Slashdot Mirror
Obama Announces for President, Boosts Broadband
Arlen writes "As many as 17,000 people (according to police estimates) watched Senator Barack Obama officially announce his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois today. He mentioned several things that will interest readers of Slashdot. The Senator said he wanted to free America from 'the tyranny of oil' and went on to promote alternative energy sources such as ethanol — a popular stance in the Midwest where he announced, because of all the corn farmers. He also talked about using science and technology to help those with chronic diseases, which is likely to have been an allusion to his staunch support for stem cell research. Perhaps most of interest to readers here is the following statement halfway through Obama's speech: 'Let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America. We can do that.' Like nearly everything in his speech, this was met with robust applause from the crowd. You can watch a video of the entire speech at Obama's website."
Like Trickle Down economics isn't redistributive?
besides, in large urban centers and suburban areas Gun Control LOWERS crime rates, not increases them.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Is Slashdot going to have a story for every candidate who is running for President and discusses something having to do with energy dependence, stem cell research, and investment in science (which every candidate will have some opinion on)? Or is Obama getting his own story due to editorial preferences? I haven't seen a story for John McCain or Hillary Clinton. Why Obama?
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
I hope you realize that the ONLY reason ethaonol is cheaper than regular fuels is because of the "tax cuts" for ethanol producers are paid for by the taxes of everyone else. The Federal government makes more net money off the sale of a gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does. And anyway, corn ethanol is a dead-end. Requires fossile fuels to plant, fertilize, and harvest. Even switch grass won't get us out of the hole we're in.
Yes, it is added in places like Brazil, but that's because they derive it from sugar and not corn like the US would have to. If they could derive ethanol from any plant cellulose, that would be something.
I am an environmentalist, but ethanol is a BAD BAD idea.
Maybe the issue is more complicated than just non-specific summaries of gun control laws and crime rates? Those might work if we trusted you as an expert, but trust is in short supply in these debates.
I'm putting my money on producing oil from algae. The idea of a biofuel which doesn't require arable land to grow and can be used in common diesel engines seems like the perfect replacement for fossil fuels to me. It would be a much easier transition to make than the transition to other alternative fuels.
And this interests readers of Slashdot ... how?
Latest figures I've seen say if every grain of corn was turned into ethanol that it would only represent 12% of total USA gasoline usage, and that's only gasoline, which doesn't affect other energy usage. And we'd starve Mexico in the process. It's more political fluff on the part of the this article poster, than reality. And does he want to ban alcoholic drinks as well, and pour them into cars? Furthermore, burning ethanol does nothing to significantly reduce CO2 emissions, which I thought he was also unrealistically big on.
Politician and Science -- a very bad mix.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thats like asking not to win. Oil is the true leader of this country. What he should have done was cozied up to oil companies, then fucked them over hard core. That, would have been sweet. Now he's just going to have the full might of the oil companies after him.
Like you said, the problem is the source of the fuel, not the chemical itself. Unfortunately, your post title would lead one to believe the opposite -- you ought to be more careful about that.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
He himself is black! If he's not qualified to judge his own culture's issues, who is?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The "tinyurl" version of your post is:
Obama says many things, but in the end he always votes extremely liberal.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
That he's not Hillary.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Very true. Ethanol is viable only if produced from non-food-related products. Simple math, we don't have enough usable and fertile land to grow food crops AND fuel crops.
Wow, I must have missed the memo. How do black people speak? Cause I thought they were human beings and spoke just like anyone else with all the variations you can find in any group of people.
Bbb bb b... but he's black!
Obama wants to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So do the rest of us. i.e., so do I, and I'm a member of the NRA.
There is nothing wrong (i.e., against the 2nd Amendment) with enforcing gun control laws. It's gun control, not gun banning. I am not a felon (and neither are you, I assume?) so I have nothing to fear from them.
As for redistributive economics, that's another way of saying "letting government do things that it's good at."
+++ATH0
I know the reason Mr. Obama is saying all of these things: He wants to be president. That is all. And I don't say this because he is a democrat. I don't say this because he is black. I say this because he is a politician.
Oh, whoop-de-do! So that disqualifies him?
One one hand that's a valid point, but on the other hand it probably also helped him get enough perspective to see the problem in the first place (as he wasn't mired in it himself).
My (multi-racial) girlfriend's brother exhibits exactly the kind of attitude problem we're talking about, and I can damn well tell you the cause is the "culture," not poverty or discrimination.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I go to a big Ag/Engineering school in the Midwest, Obama will be speaking at our school tomorrow. I'm lucky to live in a unique area of the US where the energy alternatives (mainly ethanol) are actually cheaper than the regular fuels because of all of the tax cuts. If he brings pricing everywhere in the US to the levels it is in my state (about $.02-.05/gallon cheaper than non-ethanol fuels) I'll be much more likely to vote for him.
Me too, I live in Ames, Iowa. And judging by your mention of Obama visiting, you at least live near if not here. Iowa is full of corn, and now full of ethanol production. Scary thing is, we've all be sold on ethanol, but it really isn't a good viable solution in its current form. Let me preface my remarks by saying, I'm all for ethanol as part of our Energy Portfolio. 10% ethanol blends are much better than the former required additives and increases the market for corn, while slightly.
We're tying our food supply to our energy supply, which is very dynamic, inefficient from corn, (When compared to other food products), subject to natural disasters and raises the cost of food and food products in ways that most people don't realize. Right now the big push in the US is ethanol from corn, if we converted all of our crop to ethanol and converted all of our cars to ethanol, we wouldn't come close to the actual demand. However, as we push more demand into the market the cost of corn is going to sky rocket. In the US corn syrup is used for anything sweet that is mass produced. The cost of corn syrup increases and the over all cost of foods increase. The cost of feeding chickens, pigs and cows up, which means the cost of meat and eggs go up. The cost of dairy goes up. All because we've change our food source from a food to an energy because it is being sold as the cure for oil.
At Iowa gas stations, higher ethanol blends receive subsidies and are usually cheaper than their non ethanol counter parts. Which is cool, if you ignore the subsidies cost at the state and federal level. Subsidies that place ethanol in a different tax category as gasoline and isn't subject to the same taxes as regular gasoline. There are many more negative sides and aren't just cost related.
The physics of the matter is ethanol is simply doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline and will actually require more to be burned, when compared to the same volume of gasoline.
Growing plants is hard work and is very seasonal in most of the US (like Iowa) adding to large (but seasonal) price fluctuation. Increasing the demand of ethanol also increases the amount of land needs to grow plants, increases the density required, fertilizer required and is considered by some (ironically, the same people who "care" about the environment) to be an environmental disaster in the making.
Mr. Obama is taking a rather popular (and uninformed) stand, and offering up a solution that has many problems that he doesn't know about, most americans don't know about and will probably never addressed either in a campaign or in the future, but saying "I'm all about this ethanol stuff" in Iowa is required, just ask John McCaine.
I think his issue positions are pretty darned acceptable. He's able to talk nicely to the Right while maintaining a largely traditional Democratic set of positions, without going completely far-Left overboard (see Hillary). Folks who claim Obama has no record are also off-base -- there's quite a bit of legislation he's sponsored, it's generally pretty commendable stuff (as opposed to the traditional solution-in-search-of-a-problem or show-we're-doing-something BS which comes out of Congress these days).
Anyhow, he's running for President, not dictator. Consensus-building is much more important than having the right positions on the issues -- after all, it's Congress that's doing the lawmaking. What we need right now is a President who isn't going to go power-mad overboard again and who can foster a less poisonous political environment. I think Obama is the person to do precisely that.
How many people really need to drive 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year? I live in montana (read: it's cold and there is very very poor public transportation) and I still walk/ride bike every where. Why can't more people do this? The problem with the us is that we are to car centric. When the automobile stops being the american icon is when we will be free of oil. Once that and all it's ramifications settles into your brain, it's quite eye opening what a oil free america would look like.
Money is the root of all evil?
You could not be more right.
Algal biodiesel is *the* way forward to an oil-free, carbon-neutral energy cycle. Now if we can just get the industry to support it.
I'm in favor of incentives to car companies, as opposed to legislating "you MUST produce x number of BD-powered cars."
+++ATH0
I am a Canadian liveral. I disagree. Our gun control has had no effect on gun crime and it cost 2 bil a year. It's poverty that spurs urban violence. Canada has lower rates due to social programs. Europe as well. Guns are a complete red herring.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
This country is not yet ready for a black prez, particularly the one whose father is from a predominantly Muslim country and who has the last name that rhymes with Osama. If he goes on ballot, Republicans will win again by unleashing a horrific misinformation campaign right before the election. Sadly, in order to win presidency in this country one needs to be a white, Christian-god-fearing male. I'd love to be wrong about this, though.
Have you been actually following the issues? They may both be democrats, but Hillary and Obama are night and day on their historical stances on issues. Obama was against the Iraq was from the start; Hillary just got on the bandwagon when it looked politically safe. Hillary sponsors bills that help protect people against some real or imagined danger; Obama sponsors bills that support some useful function. Etc.
My inclination to believe that people are generally reasonable beings[1] compels me to believe that folks are going to look past race and gender on this election -- actually, to the extent that there is a black voting block, it's largely composed of folks who are inclined to vote for Hillary because they were so happy with Bill. I think this is unfortunate, and hope positions will change as we get closer to the election -- I liked Bill for the most part myself, but Hillary != Bill.
[1] - Call me naive if you like -- but I find that my quality of life is significantly better if I avoid cynicism.
Which is more important? Buying military grade weapons at walmart on a whim, or lowering health care costs and taking care of people's health, education and repaying the insane debt we're in thanks to the republicans?
:)
When the results of global warming release natures fury, you can shoot at the ocean as it trespasses on your property in Texas.
I'm being a little silly but there are more important things than gun control. I hope no one basis their vote on that single issue. There is so much more at stake in our daily lives. If you live for guns and guns alone you have a problem. I beleive in the right to self defend yourself, own a gun etc... but there really are other important issues and we only get two fucking choices unfortunately. Hopefully no one actually does vote based on a single issue... but this country is certainly full of people that do.
horse shit. even if you took away all the guns, which never happens, crooks find something else to use in the commiting of crimes, only with gun control they can feel safer knowing the house they are breaking into won't have anyone armed to defend it. remmeber, the only thing that will stop a rampaging lunatic with a gun, is another person with a gun.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I agree with you. And yes, I remember the Brady Bill.
However, I think Obama's priorities are far, far away from making the possession of firearms unilaterally a crime. This would also be an excellent example of something he'd be willing to compromise on. How about enforcing laws on the books to make sure that only licensed gun owners can purchase guns rather than passing new and pointlessly restrictive laws?
+++ATH0
I think the fact that you think "compromise" is a dirty word says it all.
+++ATH0
No, it cost $2 billion to set-up. And a very large part of this cost was to accommodate people who were trying to circumvent (or simply avoid) registering in the first place.
Gun registration has never been about crime reduction, and more than the fact that the Province makes me register my car reduces traffic accidents. The idea of gun registration is about investigating gun crime, and in this regard the gun registry has been a major boon for law enforcement officials (note that every time the Conservatives start making noise about scrapping it, the police unions step up and plead their case that the registry routinely aids in their ability to investigate gun crimes).
Maybe we should just make the registry a system that needs to pay for itself, and we can increase the registration fee by $500 per gun owner. Then there will be no operating cost to the average non-gun-owning taxpayer.
Yaz.
Hey, instead of arguing about methanol and oil, how about just consuming less? Use energy efficient products, and shop wisely. All of you. Do you really need all your cars?
I used to believe in gun control.
Then I saw 9/11, Patriot Act, the war on Iraq and the general crackdown on civil-liberties. I saw a questionable first election and a _very_ questionable re-election. I never imagined the US could be in such danger.
It's conceivable that a people can have to rise against its government to defend the country against it. If the government has the exclusive right to the possession of weapons, then it becomes very hard to win.
Allowing people to have guns may be risky, but I would rather take that risk.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Had ross perot not looked like a jackass in 1992, he could've won then. He had the means, money and support.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
By increasing spending on social programs like prescription Medicare and schooling?
It was never this admins focus. There was an increase. That was a good step.
As for the bullying, we removed the Taliban and finished the Gulf War that Bush and Clinton had not finished.
This one is now wandering into "fox news is my only news source" terroritory. Removing the taliban had as much effect on global terrorism as Clinton had on teen abstinance. The Iraq war has eroded away not only your prestige in the global theatre but also eroded your economy by inducing a massive debt, your cohesion as it's divided your nation, and your security because every orphan you make today is a guy with a backpack bomb tommorow. Security was not the focus. I understand that in order for the american empire to persist you need to control the oil. Not just have oil but keep it away from the 1.3 billion strong chinese. This unspoken but obvious goal of the Iraq war is unethical however I would support it. But the Admin botched it. They are inciting a civil war, shattering their beachhead and they borrowed from their biggest threat to do it. They also weren't paying attention when China secured moderate amoutns of oil from America's much underestimated nothern neighbor.
Do you think we should wait for Canada to keep the terrorists at bay? With what? Snowballs?
You seem to be doing a great job at promoting terrorism with bullets. Snowballs would be just as effective as what yoru doing now. Your liberties are at a all time low as well. The US has never been so hated abroad as now. The US dollar has been at an all time low. The US now expends 2 mil everytime someone yells "bomb". I think the "terrorists have won" and it's gee dubya that did most fo the work. Who are we kidding, it was really cheny ruinning the show. Cheny won one for the terrorist. Good job Cheny.
As for Canada are you aware that Canada fought the US to a "draw" in 1812, Canada did as much or more in WWI, Canada also did the same in the european theatre of WWII. Did you know that your Secret Services as well as britians are partly the creation of a Canadian? Canada has it's own problems and lately a beligerent US is one of them. From protectionist tarrifs to the attitudes of the "average" american. America is seriously trying to alienate it's largest trade partner.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Everyone knows that the color of a person reflects on their intelligence. Blond hair? Room temperature IQ. It is a fact.
Well, we act like it anyway. We know it is a joke and yet, can you truly honestly say that if you are introduced to a brunette and a blond you do not instantly make an judgement on their IQ?
The problem is not as simple as racism. Well, unless you are an tv-show host. I think it is closer to a negative spiral.
Blondes are stupid, so teachers spend less time on them, so they receive less education, so they truly are more stupid. Blondes then learn that being stupid can work so pretend to be even more stupid to "fit in" wich reinforces the idea that blondes are stupid.
There are others as well. People with glasses can't be athletic. Redheads are feisty. Very simple outward apperances (remember, glasses are nowadays optional so that super athlete may have contacts or laser surgery) that nonetheless most of us use instinctevely.
Oh you can claim you are above them but you are not.
I know you are not. You refer to American black people. Think you are PC? Well actually it is a horrible genetic slur against millions of americans. The "half-breeds". Simple fact is that millions of so-called blacks are in fact the result of interbreeding between different genetic races. If one parent is black and the other white why is their offspring called black? Is one gene superior to the other or something? In theory, since a popular racist theory is that "blacks" are strong and "whites" are smart, then at least some "greys" should be the combination of the best qualities of both and be superior to either. That is afterall how farmers create new animals/crops, mixing the best of two breeds to create a new superior animal/crop.
And why would a grey need black rolemodels at all? Why wouldn't a white rolemodel be just as good?
For that matter what is wrong with a yellow rolemodel, or a red one or a light brown one? Can I only have a rolemodel with extreme freckles?
By the very fact that you claim blacks need black rolemodels you are a racist yourselve. You are saying a rolemodel should be chosen based on their race and that is the essence of racism, to judge a person by their race in ANYWAY.
Can you only admire a person of your own race, surely not, do you then suggest that blacks are not capable of admiring a person of another race?
Lovely thing racism, isn't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
He is both black and white. Why would the race of anyone mean anything about his capabilities as a leader? All we care about is that we have someone who is smart enough to lead the country. We've been stuck with a moron for the past 6 years. It would be very refreshing to have someone who is intelligent for a change.
Who's this 'we' shit, and who pays for it? Sounds like Universal Service Fee part II. I'm not interested in spending $25,000 per person to connect a bunch of people who choose to live in the Bayou. Broadband access is not critical to life, and I'm not interested in subsidizing it.
Obama has a lot of great ideas with no funding.
Speaking as a European, I really hope this guy gets in, he would do wonders for the global image of the United States. I'm not sure even the quite-worldly Slashdot crowd realise what damage Bush has wrought upon America's relationship with the rest of the planet. As previous posters have commented though, I'm not sure middle America is ready for him. Like many Europeans, I have enormous respect for the America ideal and I know that your government doesn't really represent you. But on the other hand, literally, it does. Good luck guys! Don't let the oil companies rig it. Unintentional pun, honest
What other way could we evaluate a political candidate? What is wrong with looking at a persons voting history, public comments and personal preferences to try to determine if this person is worth our vote? Would you have us simply evaluate him on how often the media falls over themselves to praise him, or how large his promises are during his candidacy announcement or campaign? How often has that turned out to be a measure of a president or politician's character or leadership skills? Ever?
The simple fact is that he voted for a very extreme measure of gun control and if someone cares about their second amendment rights, I would think that that someone might pay attention to this.
I don't really think race is a factor for most folks any more...if I thought Obama was the better candidate, I'd vote for him. Rice also could be a serious candidate.
Most folks I know don't really care much about race any more, that's mostly older, WW2-generation people who were raised in that culture. I think just about anybody from the '60s on (except those in hard-core racist areas, I guess) are much less caring about these things.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
If Perot had not run Bush may have won and 9/11 might not have happened due to Clinton's Military/Intelligence gutting during the 90s. Do we really want another Clinton, we already had another Bush. Ruddy/Condi in 2008
Science is the Real TRUTH!
near. No dag nabbit, I said the senator is a N...BONG! Seriously, I guess no one asked how he was going to PAY for all this "good will"...perhaps tax increases on "the rich", yeah, that always works....NOT. Go to the treasury and see what happens when liberals "punish" the rich. More of the money they would have INVESTED, gets shipped off shore to some non taxable account. People still don't get it. Tax cuts have ALWAYS increased the money going INTO the treasury.
You are right. Most Americans have shifted their prejudices to socially accepted forms of bigotry. Obama is a little funny looking(like Kerry was). That will hurt his chances. If he was really fat, he wouldn't have a chance in hell.
Sounds more like a man who's honest about his convictions. Unlike most politicians who back away from making any statements which might lose them votes with a well-organised pressure group.
Consider, for instace, Bill Clinton. It seems very unlikely to me, just going on his character, that he would not have been happy to sign a law restricting gun ownership. But in eight years of ofice he never made any progress on that. Foreign affairs is really the only place a President can make and change policy and get his way.
Even if I were a gun nut, I wouldn't make that the number one issue. For one thing, Presidents can't push through laws without the support of both Congress and the Senate. The next President will have lots of issues with more support to spend his political capital on.
The only reason for them not providing real bandwidth everywhere in the country is because they
will see less profit from it than with the urban areas. It's not that they won't make money
rolling out broadband in rural areas- far from it. It's that they can clear 3-5 times as much
or more from someone in a major city than in a farm town or on the farm.
They don't need subsidies. They never really did. What they need to get told to do is if it's
not a dead loss, of which they need to honestly prove without magic bookkeeping, they have to provide
service in the less lucrative areas- period.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
You say that like it's a good thing.
Two sides of the same coin, my friend. Two sides of the same coin...
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
"..Two sides of the same coin, my friend. Two sides of the same coin...
I hear this a lot, but really do you believe that if Bush & Co had not won the Whitehouse in 2000 that we would be in Iraq right now? Do you really think that Gore had the same obsession with Sadaam Hussain as the NeoCons? Do you think that the Democrats would have blocked Health Care reform or protected oil company profits to give them the highest quarter profits for any company ever?
It's true that Democrats have their own flavors of corruption, but to say they are the same is ridiculous to me and often just an excuse not to vote.
There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
The 2nd amendment was written in a time when a small town of armed men could defend themselves against the British who were not much better armed, or, at worst, equal.
Could you elaborate as to what, exactly, you mean by "failsafe?" Do you mean that if the US government were, in your opinion, to get so out of control that the only recourse was to overthrow it, do you honestly believe you (and perhaps a few hundred of your buddies) could? You're seriously outmanned and outgunned.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I'm a white guy (entitled to speak for all of them!) and I would vote for Obama over Hillary any time.
Hillary's dynastic candidacy bothers me for the same reason that the dynastic candidacy of George W Bush did, when I first heard about him in 1999 or 98 or whenever it was. I immediately assumed that I was only hearing about this guy, not because of any competence he had, but because of who his Daddy was. And guess what.
It would, if those fighting in Iraq were the ordinary citizens. They're not. They're either the Iraqi Army of the Saddam era, who disappeared into the woodwork to fight a guerilla campaign, or the Al Qaida-allied religious freedom fighters. They both want the Americans and British out, and both have had serious miliary training, have access to some serious weapons, communication equipment, and intelligence. A bunch of civilians with limited or no training is not going to put up much of a resistance.
Plus, and far more importantly, the situation in Iraq is inherently different to an uprising in the US. The US can't pacify the resistance in Iraq as brutally as it would a rebellion in its own country. First of all, the US army doesn't speak Arabic (it keeps firing its interpreters), has really, REALLY shitty intelligence (see the first point), and has the eyes of the world staring at it to make sure it is there to promote freedom and set up a free government. Obviously controlling a rebellion in your own country means you will stop at nothing, as it's *your* government, and *your* country at risk. It's an all-or-nothing deal. Clearly that's not the case for the US in Iraq. There is no holding back. Look at Vietnam - that's a more accurate comparison. The US really DID feel like its ass was on the line (damned commies). The US obliterated entire villages of folks who were allegedly helping the Viet Minh. The only fighters who survived that were those soldiers materially supported by the north, not farmers or other civilians. They got roasted, yet they were armed. By your logic, those farmers should have been enough to send the US packing, yet clearly that wasn't the case.
As I said in my original post, if the US population decided the current president is an ass and storms government installations across the US, either the US government fights back (using its far superior weaponry, training, tactics, logistics, infrastructure, command hierarchy, etc.) and destroys them. Handguns are no match for a tank.
Obama is an excellent speaker and is very charismatic. On top of that, there is a media love fest that is just oozing over the fellow. This is where the warm and fuzzy feelings for him come from.
While the ability to speak is a big bonus (though apparently not required - see GWB), it doesn't make a good president on its own. Obama has done an excellent job saying nothing other then warm fuzzy shit that people want to hear.
He talks endlessly about compromise and understanding, but he has yet to spit out an actual innovative proposal on an issue that puts his 'philosophy' into practice. As far as I can tell from few things he actually has a REAL position on, they are straight across the board moderate democratic party line proposals.
Obama is a great speaker, but I don't trust someone who speaks of warm and fuzzy things yet refuses to take an actual stand. It is still early though. I don't discount Obama. He still has plenty of time to make some actual proposals with meat on them. I just think that the big media orgy and public love festival surrounding Obama is horrifically premature. See if you still like the guy after he actually takes a stand on an issue.
It's the way that you and others brand all who disagree as "liberal". Sure, I've no problem with being liberal, I'd rather be liberal than fascist, but the word liberal is thrown about like an insult. There's also the implication that anyone who opposes some new authoritarian law must hold a viewpoint at the other extreme (i.e., liberal), when actually it would be opposed by anyone who does not support authoritarianism.
And I'm not liberal in the not-conservative sense, I'm liberal in the freedom-and-not-authoritarianism sense. Ironically, "liberals" these days are behaving rather conservatively, in wanting to keep things as they are rather than throw out long established freedoms for the sake of a supposed war on terror.
Speaking of points going over heads, allow me to rephrase, your honor.
The most relevant thing about Obama (IMO) is his courageous anti-Iraq War speech, given back in 2002 when the wounds of 9/11 were still fresh.
Not his name. Not his race.
His position. His courage. His forsight.
He's quite an individual, a person worthy of my respect.
And, although I agree that it won't happen, I would vote for a 95-year-old African-American/Asian-American lesbian aitheist with a bum knee and poor vision- assuming I agreed with her platform.
In my opinion, this "Hillary is a woman" and "Obama is black" chatter is insulting to women and blacks. So what? OF COURSE a woman/black is just as capable, just as deserving of our consideration. To suggest anything else is silly.
barack to the future?