Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Arrogance of Hope
CONCORD, NH - I just watched Barack Obama give his stump speech for the first time in a couple months, and for only the second time since winning the Iowa caucuses. Hillary Clinton gets knocked for obsessing over herself in speeches -- reporters count up how many times she and her husband say "I" or "my" instead of "we." Victory has given Obama the same rhetorical tic.
High up there in his message: The amazing power of Barack Obama. He referred to himself in the third person: "They say Obama, he's a hopemonger." Early in the speech he brought some volunteers onstage and told the crowd that their job was to drive them to the polls and his job was creating voters for them to transport. So: "I am going to try to be so persuasive that a light bulb goes off in your head, you're driving back from this, and you think 'I must vote for Obama.'" He hyped the Iowa victory repeatedly as proof that the people who said "I was being naive" or "I couldn't win" just eat heaping bowls of shit. (Some attendees I talked to after the speech said Iowa's results wouldn't influence their vote; they were deciding between Clinton and Obama.)
The crowd seemed attentive but not thrilled. Lines that had drawn manic applause last night sort of rolled out there, except for a riff about "closing down Gitmo and restoring habeas corpus" and one about saving the polar ice caps: Those were the only bits that got the whole crowd of a few thousand people cheering. Also, I don't know how much I'd prioritize this skill, but Obama's attacks on his rivals were perfectly composed: Subtle enough to nod some heads in the stands, but not cutting enough to alienate the independents. Voting for Clinton would be a "gamble" because "the same old crowd" would make the same mistakes. We need to protect our kids from poisoned Chinese toys but we should have done it "four, or eight, or 12 years ago." Message: Clinton's husband poisoned your children.
Obama bothered less with Edwards, though it's news he gave him any attention at all. He smacked the candidate stuck solidly in third place for making such angry appeals and then tried to steal Edwards' "ahhh fought when my daddy worked in the mills" rhetoric: "I fought on the streets, I fought as a civil rights lawyer."
There were whopping big media folks in the crowd--E.J. Dionne, Maureen Dowd, CBS's Bob Schieffer--but my favorite fellow travellers were a couple cameramen from a local news station. They sneered up at the risers where other cameramen had already gotten the good spots, including two tykes in red shirts reporting for Scholastic News. "This is the thing that kills me," one said, "wasting space on these cameras for that Nickelodian shit."
|1.4.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Can't wait to pick up Obama's next autobiography, The Audacity of Audaciously Hoping for Change.
|1.4.08 @ 3:17PM|#
I just watched Barack Obama give his stump speech for the first time in a couple months, and for only the second time since winning the Iowa caucuses.
I don't get this sentence. First time in a few months
and second time since last night.
Vent|1.4.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Liberals complain about republicans funded by "the corporations." Now it's about candidates funded by "the people"?
|1.4.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Perhaps I am too optimistic, but I really believe that people are going to wake up at somepoint and realize that there is nothing to Obama but a nice persona and a some warmed over liberal conventional wisdom. Change? What you are kidding me? Yeah, raise taxes, break the bank on every feel good social program you can think of and shut down GUITMO. Gee no one has ever thought of that before.
|1.4.08 @ 3:52PM|#
John-
At least Edwards didn't when Iowa. Can you imagine a Huckabee vs.
Edwards general election? It makes me want to leave the country for
real.
|1.4.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Don't forget, he's going to go into the Pakistani hornets nest looking for Osama whether the Pakistanis like it or not.
|1.4.08 @ 3:53PM|#
But John,
He keeps his hair short enough that he doesn't have to pay for $400
hair cuts. That counts for something, no?
|1.4.08 @ 3:54PM|#
"John-
At least Edwards didn't when Iowa. Can you imagine a Huckabee vs.
Edwards general election? It makes me want to leave the country for
real."
As a lifelong patriot, if it is Edwards v. Huckabe, I might have to
leave the country. What a monument to economic illiteracy and
populist ignorance that election would be. Obama is a fraud but
generally harmless. I would vote for him 100 times before I voted
for Edwards or Huckabee.
|1.4.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Don't forget, he's going to go into the Pakistani hornets nest
looking for Osama whether the Pakistanis like it or not."
It seems to me that's what Bush should have done instead of losing
so many soldiers'lives in Iraq, killing tens or hundreds of
thousands innocent civilians, wasting billions of dollars, and
stirring up more hatred for America.
|1.4.08 @ 4:03PM|#
"It seems to me that's what Bush should have done instead of
losing so many soldiers'lives in Iraq, killing tens or hundreds of
thousands innocent civilians, wasting billions of dollars, and
stirring up more hatred for America."
Yeah because invading Pakistan would have engendered so much love
in the Middle-East. Pakistan is a soveriegn country. It is not like
we could send the 82nd Airborne in without their permission.
|1.4.08 @ 4:04PM|#
What a monument to economic illiteracy and populist ignorance that
election would be. Obama is a fraud but generally harmless. I would
vote for him 100 times before I voted for Edwards or
Huckabee.
I blame it all on Lou Dobbs.
|1.4.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Economics needs to be mandatory every year of high school just so we don't have people buying anymore populist bullshit out of pure ignorance.
Egosumabbas|1.4.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Yeah because invading Pakistan would have engendered so much
love in the Middle-East. Pakistan is a soveriegn country. It is not
like we could send the 82nd Airborne in without their
permission.
Letters
of Marque and Reprisal, baby.
economist|1.4.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Actually, I think both the Iraq War and Obama's proposed
Pakistan raids were/are terrible ideas.
Of course, Dems will agree with me when a Republican decides to go
into Pakistan. Think: Clinton I and the terrible threat of wmd.
Juan|1.4.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Why is it that when Mattel screws up and makes poisonous toys it
gets the blame, unless the factory is in China, in which case China
gets the blame?
Yeah, I know why. It's just a rhetorical question.
|1.4.08 @ 4:14PM|#
"Yeah because invading Pakistan would have engendered so much
love in the Middle-East. Pakistan is a soveriegn country. It is not
like we could send the 82nd Airborne in without their
permission."
As Egosumabbas said, "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". Sending
special forces in to capture or kill those responsible for 9/11
would involve a minimum of civilian deaths and not stir up the
hatred for us that our invasion of Iraq has.
|1.4.08 @ 4:18PM|#
"Actually, I think both the Iraq War and Obama's proposed
Pakistan raids were/are terrible ideas."
How else can we capture or kill those responsible for 9/11?
Pakistan apparently isn't doing anything to capture or kill Osama
bin Laden because they don't want to bring the wrath of the Arab
world down on them.
|1.4.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Nothing ticks of Iraq War supporters like people who want to
finish the job in central Asia.
Picking at sore right there.
TLB|1.4.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Obama is
well on his way to beatification.
While Weigel's "report" is entertaining, isn't he supposed to be a
reporter of some kind? If so, shouldn't he try to
ask questions?
No other MSM "reporters" are willing to ask real questions, so
Weigel could set Reason - and himself - apart from the rest. What's
he afraid of? That he won't get the same
lunch treats as the other kids?
Dundero\'s Kangaroo Court|1.4.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Nothing ticks of Iraq War supporters like people who want to
finish the job in central Asia.
Picking at sore right there.
Because once we get OBL, people like DONDEROOOOOOO won't have a
reason to bomb brown people living shantytowns anymore, duh! Gotta
keep that islamofascism alive, ya know. Support the troops.
|1.4.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Support the cleaning ladies! Dump the contents of your fridge
onto the rug!
And, hey, you don't want to make them feel bad by saying they can
stop before they make the rug pristine, do you?
GILMORE|1.4.08 @ 4:44PM|#
de stijl | January 4, 2008, 3:17pm | #
"I just watched Barack Obama give his stump speech for the first
time in a couple months, and for only the second time since winning
the Iowa caucuses."
I don't get this sentence. First time in a few months and second
time since last night.
De Stijl/AKA "the style"/Dr Neoplasticism =
dont feel bad. It's not you. Anyone covering politics so closely
for so long starts to develop mild forms of mental
retardation.
e.g. the prog-rock fetish? its another sign
GILMORE|1.4.08 @ 4:51PM|#
TLB | January 4, 2008, 4:33pm | #
Obama is well on his way to beatification.
LoneWacko = please shut the fuck up and go back to your rhetorical
ghost-pinata party (aka your sad blog)
You are a patent schmoo and you have never influenced anyones
thinking here. You have driven 100% of readers into any direction
they can find opposite your own. If you care about "ending illegal
immigration"... then shut up. You give the whole thing a bad name
with everything from your nounFunging to your "WHY DOES NO ONE ASK
*REAL* QUESTIONS (i.e. "my silly ones")...
Serious. The expression "get a life" is hardly more apt for any
person alive.
|1.4.08 @ 4:51PM|#
"Nothing ticks of Iraq War supporters like people who want to
finish the job in central Asia."
So I take that Joe to mean that you support a "surge" in
Afghanistan? Further, you also support the invasion of the
territory of a sovereighn country that at least claims to be our
ally? You talk a great game about finishing the job in Afghanistan
and I say more power to you. My guess is however your eyes are
bigger than your stomach and even if you really are sincere, the
vast majority of people who try that little bait and switch are
not. It is easy to advocate an action that isn't happening.
economist|1.4.08 @ 4:59PM|#
I already pointed out that I'm not an Iraq war supporter. I'm just saying that Obama's promise to invade Pakistan chasing bin Laden is an idea cut from the same interventionist cloth as all of our ill-fated ventures into the region.
|1.4.08 @ 5:00PM|#
John-
I would have rather seen a surge in Central Asia in 2003 rather
than invading Iraq. I think if Bush had taken that course, we'd all
be better off.
I'd like one now, too, but since we are stuck in Iraq there are
really no troops available.
Egosumabbas|1.4.08 @ 5:02PM|#
So I take that Joe to mean that you support a "surge" in
Afghanistan? Further, you also support the invasion of the
territory of a sovereighn country that at least claims to be our
ally? You talk a great game about finishing the job in Afghanistan
and I say more power to you. My guess is however your eyes are
bigger than your stomach and even if you really are sincere, the
vast majority of people who try that little bait and switch are
not. It is easy to advocate an action that isn't
happening.
*blank stare* Are you suggesting, sir, that Pakistan is an ally in
the War on Terror? 'Cause the last time I checked, Pakistan
wasn't doing jack shit.
I'd rather take the billions we're giving to prop up that dictator
and giving it to... I don't know... Chuck Norris to find OBL
instead.
I also like the way this guy handled a similar situation.
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:07PM|#
As Ron Paul has pointed out, we shouldn't do anything that the radical Islamists disapprove of. If it weren't for us and our annoying policies, the Twin Towers would be still be standing, and Benizir Bhutto would still be alive. If Ron Paul is elected President, he will check with Al Qaeda before taking any action. Alas, his chances don't seem great, but send him money anyway. He'll find a use for it that won't piss anybody off, at least not anybody with a bomb. Allahu akbar!
|1.4.08 @ 5:08PM|#
"*blank stare* Are you suggesting, sir, that Pakistan is an ally
in the War on Terror? 'Cause the last time I checked, Pakistan
wasn't doing jack shit.
I'd rather take the billions we're giving to prop up that dictator
and giving it to... I don't know... Chuck Norris to find OBL
instead. I also like the way this guy handled a similar
situation."
No I am suggesting that Pakistan is doing much, but frankly I don't
know what they are really doing or not doing. I think you would
have to have a pretty security clearance to know that. What I am
saying is that it is a bit much to argue that we need to invade
them and the people who claim to be so gung ho about going into
northwest Pakistan are only doing so because they know it is not
going to happen. If George Bush sent troops into those areas
tomorrow to get Osama without consulting with Pakistan, I doubt he
would find to many friends in the "finish things in Central Asia"
crowd.
|1.4.08 @ 5:09PM|#
"This is the thing that kills me," one said, "wasting space
on these cameras for that Nickelodian
shit."
Who edits the editors?
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:12PM|#
And, as Ron Paul has also pointed out, our real problem isn't the Islamists, who just want to dictate our foreign policy; it's those illegal Mexicans who want their children to get their greasy little hands on American citizenship. Birthright bullshit! First get rid of all forms of welfare, and then let the swarthy bastards come and suffer like everybody else!
.|1.4.08 @ 5:16PM|#
What is Paul's plan for how one gets citizenship, by the way? Since there's no American ethnicity, I would assume its something else?
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Cesar
How can your mind be free if you keep it closed? "Free minds for
free markets" isn't just an empty slogan. Get with the program.
|1.4.08 @ 5:17PM|#
"Free minds for free markets" isn't just an empty slogan. Get with the program.
Thats an easy one, Edward. You have no mind in the first place.
Ali|1.4.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Regarding "economist's" comments above re war:
Wars are like fruits on trees, waiting to be picked when ripe.
Sometimes a Dem will pick up too much (think Bill) and won't be
allowed to pick any more by the Repugs lest the Dems be labeled the
War Party. Some other times, the Repugs are in a position to pick
the ripe fruits of war (think W), but then they can't go far enough
lest they be labeled the War Party by the Dems. But is all is the
same. All fruits of war are ripe (or could be hastily ripened) just
waiting to be picked.
Can someone tell that I am a bit depressed?
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:21PM|#
What do you mean by "no American ethnicity"? Of course there's an American ethnicity. We're a Christian nation, although not as robustly Christian as we should be. We're a fat nation. We have our own music. Are you saying Lawrence Welk wasn't American? How about the hamburger? Muslims have felalafel, and we have hamburger. We should just stop pissing Muslims off and enjoy our hamburger.
Eward|1.4.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Cesar, Cesar (is your name Mexican?), just because we disagree doesn't mean I don't have a mind. I don't mind that you mind, but you really shouldn't mind that I'm of a different mind. Are your kids citizens by chance?
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Ali,
You're depressed because you been persuaded to put all your eggs in
the Ron Paul basket. Being a libertarian is all about backing
losers. Embrace it.
Ali|1.4.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Muslims have felalafel, and we have hamburger. We should
just stop pissing Muslims off and enjoy our hamburger.
OK I am no longer depressed. That's actually funny Edward.
Lets call this the Culinary Clash of Civilizations (CCC). I can now
imagine G's rhetoric in the next debates: "We've got to eat their
falafels there, lest they eat our hamburgers here!" Oh, and
"9/11".
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Cesar,
If the shoe fits...
Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be
stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born
here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this
country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere
location of one's birth. True citizenship requires cultural
connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are
happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better
life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show
loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright
citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on
people who do not truly embrace America.--Ron Paul "The Immigration
Question"
.|1.4.08 @ 5:31PM|#
What do you mean by "no American ethnicity"? Of course
there's an American ethnicity. We're a Christian nation, although
not as robustly Christian as we should be. We're a fat nation. We
have our own music. Are you saying Lawrence Welk wasn't American?
How about the hamburger? Muslims have felalafel, and we have
hamburger. We should just stop pissing Muslims off and enjoy our
hamburger.
Its entirely possible that my understanding of the definition of
the term is incorrect -- but I believe you are describing things
related to "culture" and "nationality" which is distinct from an
ethnic group, which a genetic thing.
Now -- will people be able to move here (or be born here by no
choice of their own), or are only people that like hamburgers
allowed?
|1.4.08 @ 5:31PM|#
I don't give a shit Edward. You know why? Because Presidents
can't repeal Constitutional amendments.
Agreeing with someone 80% of the time is good enough for me. Then
again, I'm not a complete dipshit like you.
miltary analyst|1.4.08 @ 5:34PM|#
economist | January 4, 2008, 4:59pm | #
I already pointed out that I'm not an Iraq war supporter. I'm just
saying that Obama's promise to invade Pakistan chasing bin Laden is
an idea cut from the same interventionist cloth as all of our
ill-fated ventures into the region.
Not exactly.
It was a good idea from the start, initially executed very well,
and we didnt follow through.
By contrast, Iraq was a stupid idea, executed poorly.
Osamas head on a stick would be worthwhile; Turning Iraq into a
trillon dollar non-event has not been
Edward|1.4.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Cesar,
Why the name calling? Do you agree with Ron Paul on abortion, gay
rights, evolution, and American responsibility for Benizir Bhutto's
assasination? That 20% can be pretty onerous shit.
|1.4.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Ok, here its, my Edweirdo Meta Post. After this, I'm not
responding to you anymore.
"Gay Rights"-Don't really disagree with him because we do both
agree its best left to the states. On the state level, I'd support
it "gay rights" if by that you mean taking government out of
marriage period and letting people come up with whatever domestic
arrangements they want.
Abortion-Abortion is the most over-rated issue to ever gain such
prominence on the national stage. I'm mildly pro-choice, but even
overturning Roe v. Wade would accomplish nothing for the pro-life
people. States, even if they outlawed abortion, don't have the
resources to enforce the law anyway. Most likely scenario: doctors
continue to preform abortions and call it something else.
Evolution: Since Paul doesn't believe (as I do) that education
should be a federal concern, it doesn't really matter whether we
agree or not. Its a personal belief, not a policy position.
American responsibility for 80% of the shit in the Middle East:
Agreed
I agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy. I agree with Ron Paul on
the Second Amendment. I agree with Ron Paul on taxes. I agree with
Ron Paul on the need for a drastically reduced federal government.
I agree with Ron Paul on civil liberties. I agree with Ron Paul on
a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Thats what matters to
me.
The things you listed in your previous post are red herrings. They
are either personal beliefs which Ron Paul doesn't believe the
government should force on anybody, or things best left to the
states. End of story.
Egosumabbas|1.4.08 @ 5:48PM|#
@ Edward:
Ron Paul on ...American responsibility for Benizir Bhutto's
assasination?
Why are Ron Paul's views on this so controversial? We mucked up the
middle east and destabilized it. There are arguably more terrorists
now then there were ever before. Could it be just possible that
Musharraf's security let a crazy islamist through? Also, it could
be argued that Bhutto had it coming to her. She was corrupt and is
part of a family dynasty controlling a political party. She had
many enemies, and justifiably so. She's not the "secular democrat"
saint that the media paints her to be.
|1.4.08 @ 7:19PM|#
James Ostrowski on LewRockwell.com pegged him correctly. He said that Obama really wants change -- starting with all the change in your pockets.
|1.4.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Oh boy. Just saw the speech.
2:1 turnout in Iowa. Barack Obama.
There's a new Man from Hope. I think we're done here.
|1.4.08 @ 7:45PM|#
John,
So I take that Joe to mean that you support a "surge" in
Afghanistan? If it comes to that, but hopefully it will be an
air power or special forces action.
Further, you also support the invasion of the territory of a
sovereighn country that at least claims to be our ally? If it
comes to that. If Barack Obama can talk the Chicago Police
Department into supporting his bill to require the videotaping of
all confessions, who knows? It's called diplomacy.
Anyway, we're not going to be doing squat as long as Iraq keeps
sucking all the air out of the room. Our foreign policy and the war
against al Qaeda have been stagnant for years.
|1.4.08 @ 7:48PM|#
The most popular political leader in Pakistan was running around telling huge crowds that she'd let our troops close the deal with bin Laden, before she was assassinated by Pakistani Taliban and/or al Qaeda. A president who's not a strutting meathead can do all sorts of good in the fight against terror.
|1.4.08 @ 7:53PM|#
BTW, all of these phrases "promised to invade Pakistan," "surge
into Pakistan," and "invasion of Pakistan" are made up out of whole
clothe by John and economist.
They are misleading misrepresentations of what Obama, and I, have
actually stated, made by people who know they don't a snowball's
chance in hell of winning an argument against what Obama actually
said.
|1.4.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Obama, on Pakistan (the speech that Hillary Clinton and John
thought they could make political hay about)
Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the
mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan
following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of
Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most
threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal
regions of northwest Pakistan.
Al Qaeda terrorists train, travel, and maintain global
communications in this safe-haven. The Taliban pursues a hit and
run strategy, striking in Afghanistan, then skulking across the
border to safety.
This is the wild frontier of our globalized world. There are
wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains. There are tribes that
see borders as nothing more than lines on a map, and governments as
forces that come and go. There are blood ties deeper than alliances
of convenience, and pockets of extremism that follow religion to
violence. It's a tough place.
But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists
who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is
hard.
As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in
U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our
conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in
closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and
preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for
attacks in Afghanistan.
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges.
But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up
in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting
to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we
had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If
we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets
and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the
Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to
counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's
commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the
Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with
one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are
neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in
Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.
I think the bolded part is supposed to be John's ironclad pledge to
invade Pakistan in the face of main-force opposition by the
Pakistani military. I'm not exactly sure; it just looks like a
common-sense statement to me.
|1.4.08 @ 8:16PM|#
And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat
extremism
John will be along shortly to explain that Barack Obama pledged to
sell Pakistan nuclear submarines.
jag|1.5.08 @ 1:04AM|#
You libertarians are, unfortunately, really really out of touch with where this country is at right now. Instead of fantasizing about Ron Paul, take a moment to think about why Huckabee and Obama won. The old bogeymen of fiscal conservatism is simply not that relevant to most Americans now.
Mo MoDo|1.5.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Thanks for confirming the Maureen Dowd sighting made by Joel Achenbach of WaPo earlier, but you need to learn how to spell the names of those shitty tweener networks. It's "Nickelodeon".
|1.7.08 @ 9:30PM|#
Regarding the China toy ban issue, there is an underlying
ignorance and slight bigotry involved here by Obama whose portfolio
covers petty state politics. . I guess the perpetuation of negative
yellow peril stereotypes never really gone away. The China whipping
boy had been played out for the past 2 centuries never got
old.
Anyway, China was raped left and right by various forces for the
past 150 years and just getting back on her feet practically
pulling herself by her own bootstrap. Industrial and consumer
standards are obviously lacking but will improve just like the US
post depression era. Now we have greedy consumers blaming the whole
race. Do you know that there are Chinese all over the globe and
some are 10th to 15th generations outside China? The term Chinese
is cultural and also ethnic related not nationality. There are 60+
million ethnic Chinese living outside China and with a combined
economy that is the third largest after the US and Japan. These are
not your uneducated peasant emigrants you see at your Chinese
restaurants either but rather sophisticated technocrats,
hardworking businessmen, creative visionaries and ethically sound
professionals that defied the constant negative propaganda by the
west the Chinese ethnicity had to endure.
Now you got who could be the first "black" president blaming the
whole ethnicity? My 1.5 decade as an Asian living in the US
encountering blatant racism from blacks exclusively gave me some
perspective that "whiteys" only whisper to each other about. If I
were you I would into history and find out what happened before
like Obama and people like him go on shooting their mouths based on
some flawed perceptions? It is like the west blaming Japan for
whaling on endangered species while not realizing that it was the
west that decimated the whale population to fuel the needs of its
consumers. Blaming native Americans for overfishing salmon when it
was the west that decimated the salmon population. Blaming everyone
for global warming went it was the west that raped the natural
resources and caused countless of environmental disaster for the
last 2 centuries.
Obama will make a lot of rookie mistakes and his ignorance and
naiveness just like those Greenpeace treehuggers with holier than
thou entitlements will push the US back into pre 20th century
economy and I can tell you that the once great country of USA will
be given to the left wing dogs. Productivity and hard work will be
replaced by superficiality, shallowness delusionary celebration of
what had came to past. One term is enough to do that as MNCs will
move elsewhere even though they are American companies.
Anyway, many products from other nations were tested to be
dangerous but China being the largest exporter bear the brunt and
now the anti-Sino camp jumped on the bandwagon
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245