Jun
16
I may not be much for politics these days, but I’ve still got a warm spot in my heart for… Integrity. The target is ESPN’s John Kruk, prognosticator extraordinaire.
Karl Ravech: If you could sell one team in the major leagues, who would you sell?
[Video of Evan Longoria running out an infield grounder.]
John Kruk: I’d sell the Tampa Bay Rays. They’re in third place right now, and that’s all you need to know to tell you they aren’t making the playoffs.
Later in the same show…
Top 9 Moments of the 2009 MLB season so far… #4:
[Video of the Cleveland Indians come-from-behind 11-10 victory over the Tampa Bay Rays, May 25]
John Kruk: The reason why I picked this moment is because it’s a telling moment for the Cleveland Indians. Coming into the game 8-1/2 games out in the American League Central Division and down by 10 runs before the game actually even started, they had every right to say this game’s over and look forward to the following day. But no, they score 7 runs in the bottom of the 9th to win 11-10. It showed a lot of character and a lot of heart, and the reason why they’re still in this race in the American League Central.
The Cleveland Indians have split their last 6 games 3-3. Other than sweeping the Rays at home for the 17th game in a row (a streak even the stellar 2008 Rays did not interrupt) the Indians have not won more than 2 games in a row this season, and have had losing streaks of 5 games once and 4 games twice.
Since they met on 5/25, the Rays are 11-7, and the Indians are 11-9. The Rays started the series 23-23, the Indians were 11 games under .500.
The Indians have since picked up two games in the AL Central race, but are still in last place. They are now 8 games under .500.
The Rays have slipped 1 game in the AL East division. After winning their last 5 in a row and 11 of their last 15, they are tied for third, 5 games behind the Boston Red Sox. They are now 3 games over .500.
There are 98 games left in the season.
UPDATE: Later the same day, compare and contrast:
Rays roll to sixth straight win: Tampa Bay sets club record with 12 extra-base hits (12-4 win over the Rockies)
Missed chances doom Tribe: Indians put plenty of runners on but can’t cash in (5-7 loss to the Brewers)
Meanwhile, Kruk repeated his claim that the Indians were “still in it”, despite the snickering of his fellow panelists on Baseball Tonight. Integrity, I tell ya.
Posted by Chris at 8:15am | Filed Under Entertainment and Sports
Apr
18
Take the following with a grain of salt, considering I’m doing very little blog-reading lately. First, for the dirt, check out:
Glenn Beck vs. Charles Johnson
and as usual, don’t forget to read the comments, both at Ace’s and the blogs he links to.
I was a big fan of Charles Johnson and LGF for a long time. I admired the fact that a passive liberal was seeing a little bit of the light when it came to politics, and a lot of the truth in the fight against jihadism. Heck, when it came to the latter, Charles was one of the first to try rallying support for the war using a blog. LGF was really the first blog I’d ever seen, and along with Best of the Web, I gave credit to Johnson in the dedication post as being an inspiration for this blog.
But like Dean Esmay, LGF has taken a few left turns that I can’t say I’ve admired. I parted ways with Dean following his drift back to the political middle during the most recent presidential election. In Johnson’s case, I’ve been trying to ignore the fact that the anti-jihadist is now on a crusade against ALL religion by tarring everything in sight with a label that defines it as either anti- or pro- in relation to the most burning debate in America today… creationism.
Creationism? Are you kidding me?
I don’t want this post to devolve deeply into that discussion, so let me just say this much: I believe in God, and I believe He created everything. And I believe that His methodology for creating everything probably involved something a little more complex than the snapping of giant omnipotent Fingers. St. Anselm said that God is that being greater than which none can be conceived, so the theory we call “evolution” is probably a lame oversimplification of how it all came to be. But notice that “oversimplification” implies it’s not untrue.
Put more succinctly, with respects to Heinlein: God is Deep. You can’t grok Him.
With that in mind, I do not fear those who attempt to teach “Intelligent Design”. I agree with their overall premise, but the details of their methodology are just plain silly. C’mon guys, you lost this fight 80 years ago in Tennessee, and you’re sounding like those who insist on calling it “The War of Northern Agression.” The South will NOT rise again - at least not under your terms. It’s over. Find a different tack.
That all said, Charles is paranoid and more than a little bigoted against those of us who care to respect an Intelligent Designer. When he goes after Glenn Beck and belittles those friends of mine attempting to hold the IRS at bay with nothing but bags of tea, he’s just too far gone in misunderstanding who the enemy is and what the fight is about.
So, I’m sorry to say, LGF is being reassigned to “Copperhead” status. The separating of the wheat and the chaff moves on….
Addendum: I just noticed that when I did the site redesign and added links to places I never would have linked before had it not been for The Civil War Blogroll, I missed a few people that I had to de-link years ago. Daily Dish has been put into Blockade Runners, and Hot Air has been added to Copperheads.
Posted by Chris at 8:44pm | Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Politics, Race and Prejudice, Religion
Apr
17
Posted by Chris at 6:58am | Filed Under Politics
Mar
19
I normally don’t like people trying to guess what a historical figure would or would not say in current circumstances. Those who make such attempts usually try to get the selected historical figure to espouse or say things that they never in a million years would have expressed in real life, and would have them spinning in their graves were they to actually hear what was being attributed to them. But there are always exceptions… like this video. I think Thomas Paine would be proud of this.
Update: You know what they say… no Paine, no gain!
Posted by Steve at 11:25am | Filed Under Economics, Education, History, Law and Ethics, Liberty and Democracy, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Politics
Feb
12
Back in December, remembering that TIME’s Man of the Year and various other awards would start flowing from the halls of the rich and witless, I thought fleetingly of posting my usual call for nominations for our annual The Black Republican of the Year honoree. That the post was never published should not be recognized as part of my usual, chronic apathetic falling-down. On this occasion, I intentionally dispensed with the tradition, for there seemed to me to be only one choice.
By a mile.
Maybe even by 663,268 square miles.
The year 2008 was a bad year for conservatism. It began with the continuation of a presidential campaign unprecedented for its length, the victory of a lethargic and erratic candidate for the Republican nomination who was barely on speaking terms with most of the party, and the victory in the Democratic primaries of an ultra-left socialist who offered plenty of platitudes for the simpleminded, but not much else. And that was almost the high-water mark. The outgoing President seemed unwilling to do more than fight the war, which as things go is pretty important and admirable, but not very encouraging when the other side is promising to capitulate at the first opportunity. It was looking more and more like conservatism was gasping for its last breath, just like all the pundits and commentators were (and still are) claiming.
But news of the death of our ideology was a bit premature. We still had life to offer, and as John McCain prepared to announce his running mate, we were about to respond enthusiastically to the arrival on the national stage of a young, vivacious, and unashamed conservative voice few of us had given proper attention. The governor of the last frontier state, an avid hunter, a prominent and unrelenting defender of the value of human life, an expert in energy policy, a soon-to-be grandparent at just 44. And just to make things even more interesting, that new conservative voice was pitched in the mezzo-soprano range.
Here was a vice-presidential candidate who may not have been able to do enough to save John McCain from defeat. But those of us on the right who, up to that point, were barely able to picture ourselves going to the polls can attest that there was probably no one short of Dutch’s ghost who could do that. Yet the person McCain chose as his running mate may have been the only one who could prevent “the Maverick” from being yet another laughingstock presidential candidate from Arizona. Without a doubt, she - and she alone - prevented a total implosion of the Republican Party in 2008. While every other piece of evidence suggested to us that there was no hope the GOP would stop sliding into the pit of apathy and irrelevance from which the Whigs never returned, here was a bright light that told us: ‘There is still hope for the Party of Abraham Lincoln.’
On this, the bicentennial of the birth of our Founder, we are proud to honor The Black Republican Of The Year for 2008: Sarah Louise Palin.
Posted by Chris at 6:00pm | Filed Under History, Liberty and Democracy, Politics
Feb
12
To ’stimulate’ the economy, why not help skilled people move to where their skills are needed? For example, we have skilled construction people in Ft Myers. They need skilled construction people in Oklahoma. The workers in Ft Myers don’t have the money/resources to move to Oklahoma. The company in Oklahoma can’t afford to compensate people to relocate. This way, we don’t have to CREATE jobs, we can use the ones that already exist. Even the HOUSING market could benefit from this.
Idea #2: you want government-sponsored ‘infrastructure’ jobs? Start building a 10′ high concrete wall along the border with Mexico. I understand that illegal immigrants are leaving the country, but it would still be jobs. Plus, there are other economic ramifications to helping to solve the whole illegal immigrant problem.
Posted by Dan at 4:01pm | Filed Under Economics
Feb
10
While WordPress mechanisms are doing a good job of preventing spam comments from getting onto the blog posts, I’ve been getting about 1-5 registration notices a day from what I presume are bots being foiled in their attempt to gain access to the system. It doesn’t really do very much but clog up the user list with a bunch of “subscribers” that don’t really exist.
To combat this “registration spam”, I have installed a new plugin for WordPress that supposedly prevents the bots from passing through registration successfully. We’ll see if the registrations slack off from here out, but even if it works I’m still left with a good number of users that aren’t really ever going to participate in discussions or post a comment.
To that end, I will be deleting all “subscriber” accounts without even one comment. This is your fair notice - please post a comment (or trackback) to this thread to let me know you’re real, and I won’t delete your account. I’ll do the deletions in a couple of days.
Posted by Chris at 12:01am | Filed Under Internet and Blogging
Feb
9
If you are a supporter of “a woman’s right to choose” please read this article. I ask this of you because, once you have read it, I need to ask you a few questions. If you are not supporter of abortion, please pass this along to any friends or associates that may be “pro-choice” and have them answer the questions.
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.
Williams’ lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
OK… now the questions: 1. Does this story bother you? 2. Is the clinic owner guilty of murder? 3. Do you believe Sycloria Williams has the moral standing to sue the clinic? Answer these questions in your heart, but - whether anyone is around you or not - please verbalize your answer, so that the words become real. And after each, ask yourself if the words coming out of your mouth match what you feel in your heart.
1. If you answered “Yes” that this story did bother you, an avowed pro-choicer, then I must ask why? Sycloria Williams walked into that clinic and paid $1,200 to terminate a pregnancy - and that is exactly what happened. Perhaps, you are disturbed by the manner in which the termination occurred? Again I must ask why? Oh, wait… that’s a inconvenient question. We’ll move on for now.
2. I assume, again since you are an avowed pro-choicer, that you believe the clinic owner is not guilty of murder, because in your view, abortion is not murder. Right? But the baby was actually born - she had air in her lungs - she was alive! Isn’t causing the death of a living, breathing child … Oops! Another inconvenient question. Next!
3. As for whether Ms. Williams has the moral standing to sue the clinic, I’ll bet you are really conflicted on that one. On the one hand, you probably agree that she is the victim of a morally bankrupt and evil corporation’s malpractice and greed. Ergo, she does have the moral high ground to claim that the clinic didn’t kill the fetus she was carrying before it became a baby. On the other hand, it’s an abortion clinic… a Temple of modern liberalism that frees women from the shackles of motherhood. Ergo, their moral authority is sacrosanct and unassailable. My oh my, what is a progressive to do with a Morton’s Fork like that?
Questions too tough? Need help? Maybe you could look to popular opinion for an answer. After all, isn’t that what the liberal politicians do?
“The baby was just treated as a piece of garbage,” said Tom Brejcha, president of The Thomas More Society, a law firm that is also representing Williams. “People all over the country are just aghast.”
Even those who support abortion rights are concerned about the allegations.
“It really disturbed me,” said Joanne Sterner, president of the Broward County chapter of the National Organization for Women, after reviewing the administrative complaint against Renelique. “I know that there are clinics out there like this. And I hope that we can keep (women) from going to these types of clinics.”
Does that help?
I believe that if you really answered those questions honestly, the story really did bother you (though you may not understand exactly why), you do think that poor baby was murdered (or allowed to die), and that as horrific as the experience must have been for her, Sycloria Williams has no right suing a clinic for doing exactly what she really wanted - “getting rid of” the baby she was carrying. Combine that with the fact that the National Organization for Women want’s you to help keep (women) from going to these types of clinics (would that be Abortion clinics?) and you’ll find that what it comes down to is that you who are pro-abortion really just want the right to kill what the rest of us consider to be a baby, before you start thinking about it as a living being.
The Inconvenient Truth here is that the science and technology you prize above all else keeps moving the line you draw, between when it is a lump of cells and when it is a living being, closer and closer to the point of conception. And I believe that while your intellect may be able to handle that, your conscience cannot. As a progressive thinker, the type of person that often personifies animals, plants, and even the Earth itself (Gaia), you must have real trouble not personifying an embryo - which, if left alone, would have an excellent chance of actually becoming a real person. I think your intellect may even be betraying you, because you have to know that at one point you - your living, breathing, thinking, caring, thriving, progressive self - was just a “lump of cells,” and look how far you have come. You must wonder if any person, given the chance, and with help from progressives like yourself, couldn’t grow and thrive in the same way - no matter how initially unwanted or unloved.
Well, here’s something else to wonder about; what if one of those millions of babies that were disposed of was the next Jonas Salk, Albert Einstein, or would have invented the cure for AIDS or invented an alternative fuel to replace our dependence on oil? Tired old pro-life argument, you say? Ok… what if, now that you approach your golden years, one of those discarded lumps of cells was around to love you, call you mom, give you grandchildren who would think the world of you, and help take care of you as your body and mind failed? Ever think about that?
You know, for a bunch of folks known as the “Free Love” generation, you have just about guaranteed that as you grow old, many of you will do so alone. How profoundly sad.
Posted by Steve at 1:58pm | Filed Under Law and Ethics, Politics, Race and Prejudice, Religion, Science
Feb
6
Who paid for last night’s ‘retreat’? I’ve honeymooned in Williamsburg. That town isn’t cheap.
Posted by Dan at 8:22am | Filed Under Politics
Feb
6
(This post is adapted from an email I sent Mandy Connell this morning. I’ll be adding Mandy to “Abolitionists” for her stalwart conservatism (should have long ago) but I hope she also adopts the label for other reasons….)
When you hear people talking about their quandary over their personal belief about abortion and their concern that it might not be the responsibility of the federal government to do anything about it, just remember that we’ve already had this national conversation - it was called slavery.
Just about every perspective you can bring up with regard to one issue is relevant to the other, with the only difference being that one problem existed before America was created, and one became a national problem after the development of our medical technology. They are both terrible injustices against another human being that some people deny is human. The Constitution puts the responsibility on the States to regulate it (or not - 10th Amendment), yet it’s a national question over a moral outrage that will eventually need to be fixed by an Amendment.
So if you ever worry if it should be a federal government responsibility to do something about abortion, pretend you’re an abolitionist and that the baby is a black slave being beaten to death by it’s “master” and ask yourself the question again.
Posted by Chris at 7:14am | Filed Under Law and Ethics
Feb
2
Below is the response the Honorable Senator Mel Martinez sent me on Friday regarding my desire to see him NOT vote for this jumbo pile of bovine dung.
“In February 2008, the Congress, with my full support, passed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. This legislation was designed to jump start our slowing economy and encourage job creation. Included in the package was direct financial relief for individuals and families, as well as tax incentives for businesses aimed at stimulating investment. ”
Now, either he MEANT 2008 and there was some stimulus package last year (that I don’t recall) OR he’s EXPECTING this piece of garbage to be passed AS IS.
Posted by Dan at 8:29am | Filed Under Economics, Politics
Jan
23
While I respect his opinions and enjoy listening to his take on things, I don’t often find myself in agreement with Juan Williams. In his recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece Judge Obama on Performance Alone, however, I must say that I think Mr. Williams has brilliantly articulated a thought that I have been trying to put into words for some time now…
If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else — fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism — then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.
Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.
This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.
That is a profound idea. Someone claiming that criticism I may express regarding the policies and actions of the President are racist (because I am White and Barack Obama is Black) are themselves being “patronizing” and making “an implicit presumption of inferiority” regarding the President. I love it.
Yet isn’t this exactly what we are seeing already from the sycophantic press? Claims that any criticism of the President’s policies as being racist or unpatriotic are already happening. The questions we need to be putting to the fawning MSM-types are this: Does President Obama possess so fragile a persona that his opponents are not allowed to criticize him, yet vitriolic, spiteful and truly hateful criticism of former President Bush (43) is deemed warranted, and even patriotic? Doesn’t that kind of logic only work if you think our new President to be less able to handle such criticism, or his policy positions to be so weak that they cannot stand tough scrutiny?
Will anyone (more important or less reviled than a simple blogger) dare ask those questions to anyone in the MSM whose answers might carry some weight? And can those who do dare offer a response afford to answer truthfully?
Posted by Steve at 7:36am | Filed Under Politics
Jan
22
How many times have you heard “charismatic” used to describe the man that is our current President? Read this analysis, then click the at the end for the punchline.
The word Charisma is derived from a Greek word meaning “gift of grace.” For years, social scientists have analyzed and debated the origin of charisma and why people gravitate toward charismatic leaders. Influential sociologist Max Weber was one of the first to study the theory of charismatic leadership. According to Weber, social actions are controlled and directed by a general belief on the part of the members of a society that a legitimate social order exists. The probability that social behavior will be oriented in terms of that order constitutes the basis for its authority. Weber postulated that there were three ways to convert power into legitimate authority: rational, traditional, and charismatic, and that each type of authority was validated differently. Established orders such as educational institutions or courts of law give rise to rational authority. Traditional authority arises when leader and follower relationships such as parent/child, teacher/student, or officer/soldier are bounded by long-standing traditions. Traditional and rational bases of authority are not effective forms of authority to bring social or organizational changes.
Charismatic authority, on the other hand, is part of the expression of schismatic tendencies in society. In contrast to legal or traditional authority, charismatic authority is the antithesis of routine activities and represents the desire for disruption and change of the prevailing social order. It is a necessary part of the dialectic between the human need for structure and the equally human need for variation and innovation in society. Charismatic authority is different from rational or traditional authority in that it spawns not from established orders or traditions, but rather from the special trust the charismatic leader induces in his followers, the peculiar powers he exhibits, and the unique qualities he possesses. According to Weber, it is difficult for charismatic leaders to maintain their authority because followers must continue to legitimize this authority. There is a need for the charismatic leader to constantly exhibit leadership performance to his followers to reinforce the legitimacy of his authority.
Several theoretical frameworks have been put forth to explain the crucial elements that give rise to charismatic leadership. Our psychological sense of self worth or self-esteem is a function of the status of our identifications with certain self-objects. These self-objects may be tangible (i.e., a social class to which we belong or a car we drive) or intangible (i.e., a belief or a cause). When the status of the self-objects with which we identify increases, our self-esteem increases. When the status of the self-objects with which we identify diminishes in value, our self-esteem diminishes. Effective leaders elevate the status of the self-objects with which their followers identify, raising their followers’ self-esteem to new heights. When followers identify with a leader, and that leader enhances their self-esteem, the followers perceive the leader as charismatic.
Another theory states that individuals who have solved for themselves problems the followers have not been able to solve for themselves are perceived as charismatic. The perception of charisma is of great importance only between the leaders and their followers. How non-followers perceive the leaders has very little relevance to the notion of charisma. According to Weber, people have extraordinary needs, especially in times of great stress and crisis in a society, and leaders who are able to satisfy these needs are considered charismatic. Charismatic leaders help their followers achieve a state of transcendence by becoming the embodiment of the qualities they wish that they possessed. Charismatic leaders appear most frequently in times of societal crisis.
What are some of the common qualities and characteristics of charismatic leaders? Charismatic leaders are able to distill complex thoughts and ideas into simple messages through the use of symbolism, analogies, and metaphors. Charismatic leaders embrace risk and feel empty in its absence. And, they take chances without fear of failure. Charismatic leaders rebel against the status quo and conventional wisdom. According to Weber, charismatic leaders reject rational, economic objectives and orders, choosing more “irrational” but more humanistic pursuits, and that one of the signs of charismatic leadership lies in the leader’s ability to leave a significant mark on the traditional institutionalized structure that he rejects. Charismatic leaders have robust empathic capacity - they attempt to see the world through their followers’ eyes. Finally, charismatic leaders challenge, prod, and poke their followers to test their courage and their commitment. Charismatic leaders score high on expression of values, emphasis on commitment, setting high standards, stressing a sense of mission, talking optimistically about the future, expressing confidence, making personal sacrifices, providing encouragement to followers, and displaying conviction in ideals.”
Posted by Sue at 9:02am | Filed Under Politics
Jan
22
But sometimes they can become Secretary of the Treasury.
Republican senators are putting up a good front for the constituents, but aren’t working too hard trying to defeat Mr. Geithner’s nomination. If he is confirmed, conservatives have a damaged Secretary collecting tax receipts for Uncle Sam. Champions for reform will have pages and pages of apologies they can use to defend the oppressed taxpayers who make innocent mistakes, “just like Secretary Geithner.” And best of all (he says, seeing the silver lining and not the cloud), should the economy not turn around, Republicans will have the chance to say, “We’re not surprised, since President Obama can’t even find a Treasury Secretary who can fill out his 1040, nevermind fix this economy.” On the other hand, if the Democrats buy a clue and pull the nomination, they won’t get their favorite TARP-loving choice for the job.
It’s a wonderful win-win scenario for Republicans… if they can avoid finding a way to screw it up.
Posted by Chris at 8:37am | Filed Under Economics, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Politics
Jan
21
Last night, The Wall Street Journal posted an interesting symposium of Hopes for the Obama Presidency, with a wide variety of influential contributors joining in. Expectedly, there are voices like Katrina vanden Heuvel and George McGovern calling for the President to “Marshal the Power of Liberalism Government” and “Feed the Hungry”. (Just as an aside: Is there anyone in this country really hungry? I thought the latest talking point was that we’re too fat, and I don’t think the food stamp program has been abolished or local charities have stopped feeding the poor.)
But two of the offerings stand out. One came closest to my own thoughts yesterday, and asks for us to “Show Each Other Some Respect”. It took a double-take to notice that the contributor was none other than Glenn Reynolds:
I agree with Barack Obama on some issues and disagree on others, but my hopes for the Obama presidency have mostly to do with tone. By reaching out to conservative columnists, and by going out of his way to say that he thinks George W. Bush is “a good man,” Mr. Obama has made some efforts to transcend the nastiness that has emanated from much of the Democratic Party over the past eight years, where open hatred of Mr. Bush and Republicans has been a major source of social bonding. That is a wise move on his part, as it makes it less likely that Republicans will return the favor. Venomous hatred by the opposition seriously harmed the Clinton and Bush administrations, and Mr. Obama will have a much more successful presidency if he can avoid similar problems. Whether this approach succeeds or not, however, will depend on whether his followers go along; in this, it is an early test of President Obama’s ability to lead.
While I am disappointed and wary of what a new progressivism may bring us, I most dread a continuation of the senseless and increasing hatred that has been thrown back and forth between Democrats and Republicans since Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush. The more recent President Bush entered office with eggs being thrown at his inaugural motorcade, and left Washington yesterday afternoon to the infantile jeers of the inauguration revelers, singing “Hey, Hey, Good-Bye”. Let’s find a way to share our respective opinions with spirit and candor (and yes, humor), but without senseless anger and hate. I’ll start by pointing out to my conservative colleagues that you can’t call President Obama a smooth talker with empty rhetoric, and then accuse him of being a Marxist totalitarian, all in one breath. Uncle Joe was many evil things, but he wasn’t subtle; Obama is not Bill or Hillary Clinton (let’s thank God above for that).
The other notable post in the WSJ column was from Shelby Steele, who noted, “I feel earnest goodwill toward this new administration, but I’m afraid my actual ‘hopes’ for it run to the negative.” He then proceeded to explain how he “hopes” the President fails to find traction for the progressive agenda he seems poised to implement, and how he “despair(s) at seeing the moral capital of my race put to these ends.” The title of Mr. Steele’s post: “Black America Could Have Done Better”. There’s a simple, honest statement of dispute without bomb-throwing. I couldn’t agree more.
Posted by Chris at 9:17am | Filed Under Economics, Foreign Affairs, Politics