It is really exciting, especially for the African American community. Awesome, I couldn't be happier for America. But what concerns me is the clear insistence that we now be politically correct towards a president. I had a link up earlier to an incident where a group of Young Conservatives on a campus in Texas had set up a picture of President Obama and invited people to throw 'nest' eggs at the picture. People were absolutly outraged, confronted the group, accused them of hate crimes, shouted them down, and finally convinced them it was innappropriate. That is scary. Throwing eggs at the picture of your President is about as fundamental a right as I can think of. Nobody can convince me that Young Liberals slinging food at a McCain picture would rile up anybody like it did in this case.
I reject racism, bigotry, and hate speech generally. But I also reject any climate that answers such attacks with anything other than more good speech. The way to tell me that throwing eggs at Obama isn't to attack me as a racist or hater. . . it is to explain to me how Obama's tax-the-rich plan isn't destroying peoples nest eggs.
So, here is praying for an effective, charismatic, exciting, and open-to-critisism Obama Presidency.
4 comments:
Wait, so what some lady from "Extra" says about what some lady from "The View" says is worthy of being reported?
And some other lady "openly supported" John McCain? And now she's supposed to admitted she was "wrong"? How inane.
The race issue I think has been skirted so much in this election. Who believed a black man couldn't be elected? It seems to me more blacks doubted it than whites. If true, what does that say about race relations? Anyone who think race relations will be significantly impacted by Obama's election is very naive.
The elephant is still in the room, and you're right, this could get awkward. I guess I do think that Obama's handling of the presidency could have an impact, just not his "mere" election.
Bill Maher, who probably would disagree with me on every issue from A - Z, said to Larry King that comedians will have to figure out whether it is O.K. to tell jokes about a black president. If Bill Maher is worried about offending somebody, we are in uncharted territory.
I've tried to decipher whether or not Obama thinks his blackness and his holding office are the "Change" he has always been talking about. Only if I grant a lot of lee way because hyperbole is the nature of any acceptance speech do I conclude that he has not waived his own "Mission Accomplished" banner yet. Also, his chapter on Race was EASILY the most interesting in his second book.
I thought about making this it's own post, but I've probably offended enough people already: in a strange twist of election fate, I think it is fair to say that Prop 8 passed in California BECAUSE Obama supporters turned out in such high numbers. And my source is, ironically, DailyKOS (who can't do math or read a chart). Take a look at the exit poll numbers, too.*
And I thought, from reading media and watching The View (HAHA!), that it was only Hateful Religious People who thought marriage should include the same gender restriction it has has always had. No, really, I think many people are surprised that a liberal state like California would vote so convincingly for traditional marriage, especially when Democrats had the largest turnout and largest Presidential Success in history. I guess now it is Hateful Religious/Black/Liberal/Hispanic/White/Just-Blame-The-Mormons-Cause-Nobody-Likes-Them-Anyway. . .?
I really must have been drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid, because I was under the impression (seriously) that it really was only White Religious Fruits like me who were "clinging" to traditional marriage out of spite and bitterness.
*reading the DailyKOS comments leads me to conclude that the site is some Democratic Parallel to "Republican Rednecks For Jesus and Assault Rifles." I guess every party has it's wackos.
Those gays are going to keep living together and having their gay sex whether they are married or not . . . (gross, I know . . .)But I still don't see what the big deal is. I say, let them have their big gay weddings!! - spending all of their big gay money on a wedding would probably be good for the economy.
I think a short review of marriage policy suggests the question shouldn't be "Why not allow gay marriage?," but rather should be "What is the compelling interest to allow gay marriage?"
In other words, the burden should be on the pro-gay-marriage crowd to show how expanding the definition of marriage benefits society. So far, at least, they have been unpersuasive.
Post a Comment