Scio, Scio

The Impossible Obama

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:04:59 -0700

I have been working at a new job recently, and I have had little energy for blogging. But today I took the time during lunch to pen a few thoughts on the Barack Obama problem.
Additionally, my wife found my first gray hair this evening. I am ecstatic, having desired a touch of gray since I was 17 or so. I think that optimally I would affect a George Clooney or a Reed Richards, one or t'other. Now, without much ado, my first bloggable thought in weeks.

********************

Lately I've been ruminating on the specter of an Obama candidacy. Hillary is not done yet, but it looks grim. The Democrats have decided that they can safely abandon Mrs. Clinton in favor of the charismatic Senator from Illinois. Obama presents some unique obstacles to a reasonable discourse. No criticism of the man seems to be allowed to stand...for this, that or the other reason. He was handled with kid gloves during the early part of the primaries.
The crux of the issue with Barack Obama is that he is an inexperienced candidate who has some very questionable associations that may affect his ability to lead us, but we are being prevented from seriously exploring his weaknesses because of a heightened sensitivity to matters of race and identity.
There is a legitimate fear that his association with avowed anti-American radicals as well as his long membership in a church which prides itself on being the cutting edge of black liberation theology are less a circumstance of his political upbringing and more a reflection of his own personal beliefs. Americans, I feel it safe to say, want in their President a basic quality - that of the ultimate Spokesman. To my thinking, a President should at the very least be altogether in love with America. Not blithely accepting this or that policy as sacred, no, but echoing Stephen Decatur's toast:

Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

A man who could share this sentiment looks clearly at things and sees the plain truth that America, for all her faults, is a force for good in the larger world. A President of the United States should ever and always be the first to sound the praises of America, even as he claims to chart a new course.
Obama's attempts to avoid jingoism and immodest displays of patriotism bespeak a very cool attitude towards the country he thinks he is qualified to lead. The question again intrudes upon us: what exactly are his beliefs about America? We must have an answer, but we are consistently thwarted in our attempts to procure one.
I am inclined to believe, as are others, that Obama's immaculate status is preserved by unfair means. Why is it legitimate, even mandatory, to question Cindy McCain's tax returns, but entirely unfair to bring up the subject of Obama's radical colleagues and mentors? If there is a scale of relevance, Mrs. McCain ranks in the bottom quarter...or eighth.
But, as ever with liberals, we find that when it comes to their pet causes every action is judged on a sliding scale - a relative measure. Obama is spared from deserved criticism because he is held to a different standard. I posit that this is due to his race.
It is not a direct relationship. Obama is not spared because he is black. But he is. What we have to understand is that the culprit in this case is the very worst sort of identity politics.
Think about it. To liberals, a person's identity takes center stage. Every aspect of that person makes up the very essence of who they are, their identity. This is opposed to character, which can be judged to be good or bad. Criticizing a person for their character flaws, long thought to be acceptable as a means of improving character, has of late been replaced with a drive to affirm the individual's sense of identity. Iconoclasm is the new old vogue, and so to criticize a person like Barack Obama is to violate a taboo of liberalism.
Another thing that makes up your identity, as opposed to your character, is your race. So, to criticize Obama's actions is to criticize his identity. And to criticize his identity is to criticize, however tenuously, his race. And thus we are faced with the uncomfortable realization that criticizing Barack Obama has a slight odor of racism about it. I doubt Obama intentionally cultivates this, but he certainly benefits from it. And I'd liken the scent to a manufactured odor, sort of the way that Febreze doesn't really smell like fresh linens hanging on a line.

When we view Obama through a lens of identity, it is not possible to judge him fit or unfit for the Presidency. When we look at him through the prism of character, it is eminently doable. This is the great problem we face in our current political climate: Identity politics is the order of the day, and until we distinguish between the false, relative view of identity and true personhood we will never be free of it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Onward to Philadelphia!

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 06:16:03 -0700

I am heading out this weekend to visit my good friends the Mercedarians in Philadelphia. This religious order was founded in 1218 by one Peter Nolasco, since sainted, with its principle aim the ransom of Christian captives of the Saracens. A Spanish order, it was a product of a time when the struggle between the West and Islam was apparent and immediate. The Reconquista was proceeding apace, but unfortunately many Christians suffered as captive slaves of the Islamic Almohads.
As was common practice in those days, captives could be ransomed back for sums based on their station in life. A king's ransom would be something like the entire GDP of whichever kingdom he represented. Or not, I am no authority on international law of the 13th century. It was a sad reality that kings and lords were not the only people taken captive in this long and bitter conflict. Many captives were simply too poor to secure their release.
What distinguished this order (and in my opinion gives it particular valor) is its peculiar Fourth Vow. All religious orders take vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, with many opting for a Fourth Vow which is particular to their order and in line with their charism. But the Mercedarians made the Solemn Vow to exchange themselves for captives if ransom could not be met. They would replace these Christian captives, many of whom were in danger of losing their Faith by forced conversion, many of whom were in danger of execution. They vowed to give their life to ransom back people who were in danger of losing their faith.
Think on this. Today, Americans change religions like they change automobiles. The belief that our Faith and its profession has eternal consequences has fallen by the wayside. But in the founding days of the Order of Merced, the belief was strong that denying belief in God (or Allah, conversely) for an opposing religion would damn one to Hell. The belief is so weakened today by the noxious fumes of relativism that the noble origins of this order seem quaint by our enlightened standards.
Yet how heroic they really were. To lay down their lives in order to save the soul of another person required supreme faith and supreme courage. The order had men of such quality, and it continues today to boast men of like caliber. The specifics of ransoming those in danger of losing their faith are somewhat different, but the commitment to the salvation of souls remains strongly in place.
In this age of soft values and hard realities, we need men who will bolster our Faith and help us to call on God for strength. We need men who will meet the challenges of a both plunging cultural standards and militant Wahhabist Islam with Christian ideals. We need more men like the Mercedarians, to whom I now go.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Neocons Ru(i)n the World, Sayeth Yon Hippies and Paulites.

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:40:41 -0700

Are you now or have you ever been a member of the neoconservative movement? It often feels like folks who support the Iraq War in particular and the War on Terror in general are unreservedly labeled neoconservative, neocon, neopig, baby-killer, etc. In truth, support for the war has never been the exclusive domain of neoconservatism, which philosophy is a convenient political ally for conservatives like myself.
There are some differences between neoconservatism and what I would consider an archetypal American Conservative. Neocons are not, in my experience, all that committed to social conservatism. This isn't bad, per se, at best it means they are simply focused on other issues. Their actual beginnings are quite interesting for someone who has only learned of the neocons through the media. Burned by liberalism many ages ago, these intellectuals brought their considerable smarts to bear in the fight to spread American notions of liberty and representative government while preserving American interests. At least I thought so. The real truth is slightly different.
I read a piece by Jonah Goldberg on the topic. Here's a snippet:

Obviously, supporting the spread of democracy hardly requires you to support the Iraq war. But it works the other way around as well. Support for the Iraq war doesn’t automatically make you a neoconservative. Douglas J. Feith, a former undersecretary of defense after 9/11, argues in his new memoir, War and Decision, that democratization didn’t rank very high among the Bush administration’s early priorities. Moreover, the administration’s mistakes in Iraq — perhaps including the war itself — have less relationship to ideology than many think. “It is possible,” as Kagan notes, “to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine.” (Just ask newly hired Hamas spokesman Jimmy Carter.)

Oooh, burn. But the point he makes later is that what many people call neoconservatism, that is the "doctrine of democracy promotion abroad, moralism in foreign policy and unilateralism toward these ends when necessary..." is not the original meaning of the idea. It was a domestic philosophy.
In the original sense, neoconservatism was the rejection of the idea that we can create a utopia on this earth through government. It was the realization by former liberals that the progressive ideals that were championed throughout the 20th century lead to fascism and oppression. At the very least they lead to stagnation and dependence, as evidenced by Europe.
I see a lot of people who want to reject the idea that individuals should be the captains of their destiny. I see a lot of people whose rejection of neconservatism has less to do with any war and much more to do with the role of government in our lives. Many people have a vested interest in growing government.

The question I ask myself is whether the current political climate allows the liberals to step back and really examine their views. For the liberal leaders, this is obviously not in their interest. But for the people who mindlessly condemn neoconservatism without being able to explain its basic origins and principles...there's hope they will see sense before they are duped into electing a person who will put us on the path taken by Europe.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Coming to America, Pope-Style

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:43:22 -0700

I was reading an article about the pope's visit to America, and was pleased to see that it was positive. I'm excited about this opportunity for American Catholics to see and hear the pope address them directly. It doesn't happen every day, you know.
But this article, well, it was funny. Because it was humming along just fine until the very last paragraph. Here it is:

Soprano Kathleen Battle has been enlisted to sing "The Lord's Prayer" - a decision the White House defended as appropriate despite the overt insertion of religion into a public event. "I think we've struck the right balance," Perino said. "Many people across America and across the world say that prayer in order to provide themselves comfort and confidence in getting their day started."

Notice anything funny there? Because to me, it looks like we're debating whether we should sing a song that mentions God when we're hosting the freaking Pope. Does it matter if it's a "public event?" We put God on our money, and we have prayer before the sessions of Congress. This doesn't rise beyond that level of public acknowledgment of God.
I believe the courts have determined that the use of "God" on our money is defensible from a standpoint that it is not an endorsement by the state of a particular religion, but is merely in this day and age a reflection of our shared traditions and history. If our mottos were coined today I'm sure they would sound something like the Obama campaign rhetoric, but fortunately they were laid down in a time when men were able to speak openly in a public forum of their faith and its influence on their decisions.
May my grandchildren see the end of political correctness, I pray.

Keep watching this Pope, my friends. That includes you who aren't religious, and you who are primarily concerned with other things. He may surprise you. Suffice it to say that he can explain better than most of us why we believe what we believe about life, death, and what comes after.

Viva il Papa!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

News & Politics QotW: The Taxman

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:06:07 -0700

As the April 15th tax filing deadline looms, many gay couples are facing higher tax bills because they do not get the federal tax benefits that accompany marriage. The same is true for heterosexual couples who chose not to get married. Do you think this is fair?

Of course it's fair. Marriage is a child-bearing union of two people who commit to raise up more little taxpayers. Or, from another perspective, it is a sacramental union of two souls before God, geared towards the production of more lives. The government has a vested interest in promoting stable taxpaying individuals, and is well within its rights to offer tax benefits to married people. God has a vested interest in the human race, and for whatever reason has decided we are worth the effort to love.
In the case of gay couples there is no moral or biological ability to be married as both participants are the same sex. This is just a fundamental concept here, but marriage produces children and homosexuals cannot reproduce unless they perform extreme measures to do so. Marriage, true marriage, is closed to them. Imitations can and have been made, but they lack the essential aspects of true marriage.
In the case of unwed couples, there is no real commitment to hold them together should things get tough. Bill wants to continue playing guitar at college parties, Jane wants to settle down. Poof, the relationship is over. Any kids get shuttled between the parents, or not, and grow up completely unaware of the benefits of a traditional family system. This not only damages children, causing increased juvenile delinquency and increasing the likelihood that they never have a successful marriage, but it also damages the two adults. Bitter feelings are the norm, and that is never good. The good news is that if they live together long enough they become common-law spouses. Why is that? Because the state recognizes that marriage is between a man, a woman, and God...perhaps? I don't know the tax benefits of being a common-law spouse, but all you people living together better watch out!
Homosexuals and unwed couples should not be afforded the benefits of marriage, because marriage is more than just a legal status. It's a moral action, a lifelong commitment. It's more than the state can offer us, and people lose sight of that.
From a practical standpoint, if the benefits of marriage were available to basically anybody regardless of their marital status they would simply lower the tax benefits of marriage. Get real, folks.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Iraq War Misconceptions

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:49:02 -0700

National Review Online has a tremendous piece by Frederick W. Kagan on Iraq. Specifically, the common myths associated with the war that many on the left side of the spectrum continually cite as reasons we have lost, will lose, or must withdraw from the present conflict.
Do the nattering nabobs really know the counterpoint to their arguments? I would think not. So often I see a parroted claim about the war that can be no more supported than the rantings of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Conservatives who have conviction but not the knowledge to back it up must educate themselves so as to better exploit this weakness. Liberals who wish to better defend themselves may also find the article useful.

Let's just ignore for now the sobering fact that no amount of information will make any of us actually change our minds, and just enjoy the opportunity to learn.

The article's long, as something like this would have to be, but it's not overlong. Five years of the left pulling out every conceivable objection to the war have left Kagan a big job. He tackles it handily and you should read the whole thing. However, I provide a snippet to draw you in:

The War Costs Too Much
An increasingly popular talking point of the antiwar party is that the war simply costs too much and that we must end it and refocus on domestic priorities. This talking point has a number of variants:
The “$3 trillion war.” Simplistic economic analysis declares that the war has cost the taxpayers $3 trillion since its inception, implying that this is a $3 trillion dead loss to the economy — a price too high to pay.
Modern economics has long understood that the notion of a one-for-one guns-versus-butter trade-off is simply wrong. A high proportion of money spent on defense goes back into the U.S. economy in the form of salaries paid to the more than 5 million Americans employed directly or indirectly by the Defense Department, and payments to the defense industry and the long and complex supply chains from which they draw their raw materials. Military spending has traditionally been a form of economic stimulus, and wars more commonly end recessions or depressions than start them. That’s not a good reason to start a war, but neither is it a good reason to lose one. The impact of the current war on the U.S. economy, finally, is far smaller than the impact of previous major conflicts. Military spending in World War II ranged from 17.8 percent of GDP to 37.5 percent; in Korea from 5.0 percent (in 1950 — 7.4 percent in 1951) to 14.2 percent; in Vietnam from 7.4 percent to 9.4 percent. Current expenditures on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars bring total defense expenditures to something well below 5 percent of GDP. Even granting the simplistic and misleading $3 trillion figure, $3 trillion is about 5 percent of the nearly $60 trillion American GDP over the five years of the war.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Bigotry and the Common Blog

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:43:50 -0700

I found this interesting article on National Review, and thought I'd share it. I enjoy the fact that Islam is still being preserved from criticism, even much deserved criticism. It seems that no progress has been made since the riots following the pope's call to reason at Regensburg.
Threaten enough people and I guess you get your way. Perhaps when Christians begin to cut off the heads of their detractors they will be afforded the same deference. I doubt that very much, for it often seems that anti-Christian sentiment is the last acceptable bigotry. Is it because we are "the Establishment" religion? Perhaps so. Europeans are increasingly godless and it has ever been the fashion of the American societal elite to ape Europe. Give him enough time, and the common man begins to ape the ape in a bid for the appearance of sophistication.
The other week I had the occasion to attempt a dialogue with another Voxer who had made it very clear that she didn't like my particular religion. She trotted out the usual litany of abuses committed by my Church over the years, but focused primarily on the sexual abuse scandal among the clergy. When I offered a counterpoint to her views, I was unfortunately met with "The Wall." That is, the "this is my personal view and I don't want to be criticized for it" wall. Now, I would hope that anyone who reads my piddling excuse for a blog would understand my frustration. Anything I post in public I understand to be open to criticism. Especially if I post something critical to another person's beliefs. Sometimes, I border on the insulting. I'd hate to be labeled a troll, but there is a point at which letting an accusation or a misconception stand is tantamount to agreement. So it seems I am constantly stepping on the toes of liberals, atheists, global warming nuts and even Protestants.
It's all quite frustrating, because at the end of the day the Internet just isn't real. The victories I might win are easily ignored. The points I make are suspect because the conversation begins with me as an intruder on a particular person's public space (which makes no sense to me...the Internet is hardly private). So what is the point of it all?
Well, I still believe that we can carry our principles with us even when we are completely anonymous. I feel that the anonymity allows us to engage in debate devoid of the usual obfuscations of personal pride and ego. Rhetorical tactics can still be used to great effect, but the debate can be essentially neutral without lacking substance.
What we say on the Internet actually is real and it matters. I still believe that relativism is the thing that will doom us to half-witted expressions of banal tolerance for even the worst sorts of offenses. And so I suppose I am going to continue feeling awkward and unpopular amongst my many anonymous Internet acquaintances.
Whose commentary, as always, I welcome.

The Evolution of Religious Bigotry

Courage without consequence.
By Jonah Goldberg
I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.
Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for “strife” or “ordeal.”
Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch didn’t ban the film.
Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing “hatred.”
Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.
During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.
At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.
It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).
Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.
In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXΘΥΣ” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”
I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.
The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.
As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.”
But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.
Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.
Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.
Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.
It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.
It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.
The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Hard Decision

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:20:48 -0700

I think the time has come for me to stop fighting it. Over the past few months I've been arguing with everyone around me about the political candidates, which one is better and which one would be death for this country. And I've been taking it for granted that I should support a Republican.
But I am so tired of the fighting. I finally watched the speech Barack Obama gave the other week. You know, the one I ridiculed earlier. Well...I listened to the man and he spoke to my soul.

I've decided to vote for Barack Obama.

Now I didn't come to this decision lightly, I want you to be quite aware of that. In fact, I went back and watched Obama's speeches from the past few months. All of them. And it was just like, wow. One thing after another just resonated with me and I started to ask myself why we aren't all working together on our problems. Why can't we just unite behind this man and follow his lead. He's a proven leader in the Senate and he's an inspiring, charismatic guy who just might impress our enemies with his willingness to actually talk to them for a change.

Maybe he'll also crap a rainbow. Then we can all hold hands and slide down it into a pot of free healthcare, citizenship for illegals and the end of all those nasty gun rights. If we fall off (rainbows are fickle, you know) we'll find a cushion in the piles of aborted babies that Obama considers punishment. It's a testament to my lack of conviction in my writing that I couldn't keep up this pathetic joke any longer. I could almost taste the vomit.

If we elect Barack Obama it will show that the American republic has been corrupted by democracy. The base impulses of the electorate are to serve self, first. Any politician who tells you exactly what you want to hear has you marked as a rube. I guarantee that the old talk about the electoral college comes up again this year.

Up with Electors!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

E-Mail Forwards

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:03:03 -0700

Occasionally, e-mail forwards are worth reading. But only rarely.

Dream Team
Last night I had the strangest dream. It was so real, so life-like and so
vivid. Let me describe it to you briefly...
1. Hillary wins the Democratic Party nomination for President of the
United States

2. Naturally, she wants to choose as her running mate someone with a lot
of knowledge and experience in government and foreign affairs, someone who
is a seasoned campaigner who could bring a lot of strength to the ticket.
Who better than Bill, her husband?!!!

3. Hill and Bill go on to win the election in November and the Democrats
maintain control of the House and the Senate.

4. Hillary is sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. The next day,
after all the inauguration parties are over, she calls a press conference to
make an announcement: she is resigning as President!!! Bill, as the Vice
President, immediately becomes President!!! This is all perfectly legal
under the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, for it states that 'no person
may be elected as president more than twice'.
Bill is not being elected for a third term but is merely serving out the
remainder of Hillary's term---all 4 years of it.

5. But wait! There's more! The following day Bill calls a press conference
to make an announcement. He has chosen someone to fill the now-vacant office
of Vice President. Guess who he p icks? Why, Hillary, of course!!!

6. And one last thing, Bill could resign just before the elections and
that would make Hillary the incumbent President. She could run for
re-election and we could do it all over again and she would never serve out
her two terms... Bill could be President for life....

Please forward this e-mail to all of your Republican friends and to as
many others as you wish to cause sleepless nights...

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama's Race Speech

nobody@vox.com(Scio, Scio) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:04:10 -0700

I think this paragraph from Jonah Goldberg of National Review is a tidy summation of my feelings on what some have called "one of the finest speeches ever."

Why do voluptuaries of racial argy-bargy want yet another such dialogue? For some, it’s to avoid actually dealing with unpleasant facts. But for others — like La Raza or the college professors scrambling to follow Obama’s lead — when they say we need more conversation, they really mean their version of reality should win the day. Replace “conversation” with “instruction” and you’ll have a better sense of where these people are coming from and where they want their “dialogue” to take us.

Ultimately, Obama's speech is nothing so momentous, so awe-inspiring. In fact, Obama's refusal to distance himself personally as well as professionally from the man who condemned America in no uncertain terms while giving an award to real hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan is troubling. Is it weakness of character, which might be forgivable, or is it that Mr. Obama finds the words of his pastor not particularly offensive?
One thing I think we can agree upon is that the President of the United States cannot be too patriotic. He is not only our leader in matters foreign and domestic, he is also America's preeminent spokesman. When a man tolerates sentiments such as Jeremiah Wright's and refuses for years to repudiate them, that man is demonstrating a quality that no President should possess.
Is Obama's speech really a call to dialogue? That remains to be seen. Currently, it amounts to nothing more than a grand changing of the subject.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend