RoR: Forum

Wow! This video is incredible! If ever there was an ANTI-Objectivist -- an ANTI-individual-rights president, not just in ignorance of the basic principles themselves and of their constitutional underpinnings, but in fundamental philosophical opposition to them, we've got him. He's here, folks, smiling and waving to us, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it, because a week from now and in blissful ignorance, everybody and his brother will be voting for him. Sends chills up and down my spine!

- Bill

Post 1

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 9:07am

Truly frightening. Bill, do you not have a single shred of hope?

Post 2

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 9:14am

People keep finding these things with innocuous quotes from Obama, and then saying "Oh my God, how horrible!"

I don't get it.

To me, it sounds like Obama is saying that the courts are not an appropriate venue for "redistributive change." He even makes the point that the courts are reluctant to make any rulings that would even "cost money" to implement, much less rule that wealth should be redistributed. This edited audio is far, far from making "his Communism explicit." He sounds like a mainstream, centrist politician to me.

If the best you anti-Obama people can do is -
- Here's a video of Obama standing next to a politician we don't like in Kenya!
- Obama was at Bill Ayres' house!
- One of Obama's advisors was born in Iran!
- Obama said the Warren court wasn't radical!
- Obama's a Muslim!
- Obama's the Antichrist!

...well, this stuff is B.S. and I'm not convinced. I watched the debates, and I saw Obama as an intelligent, level-headed person with some incorrect ideas. I'm going to hope he gets some good advice in office and that it won't be so bad. You can certainly reserve the right to say "I told you so" but for now, he sure doesn't look like the Devil incarnate to me.

Post 3

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 9:30am

Mike, hope is a passive emotion -- a passive virtue. I'm proactive, and there's nothing I can DO about this, because my vote will be drowned in a sea of millions of other votes, most of which will be in direct opposition to my own. What a system! When will people WAKE UP! The masses and especially this next fucking president should have no power to abridge my liberty and my rights. !

- Bill

Post 4

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 9:40am

Well, there are two people in this race. It's not over yet.

Post 5

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 9:57am

and there's always the scenerio of Unintended Consequences [Ross] to consider...

Post 6

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 10:16am

Laure:

He sounds like a mainstream, centrist politician to me.

If he's mainstream, who's to the left of him?

Sam

Post 7

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 10:47am

Laure,

Go back and listen to the video. As it said in bold print, "This is not a discussion about whether redistribution of wealth is right or wrong. This is a discussion about how best to do it."

To refresh your memory, here is what Obama said in the video:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights Movement and its litigation strategy in the Court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote and I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I�d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and the more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn�t that radical. It didn�t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it�s been interpreted.

"And the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can�t do to you -- says what the federal government can�t do to you -- but it doesn�t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn�t shifted, and one of the tragedies of the Civil Rights Movement was because the Civil Rights Movement became so Court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.

"I�m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn�t structured that way. You can look at very rare examples where during the desegregation era, the Court was willing to, for example, order changes that cost money to local school districts, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage; it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation-of-powers issues in terms of the Court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially administrative and takes a lot of time.

"The Court is just not very good at it, and politically it�s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard, and so I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, and any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts . . ."

Obama is saying that the courts are not the best vehicle for implementing redistributive change, but that he thinks it's an ideal worth achieving and one that is better achieved in other ways.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 10/27, 12:23pm)

Post 8

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 11:10am

A good question, Sam. (Though I said he SOUNDS like a mainstream, centrist politician. I was commenting on the audio clip.) I found this link, with references to various rankings:
http://www.mnblue.com/node/1094

These rankings are kinda hard to decipher, but here are a few that it seems most consider to be more liberal than Obama:
Feingold, Dodd, Kennedy, Boxer, Harkin, Reed. Granted some of this may be because Obama voted Present or did not vote on various things.

Post 9

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 12:25pm

The Anthropic Principle in Voting

Do not think, when you vote, that you are just voting for yourself. For every person on the edge, Steve Wolfer, there are 1000 other voters who will vote the same way you do. So if you stay home, thinking that your vote won't count, you are behaving exactly the same as 1000 other voters who will vote as you do. If, however, you hold you nose and vote for the only practical alternative to an unacceptable option, then there will be 1000 people joining you in your vote.

Why do polls matter? Because polls influence the weak willed to vote or not vote as they see the wind blowing. Why is the mainstream media so insistent on repeating that McCain is behind in the polls? Because in this case, saying makes it so. It is the Big Lie. The only countermeasure against the Big Lie is the Little Truth. You must vote. For each of you who votes, you will be joined by 1000 non-Objectivist voters. This is not science. It is democracy. Democracy is an exercise in applied practical social-metaphysics. The winning vote is yours. What are you going to do with it?

Post 10

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 1:02pm

Laure, it seems like you have been relying on the mainstream media, and might appreciate a

Journey to Clarity

Also, consider that the unprecedented millions Obama is spending are in large part coming illegally from overseas. (Documented on the Atlas Shrugs site.) Guess which candidate the Middle East wants to win?

PS: From http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-foreign-campaign-donations.html:

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Obama's Foreign Campaign Donations

At 1:07:00 (1 hour & 7 minutes) into John Batchelor's latest show is a detailed examination into the "strange" campaign donations made to the Obama Campaign. You will learn about strange donation amounts, made via credit card, to the campaign. Such amounts include the following: $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15.

Do these sound like donation amounts that Americans would make via their credit cards? Of course not. It is now assumed that these are foreign donations and the strange amounts are the result of foreign currency conversions.

In case you're not aware, it is absolutely illegal for even $0.01 of foreign donations to an American election campaign. Don't believe me? Please click here.

You'd thus think that the mainstream media would be all over this story, right? You'd be wrong. This is one of the few stories I could find on it.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 10/27, 1:13pm)

Post 11

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 1:44pm

Yes, Rodney, I listen to the mainstream media. Not to a bunch of rightwing nutjob bloggers. The website you link to quotes from a really stupid email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here's one of the ridiculous "accusations" from it:

"Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?"

Ooh, scary!! Rodney, just for one quick example of how stupid this stuff is, look up Valerie Jarrett on Wikipedia, and see whether we should damn her for having the nerve to be born in Iran.

While I agree that there is plenty to object to in Obama's ideas, when you link to stuff like this, it completely destroys your credibility.

Post 12

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 2:17pm

Laure,

I think what's really scary is that people are so taken with this guy, because he's such a smooth, self-confident talker (except when his teleprompter breaks down!). They're not listening to what he's actually saying. Even you didn't pick up on what he was saying in that video, even though you are an Objectivist and are already familiar with these issues. People are being seduced by style over substance. That's scary!!!

- Bill

Post 13

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 2:18pm

The Transcript:

Announcer: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ, Chicago, 91.5 FM. And we're joined by Barack Obama, who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and a senior lecuturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

Obama: You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order. And as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more (cer...) basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as has been interpreted. And [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the States can't do to you, says what the Federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the Federal government or the State government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies the of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

* * * * *

Announcer: Let's talk with Karen. Good morning Karen. You're on Chicago public radio.

Karen: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is, with economic changes, my question... is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

Announcer: You mean the court?

Karen: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

Obama: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but, you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributed change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

* * * * *

Obama: You know you just [at?] look at very rare examples where, during the desegration era, the court was willing to, for example, order, you know, changes that cost money to local school district. And the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out.

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.

Post 14

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 2:30pm

Laure, you can't just cherrypick like that. Surely you see how all the info that is emerging, combined with Obama's secrecy and lying about his past, adds up to something extremely dangerous and disturbing. It seems to me that you are worrying more about how you look to others than about the facts of the matter.

Post 15

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 2:38pm

"Public opinion, and particularly the popular opinion stream, judges political elites primarily by their success or failure at dealing with conditions it sees as public evils -- that is, with issues. One way for a political elite to deal with an issue is to deny that the social condition in question IS a public evil. This can be successful if the issue in question is or becames a values issue -- that is, if there is a significant segment of public opinion that does not regard the social condition as an evil, or can be convinced that it is not." [from Populism and Elitism, by Jeffrey Bell]

and Socialism here is the issue...

Post 16

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 3:04pm

Damn! This video makes Roosevelt look like Ronald Reagan!

Post 17

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 3:13pm

Rodney, that's not fair to Laure.

Post 18

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 3:54pm

Sorry Laure I don't mean to gang up on you with everyone else here, I don't mean to, but you did not interpret Obama's words correctly. He was not just making a clinical observation of legal theories regarding the civil rights movement, he said "where the civil rights movement succeeded" and "where the civil rights movement failed" and he considered the lack of judicial law that brought about "major redistribution of wealth" as a sign of "failure". And he said that because of these judicial failures "we are still suffering from that".

I've never heard more centrist Democrats overtly call for a "major redistribution of wealth". This is a degree of Socialism from Democrats I am not used to hearing. I can't see how as an Objectivist you can see that as being "innocuous". I accept my right to life and right to private property as axiomatic. Any discussion of taking that away doesn't strike me as something that is innocuous.

Post 19

Monday, October 27, 2008 - 4:16pm