A Black Man is President Because of The Internet

Better stated; A Black man is President because the Internet is a meritocracy and merit is power.

Stated differently; Because the nature of the Internet supports the technical requirements of a meritocracy, a Black man is president.

However stated best, I think health care reform will pass because of the Internet and because our Black president is smarter than the average guy and understands what the ‘gentiles’ don’t.  The Internet is all powerful.

Source: In a reflection of a legislative strategy that has left no stone unturned, President Barack Obama on Monday called on like-minded bloggers to help his administration keep the heat on lawmakers to pass health care reform.

“It is important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress because what happens is there is a default position of inertia here in Washington,” the president said during an invitation-only conference call. “And pushing against that, making sure that people feel that the desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country, every single day, when they are worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not… People have to feel that in a visceral way. And you guys can help deliver that better than just about anybody.”

In a roughly 25-minute session with a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, the president also asked for help combating disinformation about his health care plan.

“I know the blogs are best at debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets,” he said. “And that is why you are going to play such an important role in our success in the weeks to come.”

Yes, Mr. President, we will help you!

Yes We Can!

, , ,

  1. #1 by Weer'd Beard on July 21, 2009 - 3:39 am

    Or an electorate more interested in superficial features than underlying issues.

    We are now experiencing George W Bush’s 3rd Term!

    And of course my criticism is bi-partisan, as John McCain likely wouldn’t be much better.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on July 21, 2009 - 3:57 am

    Weer’d Beard :

    I must admit: I’ve yet to compare apples and oranges, but I can’t even conceive of comparing features and issues.

    What are you talking about?

  3. #3 by Cliff Lyon on July 21, 2009 - 7:36 am

    Weerd,

    While your loyalty to the anti-progress side is admirable among other rednecks, to the thinking world, it is pathetic.

    Your slip is showing. Ooops

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on July 21, 2009 - 8:38 am

    I hope we soon reach the point where more people get their news from the Web than the old media. If someone repeats a lie on a blog, I can correct it. If it’s on TV, all I can do is yell at the TV set.

  5. #6 by Kevin Owens on July 21, 2009 - 9:24 am

    I like Mr. Obama, but I’ve been a little disappointed in his performance so far. We’re “staying the course” in the Middle East, rather than getting it over with and coming home. The economy sucks but the administration has bailed out rich financiers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. We still don’t have a workable health care system or a climate change mitigation policy.

    Pollution restrictions and affordable health care may happen with time and patience, but I’m still miffed about the bailout for the rich. When Mr. Obama talked about the middle class and wanting to improve the economic conditions of ordinary Americans, I thought he was sincere. But I haven’t yet seen him “walk the walk.”

    He’s got some good ideas. I’d like to see him deliver.

    • #7 by Cliff Lyon on July 21, 2009 - 12:17 pm

      Kevin,

      Sounds like you are for the liberal agenda. Did I miss something?

      • #8 by Kevin Owens on July 21, 2009 - 12:56 pm

        It’s more nuanced than that. Health care reform is a systematic problem which requires a pragmatic, not ideological, solution. The rising cost of health care is an obvious problem, which doesn’t require a liberal ideology to see. There’s a lot of waste in the health care industry, and it’s time to cut the fat, so Americans can get a better deal for their money.

        Cleaning up the environment also seems obvious. It’s just good public policy. We all want clean air. Unless someone has a financial interest in polluting, or has been fooled by someone who does, I expect he would desire a clean, beautiful planet, as I do.

        Environmentalism also fits nicely into the purity ethic, which conservatives tend to value more than liberals. And preserving the ecosystem like it is, instead of making it worse? There’s nothing more conservative than the status quo.

        At present, I would classify myself as a moderate conservative, which is left of where I used to be. I attribute this to a decline in my value of authority, thanks to a very disappointing George W. Bush. I don’t feel like I can trust someone anymore just because he pretends to be on the right team. Mr. Bush was a wolf in conservative’s clothing. (Just look at how much debt he ran up! Irresponsible and disgusting.)

        You can rest assured, though, I’m not blue all the way through. I’m still against gay marriage, affirmative action, high taxes for the poor and middle class, unrestricted abortions, generally being obnoxious, and licentiousness. I am still very much in favor of tradition, efficiency, purity, duty, small business, defense, immigration restrictions, and private property.

  6. #9 by jdberger on July 21, 2009 - 9:45 am

    I’m very satisfied with President Obama.

    He hasn’t followed up on any of his wackier campaign promises.

    He’s been great for the gun industry. It’s probably the only part of the economy that’s experiencing rapid growth. He even passed a pretty major pro-gun bill.

    And if you listened to the Sotomayor hearings, she sounded just like Chief Justice Roberts.

    Hooray for Obama.

    • #10 by Richard Warnick on July 21, 2009 - 10:47 am

      At their confirmation hearings, Roberts and Sotomayor both claimed to be moderates. Of course, Roberts was lying– he went hard right and never looked back. I suspect Sotomayor was telling the truth.

  7. #11 by Richard Warnick on July 21, 2009 - 10:44 am

    More on debunking myths: Have you seen the video of Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) at a townhall meeting, trying to convince right-wing crazies that President Obama is a U.S. citizen?

    They also went after Castle for his “yes” vote on cap-and-trade, not because of anything in the bill but because Glenn Beck says global warming is a hoax.

  8. #12 by brewski on July 21, 2009 - 11:33 am

    I truly would like Obama to succeed. I want universal health care, an effective greenhouse gas tax, and an effective stimulus bill. From what I see so far I don’t think we have any of those. So, you see, one could call my desires “progressive”, but I still think Obama has done a pretty poor job on these.

  9. #13 by glenn on July 21, 2009 - 1:09 pm

    What does the internet have to do with a black man being president? Why would it matter? The first president of the Continental Congress was “black”, way back when. I assumed we were moving into a “color blind” society. The internet helped elect a popular progressive, what does race have to do with it?

    It is typical of progressives to not see how this statement, right from the top post is inherently racist.

    I recall a few people being upset when another poster made the statement( factual) that Obama benefited from some of the electorate that voted for him just because he was black. What gives? There should be no references to people’s race in this new society we have made. Do you disagree? Explain.

    Besides, Obama is white from his mothers side. Are you of the eugenic variety that judges race by the color of a person’s skin? If so your post should read the internet helped a mulatto become president.

    Racism is alive and well in the subconscious of many Americans. This post proves it.

    • #14 by Kevin Owens on July 21, 2009 - 1:16 pm

      Race isn’t something we should ignore. We all have an ethnic identity and heritage which is an important part of who we are. I am very proud of my own ancestry. I think our society is mature enough to appreciate the diverse tapestry of our nation, rather than demanding that such an important component of our identity be ignored.

      Thus, society should not be color-blind. The law, however, should be. There is no common good in creating a law which favors one race over another. We should all be treated equally by the law, regardless of ethnicity.

      Also, you do a disservice to eugenics by equating it with ignorant, plain racism. “Judging race by the color of a person’s skin” is not the same thing as being one of the “eugenic variety.”

  10. #15 by glenn on July 21, 2009 - 1:25 pm

    Race isn’t something we should ignore. I disagree, the focus evolves racism.

    Fine you are proud, now keep it at home. It has no relevance. As you state, we should all be treated equally under the law, though we currently absolutely are not.

    Eugenicists are the very people that labeled people mulatto, quadroon, octaroon and the like Kevin, so use that information as you will. For Cliff he is a rather unsophisticated racist, if you are darker than him, you must be “black”, how does he determine Latino? He would not be the specific eugenicist that made the terms I pointed out.

    It is blatant racism.

    • #16 by Kevin Owens on July 21, 2009 - 1:44 pm

      Of course it is relevant. The language we speak, the food we eat, the gods we worship, the way we look at the world, the values we hold dear, and the way we live all have their roots in our ancestry. Race, ethnicity, and culture all contribute towards who we are.

      We are influenced by our families and our ancestors. To believe otherwise is ignorant.

      Ethnicity is not relevant to the law, but it is relevant to public life, because of its unique contribution to identity.

  11. #17 by glenn on July 21, 2009 - 1:37 pm

    Have you noticed that when you read about crimes in major newsprint, the race of the criminal is never described? Just their sex and name, then what they purportedly did.

    The crime and the victims are what matter, not what color they are. Same as politics hopefully. Just because a person views themselves as “progressive” gives them no license to foster racial attitudes in the conversation.

    Just go to Canada and try to talk like this in any official capacity, and you can well end up charged with a codified hate crime. Guaranteed. Incitement to racism is the crime.

  12. #18 by glenn on July 21, 2009 - 2:13 pm

    Nope, sorry Kevin, not allowed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of which the hate crimes portion is attached in political discourse. It may be relevant to you, but it isn’t valid to anyone else. You are though free to express and live as you please in private.

    Race can only be used in the context you described, like Hungarian cusine. It may contribute to what you think you are, but it has no place in public politcal discourse.

  13. #19 by glenn on July 21, 2009 - 2:17 pm

    Place Satomoyors comments within the Canadian context, and there is no way she could be a judge. She harbors ethnocentric attitudes about white people and falls woefully short of an unbiased person required to be a Supreme Court justice. We all know people have prejuduce, more so in some than others. To actually have such statements, on record, in print, is grounds for instant disqualification there. Period.

    America has gone stupid on this issue. If we are equal, it is about time the people start acting like it.

  14. #20 by jdberger on July 21, 2009 - 3:52 pm

    At their confirmation hearings, Roberts and Sotomayor both claimed to be moderates. Of course, Roberts was lying– he went hard right and never looked back.

    Do you have some particular opinions written by the Chief Justice that you disagree with, Richard? Please. Expand.

    Which ones, and how do you figure that they are “hard right” opinions?

    • #21 by Richard Warnick on July 21, 2009 - 8:49 pm

      No time for OT research assignments, but I will note that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes Roberts lied at his confirmation hearing:

      “Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was. But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

  15. #22 by jdberger on July 22, 2009 - 8:54 am

    So, Richard, you’re suggesting that had Harry Reid known what kind of a Justice Roberts was going to be, he would have voted against his confirmation?

    • #23 by Richard Warnick on July 22, 2009 - 9:10 am

      I’m just saying that Roberts lied about being a moderate, while I believe Sotomayor is really a moderate. In fact, Sotomayor was originally appointed by a Republican (Bush 41) and her views are to the right of the justice she’s replacing.

  16. #24 by brewski on July 22, 2009 - 9:20 am

    Richard, please provide an example of a specific Supreme Court ruling where you think Roberts was legally wrong. In doing so please cite the law in which Roberts interpreted incorrectly.

    • #25 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 9:31 am

      I’ll bite. The Heller decision. And I have four highly educated, experienced and well regarded Supreme Court justices that agree with me. Next question?

  17. #26 by brewski on July 22, 2009 - 9:42 am

    I am looking it up.
    In the meantime I am not sure your opinion of 4 justices is shared at the moment by Mr. Ricci or Mrs. Kelo.

  18. #27 by jdberger on July 22, 2009 - 9:44 am

    So, Jim, how was an “Individual Rights” interpretation as opposed to an “Authoritarian Interpretation” a “hard right” opinion?

    FAIL.

    Please try again.

    • #28 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 10:03 am

      brew and jd:

      You both miss my point, which is the court is evenly divided (as the nation) on various issues. The arguments are compelling on both sides of the various issues and, in the end, it boils down to which side Kennedy agrees.

      And jd: I absolutely refuse to engage you further on the 2nd Amend decision. If you want answers to the questions you ask, then read the dissent to Heller.

  19. #29 by jdberger on July 22, 2009 - 10:43 am

    You decided to jump in, Jim.

    Regarding the dissent – the abysmal quality of the work makes one wonder if the Justice even read the predicate case material. It was a little embarassing.

    • #30 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 11:16 am

      Right. And if Kennedy had swung the other way, you’d be saying the same thing about the majority opinion. Remember, there is a nearly equal number of scholars who think the dissent was reasoned and supportable under the predicate case material as who think otherwise. So what’s your point? You won, have a beer, send me your name and address and I’ll even pay for it!

  20. #31 by brewski on July 22, 2009 - 11:13 am

    My point was that the Heller case is not a good example that “Roberts lied”. The 2nd amendment is sufficiently confusing that reasonable people could come down on that one either way.

    On a broader point, the supreme court is not supposed to be some “super legislature” that reflects the will of the people. That is what the House, Senate, President and the states’ equivalents are supposed to do. If you don’t like the law or the constitution then get them changed. Don’t pick judges who will make some ruling based on public opinion.

  21. #32 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 11:18 am

    The 2nd amendment is sufficiently confusing that reasonable people could come down on that one either way.

    Thank you! Although I am certain that your statement will send chills down jd’s spine!

  22. #33 by brewski on July 22, 2009 - 12:12 pm

    My goal is not to make jd happy or anyone else.

    My point was that the Heller case was not a good one to demonstrate that “Roberts lied”.

    If I were to read the 2nd amendment and rule on it as it is written, I would conclude that states or DC cannot just ban guns that some people have a reasonable reason for wanting.

    However, I would also agree that states and DC may regulate guns in a reasonable manner the same way we regulate cars and driving. I think it would be constitutional to require a safety class, take a test, have a license and not be a criminal. But reasobable regulations are not the same thing as outright bans.

  23. #34 by jdberger on July 22, 2009 - 12:34 pm

    Right…”reasonable regulations”.

    Like a literacy test for voting? Safety class for public gatherings?

    Brewski – I think that you may be confusing Rights with Privileges.

    FAIL.

    Jim, Stevens asserted that Miller was convicted under the NFA. He wasn’t. Isn’t that substantive? Miller is the predicate 2A case. (Richard cites it all the time – though incorrectly). Isn’t it important to have the facts straight?

    My point was that the Heller case was not a good one to demonstrate that “Roberts lied”.

    This is correct, though.

    • #35 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 12:43 pm

      Brew:

      I told you jd’s panties would be ruffled! :)

  24. #36 by brewski on July 22, 2009 - 3:02 pm

    jd raises a non-trivial point.

    The Bill of Rights is an explicit acknowledgement that governments have a tendency to over-reach their power. The Bill of Rights does not say “you have the right to free speech” is says “Congress shall make no law….” which explicitly limits the power of the government.

    Having said that, virtually all of the rights in bill of rights have some exceptions which have been upheld by the supreme court.

    Just because you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to say something libelous.

    Just because you have the right to free religion does not mean you can commit polygamy.

    Just because you have the right not to have an unreasonable search and seizure, does not mean that the police cannot search your car with probable cause.

    So, fully allowing the right to own a gun might not be infringed by requiring a safety test.

    However, we should all always be vigillent to make sure the government does not overstep its bounds, as has happened in the past.

  25. #37 by James Farmer on July 22, 2009 - 3:15 pm

    brew:

    Good point. And, I would add, requiring a background check prior to purchase of a gun – from anyone – would also be within permissible – i.e., constitutional – exceptions.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: