Walter Williams on Obama

In a column published today in the Orange County Register, Walter Williams says America's first black president ought to be as capable a politician as Jackie Robinson, America's first black big league baseball player, was a baseball player -- and Barack Obama isn't that good. He goes on to say, indirectly, that blacks are their own worst enemies. He argues that blacks are not being held back by white racism but by illegitimacy, ignorance and criminality. These are problems only blacks can solve, he suggests.

Whether blacks need a better black president than whites need a white one is debatable. The rest of what he says is surely true.

Climate change causes hurricanes?

In a front page article today, the LAT suggests that Katrina and other recent hurricanes were caused by global warming. Isn't this a theory that has been widely rejected?

Supremes excite LAT

The LAT is excited this morning over a decision yesterday by the U. S. Supreme Court that the LAT says "rebuffs" President Bush. Anything negative towards Bush excites the LAT. Actually, the case is less a rebuff to Bush than to "internationalist" who believe foreign law ought to be enforced by U.S. courts. The Wall Street Journal explains that in an editorial today.

Reading between the lines and engaging in a bit of speculation, it seems most likely that the Bush administration took the position it did to placate Mexico and the International Court of Justice, which ordered the action the Bush administration took. To have taken the opposite position would have exposed the U.S. to charges it thumbed its nose at U.S. treaty obligations.

LAT does opposition research for Democrats

On today's front page, the LAT publishes a hit piece on McCain alongside a puff piece on Obama. In the McCain piece, they dig up every adverse fact or rumor they can from up to 10 years ago, to make McCain look bad. The piece on Obama essentially praises him for his speech on racial issues, without pointing out the negative aspects of the speech, such as bringing his grandmother into the dispute and suggesting that Geraldine Ferraro's comments were morally equivalent to preacher Wright's rants. The Obama piece does relay the point of view of a white auto worker concerning black beneficiaries of affirmative action, which lends some balance.

Noonan loved Obama's speech

Peggy Noonan, in her column yesterday, said Obama's speech was strong, thoughtful, important and rather beautiful to read. Well, OK, that was her opinion but her opinions are becoming more and more hard to swallow. Perhaps living in New York rubs off on you, or maybe Noonan has always been a closet liberal.

What's so great about the speech? Paragraphs are short? Sentences contain subject, verb and predicate? Those are minimal standards. Obama shouldn't get special credit for good grammar.

On substance, Obama came up short. He was too easy on preacher Wright, too hard on his grandmother and Ferraro. In fact, including his grandmother in the speech was disgraceful. Obama failed to bring up black obligation -- the obligation blacks have, the same as whites, to take responsibility for their own lives, to stop being victims, to put slavery and Jim Crow behind them, to live in the present and plan for the future. Obama also didn't mention black racism, arguably a more powerful force, considering its effects, than white racism.

When Obama takes on black obligation and black racism his speeches will be worth reading.

Obama gets no bad press from LAT

A few days ago, the LAT published a front page piece that ridiculed President Bush for comments he made when he complimented Henry Paulson for the work he did over the weekend. Bush's words were not artful but they were well-meaning. Bush was simply thanking a man for the work he did, and that's appropriate.

In the LAT today, there's no mention of the words Barack Obama spoke yesterday to a radio interviewer in Philadelphia in which he referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person." If Bush had referred to a "typical black person" the LAT would have splashed it all over the front page.

Debate at the Pentagon

The LAT reports today that Petraeus and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are fighting over Iraq strategy. Petraeus wants to bring the troops home slowly whereas the Joint Chiefs want faster action because they think the Iraq war is stretching the Army too thin and there are other threats besides. It sounds familiar. If memory serves, Tommy Franks had a similar disagreement with the Joint Chiefs leading up to the Iraq invasion. Someone, can't remember who, told Franks he had his back. Petraeus needs the same help. Maybe it's the president who has his back. That wouldn't be a bad thing.