Grey Matters

He really said it. If I hadn’t seen it myself, I’d have thought it was one of those deceptive Internet videos trying to discredit Barack Obama. But I saw him say it himself during coverage of a campaign stop a while back. Barack Obama said we need Supreme Court justices that have “the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.” Really. He said that.

Now, empathy is all well and good but, presumably, Obama wants justices who will let empathy influence their decisions, otherwise, why bring it up? He desires empathic justices, as opposed to justices who uphold the law, defend and protect the Constitution and all that old-fashioned stuff in their oaths of office. What does being poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old have to do with justice? These things may evoke empathy but should that influence a judge’s decisions?

I maintain that a judge’s duty — or a Supreme Court Justice’s — is to uphold the law, and not let empathy or sympathy or personal feelings of any kind influence their decisions. An Obama Supreme Court, presumably, would be all touchy-feely, making things “right” instead of upholding the highest law of the land.

Again, the outcome of a case should have nothing to do with whether one party or another to a case is poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. These qualities should not influence a court’s decision. That Barack Obama wants empathic Supreme Court Justices speaks volumes.

Obama’s remarks went largely unnoticed. Certainly they did not get the press that his “spread the wealth around” remarks to Joe the plumber got. Given increasingly empathic news media, it’s not surprising that Obama’s vision for the Supreme Court did not raise any alarms among news reporters.

But can you imagine the furor if McCain had said that we need Supreme Court Justices with “empathy for those yet unborn, people who lose the family business to inheritance taxes and law-abiding gun owners who are increasingly harrassed”? We’d still be hearing about it on the news.

I’m not exactly thrilled with either of the major party presidential nominees. Obama is an FDR-style Democrat and McCain is, well, an FDR-style Republican. No good can come of electing either of them to the office of President of the United States (POTUS). I won’t be voting for either of them.

I really wish I could vote for NOTA — None Of The Above. I really think that all ballots for political office should always have NOTA as an option, if only to let us send the message that we don’t care for any of the candidates.

It needn’t be binding on anyone or affect the election in any way (other than taking away possible votes for candidates we don’t like) — the candidate (other than NOTA) getting the most votes would still win. But we, as voters, would be able to send a message about the quality of the candidates given us.

I think the results would be illuminating.

I have a bumper sticker that explains my position: “Don’t blame me, I voted Libertarian.”

I have a libertarian mindset and have voted Libertarian for many years. Republicrats like to tell me that I’m wasting my vote. Hardly!

You know who really wasted their votes? The people who voted for George Herbert Walker Read My Lips No New Taxes Bush and were surprised by the (up until then) single largest tax increase in the nation’s history, that’s who.

Or the people that voted for Bill Clinton (again) expecting that somehow the Clintons would not (continue to) be the sleaziest first family to ever inhabit the White House.

Anyone who votes for politicians promising lower taxes and more government benefits is voting for a lie, and wasting their votes.

My vote, on the other hand, accomplishes exactly its intended purpose. It sends the message that I don’t like either of the Republicrat offerings. 

Do you watch “Survivor” or “Big Brother” — those shows where competitors have to hoodwink their opponents and convince their friends to vote others off the island or out of the house? Often at the end, when it comes time for the final vote, the finalists are equally despicable. You look at them and say to yourself, “I really don’t want either one to win.”

The finalists are not the ones who exhibit qualities we admire. Instead, they are the back-stabbers and double crossing manipulators. They know how to “work” people to get what they want, and what they want is to win. That’s how the system works. We don’t get the best and brightest, we get the ones who know how to use people. The folks voting have to hold their noses and vote for one or the other of the not-so-deserving finalists. 

And so it is with politics. The finalists aren’t the people best qualified, they’re the ones who know how to work the system. Just look at any political race, but particularly at the presidential nominees of recent decades. Are these really the best we can do? George W. Bush, John Kerry and Al Gore? Bob Dole? Walter Mondale? Jimmy Carter? Michael Dukakis? Bill Clinton?!?

Does anyone seriously believe that the green Barack Obama, with not even a full term as U.S. Senator behind him, or the aging John McCain are the two people in the whole country best qualified to be president? Really?

Go ahead, hold your nose and waste your vote on a Republicrat. But don’t blame me. I’m writing in Ron Paul.

As noted previously, for many people, this presidential election is all about race. The Race Card is being played often. On the CNN web site, Campbell Brown writes: “How much is race really a part of this race? Can we even know before Election Day, before the votes are cast and counted?” Kinda sounds like she believes that after the votes are cast and counted, then we will know. It’s just not knowable beforehand, she says.

This sounds to me like she’s one of those people for whom there’s no reason for Obama not to win, except, of course, racism.

Elsewhere on CNN, Cafferty writes: “The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.” [Emphasis added] Here’s another guy who thinks that race is the only possible reason Obama is not way ahead of McCain. We know who he’ll blame if Obama loses. The caption on a photo of Obama says: “Will race be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House?” No one, it seems, is asking: “Will Obama’s socialist politics be the factor that keeps Obama from the White House?” Naw, no one asks because no one thinks anything but racism can keep Obama out of the White House.

On BlueOregon, Jeff Alworth wrote: “Supporting Obama: Should Race Be a Factor?” Long story short: yes, it should, but only if Obama’s race impels you to vote for him, not against him — cause that wouldn’t be cool. He concludes: “If we elect Barack Obama in 2008, our troubled relationship with race will change irrevocably and for the better.  How could I ignore that fact when considering a candidates?” I.e., he’s a Good Racist, not a Bad Racist. 

Elsewhere I see:

• “… the actual extent of the racial divide is likely to become clear only on Nov. 4.”
• “… the fact of the matter is that some voters — we can’t know yet how many — will not get past his race. And I very much believe that the McCain-Palin ticket is tapping into that.”

Got that? America’s racism (or lack thereof) will be known on the morning of November 5, 2008. And the McCain-Palin ticket is harnessing racism to win the election. Got it?

So, are you voting for Obama or are you a racist? (And do you still beat your wife?) Personally, I think that Democrats are trying to use white guilt to get Obama elected. Is it working?

“Figures lie and lairs figure.”

Time to look at a couple of numbers and statements being thrown around by the Obama campaign. First has to be the statement that Obama plans to “cut taxes” for “95%” of all taxpayers.

People familiar with the facts are quick to point out that some 40% of income tax “payers” actually get back more “refund” than the amount of tax that was withheld from their paychecks. They are income tax payers in name only, as they get back everything they pay in and then some.

How is that possible? The Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is the most direct way the government has of taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who did not earn it. It is a refundable income tax credit. (It’s also one of the most abused tax fraud mechanisms in existence — but that’s another story.)

So, when Obama includes this 40% in his 95% figure, and promises to “cut” their taxes too, he means he is going to give those people an even larger EITC — more money from those who earned it to those who did not. Obama thinks that robbing you to give me money (or vice-versa) is a “tax cut” for both of us.

Let me say it again, no matter whose taxes are raised, we all pay. Obama would have you believe that he’s going to provide tax relief to the Middle Class. The only way to do that is to CUT taxes. Raising them, even selectively, raises all our taxes.

I learned from an Obama supporter on TV today that “two of every three corporations don’t pay any tax.”

Let’s accept, for the sake of argument, that this is true. So what? If the corporation DID pay taxes, the tax would just be passed on to you, the customers of those corporations. As I wrote previously: “Those “rich” corporations have a place in their ledgers for taxes. Taxes are a cost of doing business. As the cost of doing business increases, so do the prices of the products or services the corporation supplies. So we all pay for corporate taxes.” We may not pay those taxes directly, but we pay them nonetheless.

It’s simple, really. The poor don’t have the trillions needed to run the gargantuan Federal government. Neither do the rich people. If you took all the income earned by every “rich” person, it would run the government for a few weeks at most. ALL the rest of the money that government spends comes from the vast middle class — the people for whom Obama says he will cut taxes — even as he proposes a trillion dollars on new spending.

Don’t be fooled into thinking that Obama is cutting anyone’s taxes. Even the folks to whom he is planning to give more free money, via the EITC, will just end up paying more taxes indirectly. We always pay.