In Defence of Marxism - Can Obama Save Capitalism?
Posted using ShareThis
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Human Psychology May Play a Bigger Part Than Economics in Obama's Ascension
I have been reading "Roger's Rules" essays from July to the present on Pajama's Media, about Obama and his radical redistribution ideology. The most recent post is entitled, Acts of Retribution: There Will be Blood: Obama's New Best Seller. We are to believe that this radical has "come in peacefully, and taken the kingdom by flattery" as is depicted in the prophesy of Daniel 4. But there is something deeper at work here; something that, had it been attended to in a timely fashion, would have curtailed this present moment. It is human psychology. D'Souza had spoken in the early '00s of a settling in of a mood of "despair" among all those who in bewilderment were forced to admit they would "never make it". This is the crux of it. A democracy cannot have vast numbers of its citizens in such a mood. Obama's "radicalism" and desire to avenge himself on the wealthy was not lost on these people, not by any means. Despite what the author of the Pajama's Media pieces would have us believe, the ascension of Barack Obama was no accident of chance. He did not victor and prosper because people failed to grasp the radical nature of what he was proposing. They listened, and listening, heard. A collective mood of despair is what opened the door to the revenge play that is unfolding.
You invited this wrath, you opened the door to the coming anarchy; you beckoned to this fate, by fiddling like Nero while Rome burned, and you have no one to blame but yourselves. Howe and Strauss - so astute, select, subtle and profound - way back in '97, in The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy had clearly envisioned such a moment. A return to the middle, with a vengance: a radical reform, a turning on all that was previously tolerated, a frightening uniformity ( the rise of the Obama Youth Corps). Where were all when they were speaking, warning of such a moment? As in the days of Noah, they ate and drank and married, until the flood tides rose, and swept all away; so it will be with this generation. . .
You invited this wrath, you opened the door to the coming anarchy; you beckoned to this fate, by fiddling like Nero while Rome burned, and you have no one to blame but yourselves. Howe and Strauss - so astute, select, subtle and profound - way back in '97, in The Fourth Turning: An American Prophesy had clearly envisioned such a moment. A return to the middle, with a vengance: a radical reform, a turning on all that was previously tolerated, a frightening uniformity ( the rise of the Obama Youth Corps). Where were all when they were speaking, warning of such a moment? As in the days of Noah, they ate and drank and married, until the flood tides rose, and swept all away; so it will be with this generation. . .
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Life is a Business that Cannot Cover its Costs
Schopenhauer said that life is a business that cannot cover its costs, and from the look of all the earmarks slipped into the stimulus package, he may be correct. Get a load of the hefty bundle of earmarks from GOP hypocrites:
Earmark hypocrisy? - First Read - msnbc.com
Posted using ShareThis
Earmark hypocrisy? - First Read - msnbc.com
Posted using ShareThis
Essentialism for our time: Some thoughts
Thoughts on Essentialism
The biological essentialism which stemmed from the Aristotlean substance form ontology was a pre-scientific theory. In the medeival synthesis, Aquainas distinguised the individual from the form. This trend would continue, until in the 19th century Nietzsche advocated the negation of essentialism, reversing it (yet he clung to it regarding gender).
Social construction ideology of gender proports that all gender roles have been hoisted on us by social norms. Essentialism would say the opposite: Social norms arose from observing these essences. The belief in an underlying and fixed, unchanging essence is the conservative world view, while the postmodern liberal view would seek to falsify this in order to transform society. Evolving essentialism would be the moderate view, combining both aspects. This would be the reconciliation of essentialism and anti-essentialism, to admit that the underlying essences can partially evolve and shift, while leaving an intact core. Many people intuitively adopt this middle stance.
In feminism and the gay community, essentialist arguments have been posed, and have largely eroded. Particularly in the latter, the biological and genetic essentialims of LeVay has caused many gays to feel boxed in by such a "born that way" definition of their gayness. Although thought to be conducive to their vicitm identity, it has actually caused many to see their sexuality as an anomoly rather than an expression of individual liberty. Williams and Stein in Sexuality and Gender, ( 2002, Blackwell Publishing) attribute many conflicts within the gay community to essentialism. Those who would be natural political allies have been split into warring camps, the main conflict being whether one has adopted an essenitialist ideology or its opposite. Conceptions about one's place in society, and the meaning of behavior are affected by the lens through which the world is viewed.
Proponents of individual liberty cannot wholly adhere to essentialism if they are to maintain a cohesive perspective. False universalisms regarding gender, race, and ethinicity can obscure the individual who forms the nexus of his own actions and will. Reductionism is bad; relativism is worse; what is a philosopher to do? Compatiblism, which fuses essentialism with a margin for free will and adaptation must surely be the most reasonable and least counter-intuitive of stances.
The biological essentialism which stemmed from the Aristotlean substance form ontology was a pre-scientific theory. In the medeival synthesis, Aquainas distinguised the individual from the form. This trend would continue, until in the 19th century Nietzsche advocated the negation of essentialism, reversing it (yet he clung to it regarding gender).
Social construction ideology of gender proports that all gender roles have been hoisted on us by social norms. Essentialism would say the opposite: Social norms arose from observing these essences. The belief in an underlying and fixed, unchanging essence is the conservative world view, while the postmodern liberal view would seek to falsify this in order to transform society. Evolving essentialism would be the moderate view, combining both aspects. This would be the reconciliation of essentialism and anti-essentialism, to admit that the underlying essences can partially evolve and shift, while leaving an intact core. Many people intuitively adopt this middle stance.
In feminism and the gay community, essentialist arguments have been posed, and have largely eroded. Particularly in the latter, the biological and genetic essentialims of LeVay has caused many gays to feel boxed in by such a "born that way" definition of their gayness. Although thought to be conducive to their vicitm identity, it has actually caused many to see their sexuality as an anomoly rather than an expression of individual liberty. Williams and Stein in Sexuality and Gender, ( 2002, Blackwell Publishing) attribute many conflicts within the gay community to essentialism. Those who would be natural political allies have been split into warring camps, the main conflict being whether one has adopted an essenitialist ideology or its opposite. Conceptions about one's place in society, and the meaning of behavior are affected by the lens through which the world is viewed.
Proponents of individual liberty cannot wholly adhere to essentialism if they are to maintain a cohesive perspective. False universalisms regarding gender, race, and ethinicity can obscure the individual who forms the nexus of his own actions and will. Reductionism is bad; relativism is worse; what is a philosopher to do? Compatiblism, which fuses essentialism with a margin for free will and adaptation must surely be the most reasonable and least counter-intuitive of stances.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Sign of Changing Times: Employee Free Choice Bill Introduced
More Voltaire Quotes Apropos of Our Time
Froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, but the middle, excellent.
Illusion is the first of all our pleasures.
Injustice in the end produces independence.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
It is lamentable that to be a good patriot, one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Anthony Peake Forum: A Philosophical Conference, August 2009
The theme will be the philosophical implications of Anthony's dyad theory of binary mind, with regard to Nietzsche's eternal recurrence theory, Hegel's dialectic (as per Stephen Crites), Gnostic philosophy ( to be presented by Eric Bryant and myself) and current quantum consciousness theory. The event will receive advance publicity on NJ.com as well as various press attention. There will be an open house reception, and the college is located ideally for invitations to attendees from New York City (City University), William Paterson University, and Drew and Fairleigh Dickinson Universities, to include students, authors and professors. There will be members of the press in attendance as well. Pictured are the historic Vanderbuilt Mansion and gardens where the event is to be held, and Anthony's publicity photo. This site was the location used in the filming of "A Beautiful Mind" starring Russell Crowe. 
Gay Marriage : A Smokescreen?
In light of all the recent debate regarding Proposition 8, the following article will be enlightening to anyone who ever harbored secret suspicions that same sex marriage might be a smokescreen:
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)
Posted using ShareThis
The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement (Caution, graphic contents)
Posted using ShareThis
What if Luca Was Bisexual?
But far from being a black or white incident - either a victory for the NARTH movement or a bigoted slap at gays who adhere to the born that way arguments of LeVay - the song is more likely a spontaneous illustration of the Freudian idea of inherent bisexuality and fluidity of the human sexual persona within the lifestream of the complex and uniquely shaped psyche. Only there are no sound bites or identity and grievance politcal groups to grasp this idea. Bisexuality and the transitory and ever changing map of the individual psyche is not good for identity poitics; it is expedient neither for conservatives, the religious, or for politically correct liberalism. So Luca must either be a lying homosexual, aiming his bigotry even at himself, or a victorious ex-gay, a true heterosexual who has recovered from his illness. Not fair to Luca, really, but society has never been able to handle complexity and nuance, and as Schopenhauer said, this situation gives no hint of abating.
Philosophical Thoughts on Gay Marriage and Prop 8 : Brief Opening Remarks
I want to preface this post by saying I am decidedly on the side of gay rights, even though against gay marriage. My sympathy in particular - and also admiration - has always fallen strongly on the side of gay males. My husband and I spent our vacations in Provincetown, on Cape Cod, MA, which is one of America's Gay Meccas. We always felt ourselves honored to spend time in this community.
The fight for gay marriage has for so long been framed in arguments about civil rights and equality, that the pernicious aspect at the core of the fight has been for the most part ignored.
The accusation that there is a "hidden agenda" contained within the struggle to legalize same sex marriage does not become false simply because that hidden agenda may be largely unconscious. Feminism and the sexual revolution since the '60s have driven modern democracy down the slope of cultural, sexual, and moral relativism. The idea that there are a multiplicity of ways for people to love and raise children precludes the idea that there is any superior model which arise from nature's intention ( and here nature can include the social and cultural). Religious arguments have rightly been discredited, but the strong secular, humanist and philosophical arguments against gay marriage cannot so easily be swept away.
If we look at two Kantian terms, teleological and deontological, and understand that these mean, respectively, the natural goal and purpose of something, and the rights and duties inherent in that something, we find a very good place to begin a robust argument against gay marriage. First, marriage is the elevating of the natural will to sexual intercourse and procreation. It is the harnessing of something natural and chaotic into something civilized and controllable by centuries of extravagant elevation via religious sacred ceremony. This has been for the purpose of social order and the raising of children, and the keeping track of progeny. That we may now dispense with some of the religious extravagance in no way brings us to the conclusion that all may be changed without serious consequences.
Briefly, the deontological aspects would run thus: Allowing gay marriage would constitute a further slide into relativism. As their civil rights are covered by civil unions, and procreation using sperm donors or surrogates is clearly a slide into the disordering of parenthood and progeny, then what argument can gays use to insist on marriage, which does not reveal that the costs to society would surely outweigh any benefits? Clearly: A minority must not be given free reign to impose its will on the general culture. America has an opportunity to distinguish itself from Europe and Canada by refusing to go along with the slide into moral and social relativism which the advocates of postmodernism disguise within the civil rights framework of gay rights, gender feminism, and other politically correct but dubious identity political agendas.
Enlightenment values and classical liberalism may be adhered to without going so far as to allow the splintering of the social order. Looking to Kant's categorical imperative, it poses this question: Can I will that the principle of my action be deemed a universal law? If not, it must be rejected. I think that gay marriage fails under this imperative. Civil Unions do not. The latter demands tolerance. The former demands acceptance and the reordering of social traditions to accommodate a minority whose true origins and meaning are extremely dubious. The born that way arguments of LeVay and others have not been sufficiently proven and there are a myriad of familial, cultural and social trends which clearly have given rise to homosexual behavior in many who would not have exhibited such in former times.
Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal has been revealed to be so full of contradiction and counter-intuitive statements that it can be said to have failed the baptism of fire, i.e., the test of reality. It is now highly suspect, in my opinion, to act as though Sullivan has closed the argument. Much is still up for debate. Adam Kolasinski's The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, (2004) has sewn up the case far better: Briefly, that allowing gay marriage would have the ripple affect of loosening the definition to the extent that it would lose its spine. Divorce, having children outside of marriage, single parenthood, bisexuality, the choice to remain single but have a succession of live in lovers : Not for all, or even most, but for many persons these would be increased as viable options with the introduction of gay marriage into the social mainstream. In fact, gay marriage as an agenda clearly arose as a consequence of these ills in the first place.
Proposition 8 in California reveals the will of the people in a free and fair electoral process. To demand that it be overturned begins to smack of the new identity politics run amok. It is not homophobic to stop at civil unions. It is not homophobic to put children and their futures before the will of a minority of adults. Many gays speak of using sperm donors ( in the case of lesbians) and surrogate mothers (for gay male couples ) as a way to make their marriages productive in the procreation sense of the word. But such a cheerful view of fertility technology forgets one thing: These procedures presuppose a trio of parents from the outset, with one parent willfully agreeing to give up the rights to this child before its conception. Is this the minor reform Sullivan speaks of? Already hyper-feminism has been proven pernicious after altering much of the social landscape. It will take decades to repair the damage. Can we afford more of the same at the hands of the gay marriage activists? Support of Proposition 8 is NOT homophobic; it is reasonable and conducive to social order. That Great Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown howls against it only strengthens this conviction. America need not adopt a monkey see, monkey do attitude toward Europe. We have always been independent, and there is no reason to fuse with them now. It has long been recognized that Britain has become a self-contradiction and hypocritical Nanny State. We have no need of guidance from them at this juncture.
The Aristotlean idea that some must rule and others need to submit to rule does not hold truck with politically correct liberals. Even if marriage has been contiually reshaped throughout the ages, there are good Aristotlean reasons that the line should be drawn now at gay marriage. The Humean idea that we ought to limit our public discourse to the empirical. and that inspired men are dangerous, is a two-edged sword that cuts through both religoius contra and gay pro arguments. Libertarians are under no compulsion to support gay marriage in order to be loyal to their ideology: Civil Unions give gays access to all they need from this perspective. The fact that Andrew Sullivan and others cannot get over their Catholic upbringings and the idea of a chuch endorsed ceremony does not mean that a democracy must take his pinings seriously. The love arguments set forth by proponents such as Keith Olbermann in his op-ed rant are weak, philosophically, and clearly have thrown logic to the four winds, while allowing a flimsy sentimentality to override disciplined thinking. They are the result of a softening of the moral fiber and reasoning powers which is the legacy of the Boomer generation, and fail to pursuade any serious thinker. Addendum: I think another argument can be made, which oddly I support perhaps even more fully than the one I have posted here, about the dangers of advocating gay marriage. I mean the danger to the gays themselves; also to society at large. That is this: by using the heterosexual marriage model, one boxes oneself and others into a system which has always been filled with plenty of hypocrisy, misery, and all manner of foolishness. I think it is important for the raising of children; otherwise, am not really a big fan. In rare cases, yes. In many, it's not to be envied. Not so much as the gays might think it is.
The fight for gay marriage has for so long been framed in arguments about civil rights and equality, that the pernicious aspect at the core of the fight has been for the most part ignored.
The accusation that there is a "hidden agenda" contained within the struggle to legalize same sex marriage does not become false simply because that hidden agenda may be largely unconscious. Feminism and the sexual revolution since the '60s have driven modern democracy down the slope of cultural, sexual, and moral relativism. The idea that there are a multiplicity of ways for people to love and raise children precludes the idea that there is any superior model which arise from nature's intention ( and here nature can include the social and cultural). Religious arguments have rightly been discredited, but the strong secular, humanist and philosophical arguments against gay marriage cannot so easily be swept away.
If we look at two Kantian terms, teleological and deontological, and understand that these mean, respectively, the natural goal and purpose of something, and the rights and duties inherent in that something, we find a very good place to begin a robust argument against gay marriage. First, marriage is the elevating of the natural will to sexual intercourse and procreation. It is the harnessing of something natural and chaotic into something civilized and controllable by centuries of extravagant elevation via religious sacred ceremony. This has been for the purpose of social order and the raising of children, and the keeping track of progeny. That we may now dispense with some of the religious extravagance in no way brings us to the conclusion that all may be changed without serious consequences.
Briefly, the deontological aspects would run thus: Allowing gay marriage would constitute a further slide into relativism. As their civil rights are covered by civil unions, and procreation using sperm donors or surrogates is clearly a slide into the disordering of parenthood and progeny, then what argument can gays use to insist on marriage, which does not reveal that the costs to society would surely outweigh any benefits? Clearly: A minority must not be given free reign to impose its will on the general culture. America has an opportunity to distinguish itself from Europe and Canada by refusing to go along with the slide into moral and social relativism which the advocates of postmodernism disguise within the civil rights framework of gay rights, gender feminism, and other politically correct but dubious identity political agendas.
Enlightenment values and classical liberalism may be adhered to without going so far as to allow the splintering of the social order. Looking to Kant's categorical imperative, it poses this question: Can I will that the principle of my action be deemed a universal law? If not, it must be rejected. I think that gay marriage fails under this imperative. Civil Unions do not. The latter demands tolerance. The former demands acceptance and the reordering of social traditions to accommodate a minority whose true origins and meaning are extremely dubious. The born that way arguments of LeVay and others have not been sufficiently proven and there are a myriad of familial, cultural and social trends which clearly have given rise to homosexual behavior in many who would not have exhibited such in former times.
Andrew Sullivan's Virtually Normal has been revealed to be so full of contradiction and counter-intuitive statements that it can be said to have failed the baptism of fire, i.e., the test of reality. It is now highly suspect, in my opinion, to act as though Sullivan has closed the argument. Much is still up for debate. Adam Kolasinski's The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, (2004) has sewn up the case far better: Briefly, that allowing gay marriage would have the ripple affect of loosening the definition to the extent that it would lose its spine. Divorce, having children outside of marriage, single parenthood, bisexuality, the choice to remain single but have a succession of live in lovers : Not for all, or even most, but for many persons these would be increased as viable options with the introduction of gay marriage into the social mainstream. In fact, gay marriage as an agenda clearly arose as a consequence of these ills in the first place.
Proposition 8 in California reveals the will of the people in a free and fair electoral process. To demand that it be overturned begins to smack of the new identity politics run amok. It is not homophobic to stop at civil unions. It is not homophobic to put children and their futures before the will of a minority of adults. Many gays speak of using sperm donors ( in the case of lesbians) and surrogate mothers (for gay male couples ) as a way to make their marriages productive in the procreation sense of the word. But such a cheerful view of fertility technology forgets one thing: These procedures presuppose a trio of parents from the outset, with one parent willfully agreeing to give up the rights to this child before its conception. Is this the minor reform Sullivan speaks of? Already hyper-feminism has been proven pernicious after altering much of the social landscape. It will take decades to repair the damage. Can we afford more of the same at the hands of the gay marriage activists? Support of Proposition 8 is NOT homophobic; it is reasonable and conducive to social order. That Great Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown howls against it only strengthens this conviction. America need not adopt a monkey see, monkey do attitude toward Europe. We have always been independent, and there is no reason to fuse with them now. It has long been recognized that Britain has become a self-contradiction and hypocritical Nanny State. We have no need of guidance from them at this juncture.
The Aristotlean idea that some must rule and others need to submit to rule does not hold truck with politically correct liberals. Even if marriage has been contiually reshaped throughout the ages, there are good Aristotlean reasons that the line should be drawn now at gay marriage. The Humean idea that we ought to limit our public discourse to the empirical. and that inspired men are dangerous, is a two-edged sword that cuts through both religoius contra and gay pro arguments. Libertarians are under no compulsion to support gay marriage in order to be loyal to their ideology: Civil Unions give gays access to all they need from this perspective. The fact that Andrew Sullivan and others cannot get over their Catholic upbringings and the idea of a chuch endorsed ceremony does not mean that a democracy must take his pinings seriously. The love arguments set forth by proponents such as Keith Olbermann in his op-ed rant are weak, philosophically, and clearly have thrown logic to the four winds, while allowing a flimsy sentimentality to override disciplined thinking. They are the result of a softening of the moral fiber and reasoning powers which is the legacy of the Boomer generation, and fail to pursuade any serious thinker. Addendum: I think another argument can be made, which oddly I support perhaps even more fully than the one I have posted here, about the dangers of advocating gay marriage. I mean the danger to the gays themselves; also to society at large. That is this: by using the heterosexual marriage model, one boxes oneself and others into a system which has always been filled with plenty of hypocrisy, misery, and all manner of foolishness. I think it is important for the raising of children; otherwise, am not really a big fan. In rare cases, yes. In many, it's not to be envied. Not so much as the gays might think it is.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Irritated by New York Times, Obama Well Within His Rights
President Obama seemed to show some irritation while being grilled about his (apparent) leaning toward Socialism by New York Times journalists on Air Force One. I think he was well within his rights to do so. The times we are in call naturally for government solution and a restructuring of much, if not most, of the social order. The situation has evolved naturally. One need not be pro-socialism to understand that cooler winds are blowing.
I think it is the collectivism and populism which frightens. But much that is temporarily necessary frightens in this life. Much that is involved with transition terrifies. I recall Howe and Strauss stating a dozen years back that the fourth turning would scare many: Precisely due to this intrusion of government, feelings of claustrophobia were certain to break out. But complaining about something does not alter the necessity of it; it only makes it harder to experience the positive aspects, and well nigh impossible to gain any advantages from the situation.
Obama arose from the '90s as a shoot from a plant. As Hamlet said, ( and I quote him because surely Obama is having to dissemble as did the Danish Prince): "Chameleon like, I eat the air, you cannot feed capons so.". To quote the Royal Dane further ( and of course I must transpose a bit): Obama is only socialist north by northwest. When the wind is southernly, he knows a hawk from a handsaw.
Obama arose from the '90s as a shoot from a plant. As Hamlet said, ( and I quote him because surely Obama is having to dissemble as did the Danish Prince): "Chameleon like, I eat the air, you cannot feed capons so.". To quote the Royal Dane further ( and of course I must transpose a bit): Obama is only socialist north by northwest. When the wind is southernly, he knows a hawk from a handsaw.
The Meaning of Snubbing Our Allied Great Britain
It is rare that anything disturbing in human relationships is purely accident. How often I myself have attempted to dismiss a slight, telling myself that it was oversight on the part of the aggrieving party, only to have my worst fears confirmed in the end: It was deliberate. It carried meaning. Thus it is that with so much of the blogosphere in Anerica and Britain making much of Obama's alleged snub of Prime Minister Gordon Brown this past week I am compelled to look for the a priori explanation: What did Obama think, that he acted - or failed to act, in some aspects - as he did?
One theory, a pretty weak one: We know Obama is influenced by his wife. Most people are influenced by their partners, so I do not care to speak in terms of gender here. It is known that Michelle Obama has strong feelings about Anglo history. She comes from the liberal Princeton culture, which Paglia shrewdly pointed out in the '90s has become increasingly swayed by the victims and grievances culture. Michelle has used harsh words before when speaking of the history of the Brits. Some of it is legitimate critique and commentary, some is revisionism and goes in the direction of rewriting against the Patriarchy and Dead White Males. Obama did not do anything outrageous. He ignored a certain formality and protocol. He was a bit lax and not quite in the know. It is part of his generational outlook, for certain. But for many the gut instinct is to say that he was influenced by his partner. Intuition can of course fail us. My own has failed me, but when it hits , it hits superbly well. During the primary season, I felt certain that Michelle had been the true advocate of Jeremiah Wright, and that when Obama insisted he did not recall the sort of talk Wright used on the videos, I grasped that he was not so much lying as covering for his wife. But what about in this case? Perhaps a small part of it. may be attributed to his having acquired reservations from his wife, and perhaps a certain defiance. But here is a link to someone - a Brit - who has the most accurate analysis of the whole affair, IMHO: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/05/top_10_who_gordon_brown_should_blame_for_his_us_visit_flop
One theory, a pretty weak one: We know Obama is influenced by his wife. Most people are influenced by their partners, so I do not care to speak in terms of gender here. It is known that Michelle Obama has strong feelings about Anglo history. She comes from the liberal Princeton culture, which Paglia shrewdly pointed out in the '90s has become increasingly swayed by the victims and grievances culture. Michelle has used harsh words before when speaking of the history of the Brits. Some of it is legitimate critique and commentary, some is revisionism and goes in the direction of rewriting against the Patriarchy and Dead White Males. Obama did not do anything outrageous. He ignored a certain formality and protocol. He was a bit lax and not quite in the know. It is part of his generational outlook, for certain. But for many the gut instinct is to say that he was influenced by his partner. Intuition can of course fail us. My own has failed me, but when it hits , it hits superbly well. During the primary season, I felt certain that Michelle had been the true advocate of Jeremiah Wright, and that when Obama insisted he did not recall the sort of talk Wright used on the videos, I grasped that he was not so much lying as covering for his wife. But what about in this case? Perhaps a small part of it. may be attributed to his having acquired reservations from his wife, and perhaps a certain defiance. But here is a link to someone - a Brit - who has the most accurate analysis of the whole affair, IMHO: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/03/05/top_10_who_gordon_brown_should_blame_for_his_us_visit_flop
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Obama: " Do Not Fear "
Words from our leader:
"Do Not Fear" .
In his weekly address President Obama is calling on the American people not to be fearful nor to become overly mistrustful of the nation's financial institutions. Saying that he simply did not "have the luxury" to be dealing with a mild recession, he nevertheless expressed confidence in the future. One might say he is reaching FDR's "Nothing to fear but fear itself" moment. Depending on whether one is an optimist or pessimist, respectively, one will think he is taking the helm as we sail through wild waters, or that he is using fear to seize power for his own agenda and to his own ends. His words were spoken aboard Air Force One to journalists from The New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)