continues to bring up Obama's supposed vote to defund the troops. Obama dealt with this in the first debate, but the charge keeps coming up. The issue at hand was not funding the troops, but timetables. Obama voted for the timetables troop-funding bill, and McCain voted against it, because of tmetables. The non-timetables troop-funding bill Obama voted against, was because of timetables. I suspect Obama voted against it, knowing it would pass either way. I suspect he was trying to make a political statement, and made the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Honestly, I would've voted against it, because I don't really support artificial timetables, but let's be clear: The issue at hand was timetables, not troop funding. Obama has a consistent record of voting to fund the war, despite his opposition to it, much to the chagrin of many anti-war Lefties.
On the Russia-Georgia conflict, overall I thought Obama handled himself fairly well, with the exception of one pernicious gaffe, which fortunately he has not repeated.
There is of course the question of experience, or rather Obama's lack thereof. compared to McCain. McCain has an impressive record, and is a veteran on the battlefield, and in Congress. He is a man of honor, and sacrificed immensely for his country. Obama doesn't have that resume. He just doesn't, and there's no getting around that, but I believe he does have the temperament, policy vision, and judgment on the key issues, moreso than McCain. Heck, maybe it's just that I agree with Obama more, but I don't think so.
Let me say though, that both these candidates have their flaws. Obama is hardly perfect, and has some issues. I am concerned about the possibility of an unfettered Democratic majority in Congress. The Pelosi-Reid era hasn't exactly lived up to its expectations, and while I don't doubt his sincere belief in bipartisanship, he doesn't have the record that McCain has. McCain has a clear record of bipartisanship, not to mention opposing his own Party, and Bush. Obama doesn't have that much of a legislative record, but he does have good relations with many Republicans (and not just the ones endorsing him), and he has worked with Republicans in the State Senate, as well as the U.S. Senate. He was President of the Harvard Law Review, let's not forget. My concern, to the extent that I am concerned, isn't that Obama won't work with Republicans, but whether he will be able to oppose his own party when necessary. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she has opposed her own party. The thing is, I'm not really sure about her record of working with Democrats, though. McCain to his credit, has done both. Obama has resisted many of the impulses of MoveOn.org, and he did defy the Party leadership and campaign for Lieberman in 2006. Yeah, it's thin I know, but I'm willing to gamble. After all, how Left can Obama really go, with Blue Dogs in the House, and many Red-state Dems in the Senate?
Again, I'm concerned about the card check bill, and the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back, but I'm willing to take the risk.
As to the negativity of the campaign, I freely cede that neither candidate has been pure. The Obama campaign has put out some questionable ads, and a few that were pretty sleazy. As I see it though, most of Obama's ads have been policy-based, while McCain's ads have been straight-negative for the last three months, and many were just straight up personal attacks. Obama has never questioned McCain's patriotism, or belittled his military service (at least not intentionally). The McCain crew and his supporters have gone personal on everything, and I may be the only one who feels this way, but in last few months, it's been over the top. True, many Obama supporters, and in certain instances Obama himself have brought up the race card, but it seems that they've gone after Obama on everything but race ("palling around with terrorists," real America vs. fake America, Obama is a liar, Obama is a socialist, etc), and it's gone beyond the pale, in my book. I will not lay that blame for the lunatic conspiracies (Obama as Muslim invader, phony birth certificate, Bill Ayers as ghostwriter of Obama's book, Obama's logo, etc) on the McCain campaign, but McCain and Palin have launched some beyond the pale attacks, and frankly it's beneath a man of McCain's character.
This is running long, so I'll wrap this up. As for Obama's alliances, at the end of the day, they don't bother me that much. He did flip on public financing, as I said before, that's the one typical politician move I cannot defend. At the end of the day, though, despite his weaknesses, I believe he is the man we need right now. He is not however, the Messiah. Many of his supporters are drunk with hero worship, but in the end, he's just a man, a mere mortal. If you're expecting him to heal the breaches of the universe, prepare to be disappointed. He may be running as a new kind of politician, but he's still a politician. He's run an impressive and historic campaign, but he's made mistakes.
I was technically undecided up until late September, although to be honest, I've leaned Obama's way most of the time. I've seriously considered backing McCain many times, and I think what took me so long was that I still contend that the choice is between two decent, patriotic men. I say one more time that McCain is an honorable and decent man, and despite my issues with his campaign, he still has my respect. As for Sarah Palin, my view of her has diminished over the last couple of months, but she still seems a decent person, and she does have a record.
Many will justify their votes against Obama because of the pro-Obama bias in the press, and the press has made quite the fool of itself this election cycle, but to borrow a phrase, you punish the press for its failures, not the candidate(s).
If Obama wins, he will be the first black President. As an American, and as a black man, that is a great thing for me, but that's not the reason I'm voting for him. The fact that he's made it this far is proof that the barrier has been torn down, and if Obama loses, it won't be because America is a racist country. It won't be because America didn't want a black man to be President, rather they didn't want this particular black man, for a variety of reasons. Will racism be out there? Surely, but I think most Americans won't stoop to that. Sue me, I'm an optimist.
And that's what I want to end this on. If Obama wins, this republic will survive. Yes, it will. If McCain wins, this republic will survive. If Obama loses, I'll be disappointed, but I'll get over it. If he wins, I won't gloat (although I fear others might).
And that's it. Go vote, if you haven't already.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Crazy Right-Wing Anti-Obama Conspiracy Roundup, 11/2/08
I'm not sure if it's desperation or just plain insanity, but just when you thought the anti-Obama conspiracies couldn't get any more farfetched, comes this one that suggests that Obama's book Dreams from My Father was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers, and an actual attempt to prove it (HT: Althouse):
Now, we see this about "Dr Peter Millican, a philosophy don at Hertford College, Oxford, [who] has devised a computer software program that can detect when works are by the same author by comparing favourite words and phrases." He's been contacted by "Robert Fox, a California businessman and brother-in-law of Chris Cannon, a Republican congressman from Utah" about running the test on Obama's book and Ayers's.
There's more:
Millican took a preliminary look and found the charges “very implausible”. A deal was agreed for more detailed research but when Millican said the results had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved, interest waned.
Millican said: “I thought it was extremely unlikely that we would get a positive result. It is the sort of thing where people make claims after seeing a few crude similarities and go overboard on them.” He said Fox gave him the impression that Cannon had got “cold feet about it being seen to be funded by the Republicans”.
Uhm hmm. In a word, bogus. Ann also points to another meme that actually manages to out-wingnut this one. At first glance, I thought Zombietime was doing a parody, but he and many of his commenters are quite serious, and worked themselves into a frenzy. It's funny and tragic at the same time.
On a lighter, less insane note, McCain was on SNL last night. He was really good.
Now, we see this about "Dr Peter Millican, a philosophy don at Hertford College, Oxford, [who] has devised a computer software program that can detect when works are by the same author by comparing favourite words and phrases." He's been contacted by "Robert Fox, a California businessman and brother-in-law of Chris Cannon, a Republican congressman from Utah" about running the test on Obama's book and Ayers's.
There's more:
Millican took a preliminary look and found the charges “very implausible”. A deal was agreed for more detailed research but when Millican said the results had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved, interest waned.
Millican said: “I thought it was extremely unlikely that we would get a positive result. It is the sort of thing where people make claims after seeing a few crude similarities and go overboard on them.” He said Fox gave him the impression that Cannon had got “cold feet about it being seen to be funded by the Republicans”.
Uhm hmm. In a word, bogus. Ann also points to another meme that actually manages to out-wingnut this one. At first glance, I thought Zombietime was doing a parody, but he and many of his commenters are quite serious, and worked themselves into a frenzy. It's funny and tragic at the same time.
On a lighter, less insane note, McCain was on SNL last night. He was really good.
"When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, 'Maybe for you. But I lost my home.'"
Former Obama speechwriter Wendy Button has had with the Democratic Party, and is endorsing McCain:
I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
You know what? I'm for Obama, but I know how Wendy Button feels, to an extent. I've criticized the way the McCain camp and the GOP have conducted themselves as of late, but my Party, at the end of the day hasn't been much better. My view of Sarah Palin has diminished in last few weeks, but the level of contempt, and the lunatic wave of attacks on her by the press and the far-left is a disturbing thing. The Joe the Plumber narrative is not one I've really bought in to, but the way this guy was attacked by the press was just bizzare, and has only made him more of an issue.
Oh yeah, and Obama still refuses to admit he was wrong on the surge. Just sayin.'
HT: Simon
I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.
I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.
You know what? I'm for Obama, but I know how Wendy Button feels, to an extent. I've criticized the way the McCain camp and the GOP have conducted themselves as of late, but my Party, at the end of the day hasn't been much better. My view of Sarah Palin has diminished in last few weeks, but the level of contempt, and the lunatic wave of attacks on her by the press and the far-left is a disturbing thing. The Joe the Plumber narrative is not one I've really bought in to, but the way this guy was attacked by the press was just bizzare, and has only made him more of an issue.
Oh yeah, and Obama still refuses to admit he was wrong on the surge. Just sayin.'
HT: Simon
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Thoughts on Wealth Spreading
I found this interesting, from Michael Kinsley in Time:
Seven years ago, as Brokaw pointed out, McCain himself was sounding redistributionist, complaining about President Bush's tax cuts. Campaigning against Bush in 2000, he said that "when you ... reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." Obama has said no more than this, except to set the "level of comfort" at $250,000, which is pretty comfortable. McCain is free to argue that Obama will raise taxes on people making less than $250,000. My bet is that whoever wins the election will be forced to. But his apparent belief that the very expression "spread the wealth" puts Obama beyond the pale is so out of touch that it's almost touching. It belongs on the golf courses of Arizona, not on the campaign trail.
Uh huh. For the record, let's look back to what McCain actually said when he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003:
In 2001, just days before Bush's first tax cut passed, McCain lamented on ABC's "This Week" that, "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans. . . . I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans."
And this:
Most of the economists view this as primarily benefiting wealthier Americans," McCain said on CNBC at the time. "There's a theory, I think, that's prevalent -- it was true in the 2001 tax cuts -- that if you give it to the wealthy people, then they will then, you know, create jobs, et cetera. The interesting thing to me is that most economists will tell you that it's the middle-income Americans that have been keeping the economy afloat."
Now look, people change their minds all the time, and it's clear that McCain has changed his mind on the Bush tax cuts. The debate on tax policy is one we still ought to have, but what vexes me is that Obama has basically made the same argument McCain did at the time, against the Bush tax cuts, and he's being called a socialist for it.
Seven years ago, as Brokaw pointed out, McCain himself was sounding redistributionist, complaining about President Bush's tax cuts. Campaigning against Bush in 2000, he said that "when you ... reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." Obama has said no more than this, except to set the "level of comfort" at $250,000, which is pretty comfortable. McCain is free to argue that Obama will raise taxes on people making less than $250,000. My bet is that whoever wins the election will be forced to. But his apparent belief that the very expression "spread the wealth" puts Obama beyond the pale is so out of touch that it's almost touching. It belongs on the golf courses of Arizona, not on the campaign trail.
Uh huh. For the record, let's look back to what McCain actually said when he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003:
In 2001, just days before Bush's first tax cut passed, McCain lamented on ABC's "This Week" that, "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans. . . . I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans."
And this:
Most of the economists view this as primarily benefiting wealthier Americans," McCain said on CNBC at the time. "There's a theory, I think, that's prevalent -- it was true in the 2001 tax cuts -- that if you give it to the wealthy people, then they will then, you know, create jobs, et cetera. The interesting thing to me is that most economists will tell you that it's the middle-income Americans that have been keeping the economy afloat."
Now look, people change their minds all the time, and it's clear that McCain has changed his mind on the Bush tax cuts. The debate on tax policy is one we still ought to have, but what vexes me is that Obama has basically made the same argument McCain did at the time, against the Bush tax cuts, and he's being called a socialist for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)