Well, the worst-kept secret was revealed by U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday: his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy of retiring justice David Souter is New York Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's not terribly surprising to hear the news, particularly since it has been reported that Obama was under intense pressure to pick a woman and also a minority (whether it be Hispanic, Black, Asian, etc.). Obama obviously buckled under the pressure of special interest groups, the two U.S. New York Senators, and left-wing advocacy groups everywhere in making his pick. But that is not unusual, given that Obama likes to play to the media and whatever position is popular (which is usually media-driven). That is not to say that Sotomayor may not be qualified, but it takes a lot of guts to make a decision which may not be popular - it happened with President Bush all the time and he was chastised for it from the media to the everyday Joe, who seems to more often than not form their opinions based on the media (you can rag all you want about Bush, I think that while he did make some mistakes, he is a man who acted on his convictions, most of which were not popular with the secular mainstream - yet he continued to stay the course). You may recall Bush nominated Chief Justice John Roberts, despite the fact that his wife Laura wanted him to nominate a woman. Now, that takes guts, going against your wife!!!
I find the response to the Sotomayor nomination from Hispanics to be laughable. Oh, so much pride! It is an exciting day! And on and on it goes. Sort of like when Obama was inaugurated. I remember being in a conference room at work here where they decided to televise the inauguration for curious and politically minded employees here. The room was packed when Obama took the oath of office and of the 80 or so people who were crammed in the room, I was the only one who did not applaud (got some dirty looks, but I don't care). What I found interesting were these two Black ladies who were crying and cheering and "thanking the Lord - someone's there for us now!" I think from the perspective of going from slavery to having a half-Black man become President, is definitely overwhelming for those older Black folks who had to endure racism and prejudice. But underlying some of the racial relief is a sense that somehow a Black President will make things easier for Black people. Isn't that preferential treatment? Reverse discrimination?
I have gathered the same sentiments in how Hispanics have responded to the Sotomayor nomination. To say that it's nice to see someone who, from humble beginnings, was able to apply herself (hopefully that was the case and not through affirmative action - nowadays, who really knows) and get into prestigious law schools and become a lawyer and then a judge, is definitely something to be celebrated, regardless of the race of the person. But the sentiments and responses I have been reading seem more along the lines of "Now, finally, someone to represent us!" and "Now we will be treated fairly." There seems to be a sense that by having someone of your race, ethnicity or culture in an influential position, that they may be able to offer you opportunities, preferential treatment, and cut you slack, based on race. That is, and always has been, wrong.
Now, if Obama picked her because she was the best qualified, then I don't think people would have much of an issue here. But Obama encompasses the same thing that most corporate companies try to push: "diversity". For "diversity's" sake. In other words, make sure you have women, minorities, or gays and lesbians represented in your workforce (or in Obama's case, in his cabinet). I have railed against our company's policy on "diversity" and have been reprimanded more than once for speaking against it, but I have always been the firm belief that if the person is qualified, hire them, regardless of their race or culture. I have practiced this and have hired my fair share of women, not because they were women, but because they were qualified. BUT the prevailing mentality in most companies nowadays is a reverse of this: start with filling out a racial quota, and then once you find enough candidates of a certain demographic, choose from one of them. No wonder white males are peeved as they are not being considered for anything nowadays. That is wrong, regardless of the injustices that have been inflicted in the past. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Although I am not an American, I am leery of seeing a person like Sotomayor on the U.S. bench. After all, us Canadians seem to be the recipient of trickle-down effects of U.S. laws., and our legal system, while originally derived from the British, is influenced today heavily by what goes on the U.S. So what goes on in the U.S. does have an effect in Canada. Besides, I've always been interested in U.S. politics, even back to when I was a little kid.
If I recall in what I have read about her in the past few weeks, she seems to have had a number of decisions that are racially-based. She is firmly an advocate of affirmative action, which makes me wonder whether she has some biased towards racially preferential treatment towards a certain group. She has been quoted as saying that judges make the law, which is a bit worrisome.
Even though she is a Roman Catholic, she holds a pro-choice position, which gives hard-core Catholics indigestion, but obviously to those of us who are virulently pro-life, it is not a great sign. Further, I have read that in university papers and essays, she has written about the second amendment and that she believes that gun ownership is unconstitutional (I believe her paper was called Deadly Obsession or something like that). I really have no idea how George H.W. Bush originally nominated her, with such clear left-leaning views, even though she was classified as a moderate liberal. It is no surprise that the uber-liberal Bill Clinton elevated her to a higher court.
Let's hope that Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and to a lesser degree, Anthony Kennedy live long lives and don't have any plans to retire any time soon.
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Get Yer Ammo Now Before They're Gone, Boys and Girls...
Maybe it's me, but the last six months or so, I have noticed an general increase in anything firearm related. No more evident was this than when I went to my local gunshop recently (3 weeks ago) to buy a few rounds of .223 Remington and happened upon one of the two boxes that had a lower sticker price. The clerk swore under her breath, and said, "Fine, I'll give two boxes to you at the same price." I asked her why the price discrepancy, and she said, "price of ammo went up". Now, I sort of knew this for the .22 rounds that I bought in December, compared to the cheaper price that I got the same rounds for in August. At the time, I was told that the price shift was due to the Canadian dollar weakening. Makes sense. I asked if it had anything to do with Obama winning the U.S. election. Maybe, is the general answer received by many with whom I've spoken.
I even more recently (yesterday) thought I'd buy another box of the .223, since it seemed like it was in short supply, and when the lady got the box out, the price tag was higher than 3 weeks ago...the total jump from last year's price to yesterday's price was something like 23%. I didn't end up buying the ammo, since I figured that I don't shoot .223 that often, but I wonder whether I should have bought the box while I was there.
I have noticed everything from airguns to air rifles to firearms have been increasing in price, as well as the ammo. I find it hard to believe that all this has to do with the Canadian dollar. If nothing else, you would think that prices would be lowered in these crappy economic times. But I did a little bit of digging, and the firearms industry is doing just fine. In fact, demand has far outstripped supply recently, and there have been a lot of people suggesting that Obama is on the cusp of implementing his anti-gun agenda, if he hasn't already started. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Obama is not going to do anything restrictive when it comes to guns. His voting record indicates that he is a staunch gun controller, and he has surrounded himself with people who share the same view.
I was reading about a report that has circulated around the internet that says that Canadian officials feel a certain affinity with Obama and would like to test the waters with an ammunition import ban, partuclarly "military-type" of rounds like the NATO 5.56x45mm and 7.65x51mm, amongst others. Essentially, you will see rounds like the .223 and .308 affected, as well as .50BMG and others.
Now, this is nothing new. And it is consistent with what I have been seeing - for instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find the Butler Creek 25-round mag for the Ruger 10/22 in any Canadian store nowadays, unless it's old stock, and even then, it would have been already snatched up. The U.S. government last year decided to stop the export of these to Canada, since they feared that it would make the 10/22 look more military-like with a large capacity clip. Yet, you can find the 25 round clip for the Remington 597 (similar class gun as the 10/22) anywhere. Also, for those who have restricted PALs in Canada, you may have a harder time finding the popular AR-15, as the Canadian government considers it in the "assault rifle" class and sets the AR-15 as a restricted weapon, because of its military and bad-ass type of look. And it shoots the .223 round, which is considered "military class". Yet, you can easily find non-restricted semi-automatic rifles that shoot much more powerful calibers, but they are not put in such a scrutinized class, because they "look less dangerous" and look more like a hunting rifle (which they are).
Anyway, I can see the collective governments of our two countries coming to some sort of agreement on limiting available guns and ammunition. Even though I support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government party, I get the sense that while he may be a fiscal conservative and to a degree a social one, the guns issue is not high on his priority list. Consider the fact that there was much talk of the Conservative scrapping the hated Canadian long-gun registry. Harper's been in power for 3+ years now, and the registry is still on the books. If you couple this with his seemingly positive first experience with President Obama during his visit last month, you would think that they were best buddies.
Anyway, the point is that I can personally substantiate the fact that ammo and guns are going up in price. Some guns are now no longer sold at my gunshop, even higher power air rifles - the reasons remain unknown (at least to me) though I have my suspicions. Your best bet at this time would be to stock up on ammo as much as possible. No, this is not an alarmist approach as with stocking up bottled water during the Y2K scenario a decade ago. That was based on speculation and conjecture and not really based on any concrete evidence that the world was going to blow up. Of course, I am not suggesting that now, but what I am saying is that I can read the tea leaves as much as the next guy, and seeing the trend in the past year has led me to believe that at some point, law abiding gun owners will have more restrictions put on them than ever before, and while I detest the act of hoarding, sometimes you need to in order to preserve your way of life, as well as defend your individual rights. At the very least, you will know that you are contributing to probably the only active and flourishing industry in these bad economic times.
I even more recently (yesterday) thought I'd buy another box of the .223, since it seemed like it was in short supply, and when the lady got the box out, the price tag was higher than 3 weeks ago...the total jump from last year's price to yesterday's price was something like 23%. I didn't end up buying the ammo, since I figured that I don't shoot .223 that often, but I wonder whether I should have bought the box while I was there.
I have noticed everything from airguns to air rifles to firearms have been increasing in price, as well as the ammo. I find it hard to believe that all this has to do with the Canadian dollar. If nothing else, you would think that prices would be lowered in these crappy economic times. But I did a little bit of digging, and the firearms industry is doing just fine. In fact, demand has far outstripped supply recently, and there have been a lot of people suggesting that Obama is on the cusp of implementing his anti-gun agenda, if he hasn't already started. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Obama is not going to do anything restrictive when it comes to guns. His voting record indicates that he is a staunch gun controller, and he has surrounded himself with people who share the same view.
I was reading about a report that has circulated around the internet that says that Canadian officials feel a certain affinity with Obama and would like to test the waters with an ammunition import ban, partuclarly "military-type" of rounds like the NATO 5.56x45mm and 7.65x51mm, amongst others. Essentially, you will see rounds like the .223 and .308 affected, as well as .50BMG and others.
Now, this is nothing new. And it is consistent with what I have been seeing - for instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find the Butler Creek 25-round mag for the Ruger 10/22 in any Canadian store nowadays, unless it's old stock, and even then, it would have been already snatched up. The U.S. government last year decided to stop the export of these to Canada, since they feared that it would make the 10/22 look more military-like with a large capacity clip. Yet, you can find the 25 round clip for the Remington 597 (similar class gun as the 10/22) anywhere. Also, for those who have restricted PALs in Canada, you may have a harder time finding the popular AR-15, as the Canadian government considers it in the "assault rifle" class and sets the AR-15 as a restricted weapon, because of its military and bad-ass type of look. And it shoots the .223 round, which is considered "military class". Yet, you can easily find non-restricted semi-automatic rifles that shoot much more powerful calibers, but they are not put in such a scrutinized class, because they "look less dangerous" and look more like a hunting rifle (which they are).
Anyway, I can see the collective governments of our two countries coming to some sort of agreement on limiting available guns and ammunition. Even though I support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government party, I get the sense that while he may be a fiscal conservative and to a degree a social one, the guns issue is not high on his priority list. Consider the fact that there was much talk of the Conservative scrapping the hated Canadian long-gun registry. Harper's been in power for 3+ years now, and the registry is still on the books. If you couple this with his seemingly positive first experience with President Obama during his visit last month, you would think that they were best buddies.
Anyway, the point is that I can personally substantiate the fact that ammo and guns are going up in price. Some guns are now no longer sold at my gunshop, even higher power air rifles - the reasons remain unknown (at least to me) though I have my suspicions. Your best bet at this time would be to stock up on ammo as much as possible. No, this is not an alarmist approach as with stocking up bottled water during the Y2K scenario a decade ago. That was based on speculation and conjecture and not really based on any concrete evidence that the world was going to blow up. Of course, I am not suggesting that now, but what I am saying is that I can read the tea leaves as much as the next guy, and seeing the trend in the past year has led me to believe that at some point, law abiding gun owners will have more restrictions put on them than ever before, and while I detest the act of hoarding, sometimes you need to in order to preserve your way of life, as well as defend your individual rights. At the very least, you will know that you are contributing to probably the only active and flourishing industry in these bad economic times.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Did Colin Powell Endorse Barack Obama Because He Is Black?
I find it a bit interesting, but hardly surprising that former Secretary of State Republican Colin Powell recently gave his endorsement o Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He has confirmed what I have thought all along.
In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.
Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.
I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.
Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.
When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).
Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.
I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.
Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?
Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.
Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.
In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.
Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.
I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.
Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.
When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).
Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.
I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.
Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?
Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.
Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin - A Great Choice for The U.S. Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee
For hardcore social conservatives like me, I have always been a bit wary of John McCain. To me, while he may be a fiscal conservative, his social conservative stances leave a lot to be desired. And whether you agree with me or not, ask yourself this – would you want to have a leader follow his or her convictions consistently, not waffling on issues or staying on the fence, even if you may not agree with his/her positions. For me, I have great respect for some liberals with whom I vociferously disagree, but admire the fact that they hold to their positions consistently, despite the environment in which they find themselves or the political climate in general. McCain, to me, is not one of those people, although I will grant that he is a very sincere person, but given a choice between him and Obama, it’s a pretty clear choice – Obama is full of empty promises and while this may not be that well reported in the national press (ie. CNN is decidedly biased towards anything Obama), there are lots of discussion forums where disgruntled citizens of Illinois have candidly stated that he has nothing relatively nothing for them, since he has had his eyes on being the presidential nominee rather than focus on the job at hand. That’s why I like guys like Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who was on McCain’s shortlist to be VP, but expressed that he was elected to be governor of Louisiana and that’s what he’s going to focus on. Saying no to a VP spot may not necessarily be the wisest move long-term, from a political perspective, but I admire Jindal’s dedication to this constituents.
So McCain’s choice of VP would have been very important to alleviate the fears and concerns of social conservatives. For all the Obama-maniacs who seem to let the fanfare and the hype drive their thinking rather than logic and common sense, they would dismiss social conservatives as having any relevance. But let’s face it, groups like Focus on the Family have a lot of sway to American conservative voters. Groups like the NRA have contributed decisively to the success (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. It is not popular to be a conservative these days, so most people don’t go around confessing their conservative views. Liberals have suggested that McCain's rally later today (introducing his running mate, among other things) will not draw many people. I suspect that there will be much more than the 15,000 that are expected to attend. Conservatives tend to come out when it counts and not the flashy spectacles that liberals are famous for.
So it absolutely delights me that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate earlier today. Now, the comments from liberals and democrats have already started to pour in. They think that McCain chose her because she is a woman. They think McCain chose her to appease Hillary supporters. Of course, if you think with her emotions rather than with your brain, you will come to this conclusion. But while I think that having a female on a ticket may show that McCain is sensitive to the fact that women are just as integral to the ballot box as men are, I think that the real reason that he chose her is because she is the truest conservative of all of the potential candidates vetted for the VP spot (with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who would be a great choice, but has been known to put his foot in his mouth at the wrong time). That balances out McCain’s clearly noticeable weakness with socially conservative voters. I think it's pretty insulting to Palin to suggest that she was chosen JUST because she is a woman.
Now, the other argument coming from the democratic camp is the lack of experience card. Sure, McCain railed against Obama for his lack of experience, but I think we're not talking about the same thing here. Obama is running for President. Palin is running for Vice-President. With the exception of Dick Cheney, many of the vice-presidents have had more or less a hands-off approach on a daily basis, working behind the scenes instead. This gives a great opportunity to learn the job behind the scenes. The presidency, however, is no place to learn on the job, since you are constantly in view and mistakes are magnified. Now, I know the other argument that comes from this and it is a valid one - given McCain's age (70-something), what if he croaks or is incapacited - will Palin be able to fill the role of Comamnder-in-Chief? Maybe. Maybe not. But they also said that she was too young to be a mayor at 32, too young and inexperienced to run as a state governor against a multi-term incumbent and yet she still won. Remember, Palin does have political experience in leadership in different capacities for the past 10 years or so - which is more than I can say for community activist - turned senator - Obama. I think that McCain chose wisely due to her staunch and unwavering conservative record and beliefs. She is an evangelical born again Christian, is decisively pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Whether you agree with her or not, there's no way in hell you can mistake her as a liberal (unlike Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman, some other candidates in the running). Tim Pawlenty would have been a great choice too, but Palin's positions on issues is strongly known.
All that being said, she has a tough road ahead, especially in how she will prepare to debate the veteran Joe Biden (who by the way, I will concede was a decent choice by Obama, much better than Hillary Clinton). Will Biden eat her alive on foreign relations issues? Possibly. She can't come up with 30+ years of experience in a month or two - but in seeing her on interviews and such, she is a very articulate politician and has bucked the odds, so I certainly wouldn't discount that she can hold her own.
Having such a strong conservative on the ticket instantly strengthens McCain's viability. It should be very interesting in the days and months ahead. While you will never hear this on CNN, independent polling nationally in the U.S. actually puts McCain ahead of Obama right now. CNN and other liberal establishments put Obama slightly ahead, but if you look at the actual state-by-state totals and how they are made up, you can see that CNN is finding opportunities to inflate some numbers. Even the CNN number have shown a decreasing trend in support for Obama since the primaries ended, and it's gone down even more since he did not make Hillary his running mate (I think this will come back to haunt Obama, even though I think that Biden was and is the better choice).
While I've already sent McCain's campaign several contributions, I'll scrape up some more cash in the days ahead to show my approval for this most excellent pick.
McCain/Palin '08!!!!!
So McCain’s choice of VP would have been very important to alleviate the fears and concerns of social conservatives. For all the Obama-maniacs who seem to let the fanfare and the hype drive their thinking rather than logic and common sense, they would dismiss social conservatives as having any relevance. But let’s face it, groups like Focus on the Family have a lot of sway to American conservative voters. Groups like the NRA have contributed decisively to the success (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. It is not popular to be a conservative these days, so most people don’t go around confessing their conservative views. Liberals have suggested that McCain's rally later today (introducing his running mate, among other things) will not draw many people. I suspect that there will be much more than the 15,000 that are expected to attend. Conservatives tend to come out when it counts and not the flashy spectacles that liberals are famous for.
So it absolutely delights me that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate earlier today. Now, the comments from liberals and democrats have already started to pour in. They think that McCain chose her because she is a woman. They think McCain chose her to appease Hillary supporters. Of course, if you think with her emotions rather than with your brain, you will come to this conclusion. But while I think that having a female on a ticket may show that McCain is sensitive to the fact that women are just as integral to the ballot box as men are, I think that the real reason that he chose her is because she is the truest conservative of all of the potential candidates vetted for the VP spot (with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who would be a great choice, but has been known to put his foot in his mouth at the wrong time). That balances out McCain’s clearly noticeable weakness with socially conservative voters. I think it's pretty insulting to Palin to suggest that she was chosen JUST because she is a woman.
Now, the other argument coming from the democratic camp is the lack of experience card. Sure, McCain railed against Obama for his lack of experience, but I think we're not talking about the same thing here. Obama is running for President. Palin is running for Vice-President. With the exception of Dick Cheney, many of the vice-presidents have had more or less a hands-off approach on a daily basis, working behind the scenes instead. This gives a great opportunity to learn the job behind the scenes. The presidency, however, is no place to learn on the job, since you are constantly in view and mistakes are magnified. Now, I know the other argument that comes from this and it is a valid one - given McCain's age (70-something), what if he croaks or is incapacited - will Palin be able to fill the role of Comamnder-in-Chief? Maybe. Maybe not. But they also said that she was too young to be a mayor at 32, too young and inexperienced to run as a state governor against a multi-term incumbent and yet she still won. Remember, Palin does have political experience in leadership in different capacities for the past 10 years or so - which is more than I can say for community activist - turned senator - Obama. I think that McCain chose wisely due to her staunch and unwavering conservative record and beliefs. She is an evangelical born again Christian, is decisively pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Whether you agree with her or not, there's no way in hell you can mistake her as a liberal (unlike Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman, some other candidates in the running). Tim Pawlenty would have been a great choice too, but Palin's positions on issues is strongly known.
All that being said, she has a tough road ahead, especially in how she will prepare to debate the veteran Joe Biden (who by the way, I will concede was a decent choice by Obama, much better than Hillary Clinton). Will Biden eat her alive on foreign relations issues? Possibly. She can't come up with 30+ years of experience in a month or two - but in seeing her on interviews and such, she is a very articulate politician and has bucked the odds, so I certainly wouldn't discount that she can hold her own.
Having such a strong conservative on the ticket instantly strengthens McCain's viability. It should be very interesting in the days and months ahead. While you will never hear this on CNN, independent polling nationally in the U.S. actually puts McCain ahead of Obama right now. CNN and other liberal establishments put Obama slightly ahead, but if you look at the actual state-by-state totals and how they are made up, you can see that CNN is finding opportunities to inflate some numbers. Even the CNN number have shown a decreasing trend in support for Obama since the primaries ended, and it's gone down even more since he did not make Hillary his running mate (I think this will come back to haunt Obama, even though I think that Biden was and is the better choice).
While I've already sent McCain's campaign several contributions, I'll scrape up some more cash in the days ahead to show my approval for this most excellent pick.
McCain/Palin '08!!!!!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Barack Obama Is Like John Lennon - All Words, No Substance
You know, the more I think about it, the more I see parallels between U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, and the late Beatles frontman John Lennon.
Obama's whole message is about "change". He seldom, if ever, spends any time in providing specifics in how he will accomplish the changes, specifically in how he will fund the changes. In his speech last night to something like 90,000 faithful, packed into Mile High Stadium, he once again railed at McCain and proposed all sorts of stuff that he (thankfully) admitted that he would have to find a way to pay for, yet did not provide specifics, other than chopping government waste and reviewing the federal budget "line by line". These are fine cliche lines that politicians can use, but unless you actually turn on your brain, you won't realize that what he is proposing he will need to spend money to accomplish, and given the sucky economic times that we are in, there are only two ways for him to fund his proposed programs - reducing current spending, or increasing taxes. Now, as for the former...while I am no economist, I do know that conservatives in general are not spenders, but reducers. I find it hard to believe Obama can find that much more to reduce to pay for his programs. Yet, he doesn't address this, but instead, like Lennon, will simply ask people to imagine, to dream, and to hope.
This is fine if you don't think long-term. I mean, I can sit down with my wife and tell her, you know what, we all work hard, we are stressed, we need a break, we need a change, let's go on a month-long vacation to some tropical resort! Sounds great! We're excited. We would already be packing our bags unless one of us (or both of us) stops, puts a lid on the excitement level and logically thinks,
"As fun as this vacation may be, can we afford to do this?"
"Where's the money going to come from?"
"What effects will this have on our children and will they be coming with us and if not, who will watch them?"
"Is this the right thing to do, given that we still have a mortgage to pay, an uncertain job environment for me, and future college/university bills to address for our kids?"
You'll see in a way that these responses can be viewed as a killjoy of sorts, but it's facing reality. Obama needs to spend some time thinking about the implications of his promises. It's like people in general who have discussions about topics and complain about stuff. Someone will inevitably say, "someone should do something about this!" Of course, nobody does, because people realize that in order for them to follow through on that sentiment, they may actually have to get involved and put themselves at an inconvenience or risk.
Obama spends a lot of time talking in generalities. If you don't believe me, go watch any of his speeches on YouTube or something. You can never really nail down his position on something. So without knowing his true positions on things, but rather hearing the pie-in-the-sky philosophy that he constantly talks about, some people don't really have any concrete reason to vote against him, but that's starting to change now that many folks are starting to see him for who he is - a great orator who can give great speeches but has difficulty in delivering. Look at his voting record as a senator and how many "not present" votes he has. Look at what he has done/not done for his constituents in Illinois. When he became senator in 2003 or 2004, he already had aspirations to become the presidential nominee. Why else would he deliver a keynote address for the 2004 DNC in Boston that hardly mentioned John Kerry, the then-nominee for the Democrats. It was because even then, his ego was so large that he thought that he take the opportunity to showcase himself. Sure, I will grant that it was a well delivered speech, but if you watch it in full, it's really out of context, given the fact that he should have talking about John Kerry more and less about himself.
I find it interesting to see Obama talking about change and such all this time, and yet he picks a seasoned Washington veteran to be his running mate. Don't get me wrong - Joe Biden is a very good choice for him, given the fact that Biden helps to balance his zero experience in foreign matters - to me, that at least shows Obama is thinking logically at least part of the time. But Biden himself said not too long ago during one of the debates that Obama is not suited to be President due to lack of experience. Bill Clinton said the same thing. So did Hillary. I find it interesting now to see all three of them saying he's ready. Guess that's what happens when you get infected with the very contagious diseas Obamamania.
I find it interesting that despite what you may have seen last night, Obama hardly took the nomination in a cakewalk. The 18,000,000 (that's 18 million) voters that voted for Hillary obviously saw something they did not like in Obama, enough to not vote for him. Obama drew similar numbers. It is also interesting that Hillary's voters have not embraced him en masse - lots of them are leaving in droves to vote for John McCain - now, what's this saying to you? They'd rather jump party (and jump to the diametrically polar opposite political philoosphy) rather than vote for Obama. This, to me, is telling. While I have never been a Hillary Clinton fan and pretty much disagree with almost everything she stands for, I can at least enumerate her exact view on certain issues (whether I agree with it is a different story) - I can't say the same for Obama).
I find his "followers" to be very typical liberals. You know, the ones who will ride the bandwagon on any issue that seems to pique the public interest - like, oh, the environment. It's great to be Al Gore when you have the special interests groups proud that he is taking their position and you become some celebrity due to your support of "trendy" issues like the environment and climate change and human rights in China or whatever else that morons like U2's Bono or causes other celebrities attempt to champion.
Obama's premise is one that is not too far removed from the old days when we were all elementary school students - let's follow the outspoken popular kid. Yet if you look at how those quiet, studious nerdy types ended up, you'll see that they all ended up doing quite well in life, since people generally will (eventually) value substance and intelligence over style and oratal pizazz. John McCain is not the most outspoken and "go get 'em" type of person in the election - but he does have experience, knows that hard decisions made may not be popular, and is willing to stick to his guns. I am not saying Obama is a bad guy; just that he is ill-equipped to serve as the leader of the most influential country int he world.
Obama's whole message is about "change". He seldom, if ever, spends any time in providing specifics in how he will accomplish the changes, specifically in how he will fund the changes. In his speech last night to something like 90,000 faithful, packed into Mile High Stadium, he once again railed at McCain and proposed all sorts of stuff that he (thankfully) admitted that he would have to find a way to pay for, yet did not provide specifics, other than chopping government waste and reviewing the federal budget "line by line". These are fine cliche lines that politicians can use, but unless you actually turn on your brain, you won't realize that what he is proposing he will need to spend money to accomplish, and given the sucky economic times that we are in, there are only two ways for him to fund his proposed programs - reducing current spending, or increasing taxes. Now, as for the former...while I am no economist, I do know that conservatives in general are not spenders, but reducers. I find it hard to believe Obama can find that much more to reduce to pay for his programs. Yet, he doesn't address this, but instead, like Lennon, will simply ask people to imagine, to dream, and to hope.
This is fine if you don't think long-term. I mean, I can sit down with my wife and tell her, you know what, we all work hard, we are stressed, we need a break, we need a change, let's go on a month-long vacation to some tropical resort! Sounds great! We're excited. We would already be packing our bags unless one of us (or both of us) stops, puts a lid on the excitement level and logically thinks,
"As fun as this vacation may be, can we afford to do this?"
"Where's the money going to come from?"
"What effects will this have on our children and will they be coming with us and if not, who will watch them?"
"Is this the right thing to do, given that we still have a mortgage to pay, an uncertain job environment for me, and future college/university bills to address for our kids?"
You'll see in a way that these responses can be viewed as a killjoy of sorts, but it's facing reality. Obama needs to spend some time thinking about the implications of his promises. It's like people in general who have discussions about topics and complain about stuff. Someone will inevitably say, "someone should do something about this!" Of course, nobody does, because people realize that in order for them to follow through on that sentiment, they may actually have to get involved and put themselves at an inconvenience or risk.
Obama spends a lot of time talking in generalities. If you don't believe me, go watch any of his speeches on YouTube or something. You can never really nail down his position on something. So without knowing his true positions on things, but rather hearing the pie-in-the-sky philosophy that he constantly talks about, some people don't really have any concrete reason to vote against him, but that's starting to change now that many folks are starting to see him for who he is - a great orator who can give great speeches but has difficulty in delivering. Look at his voting record as a senator and how many "not present" votes he has. Look at what he has done/not done for his constituents in Illinois. When he became senator in 2003 or 2004, he already had aspirations to become the presidential nominee. Why else would he deliver a keynote address for the 2004 DNC in Boston that hardly mentioned John Kerry, the then-nominee for the Democrats. It was because even then, his ego was so large that he thought that he take the opportunity to showcase himself. Sure, I will grant that it was a well delivered speech, but if you watch it in full, it's really out of context, given the fact that he should have talking about John Kerry more and less about himself.
I find it interesting to see Obama talking about change and such all this time, and yet he picks a seasoned Washington veteran to be his running mate. Don't get me wrong - Joe Biden is a very good choice for him, given the fact that Biden helps to balance his zero experience in foreign matters - to me, that at least shows Obama is thinking logically at least part of the time. But Biden himself said not too long ago during one of the debates that Obama is not suited to be President due to lack of experience. Bill Clinton said the same thing. So did Hillary. I find it interesting now to see all three of them saying he's ready. Guess that's what happens when you get infected with the very contagious diseas Obamamania.
I find it interesting that despite what you may have seen last night, Obama hardly took the nomination in a cakewalk. The 18,000,000 (that's 18 million) voters that voted for Hillary obviously saw something they did not like in Obama, enough to not vote for him. Obama drew similar numbers. It is also interesting that Hillary's voters have not embraced him en masse - lots of them are leaving in droves to vote for John McCain - now, what's this saying to you? They'd rather jump party (and jump to the diametrically polar opposite political philoosphy) rather than vote for Obama. This, to me, is telling. While I have never been a Hillary Clinton fan and pretty much disagree with almost everything she stands for, I can at least enumerate her exact view on certain issues (whether I agree with it is a different story) - I can't say the same for Obama).
I find his "followers" to be very typical liberals. You know, the ones who will ride the bandwagon on any issue that seems to pique the public interest - like, oh, the environment. It's great to be Al Gore when you have the special interests groups proud that he is taking their position and you become some celebrity due to your support of "trendy" issues like the environment and climate change and human rights in China or whatever else that morons like U2's Bono or causes other celebrities attempt to champion.
Obama's premise is one that is not too far removed from the old days when we were all elementary school students - let's follow the outspoken popular kid. Yet if you look at how those quiet, studious nerdy types ended up, you'll see that they all ended up doing quite well in life, since people generally will (eventually) value substance and intelligence over style and oratal pizazz. John McCain is not the most outspoken and "go get 'em" type of person in the election - but he does have experience, knows that hard decisions made may not be popular, and is willing to stick to his guns. I am not saying Obama is a bad guy; just that he is ill-equipped to serve as the leader of the most influential country int he world.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Preach It, Barack Obama - There IS A Problem In the Black Community
This is, like, the only time EVER that I will heap anything close to praise for something Barack Obama said. Truth be told, while I've been following the U.S. presidential race and primaries since the whole thing began, with a new child in the family, I've not had as much interest in fervently commenting on the primary season, which of course, is now over and we will have Barack Obama and John McCain duking it out in November. Not the best candidates each party has to offer, but oh well...
But back to Obama - I cringe everytime I hear this guy talk - I swear, he sounds like an enthusiastic snake oil salesman. Speaks in platitudes and generalities, and why not? His experience is sorely lacking - he needs to make up for it in the only way a politician can - by generating revolutionary sound bytes and catch-phrases in order to ignite the imagination of a political audience who is cynical, despondent, and perhaps even ambivalent towards anything political.
But...his recent comments regarding problems in the black community, particularly in the area of absentee fathers and broken homes for black children was quite a welcome breath of fresh air (on Father's Day, no doubt). I mean, this is nothing new - Bill Cosby has been preaching this for years, yet for whatever reason, it seems as if when bright, highly educated Black folks like Cosby or Obama (well, not sure how bright he is, but anyhow) point a finger at the Black community and pours criticism on them for problems that are seriously over-represented in that community, they usually end up having charges of reverse discrimination, being an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor" and such thrown at them. Obama has been receiving some criticism for his words. But you know, I think this is symptomatic of what he is saying - not taking responsibility for one's actions.
You know, in my younger years when I was haplessly idealistic, naively egalitarian, and would rather turn a blind eye to a problem for fear of offending people, I would never have agreed to such a statement as what Obama and Cosby are saying. Hey, it's not just them - look at those loudmouths Louis Farrakkan (sp.) and Jesse Jackson - they all had that Million Man March back in 1995 - wasn't that sort of saying the same thing?
Now, I know what you are thinking - I certainly cannot be painting all Black people with the same brush. Of course I'm not - I do personally have several Black friends who are in strong, committed marriages, who discipline their kids and raise them right, who don't cry racism at the drop of a hat. I am smart enough to know that I cannot simply paint one broad brush on the "Black community" - which, incidentally is a bit of a peculiar term, since those Black folks I know do not associate with any "Black community" - I wonder whether this is more of a media construct than anything else.
But back to the point - Obama is touching primarily on the issues of Black men who disappear after porking their latest Black female, and producing a child. Who of course, ends up growing up without a father, and despite what the liberal media will tell you about the virtues of a strong single mother, let's all cut the bullshit here, shall we? It has been statistically proven over and over again (not to mention this is just basic common sense) that children from single-parent homes are many times more likely to join a gang, father a child at a very young age, or get pregnant at a very young age, get in trouble with the law, drop out of school, and so forth.
What gets me are these Black people who seem to have blinders on who say that single-parent families are not exclusive to the Black race. That is technically true, but my goodness, how can anyone deny the fact that over 50% of Black kids in the U.S. and Canada are not raised in a home where there is a father and mother present? I can you tell this - there is no better confirmation of something I hear than to see it myself. Several weeks ago, my wife (yes, the only one that I have), my kids (yes, I had them with my wife) and I went to a kids' party establishment. For whatever reason, at either of the locations of this establishment that we have frequented, there is a pronounced number of Black kids there (don't know why, can't be bothered to figure it out). Anyhow, it was of no surprise for me to see that only about 35% of these kids came with a mother and father (whether they were married, I wasn't sure). Yet, 90% of the White kids there, around 90% of the East Indian kids, and 95% of the Asian kids had both fathers and mothers present (and the ones that didn't, you could see that the mothers had wedding bands on - yes, I notice these types of things, and no, I wasn't looking for a date).
Now, I work at the corner of a major intersection in Toronto (and by major, I mean major - like, both of these intersecting streets encompass the length and width of the city, if not ore). On one of the streets, about a 10 minute drive Westbound, you will find perhaps the most notorious intersection in Toronto for crime and such. Again, when I was young and stupid, I used to think that that intersection's crime rate was a figment of the press' imagination. I've been there during the day (just driving through, though I've since learned to take severe detours around that intersection - even if it costs me an extra 15 minutes to do so). Let me tell you what I have seen and heard there. 1) I have seen several gangs openly doing drug deals (yes, I know what a gang looks like and what drugs look like). 2) I have heard gunshots during the freaking day - yes, I know what a gunshot sounds like. 3) I have seen all manner of complete lack of respect - ie. two young punks were trying to beat the light in crossing the street and plowed over an old man - which they didn't even bother checking to see if he was OK - he was. 4) it was a harem of single motherhood. Oh, did I mention that everyone in that neighbourhood was Black?
I am sorry, but whatever you may hear about Asians, I can confirm that the rate of children being raised in two-parent homes (and I mean a mother and father, not that gay/lesbian shit that has been all over the press lately) is significantly higher. In fact, in the whole time growing up, I think I only know or one or two Asian families whose mother and father figures divorced. I'm sure it's slightly higher now, based on the poisonous North America anti-marriage culture, but I can bet every dollar in my bank account that it is still nowhere near the epidemic proportions of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes that just permeate in the Black community. I'm pretty sure my fellow Asians aren't lining up the jails and penitentiaries. I'm almost certain that a high majority of gun crime in Toronto is not perpetrated by Asians. Heck, I think I'd be comfortable in saying that White folks, who have experienced a high incidence of divorce as this sad scenario continues to rise statistically, are still by and large more likely to be in two-parent homes, as compared to Black folks.
Now, onto a topic that is a favourite of mine: guns. Let's be honest here - who commits most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? Despite the fact that millions of Whites have guns, it's not the Whites perpetrating the crimes (sure, you'll see the Columbines and what not where White people are "featured", but for every reported White crime with a gun, I guarantee there are many more unreported Black crimes with guns. But of course, it is not fashionable to paint Blacks in a negative light nowadays, so the generally left-leaning press tends to ignore it. I find it funny that these "Black leaders" are calling for gun bans and extreme gun control measures, yet the eventual targets of these proposed bans would be mostly law abiding White folks. Consider this as well - you see guys like 50 Cent who, on both his "Get Rich or Die Trying" and "The Massacre" albums - by the way, both albums are pretty good from a music perspective even though the lyrics aren't exactly the more family-oriented - both of these albums feature 50 Cent and his posse holding Tec-9s, 9mm handguns, some assault rifles, and so all, while they are all dressed up in gang regalia. You ever see a White person dressed like this holding all these weapons? We'd probably all laugh at it. But for Black rappers for the most part, this is commonplace - and in a sense, it is almost portrayed as cool, and kids (and adults) buy into this. I remember when I was a teenager, the big controversy was Ice-T's track, "F*ck The Police", which at the time generated great concern among a number of folks. These days, no one would bat an eyelash, as Blacks seem to almost be synonymous with gangs and drive-by shootings, etc. I mean, looking like a pimp is not only in fashion in the Black community, but exudes an air of street credibility, and life experience (forget the fact that the practice is not exactly legal or moral).
I happened to turn to a radio call-in show on the car ride home from work today, and they interviewed a Black guy from Africa on this. He says that this problem with Blacks is U.S. issue - it's not like that in Africa at all. Is he kidding me? Africa - the place where the largest incidence of A.I.D.S. occurs. No, it's not because African males are bonking monkeys, as urban legend would have it (at least not anymore). Fact of the matter is, in Africa, Blacks encounter the same thing - lots of fatherless children, and the A.I.D.S. virus is passed by men having several women partners (whether by a polygamous "relationship" or wild, heathenistic living. Don't believe me? My wife and I sponsor an adorable little girl in Africa (Rwanda, to be exact). Her father and mother are not married. Where is the father? In jail. Sounds familiar?
Last year, I hired a guy at work from Africa. Aside from the fact that he really didn't do his job properly and we ended letting him go, I got to know him as a person through the number of months he was with us. I found out that he had two kids - ah, that's great, I said. I asked him why they didn't come to Canada with him. He said they are with their mother. I said, "oh, you mean your wife?" He said, "I'm not married". Sound familiar?
I keep in touch with this 46-year-old lady from Alabama, to whom I sold some Michael J. Fox collectibles. She has given me great insight on the American South, and have confirmed some of what I had always thought about the South. She did tell me, interestingly enough, that racism is alive and well there. However, it is her opinion (she she says is echoed by many) that she would never date a Black man. And I mean never. She said where she lives, the Asians there are "hard working and treated like Whites". The Blacks, however, no matter how hard working, are still not regarded well. And I think we're starting to see a subtle backlash now. Growing up, my parents were of the mindset that "you marry your own kind", though they added the caveat that "if you do decide to marry of a different race, please let it be anyone other than Black." Now, I will be the first to admit that Asian have their own hangups and can be one of the more racist groups out there (though as a general rule, Asians never have the balls to actually tell someone else how they feel about their race - ie. Asian parents are not likely to confront their daughter's Black boyfriend and tell him to get lost, at least not explicitly. Anyway, I am mentioning this because I am still seeing this nowadays talking with parents who have teenage kids - there's still an "anyone but Black" mentality out there. But whereas before I was disgusted at this sentiment, now that I look at it objectively, based on my observations, would I be happy with my daughter dating a Black guy, knowing what I know about the rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies among Black women (or White women who obviously try to be Black)? Probably not. If you are shocked by this, think about what you would do in your situation.
Why is it like this? I am neither a sociologist or anthropologist, so I cannot be definitively sure, but I can say a few things. One, is that similar things beget similar things. It's not really all that different from the oft-mentioned notion that victims of physical or sexual abuse as children, tend to become perpetrators of the same once they become adults. After all, like it or not, we tend to be a product of our environment (and this doesn't even count my belief in the presence of sin as a key factor to why people are all born bad, in my opinion). So the Black child (a boy in particular) who grows up without a father generally does not have certain key elements of manhood passed down to him. What do I mean by this? Well, let me just say that is my belief that while a mother and father both equally impart important life lessons to a child (a boy in this case), a father has a particular role in teaching his son the value of accepting responsibility, honour, treating women properly, etc. Without that father teaching his son about these things (and enforcing them through example), the child grows up without a compass of masculinity. As a result, he seeks the acceptance he probably subconsciously wants from his father, so he will join a gang to get it. Women will be regarded as objects to be used, rather than people to love. Having a child would be considered a collateral event as a result of "hitting it" rather than a responsibility to be accepted.
Now, before you target me a closet racist (or even an overt racist), consider the following: I am really targeting my rant here towards young Black people. With older Black folks, it's a different ballgame. I have a deep respect for Black elders - if you look at Black folks who are 45+ years old, chances are you will see them married with kids, just like the rest of us. I guess I am talking about Black men here. In fact, one of the people on this earth I have the most respect for, is my former boss at work, who of all my bosses I have ever had, took care of my career and job development more than anyone else - he secured fantastic raises for me during the time I worked for him and he really looked out for my well being and best interest, career-wise, as well as peronal-wise. I actually will likely be leaving my company of 11 years and joining him within the next year, as a Network Manager at his establishment (he's the C.E.O., by the way). He also happens to be a born-again Christian, and a mature one at that. And this is one thing I really like about older Black people - there is a deep sense of spirituality that is very strong. I am not entirely sure where there is such a dichotomy between older Blacks and younger Blacks, but that's what I've noticed.
Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here - a lot of Black folks are equally as concerned about this problem in the "community". I am on an Asian cultural discussion forum and one of the topics one day was why you seldom see Asian male, Black female couples. Most of the Asian males did not bother responding to the topic, so one of the gals there, who is extremely articulate and well spoken, answered the question - it's the stereotype of Black people out there - the stereotype of the Black man is well known, but Black women are portrayed in the media as loud-mouthed, opinionated, fat-assed, rude bit..., er...persons. Now, I can tell you that that is a total media construct, as I have met more than my fair share of Black women who do not fit that stereotype in the least, starting when I was in high school. In fact, before I met my wife, I went on a couple of casual walks (don't know if I'd consider them dates or not, probably not) with this girl I met at our school named Lorna (interestingly enough, she was from the same town/city my wife is from). She was a really kind-hearted girl. And she was Black. A number of my female friends in school in grade 12 were Black - from Guyana, etc.). I know several Black ladies nowadays who are kindest, loveliest friends that we have. I know the stereotype is not true. Besides, you see these Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell types and know that loud-mouthed obnoxious women are not unique to Blacks.
(I'M NOT FINISHED THIS POST YET - MORE TO COME)...
But back to Obama - I cringe everytime I hear this guy talk - I swear, he sounds like an enthusiastic snake oil salesman. Speaks in platitudes and generalities, and why not? His experience is sorely lacking - he needs to make up for it in the only way a politician can - by generating revolutionary sound bytes and catch-phrases in order to ignite the imagination of a political audience who is cynical, despondent, and perhaps even ambivalent towards anything political.
But...his recent comments regarding problems in the black community, particularly in the area of absentee fathers and broken homes for black children was quite a welcome breath of fresh air (on Father's Day, no doubt). I mean, this is nothing new - Bill Cosby has been preaching this for years, yet for whatever reason, it seems as if when bright, highly educated Black folks like Cosby or Obama (well, not sure how bright he is, but anyhow) point a finger at the Black community and pours criticism on them for problems that are seriously over-represented in that community, they usually end up having charges of reverse discrimination, being an "Uncle Tom", "race traitor" and such thrown at them. Obama has been receiving some criticism for his words. But you know, I think this is symptomatic of what he is saying - not taking responsibility for one's actions.
You know, in my younger years when I was haplessly idealistic, naively egalitarian, and would rather turn a blind eye to a problem for fear of offending people, I would never have agreed to such a statement as what Obama and Cosby are saying. Hey, it's not just them - look at those loudmouths Louis Farrakkan (sp.) and Jesse Jackson - they all had that Million Man March back in 1995 - wasn't that sort of saying the same thing?
Now, I know what you are thinking - I certainly cannot be painting all Black people with the same brush. Of course I'm not - I do personally have several Black friends who are in strong, committed marriages, who discipline their kids and raise them right, who don't cry racism at the drop of a hat. I am smart enough to know that I cannot simply paint one broad brush on the "Black community" - which, incidentally is a bit of a peculiar term, since those Black folks I know do not associate with any "Black community" - I wonder whether this is more of a media construct than anything else.
But back to the point - Obama is touching primarily on the issues of Black men who disappear after porking their latest Black female, and producing a child. Who of course, ends up growing up without a father, and despite what the liberal media will tell you about the virtues of a strong single mother, let's all cut the bullshit here, shall we? It has been statistically proven over and over again (not to mention this is just basic common sense) that children from single-parent homes are many times more likely to join a gang, father a child at a very young age, or get pregnant at a very young age, get in trouble with the law, drop out of school, and so forth.
What gets me are these Black people who seem to have blinders on who say that single-parent families are not exclusive to the Black race. That is technically true, but my goodness, how can anyone deny the fact that over 50% of Black kids in the U.S. and Canada are not raised in a home where there is a father and mother present? I can you tell this - there is no better confirmation of something I hear than to see it myself. Several weeks ago, my wife (yes, the only one that I have), my kids (yes, I had them with my wife) and I went to a kids' party establishment. For whatever reason, at either of the locations of this establishment that we have frequented, there is a pronounced number of Black kids there (don't know why, can't be bothered to figure it out). Anyhow, it was of no surprise for me to see that only about 35% of these kids came with a mother and father (whether they were married, I wasn't sure). Yet, 90% of the White kids there, around 90% of the East Indian kids, and 95% of the Asian kids had both fathers and mothers present (and the ones that didn't, you could see that the mothers had wedding bands on - yes, I notice these types of things, and no, I wasn't looking for a date).
Now, I work at the corner of a major intersection in Toronto (and by major, I mean major - like, both of these intersecting streets encompass the length and width of the city, if not ore). On one of the streets, about a 10 minute drive Westbound, you will find perhaps the most notorious intersection in Toronto for crime and such. Again, when I was young and stupid, I used to think that that intersection's crime rate was a figment of the press' imagination. I've been there during the day (just driving through, though I've since learned to take severe detours around that intersection - even if it costs me an extra 15 minutes to do so). Let me tell you what I have seen and heard there. 1) I have seen several gangs openly doing drug deals (yes, I know what a gang looks like and what drugs look like). 2) I have heard gunshots during the freaking day - yes, I know what a gunshot sounds like. 3) I have seen all manner of complete lack of respect - ie. two young punks were trying to beat the light in crossing the street and plowed over an old man - which they didn't even bother checking to see if he was OK - he was. 4) it was a harem of single motherhood. Oh, did I mention that everyone in that neighbourhood was Black?
I am sorry, but whatever you may hear about Asians, I can confirm that the rate of children being raised in two-parent homes (and I mean a mother and father, not that gay/lesbian shit that has been all over the press lately) is significantly higher. In fact, in the whole time growing up, I think I only know or one or two Asian families whose mother and father figures divorced. I'm sure it's slightly higher now, based on the poisonous North America anti-marriage culture, but I can bet every dollar in my bank account that it is still nowhere near the epidemic proportions of out-of-wedlock births and single-parent homes that just permeate in the Black community. I'm pretty sure my fellow Asians aren't lining up the jails and penitentiaries. I'm almost certain that a high majority of gun crime in Toronto is not perpetrated by Asians. Heck, I think I'd be comfortable in saying that White folks, who have experienced a high incidence of divorce as this sad scenario continues to rise statistically, are still by and large more likely to be in two-parent homes, as compared to Black folks.
Now, onto a topic that is a favourite of mine: guns. Let's be honest here - who commits most of the gun crimes in the U.S.? Despite the fact that millions of Whites have guns, it's not the Whites perpetrating the crimes (sure, you'll see the Columbines and what not where White people are "featured", but for every reported White crime with a gun, I guarantee there are many more unreported Black crimes with guns. But of course, it is not fashionable to paint Blacks in a negative light nowadays, so the generally left-leaning press tends to ignore it. I find it funny that these "Black leaders" are calling for gun bans and extreme gun control measures, yet the eventual targets of these proposed bans would be mostly law abiding White folks. Consider this as well - you see guys like 50 Cent who, on both his "Get Rich or Die Trying" and "The Massacre" albums - by the way, both albums are pretty good from a music perspective even though the lyrics aren't exactly the more family-oriented - both of these albums feature 50 Cent and his posse holding Tec-9s, 9mm handguns, some assault rifles, and so all, while they are all dressed up in gang regalia. You ever see a White person dressed like this holding all these weapons? We'd probably all laugh at it. But for Black rappers for the most part, this is commonplace - and in a sense, it is almost portrayed as cool, and kids (and adults) buy into this. I remember when I was a teenager, the big controversy was Ice-T's track, "F*ck The Police", which at the time generated great concern among a number of folks. These days, no one would bat an eyelash, as Blacks seem to almost be synonymous with gangs and drive-by shootings, etc. I mean, looking like a pimp is not only in fashion in the Black community, but exudes an air of street credibility, and life experience (forget the fact that the practice is not exactly legal or moral).
I happened to turn to a radio call-in show on the car ride home from work today, and they interviewed a Black guy from Africa on this. He says that this problem with Blacks is U.S. issue - it's not like that in Africa at all. Is he kidding me? Africa - the place where the largest incidence of A.I.D.S. occurs. No, it's not because African males are bonking monkeys, as urban legend would have it (at least not anymore). Fact of the matter is, in Africa, Blacks encounter the same thing - lots of fatherless children, and the A.I.D.S. virus is passed by men having several women partners (whether by a polygamous "relationship" or wild, heathenistic living. Don't believe me? My wife and I sponsor an adorable little girl in Africa (Rwanda, to be exact). Her father and mother are not married. Where is the father? In jail. Sounds familiar?
Last year, I hired a guy at work from Africa. Aside from the fact that he really didn't do his job properly and we ended letting him go, I got to know him as a person through the number of months he was with us. I found out that he had two kids - ah, that's great, I said. I asked him why they didn't come to Canada with him. He said they are with their mother. I said, "oh, you mean your wife?" He said, "I'm not married". Sound familiar?
I keep in touch with this 46-year-old lady from Alabama, to whom I sold some Michael J. Fox collectibles. She has given me great insight on the American South, and have confirmed some of what I had always thought about the South. She did tell me, interestingly enough, that racism is alive and well there. However, it is her opinion (she she says is echoed by many) that she would never date a Black man. And I mean never. She said where she lives, the Asians there are "hard working and treated like Whites". The Blacks, however, no matter how hard working, are still not regarded well. And I think we're starting to see a subtle backlash now. Growing up, my parents were of the mindset that "you marry your own kind", though they added the caveat that "if you do decide to marry of a different race, please let it be anyone other than Black." Now, I will be the first to admit that Asian have their own hangups and can be one of the more racist groups out there (though as a general rule, Asians never have the balls to actually tell someone else how they feel about their race - ie. Asian parents are not likely to confront their daughter's Black boyfriend and tell him to get lost, at least not explicitly. Anyway, I am mentioning this because I am still seeing this nowadays talking with parents who have teenage kids - there's still an "anyone but Black" mentality out there. But whereas before I was disgusted at this sentiment, now that I look at it objectively, based on my observations, would I be happy with my daughter dating a Black guy, knowing what I know about the rate of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancies among Black women (or White women who obviously try to be Black)? Probably not. If you are shocked by this, think about what you would do in your situation.
Why is it like this? I am neither a sociologist or anthropologist, so I cannot be definitively sure, but I can say a few things. One, is that similar things beget similar things. It's not really all that different from the oft-mentioned notion that victims of physical or sexual abuse as children, tend to become perpetrators of the same once they become adults. After all, like it or not, we tend to be a product of our environment (and this doesn't even count my belief in the presence of sin as a key factor to why people are all born bad, in my opinion). So the Black child (a boy in particular) who grows up without a father generally does not have certain key elements of manhood passed down to him. What do I mean by this? Well, let me just say that is my belief that while a mother and father both equally impart important life lessons to a child (a boy in this case), a father has a particular role in teaching his son the value of accepting responsibility, honour, treating women properly, etc. Without that father teaching his son about these things (and enforcing them through example), the child grows up without a compass of masculinity. As a result, he seeks the acceptance he probably subconsciously wants from his father, so he will join a gang to get it. Women will be regarded as objects to be used, rather than people to love. Having a child would be considered a collateral event as a result of "hitting it" rather than a responsibility to be accepted.
Now, before you target me a closet racist (or even an overt racist), consider the following: I am really targeting my rant here towards young Black people. With older Black folks, it's a different ballgame. I have a deep respect for Black elders - if you look at Black folks who are 45+ years old, chances are you will see them married with kids, just like the rest of us. I guess I am talking about Black men here. In fact, one of the people on this earth I have the most respect for, is my former boss at work, who of all my bosses I have ever had, took care of my career and job development more than anyone else - he secured fantastic raises for me during the time I worked for him and he really looked out for my well being and best interest, career-wise, as well as peronal-wise. I actually will likely be leaving my company of 11 years and joining him within the next year, as a Network Manager at his establishment (he's the C.E.O., by the way). He also happens to be a born-again Christian, and a mature one at that. And this is one thing I really like about older Black people - there is a deep sense of spirituality that is very strong. I am not entirely sure where there is such a dichotomy between older Blacks and younger Blacks, but that's what I've noticed.
Now, I don't want to give the wrong impression here - a lot of Black folks are equally as concerned about this problem in the "community". I am on an Asian cultural discussion forum and one of the topics one day was why you seldom see Asian male, Black female couples. Most of the Asian males did not bother responding to the topic, so one of the gals there, who is extremely articulate and well spoken, answered the question - it's the stereotype of Black people out there - the stereotype of the Black man is well known, but Black women are portrayed in the media as loud-mouthed, opinionated, fat-assed, rude bit..., er...persons. Now, I can tell you that that is a total media construct, as I have met more than my fair share of Black women who do not fit that stereotype in the least, starting when I was in high school. In fact, before I met my wife, I went on a couple of casual walks (don't know if I'd consider them dates or not, probably not) with this girl I met at our school named Lorna (interestingly enough, she was from the same town/city my wife is from). She was a really kind-hearted girl. And she was Black. A number of my female friends in school in grade 12 were Black - from Guyana, etc.). I know several Black ladies nowadays who are kindest, loveliest friends that we have. I know the stereotype is not true. Besides, you see these Rosanne Barr and Rosie O'Donnell types and know that loud-mouthed obnoxious women are not unique to Blacks.
(I'M NOT FINISHED THIS POST YET - MORE TO COME)...
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Man, Do I Dislike Hillary Clinton
So, the big contest on Tuesday is over, with Hillary Clinton seemingly bouncing back, even though Barack Obama is still leading in pledged delegates and overall delegates. In looking over the exit polls, I gotta tell ya - the Hispanic vote is killing Obama - look at Texas alone - most whites voted for Clinton, most blacks voted for Obama. And with a sizeable Hispanic population, latinos (and latinas) voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. This is really what contributed to Clinton winning California. I'm not sure why Hispanics don't seem to like Obama (or why they seem to like Clinton so much - could be their infatuation with Bill previously). I originally thought that the voting patterns would be more or less split among white/black racial lines, but in looking at predominantly "white" states (Iowa, Utah, Idaho, etc.) backing Obama, I don't think there's much credence in arguing that race is a component - at least not for the historical black/white relationship.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Digesting Super Tuesday in the U.S. and Beyond
Well, what a week - aside from the New York Giants beating my at-the-time undefeated New England Patriots, this week had lots of excitement from the U.S. political front with Super Tuesday results. I wasn't feeling well that evening, so unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to follow the web results as they flowed in. Though I got up in the middle of the night to grab a Pepto-Bismol and quickly glanced at the results.
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Not really terribly surprised at the end results. Clinton won the big states of California and New York, and still maintains a slim lead over Obama, who to my surprised, won more States than Clinton, and even more surprising, won several predominantly "white" states. Now, after his Iowa caucus win, in a state that is something like 97% white, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But he pulled off wins in other states which I don't think are chok-full-of minorities (Idaho and Utah, for example). In analyzing exit poll information, I think Clinton is surviving based on the Latino vote from the big states (now, why the Latino vote seems to be overwhelmingly in Clinton's favour is another topic for another time - I can't tell you why right now). Now, that being said, I equally acknowledge that Obama is winning semi-big states like Georgia and South Carolina based on the extremely high percentage of black voters supporting him (we're talking 80-90%). However, the fact that Obama can win white states should make Clinton leery. Personally, while I am not a Democratic supporter (actually, I can't even vote in the U.S. election, as I don't live there, even though I give money towards the Huckabee campaign, the Brownback campaign, and many years ago, the Bush/Cheney ticket), I would prefer to see Obama win over Hillary - and that, despite the fact that I have one of the books that Hillary wrote signed by her, that I continue to use as an investment vehicle. Clinton recently revealed that she gave 5 million bucks of her own money towards her campaign - if she's running out of cash in your war chest, this is the wrong time. There are a few primaries today and several more on Tuesday. We'll see how it goes.
Enough on Democrats. On the Repulicans side, John McCain came out the clear winner, winning the big States and several other ones. Romney won a few, but could not compete. And in a growing movement against McCain, conservatives have (rightfully) gathered around Huckabee to provide him some "upset" wins over Romney for the conservative wing. Now, to my surprise, Romney dropped out a couple of days ago. Yes, he was trailing McCain badly, but was ahead of Huckabee. But I think he knew that he'd be taken to task on his flip-flopping positions over the years (ie. claiming to be pro-guns though he joined the NRA only in 2006). McCain is and would beat him hands down. But don't discount Huckabee though - I know conservatives (myself included) are not happy with McCain - he is not as socially conservative as I'd like, but his moderate positions are likely helping him get support from voters in generally liberal states like New York and California. The deep southern states more or less supported Huckabee. Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of Republicans these days are social conservatives, so I think that as much as I'd like to see Huckabee win, it will likely be McCain. And if it was between McCain and Clinton, I think McCain would win. Between Obama and McCain? Not sure about that one - Obama is actually similar to McCain in terms of reaching across party lines. Obama's wife Michelle would be a great first lady - she has the poise and confidence and does not look as "fake" as McCain's wife Cindy. But between McCain and Obama...not sure who I'd pick. Probably would still go with McCain since he's never pretended to be anything other than a moderate, so at least he's honest (unlike Romney). Obama has some positions I am not comfortable with (ie. gay unions, etc.), and he is way too focussed on Iraq.
I see that for whatever reason, Mike Gravel of the Democrats is still officially in the running. Why, I don't know - he neither has any delegates or superdelegates supporting him. He's won nothing - he isn't even being invited to debates. At least Ron Paul (who is not doing great, but I'm glad is still running) has not dropped out yet, but I would think that will change pretty soon. But as mentioned previously, Paul is a rabidly pro-homeschooler, and I am rabidly anti-homeschooling. Not to mention Paul also focusses too much on Iraq (which, like it or not, does not have an easy solution - sure, you can say pull out now, but consider all the logistical, geo-political, and local issues that will cause in Iraq).
OK, let's stop talking about the U.S. On the Canadian side, I recently became a bit disillusioned with my conservative federal government (who I support financially and of which I am a member) - they decided it was a good idea to send a Chinese New Year card to anyone who has an Asian sounding last name (or who indicated their ethnic status on their last census form, but that is unlikely). I am of Asian background and am ethnically Chinese, though I celebrate Chinese New Year as a general family get together for food and such, and not much more. I would think that I'd receive one of these cards from Prime Minister Harper and family. But nooo...my wife, who is not Asian, gets the Happy Chinese New Year card and I get zippo. This adds additional insult to injury to me, as last year, my wife and I took this wacky online "How Asian Are You?" test. She scored 78% Asian, while I scored 46%. Ah, what can you do...
Saturday, January 26, 2008
So...Barack Obama wins in South Carolina
Seems like a lot more press is dedicated to the Democratic race, particularly between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Last week, I managed to catch the webcast of the latest debate (it was only just the two of them and John Edwards - no Mike Gravel - not sure why he hasn't dropped out yet - and Dennis Kucinich has since dropped off the ballot), and I managed to convince my wife to watch the last half-hour with me and then she saw some of the highlights...she said the same thing as I was thinking - Clinton comes off as very pompous and incredibly fake. I don't question Edwards' sincerity (and I like his stance against gay marriage) and Obama exudes confidence yet is humble at the same time. Clinton- there's something about her aura - she appears wooden, aloof, and not incredibly warm. When another candidate gets under her skin, she starts to show her true self. It's kind of weird...for a woman, she doesn't seem to have many feminine qualities - she seems like she's really trying hard to act like a man...but I digress. I hope Clinton doesn't win, regardless, but I'm not a Democrat or a left winger, so when it comes down to it, I couldn't care less which Democrat wins. On the other hand, I do have a copy of one of Hillary Clinton's books, signed by her (it's an investment vehicle, nothing more). If she gets the nomination, it'd be a good time to flip that book for some cash.
Anyhow, Obama wins South Carolina. Can't say I'm surprised. As much as people try to take race out of the picture when it comes to constituency, you can't really avoid it when you see that Oprah (who is black, of course) backs Obama, and in state where around half the voters are black, and 80% of them vote for Obama, it's hard not to make those connections or form conclusions. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see Obama win Iowa, a state with something like 97% white folks. He's leading in delegates currently, but that's for now - the projections on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) seems to indicate that Clinton will be in the lead (with big states like New York and California seemingly being pro-Clinton) this time next month. But then again, Obama has garnered some big name supporters like former presidential candidate John Kerry and just today, Caroline Kennedy (not sure how strong her influence is, but anyway...)
Now, enough of the Democrats. Guess that's where the heated race is. And I guess people want to see who will triumph - the woman or the black man. But there is another party and on the Republican side, the general feeling is that John McCain seems to be the guy who will be on the Republican ticket this November. I really hope not. Not because he's old (doesn't bother me at all). He's a really, really soft conservative. His positions are fairly centrist, which I'm sure really piss off the conservative evangelical segment of voters. I can understand completely, and it is for that reason that I hope that Mike Huckabee wins. Even though I'm not an American, I donated to Huckabee's campaign just about a month ago. Ron Paul is an interesting choice, but not really a factor, despite the internet support - I find that he's a bit too libertarian for my liking and I am not crazy about his pro-home-schooling positions. Not to mention his views on an immediate pullout in Iraq (which is neither plausible nor realistic). Thank goodness Giuliani is buried in there and trailing badly - I hope he drops out - he was never a candidate that I could see American conservatives supporting. As for Mitt Romney - I can't seem to read that guy. His NRA gaffe made me go hmmm... (buying votes, anyone? The NRA gave him a crappy rating, anyway), and watching him on interviews - he seems a bit too polished for my liking. At least Huckabee has a sense of humour and is willing to jam with the Tonight Show band, and be himself. Romney seems too much like a typical weasely politician. Plus, his social policies make me ill. McCain needs to make some serious inroads into the conservative grassroots populace if he stands a chance of winning the presidency. When James Dobson doesn't endorse you, you are in trouble if you consider yourself a conservative.
Anyhow, Obama wins South Carolina. Can't say I'm surprised. As much as people try to take race out of the picture when it comes to constituency, you can't really avoid it when you see that Oprah (who is black, of course) backs Obama, and in state where around half the voters are black, and 80% of them vote for Obama, it's hard not to make those connections or form conclusions. Yes, it was a pleasant surprise to see Obama win Iowa, a state with something like 97% white folks. He's leading in delegates currently, but that's for now - the projections on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5) seems to indicate that Clinton will be in the lead (with big states like New York and California seemingly being pro-Clinton) this time next month. But then again, Obama has garnered some big name supporters like former presidential candidate John Kerry and just today, Caroline Kennedy (not sure how strong her influence is, but anyway...)
Now, enough of the Democrats. Guess that's where the heated race is. And I guess people want to see who will triumph - the woman or the black man. But there is another party and on the Republican side, the general feeling is that John McCain seems to be the guy who will be on the Republican ticket this November. I really hope not. Not because he's old (doesn't bother me at all). He's a really, really soft conservative. His positions are fairly centrist, which I'm sure really piss off the conservative evangelical segment of voters. I can understand completely, and it is for that reason that I hope that Mike Huckabee wins. Even though I'm not an American, I donated to Huckabee's campaign just about a month ago. Ron Paul is an interesting choice, but not really a factor, despite the internet support - I find that he's a bit too libertarian for my liking and I am not crazy about his pro-home-schooling positions. Not to mention his views on an immediate pullout in Iraq (which is neither plausible nor realistic). Thank goodness Giuliani is buried in there and trailing badly - I hope he drops out - he was never a candidate that I could see American conservatives supporting. As for Mitt Romney - I can't seem to read that guy. His NRA gaffe made me go hmmm... (buying votes, anyone? The NRA gave him a crappy rating, anyway), and watching him on interviews - he seems a bit too polished for my liking. At least Huckabee has a sense of humour and is willing to jam with the Tonight Show band, and be himself. Romney seems too much like a typical weasely politician. Plus, his social policies make me ill. McCain needs to make some serious inroads into the conservative grassroots populace if he stands a chance of winning the presidency. When James Dobson doesn't endorse you, you are in trouble if you consider yourself a conservative.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
U.S. Election 2008 - Part III
I think this is probably the third blog entry focussed on next year's U.S. elections - you may wonder why I'm not talking about the any Canadian elections - for one, there won't be a federal election for a couple of years at least (in my view), and even though there will be a Ontario provincial election, it's not terribly exciting (the Liberal guy in power is barely hanging on right now, but my gut tells me that the electorate don't really want to see a Conservative in power, so they will continue to vote in the indecisive, break-yer promises, "I want to be on camera" Dalton McGuinty. Truth be told, even though I'm a die-hard card carrying Conservative, I have some mixed issues with John Tory - he may be a nice enough guy, but I don't think he's socially as Conservative as I would like (I would still vote for him, but I'd prefer to see someone else). I'm sure I'll be writing a few more things about the Ontario elections over the next few months.
OK, where was I? Oh yes, the U.S. Presidential elections next year. Well, it would look as if McCain is not a factor anymore (was he ever?) - he's still in the top 3, but he's dropping positions fast. So I think it will really be between Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It seems like former actor and senator Fred Thompson will be on the ticket, though he has unannounced, but I don't think enough people see him as a viable force, based on his lack of experience (though I'm sure his trophy wife will garner a few donations). But I think it will be down to Romney and Giuliani. With both as potential likely candidates to be on the ticket, I'm lukewarm on both - yes, I think either would be better than any of the Democrats, but Giuliani especially is a very liberal conservative, if there was such a thing. But there have been a recent development that has been a bit of a blow to Giuliani. His own daughter has thrown her support behind Barack Obama. Doh! Mitt Romney has also been picking up a lot of momentum on Giuliani, questioning whether he, as New York mayor, made the city a hotspot for illegal immigration. Giuliani is definitely on the defensive on that one. But I look at the U.S. and think, would they really vote in Romney, a mormon?
Ah, I really wish that Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Bill Frist would put their name in the ring (I know Dick Cheney will not be doing so and has indicated numerous times). Or Sam Brownback would mysteriously start getting voter support. At this point, it seems as if the Democrats are picking up steam and the floating question seems to be - who will be the President - Obama or Clinton. I'm really hoping it won't come down to this.
Are Romney and Giuliani the best that the Republicans can offer in this election? My gut tells me that neither will stand much of a chance here against Hillary or Barack.
OK, where was I? Oh yes, the U.S. Presidential elections next year. Well, it would look as if McCain is not a factor anymore (was he ever?) - he's still in the top 3, but he's dropping positions fast. So I think it will really be between Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts) and former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. It seems like former actor and senator Fred Thompson will be on the ticket, though he has unannounced, but I don't think enough people see him as a viable force, based on his lack of experience (though I'm sure his trophy wife will garner a few donations). But I think it will be down to Romney and Giuliani. With both as potential likely candidates to be on the ticket, I'm lukewarm on both - yes, I think either would be better than any of the Democrats, but Giuliani especially is a very liberal conservative, if there was such a thing. But there have been a recent development that has been a bit of a blow to Giuliani. His own daughter has thrown her support behind Barack Obama. Doh! Mitt Romney has also been picking up a lot of momentum on Giuliani, questioning whether he, as New York mayor, made the city a hotspot for illegal immigration. Giuliani is definitely on the defensive on that one. But I look at the U.S. and think, would they really vote in Romney, a mormon?
Ah, I really wish that Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Bill Frist would put their name in the ring (I know Dick Cheney will not be doing so and has indicated numerous times). Or Sam Brownback would mysteriously start getting voter support. At this point, it seems as if the Democrats are picking up steam and the floating question seems to be - who will be the President - Obama or Clinton. I'm really hoping it won't come down to this.
Are Romney and Giuliani the best that the Republicans can offer in this election? My gut tells me that neither will stand much of a chance here against Hillary or Barack.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
My Picks for RNC and DNC in 2008
I've always had an active interest in Canadian politics, but U.S. politics always seems consistently intriguing (I even have a Bush/Cheney '04 golf shirt that I wear from time to time, though I don't think I'm allowed to wear it into work anymore (too political). Well, none of these people need and introduction, so quickly, here are my picks for who will win the Republican and Democratic conventions and will represent their party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential elections.
DNC:
Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary at all, and even though I'm a staunch conservative, part of my essense is being capitalistic and as such, I cashed in on a worthwhile investment - a hand-signed copy of Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". I will sell it once she reaches the apex of her political career and I can get several thousand dollars for it. So from an altruistic sense, I am rooting for her (only so my investment can soar in value)
Why I think she will beat out Barack Obama: Sadly, I don't think that the U.S. is quite ready for a Black prez just yet, pure and simple, despite what TV shows like 24 would have you believe. I think Obama's capable of leadership and while I disagree with almost everything he stands for, I would choose him over Hillary if I had to (she definitely has secret agendas, as her time with Bill has shown). But I think Hillary will win. I don't forsee any other candidates giving these two a run for the money. Yes, even John Edwards - he's a tad too ambitious, in my view - and yes, I feel sympathy for his wife, but he's not one of those "lead by example" types. Plus, I saw him on the 2004 VP debate with Cheney, and Cheney smoked him.
GOP / RNC:
I am lukewarm with the available frontrunner choices. I would go with Sam Brownback in an instant, but we all know that unfortunately, he's not going to win, since he's considered way too conservative/right wing for the mass electorate (last I read, he was at the bottom of the heap). So here's my predictions.
John McCain - Yes, I know that Giuliani is the current frontrunner, but he carries a lot of baggage with him. Failed marriages, a very soft social conservative stance...I doubt he will get the evangelical wing support. I also know while James Dobson and FOTF has stated he will not support McCain, not everyone is a Dobson supporter and McCain does have a distinguished service record for his country. I think this will be trumpeted in the next year. It's too bad Cheney's not running - he would be perfect. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run, as she would make an awesome prez, but once again, I don't think the U.S. electorate is ready to pick a Black President. Besides, her being a single woman also will probably hurt her if she runs, since I think most Americans would prefer to see a family man or family woman in the white house.
DNC:
Hillary Clinton. I am not a fan of Hillary at all, and even though I'm a staunch conservative, part of my essense is being capitalistic and as such, I cashed in on a worthwhile investment - a hand-signed copy of Hillary's book "It Takes a Village". I will sell it once she reaches the apex of her political career and I can get several thousand dollars for it. So from an altruistic sense, I am rooting for her (only so my investment can soar in value)
Why I think she will beat out Barack Obama: Sadly, I don't think that the U.S. is quite ready for a Black prez just yet, pure and simple, despite what TV shows like 24 would have you believe. I think Obama's capable of leadership and while I disagree with almost everything he stands for, I would choose him over Hillary if I had to (she definitely has secret agendas, as her time with Bill has shown). But I think Hillary will win. I don't forsee any other candidates giving these two a run for the money. Yes, even John Edwards - he's a tad too ambitious, in my view - and yes, I feel sympathy for his wife, but he's not one of those "lead by example" types. Plus, I saw him on the 2004 VP debate with Cheney, and Cheney smoked him.
GOP / RNC:
I am lukewarm with the available frontrunner choices. I would go with Sam Brownback in an instant, but we all know that unfortunately, he's not going to win, since he's considered way too conservative/right wing for the mass electorate (last I read, he was at the bottom of the heap). So here's my predictions.
John McCain - Yes, I know that Giuliani is the current frontrunner, but he carries a lot of baggage with him. Failed marriages, a very soft social conservative stance...I doubt he will get the evangelical wing support. I also know while James Dobson and FOTF has stated he will not support McCain, not everyone is a Dobson supporter and McCain does have a distinguished service record for his country. I think this will be trumpeted in the next year. It's too bad Cheney's not running - he would be perfect. I would love to see Condoleeza Rice run, as she would make an awesome prez, but once again, I don't think the U.S. electorate is ready to pick a Black President. Besides, her being a single woman also will probably hurt her if she runs, since I think most Americans would prefer to see a family man or family woman in the white house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)