My Department Chair sent me this article in which it presents the argument that white people failed to elect Obama to office. I think the best thing she sent me was Chris Rock’s take on Obama’s whiteness. Warning: Do not drink anything while viewing this video. It is hilarious.
From what I am reading across the country from other bloggers, people are wearing star of David badges and showcasing fascist’s symbols to protest the state of Arizona.
I have spoken to a number of Hispanics, and all of them will tell you that they do not favor illegal immigration; in essence, it works against the plight of legals. But, to enact legislation empowering the state to ask people for their papers due to race, is borderline Fascism.
I hear all too often that people do not want too much federal government intervention, but the governor of Arizona stated herself that states such as hers have no choice due to the inactivity of the federal government. I think Ms. Brewer is about to get her wish; I suspect the Obama administration will act quickly to usurp that of states by enacting comprehensive immigration reform. As a black American, I tend not to trust the notion of states’ rights. Historically, states have discriminated against minority populations. Thanks to Interstate Commerce, the federal government used various tactics to remove Jim Crow. This does not mean the federal government does not discriminate. The United States has a history of implementing immigration acts and quotas against various groups: Southern and Eastern Europeans, Asians, and Jews.
As noted in The Huffington Post:
Arizona lawmakers approved a sweeping immigration bill Monday intended to ramp up law enforcement efforts even as critics complained it could lead to racial profiling and other abuse.The state Senate voted 17-11 nearly along party lines to send the bill to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has not taken a position on the measure championed by fellow Republicans. The House approved the bill April 13.
Patrick Ryan is a a junior at HCHS; he is a frequent reader of the Professor and has written posts here before. Feel free to leave a comment addressing his thoughts on the Bush epoch.
There is no doubt on my mind that almost every citizen of America today has their own views about the way that George Bush handled his term of presidency from January 20, 2001, to today, January 20, 2009. While each person has the right to their own opinion about how Bush acted during his tenure as the Commander-in-Chief (and the right to share these views with others), it has always been my theory that third party, non-biased historical accounts are what truly define the way that people think because it allows the reader to synthesize their own opinions and possibly even allows that reader to consider ways of improving ideas that may have been glossed over in a positive light in more biased historical accounts (ex: The New Deal). Perhaps it is my right brained tendencies that lead to my preference of objectivity over subjectivity. However, it has been increasingly difficult to come up with a definitive historical account of the Bush presidency that was free from the bias that our media has so readily embraced over the past decade. The following article was written by a historical idol of mine named Andrew Roberts, the writer of many books about the subject of warfare and the leaders therein. I found his article about how the Bush Presidency will someday be remembered to be very well written while also incorporating a minimal amount of bias and so thought that I would share it with you. Here is the link if you want to read some of the numerous comments that readers have left for him.
Here are a few examples:
In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush’s legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush’s presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.
At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this. The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America’s borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bushafter 9/11.
The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was “all about oil”, or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.
Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.
Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam’s own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.
Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN’s food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.
History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an “axis of evil” of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi’s WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.
With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac’s France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.
I came across this story from my favorite college teacher; I find this piece published in the Abilene Reporter disturbing for attacking the student paper at ACU (Abilene Christian University) In essence, this guy is saying God and rich people hate ACU for supporting Obama; does that mean He hates me too? I doubt it. This guy is serving his own agenda — not that of Christians. As a Christian who supports Obama, I do not think God hates me. Read the entire article here. It is pretty good — but sad.
Here are a few snippets:
It’s a sad day for Abilene Christian University, and it’s going to get worse if things don’t change. Why?
The ACU on-campus paper endorsed Barack Obama for president. Ironically, this will mean bad economic news for students. Ironic because they endorsed Obama for economic reasons. How? Lost donations and tuition.
Over the last hundred years, who has given to ACU (tuitions and donation)? Who has endorsed the school, encouraged attendance and been loyal through thick and thin? Conservative Christians. Opponents of abortion.
Why does it cost $5,000 to $6,000 per year or more for ACU than Harding University (a Church of Christ school in Arkansas)? It’s the economics of a failure to stand up for biblical truth, and the campus support for liberalism — including this most recent endorsement by The Optimist for Obama.
Why is the attendance for Harding 1,000 to 2,000 higher than ACU? Why are West Texas families — who attended ACU themselves — sending their children to Harding (it’s getting rampant; I’ve personally met many)? Again, it’s the economics of liberal endorsements.
Proverbs 14:34, “God-devotion makes a country strong; God-avoidance leaves people weak.” NLT
Lord, forgive our Christian schools and nation for voting money over morals. Remind us that you are our eternal IRA and that you promised to take care of us if we’d only put Kingdom things first. Please create the circumstances in our lives and our nation that lead us to do just that. In Jesus’ name, amen.
You have got to be kidding me; I fell asleep due to being bored. Same old spill — nothing new. Good luck McCain. I am not even motivated to write about this.
I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open…
I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them.
I will cut government spending. He will increase it.
My tax cuts will create jobs; his tax increases will eliminate them
As many of you know, I subscribe to and receive a number of academic and political e-news letters. Below Frank Llewellyn addresses the issue of health care and the inability of Republicans and Democrats to address this problem. We all know that a third party will never take charge of the White House. That is not their agenda….There job is to influence the major parties. I will say this, if you are over the age of 60, I would think twice before voting Republican. Of course if you are rich, you might not care. Since I am not, I hope you have to pay more in taxes so that those with no health care can get it from the government. So what if you have to sacrifice that lake house. ~EC~
“Rudy Giuliani wouldn’t know ‘socialism’ from ‘social skills,’” said the Democratic Socialist of America’s (DSA) Frank Llewellyn. “He must be angling to join Hillary Clinton at the feeding frenzy courtesy of ‘Big Pharma’ and the Insurance Companies,” the DSA national director added. The socialist leader was referring to the contributions the senator receives from the pharmaceutical industry and her abandonment of any pretense at offering health care for the millions of uninsured. “Giuliani wants some insurance chum, too,” Llewellyn said, responding to Giuliani’s charge that the health care programs pushed by the Democratic frontrunners reflected un-American and socialist values. “Giuliani is wrong in so many ways that you could generate two top ten lists of crank comments from his press release.”
“First off, he tarnishes the socialist idea by associating it with the Democratic Party,” Llewellyn said, arguing that the Democrats are—with the exception of the G.O.P.—the most pro-capitalist and pro-corporate party in the world, and far more subservient to corporate needs than even the avowedly conservative French and German governments. More important, argued Llewellyn socialized medicine has little in common with either a private or a public insurance system. Socialized medicine means that everybody has access to health care and all health care resources are allocated democratically to increase the public health. The application of such principles in the United States would be terrific, resulting in vast increases in public health especially in minority communities that have been starved of health care resources and have disproportionately high child mortality rates, he said. In contradistinction, Giuliani’s approach, largely borrowed from President Bush, would vastly increase the number of Americans without insurance and subsidize the already well off with tax credits of up to $15,000.
The European healthcare systems that Giuliani criticizes achieve better health outcomes for more people, and especially for children, than does the U.S. health care system, and at less cost. “It is a tragedy that 45 million Americans have no access to health insurance and that almost an equal number has access to health insurance only episodically. It is criminal that few politicians are serious about solving that problem, and just bizarre that the former New York mayor would lump the plans of his opponents with socialist measures,” Llewellyn said. That’s because none of the major Democrats are advancing a plan even remotely resembling socialized healthcare, in Llewellyn’s opinion. Neither are they challenging the insurance industry. All of the proposed Democratic plans (with the notable exception of Dennis Kucinich’s) leave the private insurance system intact. Socialists argue that the insurance industry with its bloated administrative and marketing costs and its constant effort to dodge paying the cost of providing health care—especially to those most in need—is the chief barrier to increased access to health care and better health for most Americans.
It was insurance company profits that funded the massive advertising and lobbying efforts that defeated the Clinton Administration’s early attempt to improve health care and access to insurance for Americans. Since the Clinton plan—itself barely adequate but an improvement over anything that followed—was defeated, insurance companies have gotten richer and those Americans without insurance have increased by at least a third. Socialists in the United States, for the most part, do support a single-payer approach to health insurance as embodied in the legislation (HR 676) introduced by Representative John Conyers and 74 co-sponsors; most people who support a single payer approach to healthcare or the Conyers bill are not socialists and the bill is definitely not socialized medicine. “Socialists continue to support socialized medicine, but we also support a politically viable plan that meets the needs of the uninsured.” Llewellyn said
“If Giuliani would like to debate some real socialists about the health care crisis facing the United States, instead of positioning himself in the Republican primary as an alternative to the equally feckless Mitt Romney, we will gladly take him on. Democratic Socialists of America, the largest democratic socialist organization in the United States is engaged in a national dialogue on economic justice that includes support for a single payer health care system. Giuliani just postures while the nation’s poor and uninsured remain at risk.”
- …supports abortion
- supports gay marriage
- favors a tax increase
- believes in government social programs
After hinting that he might run for president, today New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he was leaving the Republican Party to become an independent. If he does this and still runs for the White House, there is a chance that he could pull 25% of the votes. Here is my question: Will Bloomberg’s independent run hurt Republicans or Democrats? Remember, he only became a Republican in 2002.