Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts

Monday, August 18, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:41

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:41 pm on August 18, 2014 by Allahpundit

President Obama on Monday lamented the shooting of an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., saying the episode showcased the distrust that minorities in many communities have of their local police officers.

“In too many communities around the country, the gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement,” Obama said, weighing in on the raging controversy. “In too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and seen only as objects of fear.”…

Despite their anger over the death of black 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was shot to death by local police, Obama said protesters had no right to use violence against police or loot area stores.

“Let’s seek to heal rather than to wound each other,” the president said.

***

On one level, Obama’s decision to watch and wait on high-profile incidents in which race seems to play a role makes perfect sense. As president — and particularly as the country’s first African American president — his words carry huge weight. He and his team know that and want to do everything they can to help calm situations while allowing those in charge on the local level to do their jobs. At the same time, Obama is caught between a genuine — and much-expressed — desire to use his unique experiences to move the country beyond its divisive racial past and the realities on the ground, which suggest we aren’t in that post-racial America just yet.

In many ways, Obama’s difficulty in navigating matters of race as president mirrors his struggles in other areas. He has repeatedly and eloquently spoken about race — and his experiences in making his way in the world as the son of a white mother and a Kenyan father — over the past decade. But those words have done little to heal the racial wounds in the country. Perhaps it’s too much to expect any one individual, even the president, to help finally close such a deep and long-standing gash on the country’s conscience. But such is the historic nature of Obama’s presidency that many people, both white and black, expect him to do just that.

Today at least, Obama’s vision of a post-racial America looks even further away than it did that night a decade ago in Boston.

***

As violence raged in Ferguson, Mo., last week, President Barack Obama was hobnobbing with high-class political friends at an exclusive country club. On Sunday night, as the situation on the ground hit new lows, he and First Lady Michelle Obama were enjoying a jazz concert followed by dinner on Martha’s Vineyard, where they were vacationing.

The death of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown at the hands of a white police officer, and the subsequent violence by police and protesters, has once again put Obama on defense over his handling of crisis situations, coming under fire from all corners of the political spectrum for a slow response to the controversy. In recent days, Obama has faced calls to visit Ferguson first-hand to see the violence and attempt to bring about a peaceful end to it. But Obama, wary of being seen as diverting law enforcement resources, is unlikely to make the trip until the situation calms down…

“Race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now,” Obama said, calling for a national conversation on both the progress made since the Civil Rights era and the work as yet to be done.

But once in office, Obama abandoned that conversation for more pressing priorities, from the economy to health care to pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. His race, he hoped, would be a footnote to his policy agenda. And when he did try to engage in that conversation, he got burned.

***

To make matters worse, blacks face additional challenges at home and in the streets. There is a crisis in black fatherhood: while just 29 per cent of whites are born out of wedlock, the figure is 72 per cent for blacks. One result is a racial imbalance in welfare dependency: African-Americans make up about 13 per cent of the population yet 39.8 per cent of those on welfare rolls. Other frightening statistics point to a serious cultural malaise. Four out of five black women are overweight or obese; black women account for nearly 36 per cent of all abortions performed in the United States.

All of this is made worse by a police and judicial system that seems not just imbalanced against blacks but actually designed to put more of them in prison. The War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing has gone hand-in-hand with racial profiling to send large numbers of African-Americans to jail for small infractions: they now account for around 40 per cent of the prison population. For a sense of how, for many blacks, the police are an agency of state repression, consider this alarming fact: in Ferguson, 67 per cent of residents are black but 94 per cent of the local police are white.

Why has electing a black president not changed all of this? One answer is that while Obama is a president who is black, he has never sold himself as an expressly black president – that is, he tries to operate outside of the racial narrative rather than play a leadership role within it. He is evidence to the young black child that, yes, anyone can make it in America.

But what he was never going to be was someone who would confront racism head on or seek a substantial redistribution of power and money of the variety that many civil rights leaders feel is necessary to help the poor.

***

To be clear, I didn’t have any unrealistic expectations for Obama. I didn’t expect him to pump a black fist in solidarity or scream “fight the power” from the makeshift press room. I didn’t even need him to take a clear side on the issue. I did, however, expect him to tell the truth. Instead, the President delivered a polite but ultimately dangerous message to the American public…

Obama has also placed the highest priority on remaining calm. While this may seem reasonable on its face, particularly against the backdrop of rioting and looting, his words failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of black anger. Black people die violent deaths way out of proportion to their numbers, sometimes killed by rogue cops and even more often each other. Why would we not be angry?

But unlike black-on-black violence, which is tragic but typically punished through proper legal channels, killings of unarmed young people by law enforcement continue to happen with impunity. Instead of acknowledging the legitimacy of black anger over this, the President simply told us to calm down and stop looting. In doing so, he joined the chorus of far too many politicians and civil rights leaders who understate and trivialize righteous anger in order to show the public that they have “the people” under control.

***

The problem is the White House no longer believes Obama can bridge divides. They believe — with good reason — that he widens them. They learned this early in his presidency, when Obama said that the police had “acted stupidly” when they arrested Harvard University professor Skip Gates on the porch of his own home. The backlash was fierce. To defuse it, Obama ended up inviting both Gates and his arresting officer for a “beer summit” at the White House…

Making matters worse, Obama’s presidency has seen a potent merging of the racial and political divides. It’s always been true that views on racial issues drive views on American politics. But as political scientist Michael Tesler has documented, during Obama’s presidency, views on American politics have begun driving views on racially charged issues…

If Obama’s speeches aren’t as dramatic as they used to be, this is why: the White House believes a presidential speech on a politically charged topic is as likely to make things worse as to make things better. It is as likely to infuriate conservatives as it is to inspire liberals. And in a country riven by political polarization, widening that divide can take hard problems and make them impossible problems.

President Obama might still decide to give a speech about events in Ferguson. But it probably won’t be the speech many of his supporters want. When Obama gave the first Race Speech he was a unifying figure trying to win the Democratic nomination. Today he’s a divisive figure who needs to govern the whole country. The White House never forgets that. There probably won’t be another Race Speech because the White House doesn’t believe there can be another Race Speech. For Obama, the cost of becoming president was sacrificing the unique gift that made him president.

***

I’m not saying the protests in Ferguson aren’t justified—they are. In fact, we need more protests across the country. Where’s our Kent State? What will it take to mobilize 4 million students in peaceful protest? Because that’s what it will take to evoke actual change. The middle class has to join the poor and whites have to join African-Americans in mass demonstrations, in ousting corrupt politicians, in boycotting exploitative businesses, in passing legislation that promotes economic equality and opportunity, and in punishing those who gamble with our financial future.

Otherwise, all we’re going to get is what we got out of Ferguson: a bunch of politicians and celebrities expressing sympathy and outrage. If we don’t have a specific agenda—a list of exactly what we want to change and how—we will be gathering over and over again beside the dead bodies of our murdered children, parents, and neighbors.

***

***

“I have to be very careful about not prejudging these events.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Rubio: “Of course the climate is changing”

Rubio:“Ofcoursetheclimateischanging”

Rubio: “Of course the climate is changing”

posted at 7:21 pm on May 13, 2014 by Allahpundit

Where does this fall on the spectrum of Republican global-warming heresies? Major, minor, or no heresy at all? A GOPer who argued that climate change is happening, man is causing it, and we should do what we can to mitigate it is DOA as a national candidate. One who argued that it’s happening and that man is causing it but that we either shouldn’t act or it’s too late to act is on very thin ice (no pun intended), but might be able to skate. Rubio’s take today, an elaboration of his comments on climate change over the weekend, is a twist on the latter: Climate change is happening but it might not be man-made, and even if it is, unilateral mitigation efforts by the U.S. are pointless and economically destructive. A global problem requires a global solution, assuming a man-made solution is even feasible. Which raises the question: What would President Rubio do if China and the other major polluters proposed a deal to reduce emissions? Would the global buy-in cause him to reconsider his opposition to regulation or would the U.S. reject the deal on economic grounds? You trust a guy who swore he was anti-amnesty as a candidate in 2010 before championing the Gang of Eight bill to be a stickler on this issue, at least, right?

I’m needling Rubio here but I’ll defend him from this point raised by lefty Benjy Sarlin:

Then things took a bizarre turn. Rubio said he objected to “cap and trade” legislation designed to reduce emissions – not because such reductions were unnecessary, but because he thought other countries wouldn’t follow suit with similar legislation of their own.

“What I disagree with is the notion if we pass cap and trade, for example, this will stop this from happening, when in fact half of the new emissions on the planet are coming from developing countries and half of that is coming from one country, China, that isn’t going to follow whatever laws we pass,” he said.

Given that Rubio said in an interview with ABC News over the weekend that he doesn’t believe “human activity” does much to influence the climate in the first place, this makes about as much sense as arguing against a bill to eliminate all vowels from the alphabet because Europe won’t match America’s letter-reducing fervor.

I think Rubio’s just arguing in the alternative. He doesn’t think reducing emissions will ease global warming, but even if you do, you need to explain to him how unilateral U.S. reductions will stop China from belching endless tons of carbon into the atmosphere. His whole point here is that it doesn’t matter what one believes about what’s causing climate change; even if the warmists are right, there’s no global policy solution to their problem right now. That’s his way of steering the conversation away from the cause-and-effect debate, which the left is interested in because they want to brand him as anti-science and “radical.” And if the answer to all this is that the U.S. shouldn’t wait to act until other countries do, I’d remind you that political actors routinely do that sort of thing. The classic example domestically is liberals and taxes. They support raising taxes, including on themselves, in the name of reducing the deficit, but hardly any of them volunteer to pay more even though collectively doing so would put a dent in the deficit. They’ll pay more if and only if all Americans pay, as a matter of law. Rubio’s taking the same position vis-a-vis climate change, albeit with the caveat that he doubts “paying more” in terms of reducing emissions will do much to affect the climate. Next time he’s asked about this, he should redirect the question the way the Free Beacon did. Namely, if Democrats care so much about global warming, even at the expense of economic growth, how come Harry Reid’s taking his sweet-ass time in pushing a bill? Didn’t they have a veto-proof majority in Congress a few years ago where they could have passed cap-and-trade? What happened?

Anyway. This is hot-button fun but it wasn’t the subject Rubio set out to talk about today. He was at the podium to discuss entitlement reform, which is no small thing for a senator from Florida to tackle. Here’s the transcript; his core idea is opening up Congress’s retirement plan to Americans who lack a 401(k) at work.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair