Monday, October 27, 2008

The Hitch

I've read some pretty strong words from Christopher Hitchens over the years, so it is no real surprise to see him go after someone he disagrees with. In this one, he takes it to Sarah Palin and it has nothing to do with her wardrobe or Saturday Night Live.

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured.
Fighting words, indeed.

In other expected news, The New Orleans Times-Picayune endorses Barack Obama for President.

The world looks on in awe as America,
which believes that humble circumstances, class and race should never trump intelligence and hard work, considers the possible election of an African-American man as president.

We believe that Barack Obama could help restore our reputation as a land of opportunity. But that benefit is dwarfed by a larger potential that we think an Obama presidency could achieve: Seizing the chance for America to lead and, at a time of crisis and transformation, be a global pioneer.



patsbrother said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
patsbrother said...

To continue the discussion from a previous post, I bring up wealth redistribution.

I do not bring this up because Senator Obama is more concerned with "fairness" as he defines it than he is with good government. (But while I'm at it, I say that taxing people more even though that will result in less total tax revenues - because it's more "fair" - I say that IS wealth envy. Apparently it is immoral to allow the rich to become richer.)

I bring this up because today I listened to a radio interview Senator Obama did a few years back, in which he claimed the Warren Court wasn't radical (correction: it was) because it did not go all the way to wealth redistribution.

The man said it in so many words. Then he goes on to discuss how best to achieve wealth redistribution. Not through opportunity and hard work, but through the government.

No Obamanista seems to care that we are about to elect a president without first rigorously testing just what about our system he sees fit to change. (I hear one Florida news organization and its associates have been banned from interviewing anyone in the Obama campaign until after the election, because someone had the audacity to ask Joe Biden just such a question. I know Dante hates it when I use the following word sarcastically, but I'll do it anyway: Classy.)

I'm through with it. I state emphatically that Obama is the new Bush. Both are inexperienced messianic celebrities whose supporters swoon over them irrationally. I didn't like the former, I doubt I will like the latter (assuming we elect him). After eight years of the one, god help us through four to eight years of the other.