I began writing this article about the upcoming election to see where the not so easily broached subject of ‘race’ would lead me. I got this uncomfortable revelation from an article I just read.
Famous black civil rights leader John Lewis, of Georgia, has just switched his endorsement from Hillary Clinton to Barrack Obama and will cast his Super Delegate vote to Obama. Lewis said he was following the lead of voters in his state that voted three to one in favor of Obama, and nine out of ten black voters voted for Obama as well.
Why does Obama garner ninety percent of any one group of voters? What’s his secret? Is it just because he is black, or is he offering something for blacks that Hillary isn’t? I don’t think so.
I began thinking, how come Hillary doesn’t get ninety percent of women voters? Will McCain get ninety percent of Veteran voters? Can either Hillary or McCain expect to receive ninety percent of the white voters?
Are we talking some kind of racism here? Democrats, historically, have won ninety percent of the black voters just as they have won an overwhelming percentage of labor voters, Hollywood voters, media voters, teacher voters, and poor voters, but ninety percent of black voters for Obama? Something is wacky.
History in politics teaches us a lot, like trends in voter sentiment, voter apathy, and voter expectations. Four years ago half the country voted against Bush for President, he became President anyway. But ninety percent of the black vote went to Kerry. Kerry wasn’t black, but African Americans believed Kerry offered them more of what they wanted than Bush did so nine out of ten voted for Kerry. Is Bush's economic, social, and military policies so much more damaging on blacks than Kerry's would have been?
What do black Americans really want? Hillary offers pretty much what Obama offers, a socialistic, economic style government, a very tightly reined in military, and it sounds like both Democrats will be offering a soft hat-in-hand foreign policy. (Sorry, my conservative leanings crept in there.) So what's the difference? Certainly not a nine to one difference.
I think that Obama, and/or McCain should address this issue of ninety percent of blacks voting for Obama as being wrong. I can’t conceive of any one President or Senator or Representative reflecting the all the views and interests of any one group of his constituency ninety percent of the time.
I don’t think this seemingly herd instinct to follow the Democrats or a black candidate into the voting both can be good for the black voter, history says it just can’t be. It seems racially motivated and against all the things that have brought race relations this far, or am I wrong?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
The Middle East, scary, explosive, and radical
The men of the Middle Eastern want a chance to succeed in life. They want dignity, a future and the opportunity to live in a strong independent society. They have no chance in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran.
Most countries of the Middle East are either run by a few Muslim power hierarchies, dictators, monarchs, or the military. Many countries around the world are Muslim. All of the Middle Eastern countries are Muslim and Radical Muslim Extremist leaders prey upon them. Unemployment is ridiculously high yet most Middle Eastern countries are rich with oil revenues. Their leaders are millionaires, drunk with power and greed and are in danger of being replaced by a new power elite, Radical Muslim Mullahs, and Imams.
The average worker in a repressed, controlled society like Egypt earns wages of fifty to hundred dollars per month. They have been educated all the way to college level to perform white collar jobs where there are none, unless you are well connected. They can't afford the things that you and I take for granted, like your own home, tv and car. Most jobs in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East are blue collar. Egypt is and above average, per capita, income and educated country compared to the rest of the region, however, they are increasingly frustrated with no job prospects and are showing it by becoming enamored with Radical Muslim Extremism in larger and larger numbers. Unemployment, poor training, no opportunities, and corruption is the culprit.
Living in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Turkey where democracy is flourishing or just beginning is showing the way of the future. There is being offered to their people an alternative to the way it’s been for generations. They have hope and they have freedom and they have free unrestricted capitalism. If and when security is assured, Iraq and Afghanistan will be a beacon to others in the region, at least that is the way Bush’s legacy will read. The key word is, ‘if’.
Nine-eleven drew world wide attention to the Middle East in ways that no one ever looked at the region before. The fact that most people are still living in the thirteenth century, ruled by their religion and their simple hatred for the Jews because they occupy a part of the Arab world.
Except for their oil we in the West have had no interest in the people of the Middle East. Just like we have no interest in most countries of Africa and South America unless they offer something we need. Some, like Osama ben Laden, were bitter about changes effected by the West in their region. We were infidel invaders trying to insure continued flow of oil by flexing our muscles. America showed up with military in Desert Storm to free Kuwait from Saddam.
Osama felt that America was propping up a corrupt family Monarchy in Saudi Arabia by protecting it militarily. He wants the region to resolve it’s own problems without interference from the invading Crusaders from the west. We are sorry but we have our own interests to protect. It’s that plain and simple. I can say it but no American politician will say it without saying goodbye to his career. We did and are supporting a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia to insure the uninterrupted flow of that oil and for no other reason. We supported the Shaw years ago for the same reason. I don’t buy Bush’s professed friendship with the Saudi family for a minute.
We are and have been in the Middle East for only one reason, OIL. To think otherwise is naïve’. After all, we have all the sand we need in Arizona.
Most countries of the Middle East are either run by a few Muslim power hierarchies, dictators, monarchs, or the military. Many countries around the world are Muslim. All of the Middle Eastern countries are Muslim and Radical Muslim Extremist leaders prey upon them. Unemployment is ridiculously high yet most Middle Eastern countries are rich with oil revenues. Their leaders are millionaires, drunk with power and greed and are in danger of being replaced by a new power elite, Radical Muslim Mullahs, and Imams.
The average worker in a repressed, controlled society like Egypt earns wages of fifty to hundred dollars per month. They have been educated all the way to college level to perform white collar jobs where there are none, unless you are well connected. They can't afford the things that you and I take for granted, like your own home, tv and car. Most jobs in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East are blue collar. Egypt is and above average, per capita, income and educated country compared to the rest of the region, however, they are increasingly frustrated with no job prospects and are showing it by becoming enamored with Radical Muslim Extremism in larger and larger numbers. Unemployment, poor training, no opportunities, and corruption is the culprit.
Living in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Turkey where democracy is flourishing or just beginning is showing the way of the future. There is being offered to their people an alternative to the way it’s been for generations. They have hope and they have freedom and they have free unrestricted capitalism. If and when security is assured, Iraq and Afghanistan will be a beacon to others in the region, at least that is the way Bush’s legacy will read. The key word is, ‘if’.
Nine-eleven drew world wide attention to the Middle East in ways that no one ever looked at the region before. The fact that most people are still living in the thirteenth century, ruled by their religion and their simple hatred for the Jews because they occupy a part of the Arab world.
Except for their oil we in the West have had no interest in the people of the Middle East. Just like we have no interest in most countries of Africa and South America unless they offer something we need. Some, like Osama ben Laden, were bitter about changes effected by the West in their region. We were infidel invaders trying to insure continued flow of oil by flexing our muscles. America showed up with military in Desert Storm to free Kuwait from Saddam.
Osama felt that America was propping up a corrupt family Monarchy in Saudi Arabia by protecting it militarily. He wants the region to resolve it’s own problems without interference from the invading Crusaders from the west. We are sorry but we have our own interests to protect. It’s that plain and simple. I can say it but no American politician will say it without saying goodbye to his career. We did and are supporting a dictatorship in Saudi Arabia to insure the uninterrupted flow of that oil and for no other reason. We supported the Shaw years ago for the same reason. I don’t buy Bush’s professed friendship with the Saudi family for a minute.
We are and have been in the Middle East for only one reason, OIL. To think otherwise is naïve’. After all, we have all the sand we need in Arizona.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A Political Discussion,
Obama vs. McCain
The latest arguments over the kitchen table with family and friends is over Barrack Obama vs. John McCain and who can win and why. Assuming Obama can beat Hillary Clinton and it seems he has the momentum to do just that.
The hope at the table for most is that McCain can win but we have our concerns over the oratory skills of Barrack Obama. Obama can sure rouse up a crowd to a frenzy. He says the things many of my Democratic friends want to hear. He offers them change and new direction. Meaning I guess, that; let’s get our troops home and let’s provide health care for everyone, let’s move forward.
Obama leaves us with a lot of cloudy and semi-cloudy issues like not continuing the tax cuts, the border, illegals, immigration, the Patriot Act, Iraq, Iran and most importantly, appointing Appeals and Supreme Court Justices, one of the most important jobs of a President. Bringing troops home for Obama and raising taxes are not cloudy. Both are on his early agenda.
He also talks about regaining respect for America around the world. Has anyone seriously analyzed what that means? It’s a great sound bite but what amount of security must we give up to be touchy, feely with the French, Germans and Russians and do they really care how much we appease them? In the end will it change anything if we buy more wine, Vodka, and Schnapps to make the French, et .al., really like us? Will they rally to support us against Iran gaining a nuclear bomb or shouldn’t we as be concerned as George Bush is?
Does Obama see the threat to world peace from radical Muslims that most Republicans see or are the Republicans simply overreacting ? What will he do if we have another 9/11? You see, I just don’t know, he’s cloudy.
Experience in dealing with problems like that does count for something, doesn’t it? Hillary and McCain have their points with that argument. Obama does not have experience but then neither did G. Bush. I just hope that if Obama wins that he surrounds himself with good, experienced people and he listens to them. So far some of his pacifist supporters actually scare me with their naivety. Listening to his generals would be his first duty, of course that’s exactly where he proposes change.
McCain stresses security, and the War. I’m not clear on his other concerns, although I would like to be. I’m not sure he’s fiscally conservative, for smaller government and lower taxes and I’m not sure of the kind of judges he would appoint to the lower federal courts and Supreme Court. I would hope that he would not be liberal. But because McCain has, so far, kept me guessing on how he would choose, qualified hope is all I have.
I’ve avoided the moral issues like abortion and religion so far because I don’t happen to believe that the executive or congressional branches of government should be in the bedroom. Abortion is a very personal issue and the Supreme Court should stay the arena for that subject, for it or against it, Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land.
Democracy is the best, but still flawed form of government. For the most part democracy decides issues that the whole usually can live with on a fifty one percent versus forty nine basis. Abortion is such a divisive issue that fifty one percent of the people for it is not enough, so nine wise people must decide, for now, until the issue resolves itself over time. Trying to regulate abortion enters into trying to regulate religion, not a good area to enter into with out stirring a lot of angry emotions. Politics is best left out of religion and abortion is a religious subject.
The last time the government tried to constitutionally abolish something it was booze. Government will not make that mistake again.
Please comment to this article by clicking, ‘comment,’ below. Thank you.
The latest arguments over the kitchen table with family and friends is over Barrack Obama vs. John McCain and who can win and why. Assuming Obama can beat Hillary Clinton and it seems he has the momentum to do just that.
The hope at the table for most is that McCain can win but we have our concerns over the oratory skills of Barrack Obama. Obama can sure rouse up a crowd to a frenzy. He says the things many of my Democratic friends want to hear. He offers them change and new direction. Meaning I guess, that; let’s get our troops home and let’s provide health care for everyone, let’s move forward.
Obama leaves us with a lot of cloudy and semi-cloudy issues like not continuing the tax cuts, the border, illegals, immigration, the Patriot Act, Iraq, Iran and most importantly, appointing Appeals and Supreme Court Justices, one of the most important jobs of a President. Bringing troops home for Obama and raising taxes are not cloudy. Both are on his early agenda.
He also talks about regaining respect for America around the world. Has anyone seriously analyzed what that means? It’s a great sound bite but what amount of security must we give up to be touchy, feely with the French, Germans and Russians and do they really care how much we appease them? In the end will it change anything if we buy more wine, Vodka, and Schnapps to make the French, et .al., really like us? Will they rally to support us against Iran gaining a nuclear bomb or shouldn’t we as be concerned as George Bush is?
Does Obama see the threat to world peace from radical Muslims that most Republicans see or are the Republicans simply overreacting ? What will he do if we have another 9/11? You see, I just don’t know, he’s cloudy.
Experience in dealing with problems like that does count for something, doesn’t it? Hillary and McCain have their points with that argument. Obama does not have experience but then neither did G. Bush. I just hope that if Obama wins that he surrounds himself with good, experienced people and he listens to them. So far some of his pacifist supporters actually scare me with their naivety. Listening to his generals would be his first duty, of course that’s exactly where he proposes change.
McCain stresses security, and the War. I’m not clear on his other concerns, although I would like to be. I’m not sure he’s fiscally conservative, for smaller government and lower taxes and I’m not sure of the kind of judges he would appoint to the lower federal courts and Supreme Court. I would hope that he would not be liberal. But because McCain has, so far, kept me guessing on how he would choose, qualified hope is all I have.
I’ve avoided the moral issues like abortion and religion so far because I don’t happen to believe that the executive or congressional branches of government should be in the bedroom. Abortion is a very personal issue and the Supreme Court should stay the arena for that subject, for it or against it, Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land.
Democracy is the best, but still flawed form of government. For the most part democracy decides issues that the whole usually can live with on a fifty one percent versus forty nine basis. Abortion is such a divisive issue that fifty one percent of the people for it is not enough, so nine wise people must decide, for now, until the issue resolves itself over time. Trying to regulate abortion enters into trying to regulate religion, not a good area to enter into with out stirring a lot of angry emotions. Politics is best left out of religion and abortion is a religious subject.
The last time the government tried to constitutionally abolish something it was booze. Government will not make that mistake again.
Please comment to this article by clicking, ‘comment,’ below. Thank you.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Interesting point of view
As an avid sports fan I have often been amazed by the sports writer that devotes a column to the ball game I just saw and as I read the column I scratch my head and ask myself, was he watching the same game I was? He says, 'the big play was a fluke', I say it was brilliant! How can that be?
Then there's the sports writer that loves to write about drugs, high payrolls and owners profits and easily puts aside the game and who's playing. What we love about sports, is the game, not who's testifying before Congress. Obviously, some love to read about the low side of the game. Too bad really, the game is a wonderful thing. So is America. It's the same with politics, there are two points of view about everything from abortion, to the economy, to defense. Conservatives vs. liberals, even the media has multiply points of view.
I think of America as an optimistic, can-do, should-do, nation, always has been and always will be, but there are many that disagree. They believe in the Dark Side; we have done to much, we should hold back, slow down, back off, don't be so pushy. They believe America is to blame for warming the planet, for imperialism, causing an economic world crisis, creating an unstable Middle East, etc. If something is wrong in the world America is surly to blame.
I, quite naturally, disagree. I'm not going to bore you with my reasons just now, but suffice to say that if you believe America is to blame for a screwed up world, I'm not interested in your gloom and doom reasons just now either.
What I will concede is that I don't see any American leader on the horizon that will have the moral strength of character, leadership and vision to guide the Dark Side into the light of optimism.
Too bad we don't elect the most qualified leaders, only the one's who run the best campaigns.
When history is examined it proves that winning the game is the reason it's played. America plays the game around the world every day, and we play to win. Our corporations play to win, our military plays to win, our state department plays to win, and I like it that way. Those that stand in the way of winning are the problem, not the other way 'round as many would have you believe.
Then there's the sports writer that loves to write about drugs, high payrolls and owners profits and easily puts aside the game and who's playing. What we love about sports, is the game, not who's testifying before Congress. Obviously, some love to read about the low side of the game. Too bad really, the game is a wonderful thing. So is America. It's the same with politics, there are two points of view about everything from abortion, to the economy, to defense. Conservatives vs. liberals, even the media has multiply points of view.
I think of America as an optimistic, can-do, should-do, nation, always has been and always will be, but there are many that disagree. They believe in the Dark Side; we have done to much, we should hold back, slow down, back off, don't be so pushy. They believe America is to blame for warming the planet, for imperialism, causing an economic world crisis, creating an unstable Middle East, etc. If something is wrong in the world America is surly to blame.
I, quite naturally, disagree. I'm not going to bore you with my reasons just now, but suffice to say that if you believe America is to blame for a screwed up world, I'm not interested in your gloom and doom reasons just now either.
What I will concede is that I don't see any American leader on the horizon that will have the moral strength of character, leadership and vision to guide the Dark Side into the light of optimism.
Too bad we don't elect the most qualified leaders, only the one's who run the best campaigns.
When history is examined it proves that winning the game is the reason it's played. America plays the game around the world every day, and we play to win. Our corporations play to win, our military plays to win, our state department plays to win, and I like it that way. Those that stand in the way of winning are the problem, not the other way 'round as many would have you believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)