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.

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?

• 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.
  

As I read through these mottos and others, four themes stood out to me: liberty, defense, equality, and piety. My God, what on earth has happened to us? We value security over freedom. We apologize to our enemies for defeating them. We take from those that achieve. We deny the reverent their rights to be so.

What will it take to get this country out of our skirts?

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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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.