Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

The Anti-Earth Hour Campaign...

If you haven't read the media blitz about it, or seen the movies, or been forced to watch Al Gore's "documentary", I'm curious. What rock have you been hiding under? Well, in case you've been cut off from all human contact since the 1980s (if you have, how are you reading this anyway?), Samantha Burns reminds us that…

Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Vancouver have joined two dozen cities around the world that plan to turn their lights off for one hour later this year in a worldwide campaign to raise awareness about global warming.

As she says, "we must combat this globalized gullability, but how?"

One answer might be to sign up for the Anti-Earth Hour. She's started an online petition. I encourage you all to go read it and sign it.

Hat-tip: 123-Beta.

Barack "Hussein" Obama?

It's only a controversy if you want to play the "race" card. It's his middle name. It was his father's middle name. His mother gave him that name to honor his father, even though he (Senator Obama's father) ended up leaving her anyway.

So to some Democrats calling him by his full name is "demeaning". At least, that's the complaint. Why would it be demeaning? It's his name after all.

Yet another issue to divide us. Some people I listened to on the radio said it had racist connotations. Anti Islamic connotations. Whatever.

As Mark Levin ventured tonight, I wonder how C.A.I.R. sees that attitude. Maybe the Democrats will see the "race" card backfire? Somehow I doubt it.

Why do some conservatives seem to relish using the hard socialist candidate's full name? Could it be the negative connotations given the name by a recently executed former dictator?

When my mother called me by my full name, it was usually because I was in trouble, or because I was out and she wanted to get my attention to get me to come home.

Senator Obama doesn't use his full name in everyday or even political life. I don't use mine in everyday life either. I don't think he's ashamed of his middle name, and I don't think he has any reason to be. He didn't choose it after all, his mother did.

What a silly issue.

Sean Hannity has been pushing the race card a little heavy lately himself. Frankly I'm a bit tired of listening to that harangue.

He called for a rejection of "The Honorable Minister" Louis Farrakhan's support. So did Hillary Clinton in the debate, sounding a bit like a scold as she said "Good" when he said he'd reject as well as denounce him. She blew it too, when she was pressing for the rejection saying…

"We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching."

That sounds an awful lot like a call for censorship to me. I guess she's got more in common with John McCain than I thought.

I personally find Farrakhan's rhetoric distasteful and shameful, but I wouldn't stop him from saying his piece. It's important that "Honorable Ministers" that are anti-semites and race baiters be exposed for who they are.

Sean Hannity and Sen. Clinton were both right in pressing Sen. Obama to reject support from the so-called "Honorable Minister". It's done now, let's move on can't we? Why does this campaign have to be about race? It should be about ideology and policies.

But, as I said, Sean's been pushing it a bit too much lately. He's all over trying to get Sen. Obama to say something about his church leader. Why?

It's something about supporting "black values", and the "black work ethic". He goes on and on about it on his show. Well, I don't mind the idea of "black values" and a "black work ethic". I think it's overboard to compare talking about them to talking about "white values" and the "white work ethic".

Sure, when you examine it closely, it's got a strong element of racism in the notion of "black values" and so on. Sean gets all up in arms about how conservatives would be treated if they spoke about "white values". Like I said,  I'm getting really tired of the harangue.

There's also a lot of talk about Michelle Obama's thesis too. From CBS News…

What's in the thesis?

Obama, who concentrated in sociology and received a certificate in African-American studies, examined how the attitudes of black alumni have changed over the course of their time at the University. "Will they become more or less motivated to benefit the Black community?" Obama wrote in her thesis.

After surveying 89 black graduates, Obama concluded that attending the University as an undergraduate decreased the extent to which black alumni identified with the black community as a whole.

I guess the perception among conservatives is that she's a racist herself.

What bothers me isn't what her conclusions were. After all, it's not necessarily a bad thing to decrease your identification with an isolated subset of the community and to increase your identification with the community as a whole.

That may not be the conclusion she came to, but even so… She's not running for President, her husband is, and he's done a good job of trying to keep "race" out of it.

No, what bothers me is the certificate in "African-American" studies. That's a racist topic in itself. Why it is that we need to turn the concept of being an American into being a hyphenated American is beyond me. That doesn't promote an end to racism, it emphasizes our differences and sets up a division between us.

Speaking of which, does anyone still remember Mrs. Kerry, an obviously white woman, speaking about her "African-American" heritage? Do you remember the reactions it got?

The thing is, she's got more of a right to claim that she's an "African-American" than any third or fourth generation black person born and raised in the South. After all, she was born in Portuguese East Africa.

This just points out that when we think of "African-American" we think of black people. It's a racist label meant to divide us rather than unite us. We've really got to get rid of these hyphenated designations. Aren't we all simply "Americans"?

My problems with Barack Obama don't have anything to do with race. My problems with Hillary Clinton don't have anything to do with gender either.

It's foolish to criticize them based on their race or their gender. Neither one of them had the opportunity to choose their race or their gender. We shouldn't let them, or anyone else define them by it.

Both Democratic candidates are about as far left as anyone in their parties can be and be successful. Ideologically, there's about as much difference between them as there is between the two halves of a single pea in a pod. About the only way to be sure of a Presidential run while being further left is to be Ralph Nader.

That's what my objection to them both is. We really should be criticizing them on their character or lack of it, and on their ideas, or lack of them.

Hillary Clinton claims to be ready on "day one" to lead and to "defeat the Republicans". She claims to have the advantage of experience. If I recall correctly, "experience" is what you get when you do things wrong for a long time. Mrs. Clinton's husband isn't helping her much either by saying things like "If you elect me". I guess we know who's really running for office now.

Barack Obama is long on "change" rhetoric, but short on substance. His politics tell us though what sort of "change" he'll bring us. Get ready for a hard turn toward socialism if not outright Marxism if he's elected.

I think I'll hold my nose and vote for John McCain after all.