The Republican Party is not a racist party. No tenet of conservative thought excludes or oppresses anyone based on race, sex, or class. Indeed, the Republican Party has a diverse and colorful history that defies your 21st century impression.
The main stream media has done a wonderful job of creating an association between the right and racism. They have done so by associating terms like “individual liberty” and “self reliance” with characteristics like “cold-hearted”, “indifferent”, and of course, “racist”. They’ve managed to create this association despite overwhelming evidence and matters of historical fact to the contrary.
There’s a page on the new GOP website that’s essentially a party time line.
www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment
Several historical achievements and milestones are highlighted. To be fair, there is a focus (to the point of being obvious) on milestones related to race and sex. But can you blame the GOP for selecting these events and persons? Someone has to set the record straight. I’ll accept the slant because the account is rooted in fact. It demonstrates a long history of firsts and accomplishments by Republicans of all races and both sexes, and for the benefit of the same.
I will complement my point by submitting to you that ties to racism are clearer and ever present within the Democratic Party. The ideology of entitlement has done more to oppress people of color and impede our collective ascendency than any group, event, principle, or law in the past 80 years. Hundreds of well intended, “compassionate” examples abound. I won’t cite any here – just ask any liberal politician what they’ve done, “for the people”… Your head will spin. Instead, I’ll make my point by counter example.
Let’s consider the NCAA’s proposition 48. Back in the 1980’s, this proposal raised the minimum SAT score of all student-athletes to a floor of 700. The naive assumption was that low-income, inner city blacks would be “shut out” of scholarship opportunities and the chance to escape the poverty and misery of their upbringing. Proposition 48 was deemed “racist”.
Proposition 48 passed. So what happened next? Were Division I college basketball teams suddenly taken over by white boys that couldn’t jump? No. Black high school student-athletes raised their game to meet the new academic standards. They continued to secure athletic scholarships. They graduated from college at higher rates because they were better prepared. The proposition, which was called “racist”, has actually improved the lives of thousands of African Americans. Imagine that – higher expectations yielded a better outcome.
If you’re Black, and a Democrat, ask yourself, ‘why?’ If your political ideology and sense of what’s best for this country line up with the left, that’s fine. But if you don’t know, or consider yourself a Dem because “my parents are”, or because “the left cares about us”, examine your reasoning. Personally, I’d like to see about a 50/50 split in the Black community, right vs. left. At least then, the Dems couldn’t take our votes for granted, and actually be held to account for the impact of their actions in our communities.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Racists? Or Opposed to Fundamental Transformation?
adj. fun·da·men·tal - of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Monday, September 14, 2009
I’m Coming Out of the Closet
I’ve made a decision. I’m coming out. I’m no longer afraid of the conversation. So here it is…
I’m a conservative. Openly and honestly, a conservative.
That’s it? Was that so tough?
Well, kind of… I guess it was tough. If it weren’t, why would I ‘hide’ my political ideology? Why would I avoid the conversation?
Last week, while on an eleven hundred mile domestic flight, I sat next to a very pleasant man that was returning home from a church mission trip. We sat and chatted about several topics for at least 2 hours. The conversation was engaging and enlightening. Some of the topics were ostensibly political, yet decidedly one sided. One sided, in that I did not show my cards. For example, on the topic of the exodus of American manufacturing jobs to China and India, I’d ask, “What do you think is the role of The Union in our loss of jobs in this sector?” I’d then digest his response and respond with a comment something like, “Interesting, very interesting”.
Or in a conversation about blacks moving into predominantly white neighborhoods, he’d say, “No way I’d live there… they don’t want us there… the cops are racists there”. And I’d say, “Wow. Interesting opinion”, instead of saying, “Hmmm. We have a very different world views…. the reasons you’ve cited are among the very reasons I’ve purchased 2 homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don’t think my race, bigoted opinions, or a cop’s ignorance should influence where I live” (by the way, the biggest factors in my choice of neighborhood have always been convenience and cost). Of course I could not, and did not say anything like that!
But why? Why so shy, Fred? How is it that right said fred, so vocal on this forum, could be ideologically emasculated to the point of passive denial? Truthfully, I’m not sure. But I have some ideas.
First of all, it’s not easy. It’s not easy to explain to someone why I feel the way I do. I’m much more comfortable doing so in print than in person. “Liberty and freedom should not stop at the city limits” is one of my personal mottos. It takes a long time to explain, and is so much easier when you have time to write down your retort.
Another reason… respect?
I guess so. This guy was older than me. He is also truly an African-American, where as I’m a naturalized African-American. I’ve been told (and it’s true), that I don’t have slave blood in me, and therefore, I can’t understand (not true). Anyway, the way I was raised, I must respect older, wiser folk. And that may mean not offending them.
I’ve got a lot of soul searching to do on this one. But no longer will I bite my tongue. Get ready, America – I’m out, and proud of it!
I’m a conservative. Openly and honestly, a conservative.
That’s it? Was that so tough?
Well, kind of… I guess it was tough. If it weren’t, why would I ‘hide’ my political ideology? Why would I avoid the conversation?
Last week, while on an eleven hundred mile domestic flight, I sat next to a very pleasant man that was returning home from a church mission trip. We sat and chatted about several topics for at least 2 hours. The conversation was engaging and enlightening. Some of the topics were ostensibly political, yet decidedly one sided. One sided, in that I did not show my cards. For example, on the topic of the exodus of American manufacturing jobs to China and India, I’d ask, “What do you think is the role of The Union in our loss of jobs in this sector?” I’d then digest his response and respond with a comment something like, “Interesting, very interesting”.
Or in a conversation about blacks moving into predominantly white neighborhoods, he’d say, “No way I’d live there… they don’t want us there… the cops are racists there”. And I’d say, “Wow. Interesting opinion”, instead of saying, “Hmmm. We have a very different world views…. the reasons you’ve cited are among the very reasons I’ve purchased 2 homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don’t think my race, bigoted opinions, or a cop’s ignorance should influence where I live” (by the way, the biggest factors in my choice of neighborhood have always been convenience and cost). Of course I could not, and did not say anything like that!
But why? Why so shy, Fred? How is it that right said fred, so vocal on this forum, could be ideologically emasculated to the point of passive denial? Truthfully, I’m not sure. But I have some ideas.
First of all, it’s not easy. It’s not easy to explain to someone why I feel the way I do. I’m much more comfortable doing so in print than in person. “Liberty and freedom should not stop at the city limits” is one of my personal mottos. It takes a long time to explain, and is so much easier when you have time to write down your retort.
Another reason… respect?
I guess so. This guy was older than me. He is also truly an African-American, where as I’m a naturalized African-American. I’ve been told (and it’s true), that I don’t have slave blood in me, and therefore, I can’t understand (not true). Anyway, the way I was raised, I must respect older, wiser folk. And that may mean not offending them.
I’ve got a lot of soul searching to do on this one. But no longer will I bite my tongue. Get ready, America – I’m out, and proud of it!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Hark! All Ye Hypocrites!
To the conservatives attending town hall meetings on health care this Summer:
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Doctor, get off my back! That costs too much!
By way of example, I'll tell you the real problem with health care in America. It's got less to do with tort law and access, and more to do with who's name is in the top left corner of the check.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
White Oppression, 21st Century Style
Well, it's official. It's okay to impute white men for any malady that befalls us. Feel free to openly state, "what goes around comes around". Fear not as you affirm that selecting a white man in lieu of anyone else is "disgraceful". Say these things and more, and do so without fear of reproach.
As we get our daily updates on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, newspaper op-eds and blog posts abound with this new-found freedom of expression. It's not that white men are for the first time "evil". The difference is now, it's mainstream.
Consider the following:
In Whose Identity Politics?, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Eugene Robinson wrote,
"Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history, it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve."
More overtly, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd stated in White Man's Last Stand,
"It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men."
Why is this kind of rhetoric acceptable? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Does it not include white men?
I'll start by dissecting Mr. Robinson's excerpt. He starts by stating that justice has not been blind for women and minorities (true). I'll assume he's inferring that most of the injustice has been adjudicated by white men (also true). Mr. Robinson is trying to excuse Judge Sotomayor's empathetic approach to Law (my opinion). If I can paraphrase, "Since white men did it to us, we can/should now do it to them, or at least be excused for doing so. What goes around comes around!"
Before I get to my point, let's turn for a moment to Ms. Dowd's comment. So selecting two white men from a pool of mostly white men is a disgrace, huh? Then where on the "disgrace meter" does Bill Clinton fall for appointing Stephen Breyer to the highest court in the land? The last time I checked, justice Beyer is white. And What about Bush 41? He appointed two conservative men - ouch! But Justice Thomas is black, so does he get any points for that? Am I to assume that you agree with Sotomayor, and feel that qualified white men must be overlooked?
All of this is troubling to me. In America, it's racism and sexism. In my native Kenya, it's tribalism. On either continent, the oppressed feel justified in retribution through an "it's our turn to eat" mentality. It's unfair and unwise. It's taking the low road, and it inflicts a condition of inequality across more levels than it heals. If this kind of rhetoric is not challenged at its core, we can never get to an "all are equal" society. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those that benefit from inequality, and they are willing to do anything to maintain it - and they ain't white men (at least not exclusively).
I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for white men. Nor am I about to propose a government program to help oppressed white men all over this land. After all, being white and male are still great commodities. it's just simply not fair to treat anyone like this because of the past (or the present). And this, from people who claim that their political party has moral authority on fairness. Wow.
As we get our daily updates on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, newspaper op-eds and blog posts abound with this new-found freedom of expression. It's not that white men are for the first time "evil". The difference is now, it's mainstream.
Consider the following:
In Whose Identity Politics?, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Eugene Robinson wrote,
"Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history, it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve."
More overtly, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd stated in White Man's Last Stand,
"It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men."
Why is this kind of rhetoric acceptable? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Does it not include white men?
I'll start by dissecting Mr. Robinson's excerpt. He starts by stating that justice has not been blind for women and minorities (true). I'll assume he's inferring that most of the injustice has been adjudicated by white men (also true). Mr. Robinson is trying to excuse Judge Sotomayor's empathetic approach to Law (my opinion). If I can paraphrase, "Since white men did it to us, we can/should now do it to them, or at least be excused for doing so. What goes around comes around!"
Before I get to my point, let's turn for a moment to Ms. Dowd's comment. So selecting two white men from a pool of mostly white men is a disgrace, huh? Then where on the "disgrace meter" does Bill Clinton fall for appointing Stephen Breyer to the highest court in the land? The last time I checked, justice Beyer is white. And What about Bush 41? He appointed two conservative men - ouch! But Justice Thomas is black, so does he get any points for that? Am I to assume that you agree with Sotomayor, and feel that qualified white men must be overlooked?
All of this is troubling to me. In America, it's racism and sexism. In my native Kenya, it's tribalism. On either continent, the oppressed feel justified in retribution through an "it's our turn to eat" mentality. It's unfair and unwise. It's taking the low road, and it inflicts a condition of inequality across more levels than it heals. If this kind of rhetoric is not challenged at its core, we can never get to an "all are equal" society. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those that benefit from inequality, and they are willing to do anything to maintain it - and they ain't white men (at least not exclusively).
I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for white men. Nor am I about to propose a government program to help oppressed white men all over this land. After all, being white and male are still great commodities. it's just simply not fair to treat anyone like this because of the past (or the present). And this, from people who claim that their political party has moral authority on fairness. Wow.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Barack Obama Is Not Black
A few week's ago, I was watching the news with a friend - there was a story about Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey, and how they're among the most influential African Americans in the United States. I said to my friend, "Barack Obama is not black". Of course, I had to explain.
Virtually everything about Barack Obama's presidency to date has had little or nothing to do with his skin color. His policies, his speeches, praise heaped upon him, ridicule of his decisions... his skin color almost never comes up.
The political right are opposed to him on the basis of his ideology, and the decisions he makes based on it. His supporters are behind him for the same reason. Footnote: a lot of African-Americans and Africans alike favor Obama solely on the basis of his skin color or paternal lineage. These are good reasons to recognize and celebrate a historical achievement, not to blindly support a leader or political agenda (just my opinion). It's also true that the amplitude of his criticism is greater because he's black (I don't think anyone can deny that - economic or social minorities in every society, not just in America, have a higher bar to clear). End footnote.
So what's my point? Here it is, let's get it out. Race matters not! Success or failure are governed more by what an individual says and does, than by his skin color.
If Barack Obama had latched onto race as a political identifier, he would not be President. Instead, he sought a human condition (economic injustice) as the foundation of his philosophy. He has this, not putting race first, in common with other successful minorities (isn't it ironic then, how the left use race and class to divide us?).
Of course there are exceptions. A Chinese restaurant in Iowa must not assimilate to the degree of putting apple pie on the menu. An African-American musician should by all means draw upon generations of experiences and tradition unique to her culture to belt out a ballad. But for most of us, race matters not. Cash registers, Excel spreadsheets, and cement mixers don't care about race. When will we be as blind?
While we're talking about race, let me ask a question. Black people, I'm talking to you... when will it be enough? When will we have enough success and achievement to put Jesse Jackson out of business? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like an answer. What degree of equality are we seeking here? At what point will we look in the collective mirror, and take responsibility for our given condition?
Post Script
Many year's ago, I read a short political treatise by Chinua Achebe - The Trouble with Nigeria. Near the beginning of the book, Achebe asserted that the President of Nigeria did not live in Nigeria - a statement that was simply not true. He went on to explain what he meant, but the shock value of the statement had by then succeeded - I was sucked in, and continued reading. So I am in debt. If you stopped to read this post simply because of the weird title, it's owed to the literary genius of Mr. Achebe.
Virtually everything about Barack Obama's presidency to date has had little or nothing to do with his skin color. His policies, his speeches, praise heaped upon him, ridicule of his decisions... his skin color almost never comes up.
The political right are opposed to him on the basis of his ideology, and the decisions he makes based on it. His supporters are behind him for the same reason. Footnote: a lot of African-Americans and Africans alike favor Obama solely on the basis of his skin color or paternal lineage. These are good reasons to recognize and celebrate a historical achievement, not to blindly support a leader or political agenda (just my opinion). It's also true that the amplitude of his criticism is greater because he's black (I don't think anyone can deny that - economic or social minorities in every society, not just in America, have a higher bar to clear). End footnote.
So what's my point? Here it is, let's get it out. Race matters not! Success or failure are governed more by what an individual says and does, than by his skin color.
If Barack Obama had latched onto race as a political identifier, he would not be President. Instead, he sought a human condition (economic injustice) as the foundation of his philosophy. He has this, not putting race first, in common with other successful minorities (isn't it ironic then, how the left use race and class to divide us?).
Of course there are exceptions. A Chinese restaurant in Iowa must not assimilate to the degree of putting apple pie on the menu. An African-American musician should by all means draw upon generations of experiences and tradition unique to her culture to belt out a ballad. But for most of us, race matters not. Cash registers, Excel spreadsheets, and cement mixers don't care about race. When will we be as blind?
While we're talking about race, let me ask a question. Black people, I'm talking to you... when will it be enough? When will we have enough success and achievement to put Jesse Jackson out of business? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like an answer. What degree of equality are we seeking here? At what point will we look in the collective mirror, and take responsibility for our given condition?
Post Script
Many year's ago, I read a short political treatise by Chinua Achebe - The Trouble with Nigeria. Near the beginning of the book, Achebe asserted that the President of Nigeria did not live in Nigeria - a statement that was simply not true. He went on to explain what he meant, but the shock value of the statement had by then succeeded - I was sucked in, and continued reading. So I am in debt. If you stopped to read this post simply because of the weird title, it's owed to the literary genius of Mr. Achebe.
Friday, March 27, 2009
We’re a Bunch of Wimps
Driving home from work the other day, I started thinking about my parents. I thought about a huge risk they took many years ago – uprooting a family of five and coming to a foreign land more than an ocean away. There had to be a very good reason. There was - opportunity. It’s an interesting thing, opportunity. It can only exist in an environment where risk is present. To enter willingly into such a dichotomy, my parents must have been pretty dam tough.
So as I thought about my folks, my stream of consciousness led to other Americans that (one way or another) left home for America. The first Americans, the Indians. The Europeans. The Asians. The Africans (I challenge you to find a tougher bunch than those that survived the middle passage and their progeny that endured slavery). All of these people were a hell of a lot tougher than we are now. We are, by comparison, a bunch of wimps. We bitch and moan about things that are in our control. We wait for help and ask for others to ease our pain. We watch the news and see families and businesses, begging as if from a choral song sheet, “all is lost unless the government helps us”. Even our President jumps in and implies that man alone cannot and will not succeed.
When did this happen? How did we get here?
Getting closer to home, I started to think about some state mottos. I knew a few by heart: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and others. Man, the people that wrote those mottos were a hearty bunch! What’s up with us now? Did the emasculation of America happen right before my very eyes? Were my parents the last generation with a figurative pair?
What will it take to get this country out of our skirts?
So as I thought about my folks, my stream of consciousness led to other Americans that (one way or another) left home for America. The first Americans, the Indians. The Europeans. The Asians. The Africans (I challenge you to find a tougher bunch than those that survived the middle passage and their progeny that endured slavery). All of these people were a hell of a lot tougher than we are now. We are, by comparison, a bunch of wimps. We bitch and moan about things that are in our control. We wait for help and ask for others to ease our pain. We watch the news and see families and businesses, begging as if from a choral song sheet, “all is lost unless the government helps us”. Even our President jumps in and implies that man alone cannot and will not succeed.
When did this happen? How did we get here?
Getting closer to home, I started to think about some state mottos. I knew a few by heart: New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, and others. Man, the people that wrote those mottos were a hearty bunch! What’s up with us now? Did the emasculation of America happen right before my very eyes? Were my parents the last generation with a figurative pair?
- Virginia: Sic semper tyrannis (Thus always to tyrants)
Thus as in ‘you will lay dead at my feet’. By the way – it’s a woman carrying the sword on my state’s flag. Tougher than me and you? Uhhh, yeah! Now I’m not advocating that we slay tyrannical government officials - we should however vote them the hell out of office! - Alabama: Audemus jura nostra defendere (We dare defend our rights)
I sense an implied “…by any means necessary”! - Massachusetts: Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
Hard to believe how far this state has come. People there once knew that freedom is not free. - New Hampshire: Live Free or Die
My personal favorite. I love its brevity and poignancy. I also concur – our freedom is more valuable than my own life. It’s the reason I disagreed with W on the Patriot Act. - Arkansas: The People Rule
That’s it. Any questions? - Mississippi: By valor and arms
In other words, our bravery and our military are enough to protect our way of life. At least that’s my interpretation.
What will it take to get this country out of our skirts?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Who's to Blame? The Rich or the Stupid?
Everyone (well, almost everyone) wants to be rich. We want the American dream. The catch is, we don't want anyone else to be rich. At least that's the way we're acting.
Recently, there was outrage over bonuses paid to AIG executives in the wake of a federal bail out - outrage over paying all of those fat cats "our money". So we're mad at the AIG executives. Why oh why aren't we mad at the government? Isn't it Congress that approved the loan which gave AIG all that cash? Isn't it Congress that gave them the money without doing ANY homework?
I suspect most of you think that the folks who received those bonuses should have simply said "no". If you were in their shoes, would you say, "no thank you... I haven't exactly earned this cash which is contractually owed to me. Keep my portion and let this poorly run company squander it away. Better yet, give it to the government as a deposit against the money they lent AIG. God knows the government won't waste it!" Would you say that?
Now, back to our government. What in the world were they thinking? You'd think they would at least take the time to examine the salary structure of the personnel on the payroll. Nope... action needs to be swift and bold, before it's too late!
Your outrage is no mistake, by the way. It's all part of a plan to get you angry at the rich. If you're angry at them, it's easier to vilify them and confiscate their wealth. May I even suggest that the current administration knew this was coming, and salivated at the prospect of tarring and feathering those evil rich bastards.
Recently, there was outrage over bonuses paid to AIG executives in the wake of a federal bail out - outrage over paying all of those fat cats "our money". So we're mad at the AIG executives. Why oh why aren't we mad at the government? Isn't it Congress that approved the loan which gave AIG all that cash? Isn't it Congress that gave them the money without doing ANY homework?
I suspect most of you think that the folks who received those bonuses should have simply said "no". If you were in their shoes, would you say, "no thank you... I haven't exactly earned this cash which is contractually owed to me. Keep my portion and let this poorly run company squander it away. Better yet, give it to the government as a deposit against the money they lent AIG. God knows the government won't waste it!" Would you say that?
Now, back to our government. What in the world were they thinking? You'd think they would at least take the time to examine the salary structure of the personnel on the payroll. Nope... action needs to be swift and bold, before it's too late!
Your outrage is no mistake, by the way. It's all part of a plan to get you angry at the rich. If you're angry at them, it's easier to vilify them and confiscate their wealth. May I even suggest that the current administration knew this was coming, and salivated at the prospect of tarring and feathering those evil rich bastards.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Fred Hates Babies
I called it. I told you back on November 5th ( Top Ten Predictions for Obama's First Term) that "baby love" is coming. I predicted liberal talking points and demonstrations about how "republicans hate babies". I was only mistaken in President Obama's delivery. Our President is nothing if not intelligent… he recalls how quickly public debate sent Hilary’s health care plan down in a ball of flames back in the early nineties. So this time, there’s a little sleight of hand going on. All of our attention is on this economic crisis while the best health care system in the world is transformed to socialized medicine.
Earlier this year, President Obama expanded SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). SCHIP is a decade-old Federal program intended to provide health insurance to children whose parents were too well off to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to afford private insurance. SCHIP has morphed into a Trojan horse covering 30 year-old dead beats living in their parents’ basements.
I have no problem with kids and jobless Trekies having health insurance. I do have a problem with you and me having to pay for it. Where is it stated that your coverage is my responsibility? How do tax dollars being used to provide coverage make it more “affordable”? That is, how does this address the real problem, the expense of health care?
In an ironic twist, the Obama administration has raised cigarette taxes to pay for the SCHIP expansion. Didn’t they realize that the “economic stimulus” package contained about $200 million to get people to stop smoking? So if the stimulus bill is successful, where will the SCHIP money come from? Obama is on record stating that this SCHIP expansion is a “down payment” on government provided health care for all. I won’t be surprised when he tells us that we’ll pay for universal coverage through higher gasoline taxes, all while trying to get us off of dirty oil :)
Earlier this year, President Obama expanded SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program). SCHIP is a decade-old Federal program intended to provide health insurance to children whose parents were too well off to qualify for Medicaid, but too poor to afford private insurance. SCHIP has morphed into a Trojan horse covering 30 year-old dead beats living in their parents’ basements.
I have no problem with kids and jobless Trekies having health insurance. I do have a problem with you and me having to pay for it. Where is it stated that your coverage is my responsibility? How do tax dollars being used to provide coverage make it more “affordable”? That is, how does this address the real problem, the expense of health care?
In an ironic twist, the Obama administration has raised cigarette taxes to pay for the SCHIP expansion. Didn’t they realize that the “economic stimulus” package contained about $200 million to get people to stop smoking? So if the stimulus bill is successful, where will the SCHIP money come from? Obama is on record stating that this SCHIP expansion is a “down payment” on government provided health care for all. I won’t be surprised when he tells us that we’ll pay for universal coverage through higher gasoline taxes, all while trying to get us off of dirty oil :)
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Wind Mills and Antibiotic Resistance
Sorry for the long read. I'm not a very good writer, and I'm trying to make a point:)
Years ago, after finishing my undergraduate degree in mathematics, I joined a research team at Emory University working with mathematical models of biological systems, particularly bacterial infections in large populations. We demonstrated, through our models, that there is a cost associated with resistance. That is, if you're a bacterium, and you are resistant to antibiotics, there is a cost - you must give up something for that benefit.
So what on earth does this have to do with wind mills? It's a simple analogy actually, but to explain, let's stick with 'bugs' for a moment.
Like all life on earth, bacteria reproduce genetically. Rabbits beget rabbits, bacteria beget bacteria. Every now and then, there's a mistake - genetic instructions are not followed, and a bacterium does not look just like it's father. This is called a mutation. Mutations are rare, but they happen. Mutant bacteria are generally weaker (but sometimes better) in some way than their parent. That is, there is a cost to not following the rules.
Continuing with this theme, let's use my body as an example. Say that I have an ear infection, and there are only two strains of said infection in my left ear - 1 regular strain, the other mutated. They exist in a 9 to 1 ratio respectively. Why that ratio? Because of the cost. The mutated bacteria have traded 'fertility' for resistance. They're resistant to antibiotics (good), but can't get it on (bad). The more popular variety are such because they are efficient. They do well when things are 'normal'.
Okay, now it's time for wind mills. Oil and coal are the most prominent sources of energy because they're efficient. They present the cheapest, easiest way to provide energy on demand in the first part of the 21st century. Solar and wind on the other hand, are not efficient. If they were, capitalists (motivated by profit) would have made them more than 3% of our domestic energy production. In other words, the 'wild type' (the dirty stuff, oil and coal) are such because they work. Solar and wind are not because of their cost. They're is a cost to being green. Get it?
So you've got this guy out there now, T. Boone Pickens. He's on board with Gore and the gang, ringing the bell for wind power now. What he doesn't tell you in his commercials is that he is an entrepreneur, and he's been trying to make money at the wind game for a while now. It ain't workin' out for him, so he needs congress (us) to subsidize his capital venture. We need to get off of foreign oil... to help him make a profit... because wind power can't turn a profit (pun intended) on its own! Are you kidding me?!!!
Again, wind and solar are NOT (popular) because they are NOT (efficient)! They are the inefficient mutants. They need an antibiotic in the name of legislation to beat the wild type, coal and oil. Are we willing to wait for technology to make our energy decisions for us, or will we simply pay more for energy (and drive this economy into the ground) because we must be green?
So Mr. Pickens, Vice President Gore, Mr. Moore: please tell everyone the inconvenient truth - that your plans involve energy costs like we've never seen. You all have different vehicles, but you're headed in the same direction. I for one, am just fine where I am, thank you very much!
P.S. I believe that the need for energy will define this century more than any other issue. It's a constant that can't be avoided, from Lake Victoria to Reston Town Center. So I will be talking more about this issue in the coming months. Particularly, I'll address the third world's need to progress, and how in the world they will do it on dark, windless nights.
Years ago, after finishing my undergraduate degree in mathematics, I joined a research team at Emory University working with mathematical models of biological systems, particularly bacterial infections in large populations. We demonstrated, through our models, that there is a cost associated with resistance. That is, if you're a bacterium, and you are resistant to antibiotics, there is a cost - you must give up something for that benefit.
So what on earth does this have to do with wind mills? It's a simple analogy actually, but to explain, let's stick with 'bugs' for a moment.
Like all life on earth, bacteria reproduce genetically. Rabbits beget rabbits, bacteria beget bacteria. Every now and then, there's a mistake - genetic instructions are not followed, and a bacterium does not look just like it's father. This is called a mutation. Mutations are rare, but they happen. Mutant bacteria are generally weaker (but sometimes better) in some way than their parent. That is, there is a cost to not following the rules.
Continuing with this theme, let's use my body as an example. Say that I have an ear infection, and there are only two strains of said infection in my left ear - 1 regular strain, the other mutated. They exist in a 9 to 1 ratio respectively. Why that ratio? Because of the cost. The mutated bacteria have traded 'fertility' for resistance. They're resistant to antibiotics (good), but can't get it on (bad). The more popular variety are such because they are efficient. They do well when things are 'normal'.
Okay, now it's time for wind mills. Oil and coal are the most prominent sources of energy because they're efficient. They present the cheapest, easiest way to provide energy on demand in the first part of the 21st century. Solar and wind on the other hand, are not efficient. If they were, capitalists (motivated by profit) would have made them more than 3% of our domestic energy production. In other words, the 'wild type' (the dirty stuff, oil and coal) are such because they work. Solar and wind are not because of their cost. They're is a cost to being green. Get it?
So you've got this guy out there now, T. Boone Pickens. He's on board with Gore and the gang, ringing the bell for wind power now. What he doesn't tell you in his commercials is that he is an entrepreneur, and he's been trying to make money at the wind game for a while now. It ain't workin' out for him, so he needs congress (us) to subsidize his capital venture. We need to get off of foreign oil... to help him make a profit... because wind power can't turn a profit (pun intended) on its own! Are you kidding me?!!!
Again, wind and solar are NOT (popular) because they are NOT (efficient)! They are the inefficient mutants. They need an antibiotic in the name of legislation to beat the wild type, coal and oil. Are we willing to wait for technology to make our energy decisions for us, or will we simply pay more for energy (and drive this economy into the ground) because we must be green?
So Mr. Pickens, Vice President Gore, Mr. Moore: please tell everyone the inconvenient truth - that your plans involve energy costs like we've never seen. You all have different vehicles, but you're headed in the same direction. I for one, am just fine where I am, thank you very much!
P.S. I believe that the need for energy will define this century more than any other issue. It's a constant that can't be avoided, from Lake Victoria to Reston Town Center. So I will be talking more about this issue in the coming months. Particularly, I'll address the third world's need to progress, and how in the world they will do it on dark, windless nights.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
A Report Card for George W Bush
So here we are - the end of 8 years under George W. Bush, the most vilified president to serve this nation in my lifetime. So how’d he do? Here’s my attempt at an objective answer. I’ll use the A through F grading scale on a few defining issues.
The War in Iraq
On the war in Iraq, Bush gets a D. Before explaining why, consider the following quotes:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
To whom can we attribute these quotes? Bush 43 and Rumsfeld? Try Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton respectively. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone, including our European allies, thought that going into Iraq was a necessary measure in the war on terror. True, the execution of the plan was woefully inadequate, but let’s not rewrite history – most thought it was the right thing to do.
So when things went to hell in a hand basket, as Commander in Chief, the buck stopped with W. I didn’t give him an F because he brought in General David Petraeus, which lead to the troop surge. Now we have a chance to actually leave Iraq on our own terms. I hope Bush left that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the White House attic :)
The Economy
On the Economy, Bush gets a C. Now before you think I’m nuts, please read the following 2003 New York Times article:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By the way, the Bush administration’s recommendation for more oversight was ignored.
The blame for the 2008 economic down turn should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress. For Bush’s part, on his late 2008 response to the slowing economy, what part of "economic principles" don’t you understand, President Bush?
Finally, on Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans… rich people didn’t stuff their mattresses with the extra cash – they invested it and/or spent it. Their appetite for risk got us out of the 9-11 slump, created jobs, and grew the economy.
National Security
On national security, Bush get’s a B. We were safe at home since 9-11.
He missed an A because I’m not a fan of the Patriot Act. "Live free or die" used to be more than a state motto – it was the way we governed.
Overall Grade
George W Bush’s best moment as president was at a ball park. I’ll never forget it – shortly after 9-11, he threw out the first pitch at Yankee stadium. I was so nervous. We all were. The nation was afraid – afraid of when and how it would happen again. Would they go after our leader? Could they? GW walked out to that pitcher’s mound sans security. His stride was deliberate, his gaze confident. He delivered a strike to thunderous applause. Man, was that a great moment. It was what we needed. It’s amazing how much our collective opinion of him has changed.
I’m going to give him a C overall. I believe his legacy will be the Bush Doctrine. He will be known as the man that responded to 9-11, and led us into a war on terror that will define this century. God bless the decisions that he made while in office. Let them prove sound and appropriate.
The War in Iraq
On the war in Iraq, Bush gets a D. Before explaining why, consider the following quotes:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
To whom can we attribute these quotes? Bush 43 and Rumsfeld? Try Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton respectively. Fact of the matter is that almost everyone, including our European allies, thought that going into Iraq was a necessary measure in the war on terror. True, the execution of the plan was woefully inadequate, but let’s not rewrite history – most thought it was the right thing to do.
So when things went to hell in a hand basket, as Commander in Chief, the buck stopped with W. I didn’t give him an F because he brought in General David Petraeus, which lead to the troop surge. Now we have a chance to actually leave Iraq on our own terms. I hope Bush left that infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner in the White House attic :)
The Economy
On the Economy, Bush gets a C. Now before you think I’m nuts, please read the following 2003 New York Times article:
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By the way, the Bush administration’s recommendation for more oversight was ignored.
The blame for the 2008 economic down turn should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Congress. For Bush’s part, on his late 2008 response to the slowing economy, what part of "economic principles" don’t you understand, President Bush?
Finally, on Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans… rich people didn’t stuff their mattresses with the extra cash – they invested it and/or spent it. Their appetite for risk got us out of the 9-11 slump, created jobs, and grew the economy.
National Security
On national security, Bush get’s a B. We were safe at home since 9-11.
He missed an A because I’m not a fan of the Patriot Act. "Live free or die" used to be more than a state motto – it was the way we governed.
Overall Grade
George W Bush’s best moment as president was at a ball park. I’ll never forget it – shortly after 9-11, he threw out the first pitch at Yankee stadium. I was so nervous. We all were. The nation was afraid – afraid of when and how it would happen again. Would they go after our leader? Could they? GW walked out to that pitcher’s mound sans security. His stride was deliberate, his gaze confident. He delivered a strike to thunderous applause. Man, was that a great moment. It was what we needed. It’s amazing how much our collective opinion of him has changed.
I’m going to give him a C overall. I believe his legacy will be the Bush Doctrine. He will be known as the man that responded to 9-11, and led us into a war on terror that will define this century. God bless the decisions that he made while in office. Let them prove sound and appropriate.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama to the Economy: "What turns you on?"
What's the best way to boost a stagnant economy? What's the role of the government?
Before the inaugural parade floats are disassembled, President Elect Obama will introduce his economic stimulus package. At its core, the package will seek to create jobs, help those that are hurting the most, and get Americans spending money again. But is his plan really going to accomplish that? Can it? I think not. But before I get into why, allow me to suggest an alternative stimulus plan.
Texas' first district Congressman Louie Gohmert gets it. His idea? Give Americans a federal income tax holiday. Two months with no federal withholdings. No FICA either. Why? To get cash into our pockets, that's why. How ingenious – increase the buying power of real Americans (not the government), and allow us to invest or spend the money as we see fit.
Okay, so back to Obama's plan. "What's wrong with you, Fred?" you ask. "What problem do you have with the government creating jobs?" Simply put, I think the private sector would do a better job than the government. I could write a thousand words on this topic alone, but I’ll leave it there for now.
"And what of $300 billion in tax cuts? Helping those that are hurting the most? Surely you can’t be against tax cuts, Fred!" I’m not against tax cuts, and don't call me Shirley :) Tax cuts are great – they're even better when the money goes back to the people that actually paid the taxes in the first place. If you're in the middle class, the largest portion of those cuts will go to folks that never paid taxes to begin with - the poor. That's not a tax cut. That's redistribution of wealth. I won't use the "S" word, but you get the idea. It reduces the middle class' incentive to produce, and that's never a boost to the economy.
"Helping those that are hurting the most" is simply a talking point. It's not true. The "tax cut" for the poorest Americans is great for the poorest Americans, but they are not hurting the most. The majority of the jobs lost in 2008 were not lower income/minimum wage jobs – they were largely middle management and manufacturing jobs. Add this nugget to the fact that the consumer price index is down! That is, the price of a bag of groceries is a lot lower in January 2009 than it was in the summer of 2008. The poorest Americans are spending less to get by, and getting more help from the government. Those that are really hurting the most (i.e. the unemployed middle class) are getting it twice – they're losing their jobs, and the taxes they should get back in the stimulus plan is going to their new neighbors.
Congressman Louie Gohmert's plan would put cold hard cash into American pockets. That would in turn, stimulate the economy. Allow me to illustrate:
1. Fred pays no federal income tax for two months
2. Fred has more money
3. Fred spends some of his capital at the market
4. Store shelves lose inventory and need to be restocked
5. Stores hire stock boys, widget makers make more widgets, truck drivers drive, all reacting to Fred's trip to the market
How's that for economic stimulus? Sounds too simple, right? Too simple to work? I think not, but you'll NEVER see it happen. If we got a collective glimpse at our gross income, Congress would have a hard time justifying the current level of taxation.
Good luck with the corsage, President Obama. She's allergic to flowers.
Before the inaugural parade floats are disassembled, President Elect Obama will introduce his economic stimulus package. At its core, the package will seek to create jobs, help those that are hurting the most, and get Americans spending money again. But is his plan really going to accomplish that? Can it? I think not. But before I get into why, allow me to suggest an alternative stimulus plan.
Texas' first district Congressman Louie Gohmert gets it. His idea? Give Americans a federal income tax holiday. Two months with no federal withholdings. No FICA either. Why? To get cash into our pockets, that's why. How ingenious – increase the buying power of real Americans (not the government), and allow us to invest or spend the money as we see fit.
Okay, so back to Obama's plan. "What's wrong with you, Fred?" you ask. "What problem do you have with the government creating jobs?" Simply put, I think the private sector would do a better job than the government. I could write a thousand words on this topic alone, but I’ll leave it there for now.
"And what of $300 billion in tax cuts? Helping those that are hurting the most? Surely you can’t be against tax cuts, Fred!" I’m not against tax cuts, and don't call me Shirley :) Tax cuts are great – they're even better when the money goes back to the people that actually paid the taxes in the first place. If you're in the middle class, the largest portion of those cuts will go to folks that never paid taxes to begin with - the poor. That's not a tax cut. That's redistribution of wealth. I won't use the "S" word, but you get the idea. It reduces the middle class' incentive to produce, and that's never a boost to the economy.
"Helping those that are hurting the most" is simply a talking point. It's not true. The "tax cut" for the poorest Americans is great for the poorest Americans, but they are not hurting the most. The majority of the jobs lost in 2008 were not lower income/minimum wage jobs – they were largely middle management and manufacturing jobs. Add this nugget to the fact that the consumer price index is down! That is, the price of a bag of groceries is a lot lower in January 2009 than it was in the summer of 2008. The poorest Americans are spending less to get by, and getting more help from the government. Those that are really hurting the most (i.e. the unemployed middle class) are getting it twice – they're losing their jobs, and the taxes they should get back in the stimulus plan is going to their new neighbors.
Congressman Louie Gohmert's plan would put cold hard cash into American pockets. That would in turn, stimulate the economy. Allow me to illustrate:
1. Fred pays no federal income tax for two months
2. Fred has more money
3. Fred spends some of his capital at the market
4. Store shelves lose inventory and need to be restocked
5. Stores hire stock boys, widget makers make more widgets, truck drivers drive, all reacting to Fred's trip to the market
How's that for economic stimulus? Sounds too simple, right? Too simple to work? I think not, but you'll NEVER see it happen. If we got a collective glimpse at our gross income, Congress would have a hard time justifying the current level of taxation.
Good luck with the corsage, President Obama. She's allergic to flowers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
