Great post!

I happen to disagree with you on the racism but this is primarily because of their churches Black Theology, which I have written about before, that points the their racism. I am not, however, one of those claiming that Obama is a muslim. I think that is ridiculous.

You are right however, as I am Italian American, I would never get up on stage and spout that italians should be more welcome to opportunities over others. It just doesn't make sense. As you said, there are so many types of people here in America and they need to realize that.

@ Chris Ford

Thanks!

I'd love to strike the word "racist" from the world's vocabulary. I think it's become overused and meaningless. People call anyone a racist for simple differences in opinion. I'm so sick of it.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of "churches of Black Theology", but I'm inclined to think that whatever a church does on their private property is their business. I maintain that as long as they don't have plans to infringe on my personal freedoms, they can believe whatever they'd like!

True, I had a discussion about racism. In my mind I rarely see racism around me anymore and I thought for the most part that, besides arrogant white power types, racism had all but died with the Boomer generation. I feel like Gen Y has grown together as americans and not seperated by color. Others have debated me on this though and have said racism is alive and harsh all over. I live near Philadelphia and I just honestly haven't seen or heard any racist remarks or crimes lately. Wish everyone had that same situation where they lived.

@Allison I was confused by that observation as well.

I think that diversity has taken on this perverse meaning in popular culture that it is inherently about differences; differences that only a particular group has and therefore are characteristics that people who don't belong to that group lack. I think that this is why celebrating blackness or whatever your "-ness" is as a form of separatism rather than cultural expression.

With you about Michelle- I think she'll have to move to a more inclusive ideology once in the White House, much like Barack will have towards the center politically if he wants to get elected.

But... "The dismal history of central planning shows that government attempts to artificially construct a social or economic ideal leads to failures too numerous to recount, while are amusing in their ineffectiveness at best, and lead to populations of oppressed or slaughtered at worst."

In communist nations, yes. But that's too broad a statement. By definition, democracy is an artificial social construct, and that's done pretty well here and all over the globe.

Many young white people believe that they are being held to ransom for their forefathers' history. I don't believe our position is any different from a young German who acknowledges the holocaust.

We are liberated too by acknowledging our less than perfect past. I am grateful when people like MO point out the job is not done. It widens my grasp of issues.

@ Tim

I was being broad with that statement, but to elaborate I'll have to write a whole new post. : ) Democracy is a social construct and it is what we are currently dealing with, so without jumping into the "democracy vs. republican constitution" debate, what I wanted to emphasize was that in a relatively "free" society, further attempts at central planning on the social level (affirmative action) or economic level (Central Bank intervention) are doomed to failure, (not to mention unconstitutional.)

That was my point, does it make sense?

@zak If Barack Obama inspires you - fantastic. I'll admit he expresses himself well, and is passionate. Good qualities, but zeal and passion don't equal good policies, which is my point of contention.

What I find offensive about the above statement is the notion that Mrs. Obama intimates the Barack will "make" anyone "work" or even to "shed their cynicism." In a free society, people are entitled to their cynicism, as long as they do not infringe on someone else's rights. You might be cynical of my views, but do I care? No. Are you hurting me? No. We can be free to disagree. I wish Barack or Michelle would say something like that.

@Jo I apologize, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

@ Milena, Chris- the government is catastrophically corrupt and inept, but the fact is that sometimes we need them to intervene.

Social security is an example of bad intervention.

Bailing out gigantic financial firms is a good one. Should Fannie May or Freddie Mac go under, there will be millions of Americans living in the streets. It may be unconstitutional, but to save the country from foreclosure and depression, it's a necessary evil.

If you want the government to step in at every turn, you have Stalin. And that's not good. But if you want the law of the jungle to rule the economy and the social structure, you have anarchy. And that's not good either. It's all about balance.

My goodness, she wrote her thesis 23 years ago! I certainly don't carry all of the same views that I had in college.

I also think you're being way too literal with her comments about "making" people do things. I found it more of calling on people to rise above themselves and their self-interests. It wasn't intimidating, it was inspiring. Seriously, you took that as a threat of some kind?

Really, tying liberal ideals and policies with the evilness of communism?
Please.

@Tim2

I am well aware this was her undergraduate thesis. However, I find her current speeches echo the sentiment she expressed 23 years ago. Certainly attitudes change, but I don't think hers has, nor do I think it necessarily should. She's obviously a woman of conviction, which is a positive trait, however I think her convictions are not appropriate to be applied in the public milieu.

Yes, I took her comments at face value, I'm not certain why I would be expected to do otherwise. I felt her comments were intimidating because they do not indicate that people should be given personal choice in the matters of "rising above themselves and their self interests." Who is Mrs. Obama, or you, or I, to say what another person's version of "rising above" looks like??

If she and her husband are to be in positions of considerable power, they will have the ability to dramatically alter the quality of my life. Am I intimdated by this? Yes. I'm happy that you found her inspiring, and you have every right to follow her lead should it speak to you.

As for affirmative action - I was using what I thought was an amusing and anecdotal example - I apologize if it was misconstrued. I was simply trying to illustrate the ineffectiveness of the system. Despite it's aim to bring equality, it has failed.

I'm not denying racism exists, however, the word is hard to take it seriously, as it has been so abused. It detracts from fighting real racism, as it's used to hurl invective at anyone or anything you don't like. A ridiculous example is that in England, if a child shows signs of displeasure after being given a foreign dish to try, he or she should be reprimanded with the goal of staving off racist behavior early on. I mean, come on. This is not the kind of thing we need to be monitoring.

@Tim2

I stick by my statements on affirmative action. I still think the qualifying criteria is exclusionary. Furthermore, my piece was not principally about affirmative action, but I'd be happy to discuss it via email, on your blog if you have one, or I'd invite you to write a guest post on mine. You can email me here if you are interested.

I'm guessing your question about what word instead of "racist" is rhetorical, so I won’t further elaborate, I expressed my feelings above.

Re: my feelings of intimidation. I understand where Mrs. Obama is coming from, which I have indicated countless times above. But I'm not along for her and her husband's proposed policies, no matter how touchy-feely, soul-inspired, and motivating they may be - because they include limiting personal freedoms for entire groups of people, hence, exclusionary. Their ideas are appropriate for private entities, not our government.

For example - the incentivized volunteerism program is a supposedly brilliant idea from the Obamas. Who could have a problem with that? It's volunteering! Great. It's compensated with a Federal benefit! Sounds fair, right?

I disagree. An incentivized volunteerism program is just another way to say, "I'll pay you to do something." A convoluted, uneconomical, tax-revenue-draining one at that. These are the types of policies I'm "afraid" of. Ones that promote increased taxation and further inefficiencies in a government that is already bloated.

Or how about Barack's belief that we were "oversold" NAFTA and it needs "revision?" Yes, I'm deeply troubled by this sentiment. Again, he has good intentions and wants to "protect" the American worker from job loss. Too bad he'll only usher in more with trade restrictions. A basic understanding of economics would inform that.

And what about how he wants to get establish free internet in rural areas. Again, great idea for a private company, NOT the government! You might roll your eyes when I say, “Hey Senator Obama, I'd really like an iPod, and a pony while you're at it, can you write that in?” But that’s the equivalent of his idea. Tax revenues are not a piggy bank for every fun project he can think of. I don't disagree free internet would possibly better their lives, but by forcibly taking funds from others, revoking their choice of what to do with them, the Obamas support limiting the freedoms of a whole other group of people.

I'm a believer in limited government, Barack and Michelle are not, even though they might be great leaders who inspire millions. Fantastic! Let’s ask them to open a private organization, like a church, where I'd be thrilled to see what they accomplish with their ideas, asset gathering, and redistribution. Can you see why when their ideas are applied to the Presidency and our government I would feel that they are inappropriate and detrimental to respecting the rights of the individual, which I happen to think should come “first and foremost”?

Tim2,

Milena's anecdote compared the aid received by the child of Columbian with the aid received by the child of a Serb. I'm not sure how a Columbian, but not a Serb, fits into your definition of AA "AA is to help women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded". Have Columbians been disproportionately excluded from employment relative to Serbs? Is that an argument that should even take place outside of a dystopian fantasy novel? What about Columbians from Bogota compared to Serbs from Aiud? The ridiculousness of this should be obvious. Milena's anecdote is fine and does a good job illustrating the absurdity of AA. AA encourages a race-based collectivist view of individuals. There should indeed be a national debate on the subject.

off topic,

Milena,

While I don't agree with your political
stance, I must say, after visiting your site (En Passant), that I love your music.

@Milena What I mean by that statement is that I think the public inherently interprets cultural expression as separatism. It´s why diversity in terms of policy manifests itself as the affirmative action policies that we have today. If you belong to a certain group, it is considered a plus in much the same way that a high GPA or leadership positions are considered when you look at college admissions.

This is why a different conception of diversity needs to be developed. The intent of affirmative action is good; the execution of the policy is not. I think that the policy needs to shift to disadvantage based on socioeconomic level which Obama has hinted at wanting to change.

I do have to disagree with you on some of the examples that you used of individual liberty. Many of the smoking bans have actually been passed as workplace health and safety measures to protect staff who are exposed to hours of smoke. If anything, I think their rights take priority since they are inhaling 40 hours of smoke to earn a living rather than me inhaling 3 hours while I voluntarily sit there for a drink.

As for the proposed expansion of service, I think that is actually a good thing to bring about to increase civic dedication. I hope that it increases participation in government. Part of the reason that the system does not work is that many people think that it is broken and corrupt and are too complacent to act to fix it.

@Tim2 - wow, I'm flattered! Thank you!

@Vanessa - I could see how cultural expression can sometimes be viewed as separatism, but I still believe there are many people who truly understand and appreciate cultures other than their own. (I'm guessing you fall into that category where you live now!) I personally love exploring other cultures, and I'm baffled when others don't!

On my recent trip to the former Yugoslavia, I was on tour with a large group.

I was shocked and hurt to hear the negative comments from a handful of fellow tourists who called the cuisine "boring" or the cities I love "forgettable" or "unlike Paris" (!) Because I'm American, they didn’t know my family was from the area, so they felt free to speak their (uninformed) minds. I couldn't understand why they would willingly visit Bosnia, a country struggling from the ravages of war and ethnic cleansing and even attempt a comparison to Paris! What did they expect? Why didn’t they reach further to see the value of the experience apart from hedonistic pleasure-seeking in Western European romantic clichés?

I tried to illuminate their views by sharing how my aunt had survived her home being bombed while she slept, and passed sniper fire on her daily walks to get water for survival, in the midst of a siege on the capital city, Sarajevo, and how the beautiful Olympic stadium was now a mass graveyard...painfully unforgettable to me and my whole family.

My point about the incentivized volunteerism is that it is clumsy in execution and far less effective than simply paying people to work. Masquerading employment as volunteering is clever, but doesn’t fool me. If Obama can encourage volunteer efforts where people are not compensated, (i.e. the definition of volunteering) I think that would be far more meaningful.

@Allison -

But I really wanted to be BFFs. : )

You say, "There is no such thing as impartiality. When it comes to politics, it is doing what will make the majority happy."

That may be the current state, but I'd argue it doesn't have to be that way!

Yes, a true democracy is rule by majority, but that is precisely the problem. Rule by majority is in direct opposition to “freedom for all.” Our country was intended to be a constitutional republic, or democracy where government power is limited as outlined in the constitution.

We only need to remember that a fiend like Hitler was elected under a democratic system where his sickening campaign was allowed to thrive. No checks. (To be clear, I do not intend a comparison to current candidates.)

Ron Paul quotes founding father James Madison saying of a democracy, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.”

He said it best in 1788.

Call me naive, but I think looking to the constitution is a good place to turn when attempting to answer the questions you raise above which are excellent and I hope you write about them so I can comment on your blog! : )