ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Obama Speech Part 21,312

Jonah Goldberg speaks for me this morning. He has written a marvelous column today. His point: the Left does not want a discussion on race, they want an opportunity to instruct us on racial matters. Amen.

Has No One Seen Crash?

We’ve been talking and talking and talking about race.By Jonah

Thank God for Barack Obama. Until his “More Perfect Union”
speech last Tuesday, it seems it never occurred to anyone that America needed to
talk about race.“Maybe this’ll be the beginning of a conversation,” Wall Street
Journal columnist Peggy Noonan proclaimed on Meet the Press. The Chicago Tribune
reported that “many voters, black and white, say they were moved by Obama’s
speech ... which they see as a long-awaited invitation to begin an honest, calm
national dialogue about race.” Newspaper editorial boards agree. In the words of
the San Diego Union-Tribune: “Prodding Americans to confront their racial
differences is, by itself, an accomplishment of historical proportions.”

Because so many agree on this brilliant new strategy to heal our national
wounds, I can only assume that I’m the one missing something. But when one
luminary after another smacks his forehead like someone who forgot to have a V8
in epiphanic awe over the genius of Obama’s call for a national conversation on
race, all I can do is wonder: “What on Earth are you people talking about?”

“Universities were moving to incorporate the issues Mr. Obama raised into
classroom discussions and course work,” the New York Times reported within 48
hours of the speech.

Oh, thank goodness Obama fired the starter’s pistol in the race to discuss
race. Here I’d been under the impression that every major university in the
country already had boatloads of courses dedicated to race in America. I’d even
read somewhere that professors had incorporated racial themes into classes on
everything from Shakespeare to the mating habits of snail darters. I also had
some vague memory that these universities recruited black students and other
racial minorities, on the grounds that interracial conversations on campus are
as important as talking about math, science, and literature. A ghost of an image
in my mind’s eye seemed to reveal African-American studies centers, banners for
Black History Month, and copies of books like Race Matters and The Future of the
Race lining shelves at college bookstores.

Were all the corporate diversity consultants and racial sensitivity
seminars mere apparitions in a dream? Also disappearing down the memory hole,
apparently, were the debates that followed Hurricane Katrina, Trent Lott’s
remarks about Strom Thurmond, the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for
Clarence Thomas, the publication of The Bell Curve, and O.J. Simpson’s murder
trial. Not to mention the ongoing national chatter about affirmative action,
racial disparities in prison sentences and racial profiling by law

And the thousands of hours of newscasts, television dramas, and movies —
remember films such as 2004’s Oscar-winning Crash? — dedicated to racial issues?

It’s as if they never existed.I feel like one of the last humans in an
Invasion of the Body Snatchers movie in which all of the pod people are
compelled by some alien DNA to pine continually for yet another “conversation”
about a topic we’ve never stopped talking about. And if I just fall asleep, I,
too, can live in the pod people’s dream palace, where every conversation about
race is our first conversation about race. Snatching me from any such reverie
was this masterful understatement from Thursday’s New York Times: “Religious
groups and academic bodies, already receptive to Mr. Obama’s plea for such a
dialogue, seemed especially enthusiastic.”

No kidding.

Janet Murguia is one such enthusiastic person. She hoped, according to the
Times, that Obama’s speech would help “create a safe space to talk about

Who’s Janet Murguia? Oh, she’s just the president of the National Council
of La Raza, which, despite what they’ll tell you, means “the race.” Maybe it’s
just me, but aren’t most of the people begging for a “new conversation” on race
the same folks who shouted “racist!” at anyone who disagreed with them during
all the previous conversations?

This disconnect between rhetoric and reality is the kind of thing one finds
in novels by Alexander Solzhenitsyn or Milan Kundera. To my un-rehabilitated
ear, Murguia sounds like an old Soviet apparatchik saying that what the USSR
really needs is an open and frank conversation about the importance of

Why do voluptuaries of racial argy-bargy want yet another such dialogue?
For some, it’s to avoid actually dealing with unpleasant facts. But for others —
like La Raza or the college professors scrambling to follow Obama’s lead — when
they say we need more conversation, they really mean their version of reality
should win the day. Replace “conversation” with “instruction” and you’ll have a
better sense of where these people are coming from and where they want their
“dialogue” to take us.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal
Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics
of Meaning.
(C) 2008 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Comments (1)
Denny said...

Would your “church,” if you fellowship with one, put on it’s bulletin board hateful articles from the anti-semitic, terrorist group Hamas? Barack Obama’s CURRENT church, Trinity United Church of Christ, did just that.

We just found out in the last 48 hours that Wright, while giving a eulogy in 2007, said that “(Jesus’) enemies had their opinion about Him… The Italians for the most part looked down their garlic noses at the Galileans.”

Now comes a report by NBC News that while Wright was in charge at Obama’s CURRENT church, reprinted anti-Israel writings, including one column by none other than Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, appeared on the bulletin board there.

The column by the Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, asked: “Why should any Palestinian recognise the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel’s founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?”

The question becomes one of judgment, character, integrity, honesty and intelligence.

If I were to believe Obama’s defense that he didn’t, and still doesn’t, know what was, and still is, going on at his church for 20 years, then, in my opinion, he must not be very observant nor intelligent, and does not possess sensible judgement. Therefore he cannot be qualified to be the POTUS, in my opinion. If I do NOT believe Obama, then his integrity, character and honesty is woefully insufficient to be the POTUS, in my opinion.

Obama went to Harvard Law School (they don’t let just anybody in), where he became the first African-American president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1991. Now do you think he is NOT aware of what his church and ex-pastor are all about? Be AFRAID! Be VERY AFRAID!

Barack Obama’s political FRAUD against the American People continues…

Read the rest of this article here...