The concept of “minorities” in a political sense has always bemused me. Following are my somewhat random thoughts on the subject:

How can a political party that depends on a majority for its power be a true friend of a minority? They can’t. They can only be a true friend to a collection of minorities with common interests. And that collection has to be large enough to constitute a majority. But if this collection of minorities has sufficiently common interests and numbers to place a particular party and president in power are they truly a minority? The mathematician in me says no.

Since slavery, the most racist act committed by this country was the inclusion of all citizens of African descent in a single group. That group is the “black minority.” It doesn’t matter how rich or poor you are or how educated or uneducated you are; if your ancestors were African you are in that group. It doesn’t matter if you are among the most poor, uneducated and disadvantaged in the land; if your skin is white you are not in that group. It is a blatant classification of a large segment of our population on their ethnicity alone.  Jeff Foxworthy’s classification of rednecks makes more sense; he specifies hundreds of criteria, each of which can qualify you for membership in the group.

African-Americans are not alone; Hispanics, for example, have their own group. But why should Hispanics be classified separately from blacks? Aren’t their needs similar to those of blacks? I would think that the needs among blacks or among Hispanics taken separately are at least as different as the needs of both taken together. The answer is that combining the minorities might be politically threatening; if they’re all combined they may no longer constitute a minority. But an astute, populist political party can claim that it is their duty now to represent the interests of the new majority.

It seems to me that all this thrashing about over the supposed under-represented minorities is much ado about nothing. What happened to representing all the people all the time? And treating everyone equally?

(Perhaps I shouldn’t raise the question posed in the title of this post; Obama may want to create a new White House Czar for that purpose.)

Until today I thought I was the only person thinking it odd that President Obama wants to be identified with Abraham Lincoln. In his latest column Walter Williams makes it clear that he also thinks it was a mistake, or at least not well advised. I highly recommend that you read his column.

During his campaign Obama talked a lot about his desire to unify the country and frequently decried divisiveness. (I’ve always wondered why those who place a premium on unity don’t just switch to the opposing view, and thereby boost unity.) If he values unity that much why does he identify with the former president who did more than any other to ensure that the country would long (forever?) remain divided? No, I’m not off my rocker. Lincoln did manage — after hundreds of thousands of lives were lost — to keep the country together physically. But by forcing the South to remain in the Union he guaranteed continued political strife, dissension and division for decades, if not centuries.

I’m talking about ideological and cultural disunity and so was Obama on the campaign trail. What Lincoln did was prevent a failed marriage from dissolving. He forced the couple to live in the same house and raise their children together when all concerned might have been better served if the marriage had been dissolved.

I can’t say for certain that Obama holds this view but many on the political left believe that America is the big bully on the world playground. If Lincoln had let the country divide it is not highly likely that either the Union or the Confederacy would be that powerful today.

Williams points out that Lincoln was no friend of the slaves. He did only what he thought politically expedient. Slavery was not an issue in the Civil War until about the third year when Lincoln made it so. He needed a rallying cry because the North was losing the war at that time. The Union passed up many opportunities to abolish slavery long before the war started.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not necessarily saying that we would all be better off today if Lincoln had just let the Confederate States go. I’m just trying to point out why I think it strange that our first black president wants to identify so strongly with Lincoln.

Fox News reports that Caroline Kennedy failed to vote in a number of elections since registering in New York City in 1988. Her reaction:

“I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record.” I’m glad it’s been brought to my attention.”

Oh, was I expected to actually vote before being given a seat in the Senate? Why did everyone wait until now to tell me?

Actually this is encouraging news. It’s obvious that a Democrat is going to be appointed to Hillary’s seat, so having someone in there who can’t be bothered to vote could be a good thing. She might not even show up to vote “present.”

While researching the past and present Kennedys in Congress I came across this from a 1998 Washington Post article about Joseph P. Kennedy II leaving Congress:

He also eventually made a mark as a legislator through his initiatives to end housing discrimination against minorities. Because of his efforts, banks now have to disclose racial statistics on mortgage borrowers, a tool the Clinton administration has used to enhance services in minority neighborhoods.

So, “because of his efforts” (and lots of others since then) the housing and financial markets have collapsed. Clinton “enhanced services in minority neighborhoods” by forcing financial institutions to lend to people who didn’t otherwise qualify for a loan. It looks like Joe II didn’t quit soon enough.

There are still two Kennedys in Congress, Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and his son, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.). We don’t need to add Caroline to the mix. We already have enough wealthy Northeasterners who think we common people can’t survive without their help, and who are too dumb to realize that their efforts usually turn out to be more harmful than helpful.

Some think that Ted is about to croak, so adding Caroline will just maintain the status quo. I say forget the status quo. One Kennedy is a lot better than two Kennedys.

Some say that she lacks the experience to be a Senator. I say perhaps not, but the fact that she is a Kennedy is reason enough for the New York governor not to appoint her to fill Hillary’s seat.

Why is Obama staffing his administration with so many Clinton people? Is it because he wants to move toward the center as some of the talking heads have said? No, it’s because there are no Obama people, other than a few crooks and fringe elements. Remember that he was a little known Illinois legislator just four years ago. He is a phenomenon without much substance. He has no executive experience and no great following.

I’m not saying that he’s dumb. He’s smart enough to name a few conservatives to his national security team. He’s smart enough to know if he selected all liberals he would have a national insecurity team.

He has picked some good financial people too. But I don’t know about Hillary at the State Department.

I hope he does govern from the center, but I tend to feel that Charles Krauthammer is right in saying that the stage is set for Obama to transform America:

With the country clamoring for action and with all psychological barriers to government intervention obliterated (by the conservative party, no less), the stage is set for a young, ambitious, supremely confident president — who sees himself as a world-historical figure before even having been sworn in — to begin a restructuring of the American economy and the forging of a new relationship between government and people.

The AP reports that Obama has picked Robert Gibbs to be his press secretary. He was Obama’s communications director during his campaign. This is not good news. When I saw Gibbs on television I was always left with a yucky feeling, kind of like when I see someone picking up poop behind their dog. From the article:

One critic called Gibbs “the bland face of brazenness” when he said Obama’s decision to resign from his church amid the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was “a deeply personal decision, not a political decision.”

To me he’s a bit worse than bland but I agree that he’s brazen. According to a former employer (former Rep. Glen Browder, D-AL) he’s also special:

“Robert had a special quality even back then. In retrospect, it was clear Robert was destined to make his mark.”

It takes someone really special to stand in front of America and say that Obama’s decision to denounce his pastor of twenty years was not politically motivated. That the timing of his “deeply personal decision” just happened to occur when Wright was getting a lot of bad press and Obama was in the midst of his campaign. And the poor guy was not joking.

Gibbs reminds me of Billy Mays. They both are trying to sell us a load of crap. In fact I may have stumbled upon Gibbs’ job description: Clean up the crap your boss leaves behind and then sell that crap to the public.

Fox News reports that Barack Obama may become the most heavily guarded president in history. Here is a picture of part of his security detail:

This is a huge relief. I thought BO was opposed to assault weapons. Surely he will allow us to have the same level of protection that he has. Right?

He has chastised Congress constantly over the last several months for providing itself excellent health insurance while denying that level of coverage to ordinary citizens. Do you think BO has the audacity to do the same regarding personal security?

Obama wants to take my wealth and provide my healthcare. Doctors and hospitals now take my wealth and provide my healthcare. Where’s the “change” Barack?

Seriously, how can adding another layer of bureaucracy improve the healthcare system? Obama knows that it won’t; he just wants the additional power. It’s just another way to buy votes.

As I’ve mentioned before, there’s no guarantee that Obama’s plan will provide better healthcare to the poor. Since the poor don’t pay taxes they are a burden on the system. What is the incentive for a public healthcare system to keep them alive? Well, it could be their votes, but it now seems that being dead is no hindrance to voting.

I see a huge opening for Cuba. If Obama wins and socializes our healthcare system people with money will need an alternative source for healthcare. Michael Moore has already assured us that Cuba has a superb healthcare system, so Cuba should start exporting healthcare. It should establish opulent seaside and mountain healthcare resorts.  I’ve heard that they are about to become an oil exporting country. With healthcare-tourism and oil Cuba could probably finance the welfare of all its citizens, finally making Castro’s great experiment a huge success. (They need not worry about the current travel and trade restrictions; Obama will surely lift those.)

In his closing remarks at last night’s debate Barack Obama said, “We need fundamental change in this country, and that’s what I’d like to bring.” Merriam-Webster defines “fundamental” as “of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts” and says that “radical” is a synonym. The related definition of “radical” is “of or relating to the origin.” A usage example is “fundamental change,” exactly what Obama wants to bring.

So, if we take Obama at his word, it’s clear that he intends to radically change the basic structure and function of our government. He can’t do that without amending the Constitution or appointing judges that will ignore the Constitution. The former is too hard and slow, so look for him to concentrate on the latter.

I’m afraid that with a cooperating Congress Obama can achieve at least some of the fundamental change that he wants. Look for more hate speech and hate crime laws. Look for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Look for new interpretations of the First and Second Amendments. Look for suppression of criticism of the federal government. Look for the federal takeover of public education and attacks on private schools and home-schooling. Look for a lot of retraining (indoctrination) centers around the country for those past public school age. Look for a lot of things that I can’t even imagine.

Look for “community organizers” in every precinct in the country and look for them all to be proponents of the Obamanation.

In her latest column Susan Estrich gets all worked up about John McCain’s campaign tactics. McCain is finally pointing out some bad things about Barack Obama and Susan doesn’t like it.

Our retirement plans and college savings accounts are shrinking, and McCain is shrinking right with them. He’s not just on the verge of getting clobbered in the election. He’s on the verge of becoming an object of utter ridicule.

Let’s see now Susan. First, it looks like you want to be near the front of the line in dishing out the ridicule. Second, do you really expect us to believe that you would prefer that McCain play nice (according to your rules) and stay in the running? Third, do you really expect us to believe that you’re not actually afraid that his being an ol’ meany might work for him?

What’s worse is the content of the negative ads. They aren’t about policy and issues.

For a political operative like Estrich, “policy and issues” are what only the opposition should be constrained to talk about. Anyway “policy and issues” cover a lot of ground, especially issues. Estrich is apparently insisting that Obama hanging out with militant revolutionaries is not an issue. I beg to differ and apparently so does McCain.

I’m about fed up with all the policy and issues crap. I don’t decide whom to vote for based on what they say they will do. I decide based on what they’ve already done up until this point. I vote on the record not on promises. A real debate for me would have the two candidates facing one another and taking turns revealing everything they know about the other. Forget policy and issues.

They’re screaming bloody murder that Barack Obama left a phone message two years ago for a guy (William Ayers) who engaged in radical activity when Barack Obama was 8 years old and living in Indonesia.

Obama supporters harp constantly about the 8-year-old thing. What is the relevance of that? Would Obama pardon a murderer and free him from prison just because the murder occurred when Obama was 8 years old. Anyway, Ayers is still a radical revolutionary; he just seems to have stopped throwing bombs.

Ayers, who is a neighbor of Obama’s, even had some kind of meet-and-greet for him 13 years ago, when Obama was running for state Senate, making him one of about a million people who’ve opened their homes and their checkbooks to the guy.

One in a million huh? Let’s put that in perspective. Say that Obama spent only 15 minutes at each of these in-home meet-and-greets. Then it would have taken more than 28 years of 24/7 meeting and greeting. Obama is now 46 so he would have had to start when he was 18 years old. Hey, that’s only 10 years after Ayers bombed the US Capitol.

U.S. Senator John McCain tried to use his influence to help a crook named Charlie Keating, one of the worst of the saving and loan robbers, a man who ripped off everyone in sight, including American taxpayers. That’s OK. Forgive and forget.

Susan, how can we forget if you keep reminding us? Now you’re being negative just like McCain. Don’t give me that tit-for-tat stuff; you should be above that. Anyway, you conveniently failed to mention that McCain was exonerated in the Keating Five mess by a Senate investigation.