Had to post this once I read it. Several points to consider:
1. The source. CNN has been extremely pro-Democrat/pro-Obama in its coverage of nearly everything over the last year, and this article is reporting facts and not spin. In fact, the article references someone else is doing some spinning, and it borders on being downright critical of at least one aspect of government's current economic policy.
2. The information. AIG was the first one the government spent a ton to directly bail out, and then they quietly gave them even more money (loaned them more money, but a loan implies some kind of repayment, and that has not been forthcoming). Top management was removed, the government took over... and things are worse.
3. The old military axiom: "Never reinforce failure." You last heard this thrown around by the media at large in 2007, when Bush announced the surge plans in Iraq. Democrats/liberals were quick to go to this line (just google search it the phrase) and use it to verbally pummel the Bush White House, but it worked... President Obama's speech today gave the timetable for leaving Iraq, which is only possible now because of the surge. The data bore out that Bush was right, even though political voices screamed he was wrong. But in this situation, we have data: AIG is still a mess, with no foreseeable upside. Unlike those who screamed at Bush about Iraq, those would criticize the attempt to prop up banks such as Citigroup have data that verifies their claim that is doesn't work. Government intervention to this point has failed... ask any stock holder.
4. Watch for spin, so as to be able to identify it when you encounter it. I can't wait for the next speech/story/article that speaks to all the positives that can be gleaned from the current "negative growth" of the financial sector. These kinds of claims are simple to see through. Ask 2 questions: 1) Is the company still losing money? and 2) Has the company dealt with the problems that led them to lose money?
5. Look for patterns. What can we learn from situation A that applies to situation B? As Bill Cosby once joked, "If I walk down a dark alley, and get beaten and robbed, then I don't walk down that alley - or any other alley that looks like it - again."
The ongoing AIG mess tells me that the Citigroup mess is (and other similar bank messes are) going to get worse. It also tells me that we don't have the answer here yet, and we can't afford to just do the same things again and expect different results. Unfortunately the group that has a different answer to the question is not in power at the moment.
But there is a lesson there also, in that elections have consequences. We must be informed as citizens as to the issues and the candidates.
Friday, February 27, 2009
A Presidential Mindset (Barack Obama)
The above web link takes you directly to the "About Us" page at the church formerly attended by President Obama for an extended period of time, commonly cited during the 2008 election as 20 years or more. Obama credits Rev. Wright with leading him to Christ.
My specific concern here is the description of the church, written by the church itself. I believe this to be a crucial insight into the mindset of our current President, and indeed the controlling Democratic party at large. The critical issue here is one of labels. How do you view yourself? What are the first adjectives that come to mind if I asked you to describe yourself? Your church? Your specific social circle?
As a white male in modern American society, I am endlessly confronted with the "fact" that I am inherently racist, inherently biased. In no possible way can I understand the experience of a minority in this country, since I am of the majority. But in answering for myself the questions I posed above, my first descriptive word is not "white." As I work through my mental list, I can think of dozens of words and never come to any that describe the color of my skin (unless you include sunburned, which is me every summer). My point here is that I do not think of myself-or others-in terms of color.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
This article is very telling of the election situation in California. Obama has stated clearly that he is in support of homosexual marriage. Looking specifically at black voters, you had an overwhelming majority vote for President Obama, and yet vote in support of a measure - Prop 8 - that is in direct opposition to his stance on the issue (one of the most significant issues of our time, far outweighing the economy in my opinion). A question, then: if I vote for a President who I don't agree with on crucial issues, merely because his skin color matches my own, how then must I label my behavior?
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2710
I picked one short article out of many on the subject, but according to exit polling data, Obama gathered 95% of the black vote. The media labeled this "historic" and it seems everyone was quick to point out how we have overcome another barrier in our quest for a racism-free society. But again, I pose a question: if reports after the election had indicated that 95% of white people had voted for McCain, and he won because of it, what would have been the media response? Would the solidarity of race that black voters showed on election night been applauded if it had been white Americans instead?
I will not answer the above questions myself, I am probably in enough hot water already for even asking them :). But I will say this: the color of my skin has nothing to do with the content of my character. Dr. King was not trying to get to a point where a black man would be the President of the United States; he was trying to get to a point where we (as a nation) looked past skin color to matters of true importance. Skin color is a matter of style, as it were, and not of substance. And that becomes the point of my argument in regards to both how President Obama his administration view our nation. In dealing specifically with the racial issue, we will be past our racial problems when we no longer notice the skin color of a candidate, but instead examine his (or her) stance on the issues. I don't want a white President, or a black President, I want a President of sound judgment and strong, positive character. As we applaud the fact that we now have a black President, are we inferring that the particular pigmentation of his epidermis makes him qualified to run the most powerful nation on Earth? I ask this question honestly, without malice and assuming the best intentions on the part of President Obama.
If I were laying on the operating table waiting for a life-saving surgery, I don't want to hear about how hard my doctor is going to try, or that he's the first great doctor of his ethnicity to perform this procedure. I want to hear that he knows what the heck he is doing, and that he is respected in his industry as one of the best around.
Our country - our basic freedoms - are undergoing life-altering surgery at this point. Consider the surgeon, and let me know what you think.
My specific concern here is the description of the church, written by the church itself. I believe this to be a crucial insight into the mindset of our current President, and indeed the controlling Democratic party at large. The critical issue here is one of labels. How do you view yourself? What are the first adjectives that come to mind if I asked you to describe yourself? Your church? Your specific social circle?
As a white male in modern American society, I am endlessly confronted with the "fact" that I am inherently racist, inherently biased. In no possible way can I understand the experience of a minority in this country, since I am of the majority. But in answering for myself the questions I posed above, my first descriptive word is not "white." As I work through my mental list, I can think of dozens of words and never come to any that describe the color of my skin (unless you include sunburned, which is me every summer). My point here is that I do not think of myself-or others-in terms of color.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/11/05/state/n111547S31.DTL
This article is very telling of the election situation in California. Obama has stated clearly that he is in support of homosexual marriage. Looking specifically at black voters, you had an overwhelming majority vote for President Obama, and yet vote in support of a measure - Prop 8 - that is in direct opposition to his stance on the issue (one of the most significant issues of our time, far outweighing the economy in my opinion). A question, then: if I vote for a President who I don't agree with on crucial issues, merely because his skin color matches my own, how then must I label my behavior?
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2710
I picked one short article out of many on the subject, but according to exit polling data, Obama gathered 95% of the black vote. The media labeled this "historic" and it seems everyone was quick to point out how we have overcome another barrier in our quest for a racism-free society. But again, I pose a question: if reports after the election had indicated that 95% of white people had voted for McCain, and he won because of it, what would have been the media response? Would the solidarity of race that black voters showed on election night been applauded if it had been white Americans instead?
I will not answer the above questions myself, I am probably in enough hot water already for even asking them :). But I will say this: the color of my skin has nothing to do with the content of my character. Dr. King was not trying to get to a point where a black man would be the President of the United States; he was trying to get to a point where we (as a nation) looked past skin color to matters of true importance. Skin color is a matter of style, as it were, and not of substance. And that becomes the point of my argument in regards to both how President Obama his administration view our nation. In dealing specifically with the racial issue, we will be past our racial problems when we no longer notice the skin color of a candidate, but instead examine his (or her) stance on the issues. I don't want a white President, or a black President, I want a President of sound judgment and strong, positive character. As we applaud the fact that we now have a black President, are we inferring that the particular pigmentation of his epidermis makes him qualified to run the most powerful nation on Earth? I ask this question honestly, without malice and assuming the best intentions on the part of President Obama.
If I were laying on the operating table waiting for a life-saving surgery, I don't want to hear about how hard my doctor is going to try, or that he's the first great doctor of his ethnicity to perform this procedure. I want to hear that he knows what the heck he is doing, and that he is respected in his industry as one of the best around.
Our country - our basic freedoms - are undergoing life-altering surgery at this point. Consider the surgeon, and let me know what you think.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Groundrules
I have thought and thought about a good beginning for this blog, and I have decided that before anything else I should make a commitment to those who read this. As one who preaches that Americans should be more concerned with their responsibilities and less concerned with their rights, I will begin with my own responsibilities, as I see them to be:
* I will always tell the truth. When (not if) I make a mistake, I will correct it as soon as possible. I understand that reputations are built over a lifetime, but destroyed in an instant, and so I endeavour to post nothing without thoroughly resarching the point first.
* I will point out problems and suggest solutions. I hesitate because another blog is hardly what the world needs, but truth and perspective are sorely lacking in this modern age. I profess to have no corner on truth, but I will ask questions to make you think, and also share with you my thoughts.
* I will do my best to be factual about issues discussed and not simply editorialize.
* I will not ridicule or insult our social and political leaders on a personal level. My criticism is reserved for stated objectives and policies only; I will assume good will on the part of our legislators and governing bodies.
Anyone wishing to post comments is welcome, whether you agree or disagree. This should be a place to discuss ideas, and some of those ideas are going to offend some people. We must not go out of our way to offend as many people as possible, however.
* I will always tell the truth. When (not if) I make a mistake, I will correct it as soon as possible. I understand that reputations are built over a lifetime, but destroyed in an instant, and so I endeavour to post nothing without thoroughly resarching the point first.
* I will point out problems and suggest solutions. I hesitate because another blog is hardly what the world needs, but truth and perspective are sorely lacking in this modern age. I profess to have no corner on truth, but I will ask questions to make you think, and also share with you my thoughts.
* I will do my best to be factual about issues discussed and not simply editorialize.
* I will not ridicule or insult our social and political leaders on a personal level. My criticism is reserved for stated objectives and policies only; I will assume good will on the part of our legislators and governing bodies.
Anyone wishing to post comments is welcome, whether you agree or disagree. This should be a place to discuss ideas, and some of those ideas are going to offend some people. We must not go out of our way to offend as many people as possible, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
