The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):

  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”

Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Friday, March 14, 2008

The Ferraro/Obama spat

Geraldine Ferraro said one thing that you just can't!

It is just not cricket in this Democratic primary campaign to say what everyone already knows — that Barack Obama, a man who four years ago was an obscure Illinois state senator, would never be considered Presidential material if he were white. Of course, she also said that he wouldn't if he were a woman — which just isn't so; just look at Ferraro's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, who is only slightly more qualified for the office, or in fact, you might look at Ferraro herself, who was a Vice-Presidential nominee with essentially no qualifications!

The Democratic Party simply cannot abide anyone saying things like that, but that party has simply given itself over to group politics. It isn't what someone stands for, or that person's qualifications, that matter to the Democrats, but just whether they can contribute to the party's desire for "diversity" in gender, race, or whatever.

Just look at their rules for picking convention delegates — certain seats are reserved for women and others for men. (Of course, that any of the seats are reserved for men is something of a surprise!) You can't just vote for convention delegates; you vote for male delegates and female delegates.

The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party is amazing. But what can you expect? That's why I'm happy to be a Republican.


Jack Rudd said...

This is something I've posted on another two sites already, but why not a third?

I've just been thinking about the race and sex things, and come to the conclusion that it's no coincidence that the only black and the only woman are the last two Democratic candidates left standing.

It's the good old plurality spoiler effect again. If you're a racist who will only vote for a black candidate, you vote Obama. If you're a racist who will only vote for a white candidate, you'll vote for one of the many white candidates who stood at the start. The same thing applies with sexist voters and Clinton.

(This effect, of course, gets smaller as the number of white men gets whittled down, but by the time it had, Obama and Clinton were already the front-runners, and plurality's other notorious effect - anyone who becomes seen as a front-runner tends to become even more of one - came into play.)

Opinionator said...

It's actually not the plurality/spoiler effect, I think. It's the Democratic Party's attitude that there has to be "affirmative action." Note that when John Edwards (the last white male left in the race for the Democratic nomination) gave up, he made a remark that "It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path." (See here)

Will said...

It's amazing that she could be labeled a racist for her remarks last weeks after the career she has had which demonstrates the exact opposite.

Can we not discuss race without be labeled racists? I think not--there are too many victims out there. Here's to refusing to be a victim.


Opinionator said...

You can't discuss race without being labeled a racist, just as you can't discuss illegal immigration without being labeled anti-Hispanic and you can't discuss gender without being labeled sexist. That's what "political correctness" is all about!