In the wake of Senator Barack Obama's comments in San Francisco that economic bitterness causes working class Americans to "cling" to guns and religion, George Will says "Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism." Why? Is it because Obama says he can heal the racial divisions in this country? Is it because Obama claims he can overcome the partisan divide as President, even though he has never sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation? Is it because Obama represents, as he says, "change" we can "believe" in?
No. It is because, as every liberal Presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson has done, Obama has sought to portray himself in one way to the public, but has maintained an attitude "of condescension toward [working] people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them."
16.4.08
Free Speech in the Land of Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite
The French government is prosecuting film star Brigitte Bardot for the fifth time on charges of "inciting racial hatred" for comments she made last year decrying the Muslim practice of ritually slaughtering animals to commemorate the feast of Eid al-Adha, a remembrance of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to God.
Nevermind that Bardot has been an animal-rights activist for years. Nevermind that it is her sincere belief that violence toward any animal is wrong. Nevermind that in Western Civilization free speech is supposed to be a right considered virtually inviolable. Muslims are offended. Throw out our laws and submit to their will.
Islam has a word for this type of submission. It is dhimmitude. And it is a word Europeans and Americans should learn well.
Nevermind that Bardot has been an animal-rights activist for years. Nevermind that it is her sincere belief that violence toward any animal is wrong. Nevermind that in Western Civilization free speech is supposed to be a right considered virtually inviolable. Muslims are offended. Throw out our laws and submit to their will.
Islam has a word for this type of submission. It is dhimmitude. And it is a word Europeans and Americans should learn well.
7.4.08
More Hitchens on Obama
There is much I disagree with Christopher Hitchens about. But on the war in Iraq and on the shallowness of Barack Obama's campaign, he is spot on:
"So amnesiac have we become, indeed, that we fall into paroxysms of adulation for a ward-heeling Chicago politician who does not complete, let alone "transcend," the work of Dr. King; who hasn't even caught up to where we were four decades ago; and who, by his chosen associations, negates and profanes the legacy that was left to all of us."
"So amnesiac have we become, indeed, that we fall into paroxysms of adulation for a ward-heeling Chicago politician who does not complete, let alone "transcend," the work of Dr. King; who hasn't even caught up to where we were four decades ago; and who, by his chosen associations, negates and profanes the legacy that was left to all of us."
1.4.08
More Asinine Obama-Worship
From black feminist Alice Walker. Pathetically, she describes him as this generation's Martin Luther King, Jr and Nelson Mandela.
Although she recites, at length, her own tale of woe, Walker declines to offer any examples of Obama's accomplishments that would justify comparison to King or Mandela other than the color of his skin. Not to step on the toes of the Racial Grievance-Mongering Committee (as led by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, et al), but Obama's growing up with a dark skin tone in no way compares to the constant threats to King's life nor the 27-year imprisonment of Mandela. Ironically, TheRoot.com characterizes her article as "[arguing] that we must build alliances not on ethnicity or gender, but on truth," when in fact she argues voting for Obama precisely because of his ethnicity.
As a white man, I refuse to accept blame for Walker's discomfort with libraries, her issues with her "white women friends in college," nor the bottles thrown at her head while working to register blacks to vote in Georgia. Her life is not Obama's and I have no need to vote for him in order to absolve myself of any of the sins visited upon her.
Walker has fallen victim to the fantasy of David Ehrenstein's "Magic Negro." She has based her expectations solely on Obama's flowing rhetoric, which stands at stark odds to his actual record. Should Obama become President, a more realistic expectation would be a brief period of self-congratulatory, ersatz racial harmony, followed by a lengthy period of bitter division caused by his pursuit of very liberal policy positions.
Although she recites, at length, her own tale of woe, Walker declines to offer any examples of Obama's accomplishments that would justify comparison to King or Mandela other than the color of his skin. Not to step on the toes of the Racial Grievance-Mongering Committee (as led by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, et al), but Obama's growing up with a dark skin tone in no way compares to the constant threats to King's life nor the 27-year imprisonment of Mandela. Ironically, TheRoot.com characterizes her article as "[arguing] that we must build alliances not on ethnicity or gender, but on truth," when in fact she argues voting for Obama precisely because of his ethnicity.
As a white man, I refuse to accept blame for Walker's discomfort with libraries, her issues with her "white women friends in college," nor the bottles thrown at her head while working to register blacks to vote in Georgia. Her life is not Obama's and I have no need to vote for him in order to absolve myself of any of the sins visited upon her.
Walker has fallen victim to the fantasy of David Ehrenstein's "Magic Negro." She has based her expectations solely on Obama's flowing rhetoric, which stands at stark odds to his actual record. Should Obama become President, a more realistic expectation would be a brief period of self-congratulatory, ersatz racial harmony, followed by a lengthy period of bitter division caused by his pursuit of very liberal policy positions.
The Welfare State will Eat Your Soul...
...or at least your checking account.
I discovered a draft post that somehow I failed to publish from last year. Samuelson's article may be from a year ago, but it's just as applicable today as last year.
Economics writer Robert Samuelson has a new article out today (Feb 14, 2007) that puts much of the political battle over government spending into perspective. Neither party is willing to do much to rein in spending although both are eager to castigate each other for it.
It is useful to examine the chart Samuelson includes with his article. It shows the massive growth of welfare spending, especially as it compares to the decline of defense spending as a percentage of the government budget. These percentages are even more astounding when you realize that defense spending grew to a (numerically) record high of $520 billion for 2006 (including spending on Iraq and Afghanistan).
These figures are frightening enough today, but the real scare will hit us in the coming decades as our aging population retires and live longer lives, expecting government support for many more years than did their grandparents, without as many grandchildren to work and pay for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)