I disagree with Manish’s assessment; I actually thought Obama gave a very good speech on Tuesday. I do see the limitations: the tone and delivery was much more restrained than Obama’s earlier big speeches, so it’s not likely to bring him a new wave of supporters where he could use them most (i.e., here in Pennsylvania). But a soft and dispassionate tone was probably essential, as his primary goal was to distance himself from the unrestrained, over-the-top anger of his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
In contrast to Manish, I do feel that Obama did address the segments of American society who are not black or white, when he mentioned immigrants:
That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change.
But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race.
Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. (link)
The rhetorical move here is intriguing — he starts by acknowledging the resentment of working- and middle-class whites (which is itself significant; it’s perhaps the first time I’ve seen a Democrat say anything like this). But in the final paragraph, he moves to include immigrants, and in some sense suggests that the resentment of whites might also overlap with the resentment of immigrants about things like affirmative action. (Certainly, I know many South Asians — and Asians, more generally — who are deeply opposed to Affirmative Action, so this rings true.)
A second reference to immigrants comes later in the speech:
But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.
For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life.
But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans, the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.
This time, the reference is more purely sentimental: he’s talking about our shared experience of striving and struggle. But his choice of examples here is really telling as it reveals who he’s trying to reach: middle-class whites and immigrants.
In short, while this is primarily a speech about relations between blacks and whites, Obama does inject a “third” position into the mix, which might refer to Latinos, Asians, or other immigrants.
150 · test said
Obviously we’d love to send troops to Pakistan. Sorry buddy, won’t happen. The radicals are going to get crazyyyyyy if we go there. Pelosi is more of a bolshevik than Michelle Obama; I mean, who wants to see this crackpot as our Vice President. Ok, women will be happy if they see a woman as VP. But if Americans see an African American & a bolshevik, they’re going to defect to McCain. Still, Obama & Clinton will have trouble beating out McCain in my opinion.
Once Hillary loses in June, the liberal/moderate (white) women are gonna be pissed; and stay home or vote for McCain on election day.
Maybe I’m just being overly optimistic, but I disagree. This may be true of some liberal/moderate women, but most that I know aren’t so blinded by “sisterhood” that they can’t see what the Republicans have done to this country. My mother is one of those women – it bums her out that what she sees as her only chance to vote for a woman in her lifetime is slipping away, but she doesn’t have a problem switching to Obama if he’s the nominee.
Obviously just anecdotal, but I wouldn’t be so quick to make that blanket statement.
I think Obama will pick Bill Richardson for VP.
I don’t think he’s including a other minorities here. I think he is saying that almost everyone here is an immigrant and harbor many of the same feelings of having to work extra hard as an immigrant, white or otherwise.
Honestly I think its a little selfish and whiny to be worrying about everyone’s particular inclusion in this speech. It was mostly about long standing under currents and issues which are, broadly speaking, much more troubling than anything the typical s. asian has had to experience.
Obama should definitely pick Biden for his running mate.
The root cause of all this “controversy” are the statements made by Obama’s pastor, reverend, whatever you want to call him. The fact remains that the things he said are not in themselves unique or controversial, simply the way he delivered them – fire and brimstone screaming from a pulpit. Now, sit him down in a polite conversation over tea and have him or anyone else say the exact same things in a well-mannered and calm way, what’s the big deal?
The fact is that most Americans I meet feel that 9/11 happened as a reaction. Reap what you sow, karma, etc.
Even Gandhi acknowledged a link between the way Indians treat lower caste and no caste people back home to the way Indians were treated in England and South Africa during his time.
Hillary Clinton has never been called a n*gger, that is also true.
Black people in America do face prejudice that non-blacks do not, that is also true.
These are actually common topics of conversation among black and non-black Americans alike.
This whole thing has been a blown out of proportion by the media.
Anyone who has ever been to a real down-home, home-grown, black-as-they-come church in this country will hear similar rhetoric delivered fire and brimstone style. It’s not new, it’s not radical, it’s very typical.
If Obama harbours secret love for Islam in his heart, good. Maybe that will cause this country’s foriegn policy to finally ease up on the Middle East.
Perhaps he can be a source of unification and empowerment for both black Americans and muslim Americans, and of course, black muslim Americans.
Good point. The american media (and not just Fox) is guilty of fomenting a lynch mob mentality using out of context soundbites and playing them over and over again. Those who have listened to the entire sermons (available on Youtube) come away quite impressed with Rev. Wright (read the comments on Youtube). He is far truer to the Gospel of Jesus (and the Gospel of Buddha) than the idiotic, hatefilled Republican evangelicals, who sound no better than the jihadi mullahs and Ahmadinejad. Read Wright’s sermon and see how the american media is deceiving the american public:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-wright-post.html
“Every public service of worship I have heard about so far in the wake of the American tragedy has had in its prayers and in its preachments, sympathy and compassion for those who were killed and for their families, and God’s guidance upon the selected Presidents and upon our war machine, as they do what they do and what they gotta do — paybacks. There’s a move in Psalm 137 from thoughts of paying tithes to thoughts of paying back, A move, if you will from worship to war, a move in other words from the worship of th God of creation to war against those whom God Created. And I want you to notice very carefully this next move. One of the reasons this Psalm is rarely read, in its entirety, because it is a move that spotlights the insanity of the cycle of violence and the cycle of hatred. Look at the verse; Look at the verse; Look at verse nine: [rising voice] “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rocks.”[lower voice] The people of faith are the rivers of Babylon. How shall we sing the Lord’s song? If I forget the order … The people of faith, have moved from the hatred of armed enemies [rising voice]–these soldiers who captured the king; those soldiers who slaughtered his son, that put his eyes out; those soldiers who sacked the city, burned, burned the towns, the burned the temple, burned the towers, they have moved from the hatred of [loudest voice] armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents — [low voice] the babies, the babies. Blessed are they who dash your baby’s brains against a rock. And that, my beloved, is a dangerous place to be, yet that is where the people of faith are in the 551BC, and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don’t care who gets hurt in the process. Now I asked the Lord, what should our response be in light of such an unthinkable act, but before I share with you what the Lord shared with me I want to give you one of my little faith footnotes. Visitors, I often give little faith footnotes, so that our members don’t lose sight of the big picture, let me give you a faith footnote. Turn to your neighbor and say, “Faith footnote.” [Voices: “Faith footnote”] [Begin faith footnote] I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) –a white man– he pointed out– an ambassador– that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America’s chickens are coming home to roost. We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism–we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians — babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children’s head agains the rocks. [fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy — killed hundreds of hard working people –mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they’d never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school — civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard. America’s chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. [lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y’all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that. Let me stop my faith footnote right there, and ask you to think about that over the next few weeks if God grants us that many days. Turn back to your neighbor, and say, “Footnote is over.” [Voices: “Footnote is over.”] [End Faith Footnote] [Gentle voice] Now, now. C’mon back to my question to the Lord, “What should our response be right now. In light of such an unthinkable act. I asked the Lord that question Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I was stuck in Newark, New Jersey. No flights were leaving La Guardia, JFK, or Newark Airport. On the day tht the FAA opened up the airports to bring into the destinations of cities those flights that had been diverted because of the hijacking, a scare in New York close all three regional airports and I couldn’t even get her for Mr. Radford’s father’s funeral. And I asked God, “What should our response be? I saw pictures of the incredible. People jumping from the 110th floor; people jumping from the roof because the stair wells and elevators above the 89th floor were gone– no more. Black people, jumping to a certain death; people holding hands jumping; people on fire jumping. [plaintiff high voice] And I asked the Lord, “What should our response be?” I read what the people of faith felt in 551BC. But this is a different time, this is a different enemy, a different world, a different terror. This is a different reality. What should our response be, and the Lord showed me three things. Let me share them with you quickly and I’m gonna leave you alone to think about the faith footnote. Number one: The Lord showed me that this is a time for self-examination. [cheers] As I sat 900 miles away from my family and my community of faith, two months after my own father’s death, God showed me that this was a time for me to examine my relationship with God. MY own relationship with God– personal relationship with God. I submit to you that it is the same for you. Folk flocked to the church in New Jersey last week, you know that foxhole-religion syndrome kicked in, that emergency chord religion, you know that little red box you pull in emergency? It showed up in full force. Folk who aint thought about coming to church in years, were in church last week. I heard that mid-week prayer services all over this country which are poorly attended fifty-one week a year were jam packed all over the nation the week of the hijacking the 52nd week. [inaudible] But the Lord said, this aint the time for you to be examining other folks relationship this is a time of self examination. But the Lord said, “How is “our” relationship doing Jeremiah? How often do you talked to me personally, how often do you let me talk to you privately? How much time do you spend trying to get right with me, or do you spend all your time trying to get other folk right? This is a time for me to examine my own relationship with God. Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show? Is is something that you do for the sake of the public or is it something that you do for the sake of eternity? [voice rising] This is a time for me to examine my own, and a time for you to examine your own relationship with God — self examination.”
I dont think so. It will be a bit much to have two non-whites on the ticket. Bill Richardson has a mother from Mexico and is considered hispanic. I think the best bet for Obama is to pick Edwards. A lily white man from the South who appeals to blue collar whites (a constituency Obama needs but is not getting enough support from) is just the ticket. Richardson will make a good Secretary of State.
By coming out enthusiastically for Obama, at a time when a hysterical white lynch mob was clamoring for his head, Richardson has shown courage and wisdom. As someone with extensive foreign policy experience he understands how a President Obama is just what America needs at this critical moment in its history. In his words: “You are a once-in-a-lifetime leader…… you will be a president who brings this nation together….you will be a historic and great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad……there is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation’s security is on the line, he showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has shown it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally.”
Pelosi is not a nut-job, even if her politics and values differ greatly from yours, test and Rahul S. That said, I don’t think she’d be a viable or wise candidate for VP. You want a VP who’s going to help rally the ticket and turn out strategic votes, and there are other, more compelling, “high profile” women in the Democratic party, particularly when you look to governors. Nancy Pelosi is a fantastic internal party organizer who understands these really entrenched, wonky, dynastic systems, but she is not particularly charismatic, nor is she commanding, nor is she delivering unique votes (let’s be real, SF is going to vote Dem no matter what, and the rep from SF is not strong enough to create a block of votes for the Bay Area, let alone California).
An Obama-Clinton ticket, while highly unlikely months ago, is now impossible. What would they do? Throw their arms around one another and say, “Oh I know I said you were a secret Muslim, I know I said your husband is a racist philanderer, but now we’re BFF!” I have a longer rant on why it wouldn’t happen, but I’ll refrain.
If Bill Richardson had been able to pull together a coherent sentence during his public appearances in his campaign, he would have been a fantastic VP candidate. Whoever is VP is going to have to deliver specific states and constituencies to make up for whatever pitfalls the Presidential candidate faces.
I hope he didn’t go through a bean pie eating or bow tie wearing phase. That would sink the ship
Even after this game-changing news?
What about Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana for VP? I think he’s ace.
I vote Camille for Prez!
158 · Camille said
Didn’t Edwards rip Kerry like crazy in ’04. Yet Kerry choose Edwards as his running mate. I’d say that Obama/Clinton would be working together. If not them, then Obama/Richardson.
Yeah, but I’m pretty sure Kerry didn’t expect Edwards to knife him in the back during the election, and many argue that Kerry may have fared better with a better, more united, team. And clearly we know how successful that ticket was. An Obama/Clinton ticket guarantees failure at the general election.
(Thanks, bess 😉 I don’t think I’ll ever be running for President)
164 · Camille said
In my opinion, Democrats are doomed for this year.
(1) Democrats are beating up on each other due to Operation Chaos
(2) Too many defectors will head over to McCain.
(3) Obama will most likely win the Democratic nominee, and people won’t like that his record in the senate is pretty (extremely is a better word) liberal.
(4) Pulling out of Iraq will destabilize the Middle East.
164 · Camille said
In my opinion, Democrats are doomed for this year.
(1) Democrats are beating up on each other due to Operation Chaos http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/03/25/signs_that_operation_chaos_is_working
(2) Too many defectors will head over to McCain http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/26/gallup-poll-shows-many-democratic-voters-ready-to-vote-mccain-if-their-first-choice-doesnt-make-it-to-november
(3) Obama will most likely win the Democratic nominee, and people won’t like that his record in the senate is pretty (extremely is a better word) liberal.
(4) Pulling out of Iraq will destabilize the Middle East.
111 · Manju said
Alas! On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a God.
Obama’s excellent speech on the economy given today in NY:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/03/obama-jabs-at-mccain-on-econom.html
This brilliant, balanced, thoughtful man is right on the money on this critical issue just as he is on the war, on foreign policy and on race.
168 · Vyasa said
Vyasa, you are one of those who are attracted to Obama because he can speak well and proposes ideas that seem compelling. He’s all rhetoric. Tell me, what has he done in my home state of IL? Absolutely nothing. I’ll say that most of his speech was excellent though.
However, look what he says in this speech: “I know that making these changes won’t be easy. I will not pretend that this will come without cost, though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly advance opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.”
He says he’s running on the platform of hope; it’s more like false hope.
If you think his speech on the economy is nothing but “rhetoric” then you either dont know what rhetoric means, or you didnt read the speech. Or you read it and it went over your head. Thats not rhetoric pal, thats intelligent analysis of the problem and a thoughtful plan to solve it……..that assumes that the audience is also intelligent, not a rabble to be roused and manipulated.
Yeah right, is that why he won 65% of the Illinois vote in the democratic primary to Clinton’s 33%.? Is that why the premier newspaper in Illinois, the Chicago Tribune, endorsed him thus: “Barack Obama is the rare individual who can sit in the U.S. Senate yet have his career potential unfulfilled. He is the Democrat best suited to lead this nation. We offer him our endorsement for the Feb. 5 Illinois primary.”……
170 · Vyasa said
Obama gets the votes because his speeches rock. We’re dealing with a guy who has the most liberal voting record in the senate (even more liberal than Ted Kennedy). Yet he’s presenting himself as a unifier. Doesn’t that seem ironic? Plus, his speeches in GENERAL are based on the premise of false hope (that’s what I was alluding to). If you notice, I did say his speech great up above.
Plus, if an individual like Obama advocating for a nationalized health care system (which I’d love to see, but it won’t happen), how are you going to fund it? We’re too big off a country to have that.
Plus, you prove my point. All you’re saying is that the so called “premiere” Chicago Tribune (the one that is losing money like crazy these days, and now has a bozo in Sam Zell running it) says that Obama is best prepared to lead the nation. He rose to fame in 04 after speaking at the DNC convention, and people fell in love with him. Just the same way he did to win votes in Chicago. His ideas seem great, but another big government fellow (surprisingly like this Bush and LBJ) won’t work. Bill Clinton was fiscally responsible during his tenure, and we know that Hilary would be the same. McCain will do the same. Sorry Vyasa, Obama is just a typical politician…lying to get his way to the top (through his other speeches).
Thats not all I am saying. How the hell does Illinois democrats voting two to one for Obama and the editors of the state’s premiere newspaper endorsing him in glowing terms “prove your point” that he has done “absolutely nothing”? Either they are complete idiots or you are.
You really think that Clinton is all about small government? How much do you think McCain’s wars are going to cost? Get a clue.
Clinton advocates a more expensive, more draconian universal health care plan than Obama. First, explain how you think she is going to fund it since you think she is “fiscally responsible”; and second, explain why Obama’s plan, which unlike Hillary’s does not force those who cant afford it to buy health insurance but focuses on making health care affordable for all, is more “big government” than Clinton’s.
He has a long history of being a unifier. He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review with the votes of the conservative faction, who felt that he was the only one from the liberal side who would give them a fair hearing. He has the speechwriters of both the liberal democrat icon John F. Kennedy and the conservative republican icon Ronald Reagan on his side. He appeals not only to democrats but also independents and even many republicans. How does that come across as “ironic” to you?
172 · Vyasa said
Obama is getting the younger vote & the black vote. Clinton has done more for the black community than Obama. If you analyze what Clinton has done throughout her career, and what Obama has done, Clinton sure has beat Obama in that regard. So why did Clinton lose? Good question. Most likely that African Americans saw one of their own (a bunch of blacks here as you probably know), young people are excited about Obama (like I’ve always said that his speeches are excellent), and perhaps people are sick of seeing the Clintons.
“You really think that Clinton is all about small government? How much do you think McCain’s wars are going to cost? Get a clue.”
Well. Remember under the Clinton administration in the 90’s what Bill emphasized about the economy. (1) Welfare reform, (2) most importantly, balance the budget.
Yes, Bill did benefit from the tech boom, but he kept on advocating for a balanced budget; eventually, the US economy was running at a surplus. So my point is that, yes, even though Hilary will run the show, Bill is going to play a key role. I trust Bill more than Axelrod (Obama’s main guy..that’s how I feel about it though).
(2) McCain’s war. Well look at what happens if you pull out. Sunni’s, Shiites,and Kurds will be battling a civil war. Hezbollah will join the match, and create mayhem. This has the potential of spilling over to Saudi Arabia, where we get our oil from. Right now, we’re giving the chemo (I hate using this reference), and it’s somewhat stabilized the region. Once you remove the chemo, the cancer will spread, and create destruction in the middle east. So what will happen then? Future prices will raise the price of oil…right now it’s over $100. So if you pull out, just imagine what oil prices would be? It would go up significantly. And if this spills over to Saudi Arabia, future prices will go up even more, and the markets will go down like crazy. Prices of all commodities that middle class Americans and middle class people all over the world will go up, and life will be a tough struggle for more individuals. So if you pull out now, yes you save in the short run. But happens in the long run, the US will be back, and would be spending more (due to the spread of civil war in the Middle East). Trust me, I’d love for the US to leave Iraq, but in a scenario like this, it’s better to stay in. If you ever saw the Cheney tape in ’94 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nEgDIylwPlM) why the US didn’t invade in ’91, it doesn’t make sense why he was behind Desert II in ’03.
Plus, McCain is more rational than Bush when it comes to spending. He doesn’t spend that much, and won’t spend that much.
I see, “a bunch of blacks” and youngsters (who did not constitute the majority of voters in the primaries) gave Obama a thumping win in Illinois despite the fact he did “absolutely nothing” for that state in 8 years as a state senator and over a decade of community service? In other words you are insisting that its not you who is being stupid (for making that absurd argument) but Obama’s supporters (for falling for his “rhetoric”). Well, comparing the irrationality of your posts to the quality of so many of Obama’s supporters (he does best among the best educated) I’d say that any objective observer would disagree 🙂
Really smart of you to trust a man widely known as “slick willie” who is notorious for these famous words under oath: “I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky” 🙂
Firstly, the price of oil was less than $30 a barrel before this disastrous war; so going into Iraq and staying there certainly has not put a lid on the price of oil, has it? Quite the opposite. Secondly, Clinton has admitted her judgement was wrong when she voted for the war and now she too wants to get out of there. And she is more pro-big government than Obama. So why on earth do you prefer Clinton when she is running on a platform that you object to so strongly? You are clearly either very confused or very dishonest.
174 · Vyasa said
Um. You can’t look at the past, and say that we shouldn’t have invaded. So what’s the problem in front of the US? You’re suggesting that we leave, and leave Iraq on the verge of civil war. I think you’re living in a fairy tale when it comes to the CURRENT situation of Iraq. Oil prices have been going up for several reasons: (1) finite supply of oil (now bharat & China are grabbing hold of it) (2) future prices are going up due to the invasion. However, it will go up once civil war breaks out if Obama gets into office (which I doubt anyways…since the Dems are having a civil war themselves)
“Really smart of you to trust a man widely known as “slick willie” who is notorious for these famous words under oath: “I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky” 🙂
Yes. I trust that adulterer more than Axelrod. Haha. But he did balance the budget which Obama would never do.
Let’s be realistic. McCain/florida governor vs. Obama/Richardson or Bloomberg. McCain has the lead of the influential states of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio if compared to Obama. Dems will beat up each other, and we’ll have a guy with experience in the office unlike Bush or Obama.
For someone who hates Bush your love for McCain is bizarre. McCain agrees with Bush’s policies. If he is elected president it will effectively be a third Bush term. Is that what America needs? Its pretty obvious that your love for McCain and Hillary and your hate for Bush and Obama is not based on their ideologies.
Based on your posts you come across as a racial/cultural desi chauvinist. So i am guessing that you love Hillary because she has a desi in her inner circle: her pakistani-american personal assisstant. And you love McCain because he has an adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Am I right or what?
176 · Vyasa said
McCain is really a moderate with a conservative tone. McCain agrees with SOME of Bush’s policies. Read this article http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/post_27.html. America needs a guy who give practical ways of solving problems just as McCain has done and will continue to do. Plus, Bush played dirty politics to win that election in ’00 (referring to his “black child”)..this country would have been in a lot better shape with McCain. Yea, he voted for the war, but if he were president, he wouldn’t have invaded.
This actually makes sense to him 🙂
McCain is actually a worse warmonger than Bush. Which is why he is being courted by Lieberman and the neocon armchair warriors. Which is why the Armageddon-obsessed warmongering pastor Hagee endorsed him. They can count on him to expand the war into Iran if he is elected.
McCain is also the least qualified candidate to tackle the economy. By his own admission he is clueless about this issue. Is this the President America needs during its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?
The only way McCain can win the general election is by playing the race card against Obama. I am sure McCain himself will not stoop that low. He himself was the victim of such republican dirty tricks over his adopted desi daughter, and to his credit he said in an interview that he thinks that there is a special place in hell for those kind of republicans. But that wont stop other republicans. There are more than enough white racist xenophobes in America who would fall for such swift-boating tactics.
Sounds like he is copying from Obama’s playbook. But his long record as a hawk makes this sound like a politically expedient speech. Read this:
http://www.counterpunch.org/prashad02272008.html
MCCAIN ON WAR:
“On Iraq, nobody is as close to Bush as McCain. In 2002, on CNN, McCain took up the cudgels against Iraq, saying that victory against the Saddam Hussein regime would be “overwhelming in a very short period of time”.
McCain told the media: “There’s no doubt in my mind that once these people are gone [the Hussein regime] that we will be welcomed as liberators.”
The error of his judgment did not sober him. Instead, he went further, drunk on the adrenalin of combat. He demanded more troops rather than drawdown and victory rather than withdrawal. “
It has contributed enormously to the frustration that Americans feel today because they were led to believe this could be some kind of day at the beach.” Indeed, McCain himself contributed to this view, but in retrospect, did not take personal responsibility for that failure. Rather, the failure has made him more bellicose, more adventurous.”
At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, someone asked him what he thought of Bush’s idea that the U.S. would be in Iraq for 50 years. “Make it a hundred,” McCain responded. “That would be fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you.” When a journalist pushed him on this, McCain, who has a legendary temper, snapped, “How long are we going to be in Korea?””
The National Priorities Project estimates that the total bill for the Iraq war will soon be $600 billion, which is almost as much as what the entire Vietnam war cost the U.S. exchequer although the South-East Asian war ran from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, whereas this war has only run for five years. This enthuses McCain, who ratified the increase saying that the U.S. needs “a larger and more capable military”
McCain likes the name maverick. Others find Dr. Strangelove more appropriate. Never has there been a leader who has loved every war with so much relish. His doubts on Iraq are jejune. Now he has already shifted his glee to Iran, singing, “Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”. A John McCain presidency should be cause for alarm. McCain is no maverick but a more credible military face for the Bush doctrine than Bush himself.”
MCCAIN ON THE ECONOMIC CRISIS:
When asked how he would deal with the recession and the mortgage crisis, McCain flatly told the press: “The issue of economics is something I’ve never really understood as well as I should. As long as Alan Greenspan is around, I would certainly use him for advice and counsel.”
[So like Hillary he blindly trusts Greenspan, who is the chief villain responsible for the current finacial crisis!]
Coming back to the racist nonsense of whoawhoawhoa:
Why are racists invariably ignorant? Who the heck told you that “black people have been at the top of the entertainment industry throughout American history”? With the internet at your fingertips there is really no excuse for such pathetic ignorance. There are tens of thousands of african-americans in the knowledge industry working as doctors, engineers, lawyers, professors etc. There are black astronauts, CEOS of Fortune 500 corporations, Presidents of Universities etc. Let google educate you. And if they are under-represented in proportion to their population in the knowledge industry so are many other ethnicities including non-anglosaxon and non-jewish white ethnics, and latinos, and native americans, and south-east asians etc.
Indians of all people should refrain from pointing fingers at the supposed failures of other races. Its just stupid and obscene. People like you may think that India is a Shining IT Superpower but outsiders arent so easily deluded: they see a miserably failed, deeply impoverished, cruel and callous society that is unwilling to even feed and educate its children properly; that has one of the shabbiest infrastructures in the world; that degrades its citizens with inhumane casteist prejudices; that is corrupt to the bone; that is home to more beggars, child slaves, homeless and hungry people than the rest of the world combined.
178 · Vyasa said
We had the market crash in 87, and the dow plunged over 500 points (about 22%). I’d say that was the worst event since the depression. Yes, the Fed injected a lot of liquidity (the first since the great depression), however, this potentially STOPPED a depression from occurring; Bear Stearns was TBTF (too big too fail), and if it declared bankruptcy,the markets would have collapsed (due to systemic risk). The purpose of the FED is to monitor the market… it’s not the President primary duty. That’s why the FED was created. Yes, Paulson just came out with regulation today that will discussed in Congress. Some of it seems appealling, however, it seems that Dem’s will want more regulation. The Depression was extended due to more regulation, and people suffered more than they needed to. The economy is NOT bad as you think it is. Plus, look at the Carter and Ford years…unemployment, inflation were up during that time.
I have a few articles for you to read.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1874.cfm http://townhall.com/columnists/LawrenceKudlow/2008/03/25/why_not_optimism http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343671,00.html
I am black. Half African American, half West Indian/Central American hybrid. I am very aware of the demographics of the black American community both by birth and through years of research and keeping my ear to the ground.
Black people HAVE always been admired for their musical talents in America. It was one of the few venues for blacks to move into the American spotlight. Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Dorothy Dandridge, etc… all black artists who rose to fame performing to majority white crowds. Again, black people succeeding in the entertainment industry isn’t anything new.
There certainly are black people in knowledge and skill heavy industries who are doing well for themselves, but you vastly overestimate the actual population. Let’s look at MBAs for example, where only 1.4 percent of all black GMAT test takers scored above 650. Trying to glaze over that isn’t at all helpful when it comes to actually solving the problems that cause the disparity in scores.
Wow.
That shows that you are as clueless about the economy as your hero John McCain. Since clueless McCain defers to Greenspan on economic issues you should listen to what even Greenspan has to say about the mess he himself is largely responsible for:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/16/greenspan-financial-cris_n_91786.html
“The current financial crisis in the US is likely to be judged in retrospect as the most wrenching since the end of the second world war.”
Heres what a Nobel Laureate in Economics has to say:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/news/article_1395989.php/US_Nobel_economist_calls_financial_crisis_worst_since_Depression
“The current financial crisis is the worst the world has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s and the US Federal Reserve move to cut interest rates will not make much difference, the Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said on Wednesday.”
“Stiglitz said it was ironic that former Federal Reserve head Alan Greenspan had said it was the world’s worst economic problem in the last 50 years, adding, ‘He is the source of much of the problem.’ He said mismanagement by the Federal Reserve over the last seven years was one of the major factors underlying the current problem. ‘They had the regulatory authority to prevent some of these bad practices that we are now paying for and he chose not to do it.'”
Even Republicans realise that more regulation is needed since it was precisely the lack of regulation that caused this crisis in the first place.. The market fundamentalist ideology that insists that the economy should be left alone without rules and regulation is as asinine as the idea that sports should be played without rules and referees. As Barak Obama said in his recent speech on the economy:
http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-cooper-unuion-speech-on-economy.html
“Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it. That is why we have put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. We have done this not to stifle – but rather to advance prosperity and liberty. As I said at NASDAQ last September: the core of our economic success is the fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well being of American business, its capital markets, and the American people are aligned.
I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we’ve lost that sense of shared prosperity.
This loss has not happened by accident. It’s because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.
Nor is this trend new. The concentrations of economic power – and the failures of our political system to protect the American economy from its worst excesses – have been a staple of our past, most famously in the 1920s, when with success we ended up plunging the country into the Great Depression. That is when government stepped in to create a series of regulatory structures – from the FDIC to the Glass-Steagall Act – to serve as a corrective to protect the American people and American business.
Ironically, it was in reaction to the high taxes and some of the outmoded structures of the New Deal that both individuals and institutions began pushing for changes to this regulatory structure. But instead of sensible reform that rewarded success and freed the creative forces of the market, too often we’ve excused and even embraced an ethic of greed, corner cutting and inside dealing that has always threatened the long-term stability of our economic system. Too often, we’ve lost that common stake in each other’s prosperity.
Let me be clear: the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform – to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. There were good arguments for changing the rules of the road in the 1990s. Our economy was undergoing a fundamental shift, carried along by the swift currents of technological change and globalization. For the sake of our common prosperity, we needed to adapt to keep markets competitive and fair.
Unfortunately, instead of establishing a 21st century regulatory framework, we simply dismantled the old one – aided by a legal but corrupt bargain in which campaign money all too often shaped policy and watered down oversight. In doing so, we encouraged a winner take all, anything goes environment that helped foster devastating dislocations in our economy.
Deregulation of the telecommunications sector, for example, fostered competition but also contributed to massive over-investment. Partial deregulation of the electricity sector enabled market manipulation. Companies like Enron and WorldCom took advantage of the new regulatory environment to push the envelope, pump up earnings, disguise losses and otherwise engage in accounting fraud to make their profits look better – a practice that led investors to question the balance sheet of all companies, and severely damaged public trust in capital markets. This was not the invisible hand at work. Instead, it was the hand of industry lobbyists tilting the playing field in Washington, an accounting industry that had developed powerful conflicts of interest, and a financial sector that fueled over-investment.
A decade later, we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis. A regulatory structure set up for banks in the 1930s needed to change because the nature of business has changed. But by the time the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, the $300 million lobbying effort that drove deregulation was more about facilitating mergers than creating an efficient regulatory framework.
Since then, we have overseen 21st century innovation – including the aggressive introduction of new and complex financial instruments like hedge funds and non-bank financial companies – with outdated 20th century regulatory tools. New conflicts of interest recalled the worst excesses of the past – like the outrageous news that we learned just yesterday of KPMG allowing a lender to report profits instead of losses, so that both parties could make a quick buck. Not surprisingly, the regulatory environment failed to keep pace. When subprime mortgage lending took a reckless and unsustainable turn, a patchwork of regulators were unable or unwilling to protect the American people.
The policies of the Bush Administration threw the economy further out of balance. Tax cuts without end for the wealthiest Americans. A trillion dollar war in Iraq that didn’t need to be fought, paid for with deficit spending and borrowing from foreign creditors like China. A complete disdain for pay-as-you-go budgeting – coupled with a generally scornful attitude towards oversight and enforcement – allowed far too many to put short-term gain ahead of long term consequences. The American economy was bound to suffer a painful correction, and policymakers found themselves with fewer resources to deal with the consequences.
Today, those consequences are clear. I see them in every corner of our great country, as families face foreclosure and rising costs. I seem them in towns across America, where a credit crisis threatens the ability of students to get loans, and states can’t finance infrastructure projects. I see them here in Manhattan, where one of our biggest investment banks had to be bailed out, and the Fed opened its discount window to a host of new institutions with unprecedented implications we have yet to appreciate. When all is said and done, losses will be in the many hundreds of billions. What was bad for Main Street was bad for Wall Street. Pain trickled up.
That is why the principle that I spoke about at NASDAQ is even more urgently true today: in our 21st century economy, there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street. The decisions made in New York’s high-rises have consequences for Americans across the country. And whether those Americans can make their house payments; whether they keep their jobs; or spend confidently without falling into debt – that has consequences for the entire market. The future cannot be shaped by the best-connected lobbyists with the best record of raising money for campaigns. This thinking is wrong for the financial sector and it’s wrong for our country.
I do not believe that government should stand in the way of innovation, or turn back the clock to an older era of regulation. But I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.
Our history should give us confidence that we don’t have to choose between an oppressive government-run economy and a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism. It tells us we can emerge from great economic upheavals stronger, not weaker. But we can do so only if we restore confidence in our markets. Only if we rebuild trust between investors and lenders. And only if we renew that common interest between Wall Street and Main Street that is the key to our success.
Now, as most experts agree, our economy is in a recession. To renew our economy – and to ensure that we are not doomed to repeat a cycle of bubble and bust again and again – we need to address not only the immediate crisis in the housing market; we also need to create a 21st century regulatory framework, and pursue a bold opportunity agenda for the American people.
Most urgently, we must confront the housing crisis.
After months of inaction, the President spoke here in New York and warned against doing too much. His main proposal – extending tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans – is completely divorced from the reality that people are facing around the country. John McCain recently announced his own plan, and it amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen. While this is consistent with Senator McCain’s determination to run for George Bush’s third term, it won’t help families who are suffering, and it won’t help lift our economy out of recession.
Over two million households are at risk of foreclosure and millions more have seen their home values plunge. Many Americans are walking away from their homes, which hurts property values for entire neighborhoods and aggravates the credit crisis. To stabilize the housing market and help bring the foreclosure crisis to an end, I have sponsored Senator Chris Dodd’s legislation creating a new FHA Housing Security Program, which will provide meaningful incentives for lenders to buy or refinance existing mortgages. This will allow Americans facing foreclosure to keep their homes at rates they can afford.
Senator McCain argues that government should do nothing to protect borrowers and lenders who’ve made bad decisions, or taken on excessive risk. On this point, I agree. But the Dodd-Frank package is not a bailout for lenders or investors who gambled recklessly, as they will take losses. It is not a windfall for borrowers, as they will have to share any capital gain. Instead, it offers a responsible and fair way to help bring an end to the foreclosure crisis. It asks both sides to sacrifice, while preventing a long-term collapse that could have enormous ramifications for the most responsible lenders and borrowers, as well as the American people as a whole. That is what Senator McCain ignores.
For homeowners who were victims of fraud, I’ve also proposed a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund that would help them sell a home that is beyond their means, or modify their loan to avoid foreclosure or bankruptcy. It’s also time to amend our bankruptcy laws, so families aren’t forced to stick to the terms of a home loan that was predatory or unfair.
To prevent fraud in the future, I’ve proposed tough new penalties on fraudulent lenders, and a Home Score system that will allow consumers to find out more about mortgage offers and whether they’ll be able to make payments. To help low- and middle-income families, I’ve proposed a 10 percent mortgage interest tax credit that will allow homeowners who don’t itemize their taxes to access incentives for home ownership. And to expand home ownership, we must do more to help communities turn abandoned properties into affordable housing.
The government can’t do this alone, nor should it. As I said last September, lenders must get ahead of the curve rather than just reacting to crisis. They should actively look at all borrowers, offer workouts, and reduce the principal on mortgages in trouble. Not only can this prevent the larger losses associated with foreclosure and resale, but it can reduce the extent of government intervention and taxpayer exposure.
Beyond dealing with the immediate housing crisis, it is time for the federal government to revamp the regulatory framework dealing with our financial markets.
Our capital markets have helped us build the strongest economy in the world. They are a source of competitive advantage for our country. But they cannot succeed without the public’s trust. The details of regulatory reform should be developed through sound analysis and public debate. But there are several core principles for reform that I will pursue as President.
First, if you can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. Secretary Paulson admitted this in his remarks yesterday. The Federal Reserve should have basic supervisory authority over any institution to which it may make credit available as a lender of last resort. When the Fed steps in, it is providing lenders an insurance policy underwritten by the American taxpayer. In return, taxpayers have every right to expect that these institutions are not taking excessive risks. The nature of regulation should depend on the degree and extent of the Fed’s exposure. But at the very least, these new regulations should include liquidity and capital requirements.
Second, there needs to be general reform of the requirements to which all regulated financial institutions are subjected. Capital requirements should be strengthened, particularly for complex financial instruments like some of the mortgage securities that led to our current crisis. We must develop and rigorously manage liquidity risk. We must investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating. And transparency requirements must demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders and counterparties.
As we reform our regulatory system at home, we must work with international arrangements like the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Accounting Standards Board, and the Financial Stability Forum to address the same problems abroad. The goal must be ensuring that financial institutions around the world are subject to similar rules of the road – both to make the system stable, and to keep our financial institutions competitive.
Third, we need to streamline a framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies. Reshuffling bureaucracies should not be an end in itself. But the large, complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape do not fit into categories created decades ago. Different institutions compete in multiple markets – our regulatory system should not pretend otherwise. A streamlined system will provide better oversight, and be less costly for regulated institutions.
Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. It makes no sense for the Fed to tighten mortgage guidelines for banks when two-thirds of subprime mortgages don’t originate from banks. This regulatory framework has failed to protect homeowners, and it is now clear that it made no sense for our financial system. When it comes to protecting the American people, it should make no difference what kind of institution they are dealing with.
Fifth, we must remain vigilant and crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. Reports have circulated in recent days that some traders may have intentionally spread rumors that Bear Stearns was in financial distress while making market bets against the company. The SEC should investigate and punish this kind of market manipulation, and report its conclusions to Congress.
Sixth, we need a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system. Too often, we deal with threats to the financial system that weren’t anticipated by regulators. That’s why we should create a financial market oversight commission, which would meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks that face them. These expert views could help anticipate risks before they erupt into a crisis.
These six principles should guide the legal reforms needed to establish a 21st century regulatory system. But the change we need goes beyond laws and regulation – we need a shift in the cultures of our financial institutions and our regulatory agencies.
Financial institutions must do a better job at managing risks. There is something wrong when boards of directors or senior managers don’t understand the implications of the risks assumed by their own institutions. It’s time to realign incentives and compensation packages, so that both high level executives and employees better serve the interests of shareholders. And it’s time to confront the risks that come with excessive complexity. Even the best government regulation cannot fully substitute for internal risk management.
For supervisory agencies, oversight must keep pace with innovation. As the subprime crisis unfolded, tough questions about new and complex financial instruments were not asked. As a result, the public interest was not protected. We do American business – and the American people – no favors when we turn a blind eye to excessive leverage and dangerous risks.
Finally, the American people must be able to trust that their government is looking out for all of us – not just those who donate to political campaigns. I fought in the Senate for the most extensive ethics reform since Watergate. I have refused contributions from federal lobbyists and PACs. And I have laid out far-reaching plans that I intend to sign into law as President to bring transparency to government, and to end the revolving door between industries and the federal agencies that oversee them.
Once we deal with the immediate crisis in housing and strengthen the regulatory system governing our financial markets, our final task is to restore a sense of opportunity for all Americans.
The bedrock of our economic success is the American Dream. It’s a dream shared in big cities and small towns; across races, regions and religions – that if you work hard, you can support a family; that if you get sick, there will be health care you can afford; that you can retire with the dignity and security and respect that you have earned; that your kids can get a good education, and young people can go to college even if they’re not rich. That is our common hope across this country. That is the American Dream.
But today, for far too many Americans, this dream is slipping away. Wall Street has been gripped by increasing gloom over the last nine months. But for many American families, the economy has effectively been in recession for the past seven years. We have just come through the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that was not accompanied by a growth in incomes for typical families. Americans are working harder for less. Costs are rising, and it’s not clear that we’ll leave a legacy of opportunity to our children and grandchildren.
That’s why, throughout this campaign, I’ve put forward a series of proposals that will foster economic growth from the bottom up, and not just from the top down. That’s why the last time I spoke on the economy here in New York, I talked about the need to put the policies of George W. Bush behind us – policies that have essentially said to the American people: “you are on your own”; because we need to pursue policies that once again recognize that we are in this together.
This starts with providing a stimulus that will reach the most vulnerable Americans, including immediate relief to areas hardest hit by the housing crisis, and a significant extension of unemployment insurance for those who are out of work. If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling.
Beyond these short term measures, as President I will be committed to putting the American Dream on a firmer footing. To reward work and make retirement secure, we’ll provide an income tax cut of up to $1000 for a working family, and eliminate income taxes altogether for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year. To make health care affordable for all Americans, we’ll cut costs and provide coverage to all who need it. To put more Americans to work, we’ll create millions of new Green Jobs and invest in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. To extend opportunity, we’ll invest in our schools and our teachers, and make college affordable for every American. And to ensure that America stays on the cutting edge, we’ll expand broadband access, expand funding for basic scientific research, and pass comprehensive immigration reform so that we continue to attract the best and the brightest to our shores.
I know that making these changes won’t be easy. I will not pretend that this will come without cost, though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we’ll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly advance opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.
But I would not be running for President if I didn’t think that this was a defining moment in our history. If we fail to overcome our divisions and continue to let special interest set the agenda, then America will fall behind. Short-term gains will continue to yield long-term costs. Opportunity will slip away on Main Street and prosperity will suffer here on Wall Street. But if we unite this country around a common purpose, if we act on the responsibilities that we have to each other and to our country, then we can launch a new era of opportunity and prosperity.
I know we can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we’ve recognized that common stake that we have in each other’s success. That’s how people as different as Hamilton and Jefferson came together to launch the world’s greatest experiment in democracy. That’s why our economy hasn’t just been the world’s greatest wealth creator – it’s bound America together, it’s created jobs, and it’s made the dream of opportunity a reality for generations of Americans.
Now it falls to us. We have as our inheritance the greatest economy the world has ever known. We have the responsibility to continue the work that began on that spring day over two centuries ago right here in Manhattan – to renew our common purpose for a new century, and to write the next chapter in the story of America’s success. We can do this. And we can begin this work today.”
183 · Vyasa said
While there was predatory lending going on, majority of the lending was clean cut. People were putting down 0% on their mortgages! That’s ridiculous. Usually, families put down 20% to purchase a house. The American culture put us in this mess. If people, banks, and Greenspan were actually rational, do you think we’d be in this mess? The culture has caught up with America. What will this teach people? The government bailed us out…yay! We can take even bigger risks, and the government will save us again!!!! Yay!! You’re going to now tell me what about bailing out Wall Street (like with Bear Stearns). Well, more damage would have been done if Bear Stearns were bankrupt. It’s the truth buddy. The markets would have collapsed, more people would be layed off…the markets overseas would have crumbled, and a worldwide depression may have occurred.
I do feel for individuals who were the victims of predatory lending…I don’t know what should happen with that.
Obama’s statement the American economy does not stand still, and neither should the rules that govern it. The evolution of industries often warrants regulatory reform – to foster competition, lower prices, or replace outdated oversight structures. Old institutions cannot adequately oversee new practices. Old rules may not fit the roads where our economy is leading. There were good arguments for changing the rules of the road in the 1990s. Our economy was undergoing a fundamental shift, carried along by the swift currents of technological change and globalization. For the sake of our common prosperity, we needed to adapt to keep markets competitive and fair.
He’s dead on about this. This regulation is necessary, but what other Democrats are calling for (too much intervention)…not so wise.
And that led you to conclude that “black people have been at the top of [the entertainment] industry throughout American history”? Brilliant deduction genius! None of the examples I mentioned was in music by the way. Tiger Woods wouldnt have been allowed into a country club much less play golf there just a few decades ago, and today he is the wealthiest, most iconic sportsman in the world. Oprah Winfrey couldnt have become a billionaire and the most powerful personality on TV not so long ago. Will Smith is the first black-american to be the top Hollywood box office star in its century long existence. Yet you claim that blacks have always ben on top in these fields! And Obama, BTW, is a politician not an entertainer didnt you know?
I said there were tens of thousands of blacks working as doctors etc; how is that vastly over-estimated? There are top black neuro-surgeons in the US. But listening to you they must have got there on affirmative action! Like I said there is no excuse for your ignorance. Do some googling and you will find that just the members of black doctor, lawyer and engineer associations run over 25000, 20000 and 28000 respectively. There are over 1.2 million black business owners. There have been at least a dozen black astronauts who gave gone into space, a number larger than that for asian or hispanic-american astronauts. There have been black CEOs of a number of Fortune 500 corporations including Merril Lynch, Sears, KMart, Time-Warner, American Express, Aetna, Darden, Symantec and black Presidents of other corporations including Oracle, Xerox, McDonalds, Genentech etc.
That was in response to your ridiculous question: “when do Black people move past getting paid for what they do and into fields where they are paid for what they know?”. They already are in increasing numbersas I have shown. Proving that all your “years of research” have been a waste. The percentages may still be much less than their proportion of the population but that is true for many non-black ethnicities as well such as hispanics, south-east asians, white ethnics, native americans etc.
Vyasa, it’d be great if you didn’t totally pervert the things I write to make your point. But I can’t argue with you if your bar for success is so low. I personally have higher standards for what I want to see come out of the black community, and yes, I would like that success to come without the aid of affirmative action.
Also, just because someone is a member of an association doesn’t mean they are 1. actually black, 2. actually a member of that profession, 3. successful in their career field. Again, I’m not trying to talk down black achievements, but pretending everything is all great just because small numbers succeed detracts from finding solutions to what are very real problems. I don’t have to use google to see what is going on in the black american community. I live it.
Keep it civil or the post shuts down.