Posts Tagged ‘obama’
Posted by Richard on May 28, 2009
At GetLiberty.org, William Warren succinctly summarized the problem with Sonia Sontomayor in this cartoon:
Dr. Thomas Sowell addressed the issue in greater depth in his latest column:
Barack Obama’s repeated claim that a Supreme Court justice should have “empathy” with various groups has raised red flags that we ignore at our peril — and at the peril of our children and grandchildren.
“Empathy” for particular groups can be reconciled with “equal justice under law” — the motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court — only with smooth words. But not in reality. President Obama used those smooth words in introducing Judge Sotomayor but words do not change realities.
…
… Speaking at the University of California at Berkeley in 2001, she said that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Moreover, this was not something she lamented. On the contrary, she added, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
No doubt the political spinmasters will try to spin this to mean something innocent. But the cold fact is that this is a poisonous doctrine for any judge, much less a justice of the Supreme Court.
That kind of empathy would for all practical purposes repeal the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” to all Americans.
The Sotomayor nomination, the railroading of bondholders, the massive expansions of wealth redistribution, and countless other actions and pronouncements have made it crystal clear that Barack Obama doesn't value the Constitution or "equal justice under law" very much. He gladly tosses them out when they interfere with his desire to expand the power of government and forcibly impose greater equality of outcomes. As Friedrich A. Hayek observed, the latter is incompatible with the former:
From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: constitution, egalitarianism, justice, obama, socialism, supreme court | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on May 21, 2009
President Obama this morning:
… The documents that we hold in this very hall — the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights — these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.
… I've studied the Constitution as a student, I've taught it as a teacher, I've been bound by it as a lawyer and a legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never, ever, turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.
This load of hokum was uttered by the man who has for all intents and purposes nationalized banks, auto companies, and the mortgage industry, the man who's working hard to effectively nationalize the energy industry and health care, the man who trashed the sanctity of contract and Rule of Law without a second thought, the man who's looking for a Supreme Court justice willing to put empathy for "the little people" and respect for foreign laws and international standards ahead of those (sometimes-sacred, sometimes-not) "words written into aging parchment," …
I could go on and on and on …
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: demagoguery, hypocrisy, obama | 5 Comments »
Posted by Richard on April 29, 2009
GM = Government Motors.
I thought the Obama administration was going to recreate the bad old days of the Carter administration in the 70s. But now I'm beginning to suspect they have grander ambitions — maybe emulating the British Labour Party governments of the 50s, nationalizing major industries. They've certainly started down that road.
Like his pal, Hugo Chavez, President Obama doesn't mind screwing the existing owners and creditors of the firms he nationalizes. Especially if he can redistribute their wealth in the process.
Of course, without a government takeover, GM faces bankruptcy, so the stockholders would almost certainly get nothing in any case. But bondholders are supposed to be near the front of the line in a bankruptcy and are supposed to be treated equally, aren't they?
Not in the Obama Plan. The numbers differ a bit from one source to another, but broadly speaking, the Obama Plan apparently divides up GM as follows:
- The United Auto Workers union, in exchange for its $10 billion in GM bonds, gets almost 40% of the company.
- The U.S. government, in exchange for about $15 billion it loaned to GM, gets 50% of the company.
- The remaining bondholders, in exchange for the $24-27 billion they loaned to GM, get just 10% of the company.
Outrageous. So will there be a public outcry from the victims? I suspect not much. Most of the people getting screwed may never realize it. They don't own GM bonds directly, they own mutual funds (probably via their 401k) that hold GM debt. The value of those mutual funds will go down without the investors really being aware of the reason, unless they pore over the annual report.
And don't expect the media to do their usual heart-wrenching human interest stories profiling the poor pensioners, widows, and orphans who are being robbed of their savings. Most members of the media are completely infatuated with Obama, and their sympathies lie with the perpetrators of this crime, not the victims.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, democrats, economy, obama, socialism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 17, 2009
David Aitken took some terrific photos of the Denver Tea Party. He just has links at his blog, Life's Better Ideas, and I can see why. The photos are 2048 x 1536 pixels. On my 22" monitor (1680 x 1250), using Firefox, I had to zoom out to see the whole image at once. But he got right in the thick of things, they're sharp as a tack, and they really give you a great sense of being in the middle of the crowd. They're well worth a look. Just be patient if you don't have a very high-speed connection.
Michelle Malkin has a large collection of photos from around the country that shows, as she put it, "the full breadth and scope of the protests — not just the size, but the reach, a true sense of which is missing from the MSM coverage." And Instapundit posted several collections of pix, links to video, and commentary — here and here and here and here and here.
As you look at the photos, and especially Aitken's photos, notice that virtually every sign is handmade. The few printed ones look like people printed them on their inkjet — they probably downloaded the files from one of the think tanks or pro-freedom non-profits that jumped onto the tea party bandwagon. Contrary to what Nancy Pelosi and her PR firm, CNN, claimed, this wasn't an "astroturf" event — it was true grass roots, and it grew from the ground up. The national organizations and (relatively few) politicians who jumped aboard were following the people, not leading them.
At the Denver event, the only signs that were obviously professionally printed were the ones a handful of ProgressColorado and union counter-demonstrators had (with slogans like "Shut up and pay your taxes" and "We're cleaning up Bush's mess"). The printing was probably paid for by ACORN, using federal tax dollars. Or George Soros, the king of astroturf politics. Or the cadre of Colorado millionaire leftists who've bought the state for the Democratic Party in the last few years.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, denver, economy, obama, politics, pork, rally, spending, taxes, tea party | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on April 16, 2009
What a great day we had in Denver today. Sunny and in the 70s. A perfect day to gather at the State Capitol and voice opposition to tax increases, massive new spending, wealth redistribution, bailouts, pork, and the headlong rush toward socialism. And, boy, did people gather!
The police estimated 5000, and I think that's pretty conservative. I remember the gun rights rally that the police estimated at 3000, and this one was at least twice as big and probably quite a bit more. Quite a diverse crowd, too. Lots of families with children, and lots of strollers. More young adults than I expected, but lots of retirees, too. Men in suits, and men in biker jackets. Mostly middle-class working people.
I heard virtually nothing of the speakers, and I think most of the people there were in the same boat. The crowd spilled down the steps and grassy slope all the way to Lincoln St., and the sound system was really only adequate for the two to three thousand up on the drive around the Capitol and maybe a little beyond. But no one seemed to mind, and when those who were close cheered and chanted, everyone else joined in.
On Lincoln St. and Colfax, where traffic was heavy, the honking and waving never let up. I noticed that quite a few of the vehicles expressing support were work vehicles (panel vans and trucks with business names on them, etc.).
There were lots of Gadsden flags (I wore my Gadsden t-shirt) and lots of signs with references to Galt and Atlas Shrugged. Some of my favorite signs:
I am not your ATM
Don't spread the wealth, spread my work ethic!
Atlas Shrugged has come to pass
I left a socialist country for this??
Don't spend my money, I haven't made it yet (carried by a 10-year-old)
We are John Galt
Don't tell Obama what comes after a trillion
I was running late and forgot my camera, so all I got was some crummy shots from my ancient cell phone. You can see them here. But the Peoples Press Collective has much better pictures here and here. Heck, just go to the home page and keep scrolling. Drop by Slapstick Politics, too, for lots of coverage — pix, video, and links.
If you attended a tea party somewhere, how did it go?
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, denver, economy, obama, politics, pork, rally, spending, taxes, tea party | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on April 15, 2009
Tomorrow, April 15, is Tax Day, but this year it's something more — Tea Party Day! The Tea Party movement was inspired by CNBC's Rick Santelli, who back in February delivered a terrific rant against bailouts, stimulus packages, pork, and taxing responsible, hard-working people to subsidize bad behavior. Santelli said it was time for another Tea Party, and he inspired thousands.
There have been many tea party events since, but nothing like what's scheduled for April 15. Over 600 Tea Party rallies all across the country are confirmed for tomorrow. I'm going to the one at the State Capitol in Denver (11:00 – 1:30).
Other Colorado rallies are scheduled in Craig, Delta, Durango, Fort Collins, Grand Junction, Loveland, Montrose, Pueblo, Steamboat Springs, Walsenburg, and Woodland Park.
I hope you'll go to a rally near you (go here and click your state to find the closest one). Many are scheduled around noon, so take a long lunch and bring your sandwich. And maybe a sign or an American flag.
If you can't make it (or even if you can), sign the Stop Spending Our Future petition. And if you've got a few bucks to spare, join the Go Galt movement — buy some copies of Atlas Shrugged and send them to politicians.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, economy, obama, politics, pork, rally, spending, taxes, tea party | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 19, 2009
The evidence of what I referred to as hokum and hypocrisy regarding bailouts and bonuses is piling up, and Investor's Business Daily has again focused attention on some of the worst. For example, Rep. Barney Frank's grilling at a committee hearing of the new AIG CEO, Edward Liddy (emphasis added):
Liddy, brought in for a dollar a year after the market meltdown Frank had a hand in creating, wasn't the one who should have been in the dock. Frank should have been grilling his Senate colleague Chris Dodd, who now admits writing the language in the stimulus that made these bonuses exempt from any government restrictions.
Sitting next to Dodd should have been Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, late of the Federal Reserve in New York and the architect of the original AIG bailout. After saying he didn't know who wrote the stimulus language exempting AIG bonuses, he now says he did it at the request of Treasury and administration officials.
…
[After first denying it, Dodd] told a different story, acknowledging that he and his staff did in fact change the language in the stimulus bill to include a loophole for AIG executive bonuses. "As many know, the administration was, among others, not happy with the language. They wanted some modifications in it.
"They came to us, our staff, and asked for changes, and the changes at the time did not seem obnoxious or onerous," Dodd added.
Say what? Exempting AIG bonuses to be paid out with taxpayer dollars seemed harmless to the No. 1 recipient of AIG campaign cash? Some have called this a "reversal" of position. We call it a lie admitted to.
…
Now we learn that Fannie Mae, a bailout beneficiary and the ignition source of the mortgage meltdown, plans to pay its own retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving. Let them work for a buck too.
Just as was the case with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Congress and the administration had a chance to stop this. Instead they protected AIG with a bill written in the middle of the night, sliced and diced by a handful of Democrats in a closed conference room, that those voting on it had not read.
Frank et al. have forgotten how Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He later became an adviser to Obama, the No. 2 recipient of AIG campaign funds behind Dodd.
This is the administration and Congress that promised to be the most transparent ever. They're transparent all right. We can see right through them.
Amen.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, demagoguery, democrats, economy, hypocrisy, obama, pork | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 19, 2009
The posturing, demagoguery, and expressions of outrage about the AIG bonuses continue unabated. Where was all this concern over self-serving and wasteful expenditure of tax dollars when Congress passed and the President signed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill containing over 8000 earmarks?
The President claimed even back during the campaign that he opposed earmarks, but he signed the bill anyway, promising earmark reform in the future. The administration argued that this bill was "inherited" from the previous administration, so why bother to try to clean it up?
Well, the AIG bailout and AIG bonus agreements are "leftovers" from last year, too. The bonuses amount to less than 0.1% of AIG's bailout money, far less than the earmarks in the omnibus bill. Why so much concern over the former and so little over the latter?
It's all hokum for the rubes and sheer hypocrisy. Investor's Business Daily outlined the true story behind the AIG bonuses, namely that the Obama Adminstration approved them and Congress authorized them:
"In the last six months AIG has received substantial sums from the U.S. Treasury," Obama said after allegedly hearing about it for the first time. "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"
Well, they justify it by saying they had the administration's permission. The New York Times reports that AIG executives said they never would have proceeded with the bonus payments before getting approval from the Treasury and the Federal Reserve.
"We would never make any important business decisions without discussing them with our government managers and owners," one AIG executive is quoted as saying.
…
As Larry Kudlow notes in his column on the next page, "the Obama administration — including the president, Treasury man Tim Geithner and economic adviser Larry Summers — knew all about them many months ago. They were undoubtedly informed of this during the White House transition."
The fact is, these bonuses were made legal by the $787 billion stimulus bill that President Obama promoted and signed. A provision, now known as the "Dodd Amendment," was inserted into the bill by the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd, D-Conn. It exempts from any restrictions bonuses contractually obligated before Feb. 11 of this year.
…
Coincidentally, Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,000, according to opensecrets.org. Also coincidentally, one of the largest offices of AIG Financial Products, the division that concocted the goofy financial instruments that doomed AIG, is situated in Connecticut.
The second-largest AIG recipient, at $101,232, was the "choked up with anger" President Obama. If AIG gives back the bonuses, will the president give back these and other campaign contributions from troubled institutions?
Don't hold your breath, folks. The Democrats' dirty little secret is that most of the overpaid big shots who ran various insurance, banking, mortgage, and financial institutions into the ground are liberal Democrats and among the party's most generous contributors.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, demagoguery, democrats, economy, hypocrisy, obama, pork | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 1, 2009
Investor's Business Daily can't understand why the Obama administration and Congress are moving quickly to prevent off-shore drilling when supporting more drilling should be a no-brainer for our purportedly "pragmatist" president. After all, there are lots of new jobs, new tax revenues, and economic stimulus out there:
Vast amounts of energy lie right off our shores. Conservatively tallied, government data show 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in continental U.S. waters — enough to replace 20 years' worth of oil and gas imports.
This is also enough to insulate the U.S. from a potential energy shock or 1970s-style oil embargo. But here's the great part for Obama: It's shovel-ready stimulus.
As noted in a recent study by the American Energy Alliance, an industry research group, developing our offshore energy resources would create in the coming years:
• $8.2 trillion in additional GDP.
• $2.2 trillion in total new state and federal tax revenues.
• 1.2 million new jobs at high wages.
• $70 billion in added wages to the economy each year.
All this for doing nothing other than letting oil companies do what they do best: Find and develop potential energy sources.
But they make money. Oil companies sometimes rake in big profits — can't have that.
And they produce carbon dioxide emissions. Algore says those are destroying the planet — can't have that.
And they create private-sector jobs which people take in order to serve their own needs and goals, rather than to serve the "public interest" — can't have that.
And they equip those getting the new jobs with self-sufficiency and independence instead of dependence on government — can't have that.
The Prez has declared several times over the past few weeks that he wants to create "not just any jobs – jobs that meet the needs we’ve neglected for far too long" — specifically jobs that meet the need for more government workers, government projects, government funding, and government goals.
The Prez is one of those politicians who, in the words of Howie Rich, "rhetorically extol the virtues that once made this country great while they systematically remove brick-by-brick the incentives needed to make it great once again."
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: economy, energy, government, obama, oil, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 25, 2009
Stephen Green is drunkblogging the President's address to Congress tonight, and he's suggested that we play along at home by taking a drink whenever we hear “hope,” “change,” “invest,” or “stimulus.”
I don't have nearly enough alcohol in the house to play that game. Besides, my poor liver wouldn't survive.
I think I'll watch one of the episodes of Heroes I've got on the DVR. I can read Green's drunkblogging afterward. I'm sure it will be just as informative as watching the speech, and much more enjoyable.
UPDATE: Between the drunkblog and the late news, I know more than I really wanted to know about the speech.
Did the Prez really talk that fast, or was Steve's perception of time distorted by some mind-altering substance?
Did the Prez really say this nation invented the automobile? If W had said that, the derisive laughter would have gone on for days.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: alcohol, congress, drunkblogging, economy, obama | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 23, 2009
My market research indicates that somewhere between 9 and 23 people reading this post will not have already read Instapundit. Since I think this is very, very important, I'm urging all 9 to 23 of you to go read this.
Yes, it's anecdotal evidence. But it suggests that significant numbers of people in a precinct that voted 254-37 for Obama — including state workers, college professors, and other reliably liberal types — think the stimulus bill and mortgage bailout are "crap." Various news reports and other anecdotes suggest this sentiment is remarkably widespread, and that it crosses party and ideological lines.
This cheers me greatly. Maybe the socialists salivating over the prospect of "remaking" this country, of moving toward the Marxist dictum "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," have misjudged the American people's commitment to freedom, personal responsibility, and good old-fashioned fair play. I certainly hope so.
President Obama may be a hard-left ideologue (his history, friendships, and associations certainly suggest so), but I suspect he's also, like all Chicago pols, more interested in political power than anything else. So he may back away quickly from the extreme leftward shift he'd planned if it looks like a big loser in the court of public opinion.
You can help make that happen. Check out the American Tea Party site and the schedule of upcoming American Tea Party protests. If you're near Washington, DC, Chicago, Kansas City, or Vancouver, WA, plan to attend the event scheduled for your area. If you're near Atlanta, Omaha, San Diego, Fayetteville, Dallas, or Los Angeles, keep checking back for details regarding your local event.
If you're somewhere else, how about helping to organize an American Tea Party event in your area? Get in touch with the local taxpayer organizations and Americans for Prosperity. There's a nice 10-step recipe for organizing your own event here. And some very good suggestions from a media-savvy Instapundit reader here.
We can really make a difference, folks, but we have to act now. If you're not the event-organizing type, talk to friends and neighbors, write a letter to the editor, encourage event-organizing types you know — whatever you can do.
We're at a critical juncture in our nation's history, a pivotal time when seemingly small actions by ordinary people can nudge us in one direction or another. Make sure that a few years from now, you're not regretting your failure to get involved.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: bailout, economy, obama, politics, pork, rally, spending, taxes, tea party | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 18, 2009
The turnout was surprisingly good for the Americans for Prosperity stimulus protest today at the State Capitol — about 500 people showed up. The rally coincided with President Obama's signing of the "porkulus" bill at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
Considering that the rally was only announced yesterday, that it was in the middle of a work day, and that most of us anti-big-government types actually have jobs we can't skip out on, that's a pretty impressive turnout.
And what's a noon-time rally without food, right? Well, the organizers served lunch, too (emphasis added):
Organizers said there is too much pork in the bill signed by President Barack Obama. So they carved up a roasted pig and made sandwiches just as the president was getting ready to sign the bill. A live pig was also present before the podium as protesters spoke.
Jocelyn Armstrong of Parker carried a gigantic check for $30,000, which she said represented the cost of the stimulus to each American family. Her 8-year-old daughter Hannah signed the check because Armstrong said she would have to pay for it.
"In my opinion, Obama, Pelosi and Reed are the Bernie Madoff Democrats who want to take our money and use it for their purposes and we're here to say, 'No more,'" Jim Pfaff with Americans for Prosperity told the crowd.
I'm sorry I couldn't attend (it's a 30-mile round trip, and I couldn't fit it in between meetings). It sounds like they had a better lunch than I did!
UPDATE: El Marco has some nice pix of the rally. (HT: LGF)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: denver, economy, obama, politics, pork, rally, spending, taxes | 2 Comments »
Posted by Richard on February 17, 2009
Americans for Prosperity in Colorado is holding a rally in Denver tomorrow to coincide with President Obama's signing of the pork-laden abomination called a stimulus bill. From the email alert:
Join Americans for Prosperity at noon tomorrow on the west steps of the Capitol Building for a RALLY against the Obama-Pelosi-Reid fiscally irresponsible "stimulus" bill.
President Obama will be at the Denver Museum of Science and Nature between noon and 3:00pm tomorrow to sign the $787 billion "stimulus" package which is laden with pork-barrel spending and payoffs to liberal special interest groups. [Jim Pfaff] Local and national media will be present at the capitol with us, so come and make your voice heard. We will be making the case for limited government and real opportunity.
We need to send a message to President Obama and the Congress to stop mortgaging our nation's future away. They need to get the message that politically-motivated government spending hurts our economy and kills jobs and prosperity!
The rally starts at noon Tuesday, Feb. 17, at the State Capitol, 200 E. Colfax Ave. Speakers include Michelle Malkin, Dick Wadhams, Jon Caldara, State Senator Josh Penry, and other state legislators. Be there if you can!
UPDATE: Jon Caldera, President of the Independence Institute, has added his call to attend (via email):
We'll have over-sized checks you can sign to show your family's $30,000 commitment to the bill. I'll be joined by Michelle Malkin, Mike Coffman, Bob Beauprez, Jim Pfaff from AFP and many others.
I'm not usually one for public protests, because like so many on our side, I have a day job. But I just can't allow this huge push down the slippery slope to socialism be signed here in Denver without standing up and saying, "hell no." I wish to go on record.
Let's let the world know there were at least some of us who didn't want to put our kids into debt for a bill that spends more than has been spent in the entire conflict in Iraq.
Please come to the $30,000 a plate pork roast!
More info at i2i.org.
I was pleased to see that both of the local newscasts I watched tonight — KDVR and KMGH — had good stories about the negatives of the stimulus bill (sorry, neither link is directly to the story because they aren't on the website yet).
KDVR in particular had a great story about the cost per household of the stimulus bill plus the financial system bailouts. Depending on your household income, it ranged from $4600 to over $90,000 per household. So Caldera's $30,000 price tag is in the ballpark.
If you're a bit disturbed by what it will cost you to get an $8 – $13 per month tax break, and you're in the Denver area, take a long lunch and attend the rally.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: denver, economy, obama, politics, rally, spending, taxes | 4 Comments »
Posted by Richard on December 10, 2008
Following the news of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's attempt to sell Barack Obama's senate seat, the president-elect announced that he never talked to Blago about his replacement (although he ducked the follow-up about his top aides). David Axelrod fell on his sword and recanted his earlier statement:
… David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, issued a statement late Tuesday saying he had misspoken in comments he made in November that now seemed to contradict Mr. Obama’s assertions that he had no contact with Mr. Blagojevich in the conversations over a replacement.
“I know he’s talked to the governor,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” on Nov. 23. “And there are a whole range of names, many of which have surfaced.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Axelrod said he had been wrong. “They did not then or at any time discuss the subject,” according to his statement.
Rush Limbaugh posed a good question today: If Blagojevich never proposed a senate seat deal, directly or indirectly, to Obama, then why the outburst against Obama? According to the complaint (PDF here), Blago angrily declared that he's not going to give this “motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.”
That sure sounds like someone who wanted a deal and was rebuffed. If it wasn't by Obama himself, it could have been by a high-level advisor. Rahm Emanuel has long-standing ties to Blagojevich, and there's a rumor going around (denied, of course) that he's the reason the feds moved quickly to arrest Blago.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: corruption, obama, politics | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on November 15, 2008
The Manhattan Institute's John McWhorter thinks the election of Obama will have some good consequences for black America, especially in terms of "the eclipse of the old." First and foremost (emphasis in original):
The studious black teen will no longer be tarred as "thinking he's white."
…
… For decades, there have been innumerable reports of black students faced with a choice between hitting the books and having black friends.
From now on, however, there is a ready riposte to being tarred as "acting white" for liking school: "Is Barack Obama white?"
God, I hope he's right. I foresee lots of bad consequences from the election of Obama, but this one would be a huge positive. Not just for black Americans, but for all of us.
I hope McWhorter's other two predictions are correct, too. Read the whole thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: culture, education, obama | Leave a Comment »
