Race Doesn't matter
It does and it doesn't.
It matters that a partly
African-American man is being taken seriously as a candidate for
president. I am not being facetious when I say it would be uplifting
for the American public to elect someone for the content of his
character. Mr. Obama's character seems at least as good as any
president I've seen in action.
I'm not sure how much it would really matter geopolitically, but it would seem advantageous if the US were represented on the world stage by someone with whom people in other nations could identify. It would surely entitle America to some claim of authentic moral high ground -- of real fidelity to our stated principles of fairness -- at a time when our international credibility is in a slough.
I'm satisfied that Mr. Obama is comfortable with his own persona. He doesn't appear to be either hung up on his racial background or disregardful of its subtler meanings. Of course in a better world, where the old "one drop rule" didn't apply (the mentality that one drop of black blood makes someone "black"), Mr. Obama would would be justified in calling himself black or white. In any case, his own apparent comfort has allowed other Americans to feel comfortable with him, and about the better angels of our nature as a people.
Lately, I have been reading Niall Ferguson's history of World War Two (War of the World). Though I have heard, seen, and read other versions of the story a zillion times, Ferguson freshly emphasizes the importance of the racialist ideas that motivated both the German Nazis and the Japanese in launching the war. These ideas appear to be utterly insane in a fresh new way, and the cruelty and carnage that grew out of them was so exorbitant that it comes close to negating any claim the human race ever might have made previously, through twenty-five-hundred years of history, to a moral standing above the dogs and crocodiles. The behavior of the Nazis themselves was bad enough, but they somehow managed to inspire nearly every other European nation, or ethnic group, or pseudo ethnic group to behavior so grotesque that one truly wonders how these groups recovered their bearings later on in the 20th century. Their demoralization should have been complete. Instead of just Herman Goring committing suicide in his jail cell at Nuremberg in 1945, one concludes after reading Ferguson, all German survivors of the Third Reich should have just marched off a cliff somewhere. The Japanese treatment of the Chinese, Malays, and every other Asian sub-group wasn't any better.
The world can't afford to repeat that kind of thing. But the world is heading into a stressful situation that could provoke another wave of worldwide conflict -- not to mention the kind of internal conflicts that induce ethnic cleansings and genocides within nations. So, from my point of view, the further America removes itself explicitly from a collective racialist mentality, the better off we would be. But there is a catch: if perhaps Mr. Obama wins the Democratic Party's nomination, and goes on to win the White House, and the nation enters the socioeconomic convulsions I call The Long Emergency, and Mr. Obama is overwhelmed by its overwhelming problems... would he be singled out for blame? Surely there will be a lot of finger-pointing and scapegoating. Would Barack Obama become a tragic figure? The answer may be that anyone who occupies that office during the next term could end up a tragic figure.
Anyway, Hillary was back out on the stump yesterday, in the pulpit of a black Baptist church in Memphis, sounding as phony as the day is long, and it was gratifying to know that she had just been beaten. She sounded and looked discouraged, her voice lingering in that lower-register monotone that makes her come off like a regional director of the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Mr. Edwards, who I have supported and continue to support, could not shake the look of a whipped dog, too, after losing badly in his birth state. But he swore to continue on further through the primaries, and his pluck seemed genuine enough.
The night before, when the returns in South Carolina were final, Mr. Obama made a speech before his supporters, who were chanting "race doesn't matter! race doesn't matter!" as if to convince themselves as much as the TV viewing audience. The higher truth might be that it would matter if it didn't matter. But it does in many ways.
The winning candidate concluded his remarks that night by invoking the slogan "Yes we can!" It was stirring to hear, and of course it projected the simple message that his campaign would remain "positive," in the current popular therapeutic sense. But at some point, Mr. Obama will have to rise above the platitudes and generalities and answer some questions as to yes we can... do... what....? The candidates all yammer about "change," but I suspect they don't quite know how much change this nation is really in for.
"This post seems to be horribly off topic. "
I couldn't agree more. What is this drivel?
Posted by: PeakLife | January 28, 2008 at 02:07 PM
"If we replaced even 1/3 of imported oil with something else, we would effectively topple the ME empires of evil."
Why would we want to do that? We're the ones who propped them up in the first place. Seems counter-intuitive to me. What is this, Star Wars? I guess Johnny is Rico Obe Won Kinobi and I'm Jabba the Hut or something, ha ha. Good one.
Posted by: Gilda | January 28, 2008 at 02:19 PM
So the first step is just to make methanol and ethanol a common choice at the pumps. Gas will still be there too. So why isn't this being done? I'll tell you why. Big Oil is lobbying the gov to make sure it doesn't. SA is paying off the gov to make sure it doesn't. That's the only reason.
Posted by: PeakLife | January 28, 2008 at 02:20 PM
PL get a life. You're repeating the same ideas over and over and not letting anything else sink in. Want me to give you a big motherly wet willy? Will that help at all?
Posted by: Gilda | January 28, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Let's see, an acre of corn can produce about 300 gallons of ethanol if I remember right, with about 150 gallons of fossil fuels as input. I'm sure an energy analyst or whatever can do the math from there, arable acres, gallons needed per day etc. should all be readily obtainable numbers. And keep in mind that your 40MPG car is only going to get around 25MPG on E85, too. You do have a 40MPG car, right? Otherwise that flex fuel Tahoe is going to be in the single digit figures...
Posted by: LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown | January 28, 2008 at 02:26 PM
Big Oil is lobbying the gov to make sure there is no ethanol/methanol at the pump?
Then big oil is doing themselves a favor and in the process they are doing us a favor.
Our farmlands should grow crops to feed people not to feed our automobiles.
Even if we had automobiles like Toyota's 300 mpg (2,400 miles on eight gallons of gas) that is not solving the problem of perpetuating the car culture and the infrastructure it spawns.
Posted by: asoka | January 28, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Here is the link to the Toyota which actually got "well over" 300 miles per gallon.
It is not a solution to the problems we face that are created by the "happy-motoring" car culture.
Posted by: asoka | January 28, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Here is the link to the Toyota which actually got "well over" 300 miles per gallon.
It is not a solution to the problems we face that are created by the "happy-motoring" car culture.
http://tinyurl.com/2akgv4
Posted by: asoka | January 28, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Oh, and Toyota did that "well-over" 300 miles per gallon in a Highlander, not a Yaris.
More resource-depletion and parking problems created!
Posted by: asoka | January 28, 2008 at 02:41 PM
Having enough food is definitely not the problem, I can tell you that. We can make the methanol directly from coal. Look at Brazil. They kicked the gas habit.
Posted by: PeakLife | January 28, 2008 at 02:41 PM
Brazil. Let's see, they use about a tenth of the energy we do on a per capita basis. If we had the same standard of living, we could kick the oil habit, too. Did I say "if"? Maybe "when" would have been a better choice.
Posted by: LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown | January 28, 2008 at 02:55 PM
But Brazil not only supplies their own energy needs, but has enough left over to export. We may end up substituting one expoert for another. Is Brazil the new SA?
Posted by: PeakLife | January 28, 2008 at 03:07 PM
Asoka, thanks for the link on that "300 mpg" SUV. If I read it right, they took their hybrid SUV and replaced the battery with a fuel cell. Not counting the energy that it took to create the hydrogen, I can see how that would give excellent gasoline mileage, but it's basically a con if you don't count the input energy to make the hydrogen. Seems like a plain old electric car would be better in terms of efficiency.
Posted by: LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown | January 28, 2008 at 03:07 PM
"The amount of ethanol produced last year represented 2% of our total oil consumption. Even if this year we increased by 50% the total ethanol production, this will still represent a mere 3% of our consumption. And if we were to increase production by 50% increments every two years (a physical impossibility), it would take fourteen years to reach an ethanol production equivalent to 50% our consumption.
This is without taking into consideration population expansion with its corresponding increase in consumption."
--Robert Zubrin
Add to that pollution control issues coal brings with it to maintain air quality
Posted by: asoka | January 28, 2008 at 03:09 PM
PL
The only empire of evil in the ME is your own .........the UPL.
Posted by: OGH | January 28, 2008 at 03:12 PM
PL
The only empire of evil in the ME is your own .........the UPL
Posted by: OGH | January 28, 2008 at 03:14 PM
really digging the stimulator these days.
http://submedia.tv/stimulator/?p=135
Posted by: Dave | January 28, 2008 at 03:17 PM
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/BR/
It is remarkable that Brazil's sugar-cane ethanol industry is used as the exemplary "poster child" to justify ethanol production in the USA.
We have been led to believe that Brazil's production provides 40% of their transportation sector's requirements. [Source] Not so. It produces an amount of ethanol equal to 40% of the gasoline consumed in Brazil. Read the coded message in this explanation from Wikipedia:
"Presently the use of ethanol as fuel by Brazilian cars - as pure ethanol and in gasohol - replaces gasoline at the rate of about 27,000 cubic metres per day, or about 40% of the fuel that would be needed to run the fleet on gasoline alone. However, the effect on the country's oil consumption was much smaller than that. Although Brazil is a major oil producer and now exports gasoline (19,000 m³/day), it still must import oil because of internal demand for other oil byproducts, chiefly diesel fuel (which cannot be easily replaced by ethanol)." [Source]
Posted by: LaughingAsRomeWasBurningDown | January 28, 2008 at 03:19 PM
PL,
what did i tell you about eating all that dog shit on white bread toast.
Brazil gets uses diesel as transport fuel, not gas. that's why it's easy for them to substitute for gas. they're an energy exporter because they have some offshore reserves, for the moment.
really, you are like the stupedist piece of shit out there, really.
Posted by: Dave | January 28, 2008 at 03:20 PM
eedc
i'm illiterate, sorry.
Posted by: Dave | January 28, 2008 at 03:21 PM
acctually, it's kind of funny. Brazil, relies on rock phosphorus for it's sugar cane crop. they don't have any in-state. talk about liebeg biting your ass. haha. well, i think it's funny.
Posted by: Dave | January 28, 2008 at 03:25 PM
"If we replaced even 1/3 of imported oil with something else, we would effectively topple the ME empires of evil."
"If" "If" - We won't, first of all. Secondly, "if" we did, what we would replace it with would have to come from somewhere else, from some countries who would then started using what we replaced. we would have to eliminate to "replace."
Lastly, what would be acheived by toppling these regimes? What do you think would replace them? The King of Sweden?
None of this makes any sense.
Posted by: Johnny Rico | January 28, 2008 at 03:26 PM
I suppose Obama may make a good leader.
My favorite leader lately and the one I have been taking my cues from has been the black-capped chickadee. Chk..chk..chick-a-dee-dee-dee!
He leads by example, not being a big talker. At least he's never lied to me.
Posted by: greenbeans | January 28, 2008 at 03:28 PM
......and PL
....the latest Brazillian offshore field has estimated reserves of 7 Bn barrels.......when and if they get down to it and lets say they export it all thats roughly at current global consumption 100 days supply .......not exactly an elephant field.!!.............
Posted by: OGH | January 28, 2008 at 03:39 PM
No sweat, Dave! You probably have it figured out already... don't want to cut into your big apple babe-ogling time.
I am, ahem, a little miffed that you're holding out on us here at CFN. Wasn't that you up in the cave in the fur outfit?
Welcome, Gilda! Love your attitude. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A-e7UnTa2k
You guys are hilarious but I have to get away from the blue light for awhile.
Posted by: EEofDC | January 28, 2008 at 03:46 PM