Archive for May 2nd, 2008

You know I’m about as conservative as one gets politically, but in a streak of seriousness, you could ask this question:

Will black voters stay home if Obama loses nomination?

NDIANAPOLIS — Many black voters are making it very clear: They’re concerned that Barack Obama is going to be denied the Democratic presidential nomination that they see as rightfully his, and if that happens, a lot of them may stay home in November.

“It would hurt me not to vote,” said Charles Clark, an Indianapolis retiree. He’s thinking about leaving the presidential box on his ballot blank this fall if Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ nominee.

“There was a heck of a push made so blacks could vote. I know that,” he said. “But it would also be very unfair if they pushed Barack Obama to the side.”

Michelle Moore, an Indianapolis housewife, is less gentle: “Hillary Clinton would not even still be in the race if Obama was a white man,” she said.

Her tough tone was common this week in this city’s black community. Why, people asked, is the Illinois senator’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright being judged so harshly? Why won’t Democratic Party officials acknowledge that Obama’s in the lead and unite around him?

(excerpted from link above – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/35516.html)

David Lightman and William Douglas (McClatchy Newspapers) did ask that question. The other question to ask is…

Is this what it best for the country?

Short answer? Oh absolutely (says McCain). Maybe. Dunno. Not sure at all. It is good in the sense that the political process still works – you can vote, or notit’s your choice.

In any case I think McCain has a high likelihood of being elected unless he is caught in one of those rest-stop raids (you know, the kind of setting that Senator Craig dreams about).

I’m not going to write everything going on in my head but I’ll drop this on the table and let folks chew on it.

A co-worker stopped in my office yesterday and mentioned that during his long commute he was books-on-disc-ing the history of Fall of Rome. What came out of it was that yes, Rome was hedonistic, had some “issues”, lead pipes, etc. But he said something that I knew but didn’t THINK about.

He said that by all accounts Rome fell apart because it had stretched far and wide and it’s people were too diverse to be cohesive.


The liberal mantra for years proclaims that diversity is the grail. Where did that nugget of wisdom come from? It’s not historical, that’s for sure.

This isn’t an anti-black post. It’s not an anti-diverse post. It’s a post about the dangers of trying to achieve a diversity where everyone joins and stays a member of their group rather than joining and becoming a member of THIS group: The US. The tired cry of “African American”, “Muslim American”, “Chinese American”… what the hell, people? Are you a citizen? Fine, you are American. Forget the rest. I’m not a “German American” and I don’t meet with other “German Americans” to celebrate my heritage. That’s a crutch and a way to say to others that you are going to exclude others from your group.

So what we’re seeing now is entire demographics behaving like gangs and voting on the person, not their merits. A lot more people are happy with their candidates than they have any right to be with this election cycle, because they all stink.


Some day I would like to explore the timeless stumbling block… if someone is a man/woman/alien, or whatever, and they perceive themselves as being set aside (rightly or wrongly) and they don’t win (for perfectly valid reasons) then what is the way to defuse the rallying cry of “I didn’t get voted/hired/chosen because of what I am?” Apparently the New York Times thought it worth muddying the water with:

Supporters of both Democratic candidates said that they did not think the Wright episode should change the race but said, again and again, that they feared it might in other, less cosmopolitan areas of Indiana where they thought people might be searching for some acceptable explanation for not voting for a black candidate.

Source: New York Times

So next time I go for a job and don’t get it, will I be able to claim that I wasn’t hired because of my hearing loss? Perhaps. Or because of my tendency to eat Kimchee as a snack at midnight? Perhaps.

But what about the legitimate cases where a decision was made based on pure merit yet one perceives themselves to be the underdog as a result of some distinguishing feature? Shall we have an inquisition every time there is a hiccup? How do we make a determination that the claim is valid?

I’m not sure that we can, because of the factions of us vs. them as happened in Rome.

Read Full Post »

Sooooo, right here you have a presidential candidate tell you quite frankly that she is against upholding the nation’s laws. <ding!>

Hillary Clinton, in the second half of her first-ever interview with FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly, said that if elected president she would not crack down on so-called illegal immigrant “sanctuary cities.”

Targeting Sanctuary Cities

Read Full Post »