Thursday, October 02, 2008

No You Can't

I'm getting rather annoyed at this Barack Obama character down south. He talks about "change you can believe in," which not only ends in a preposition but is a statement that expects the reader to take it at face value. He offers no proof that his type of change is any different from anybody else's version of change. Plus, is there change I can't believe in? Change is change after all: the altering of one state into another. If change happens, believing in it or not doesn't matter.

He also runs on the assumption that change is good, for its own sake. Bah. That's like saying driving is good, or walking is good. Perhaps those activities can lead to good results, but perhaps they can lead to bad results. Who would dare maintain that it's good to drive to the house right next door to you? Who would maintain that it's good to walk off a pier? You can't talk about change without having some ultimate goal in mind, and I'm quite certain that Obama has no goals worth pursuing. Forget this "rebuild our image in the eyes of the world" nonsense - what is he really proposing that can appeal to the sense of urgency I have for society's ills?

Apparently, he's proposing this:

h/t: SoCon or Bust


  1. There is a serious political precedent for ending a sentence with a preposition. See Winston Churchill's "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put."

    Normally I would agree that change, like driving, is not necessarily good of its own accord. However, when contrasted with anything that Bush and co. have said or done (not done?), change in and of itself cannot possibly be worse than the status quo. Not to say that one needs Obama; indeed even McCain is change and cannot be worse than Bush. However, given McCain's major mistake so far - choosing Palin as VP - it would seem that he is a man of poor judgement. Indeed, he has picked someone as potential VP who doesn't have an inkling as to what the job entails. What do I mean by that? I quote "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?"

    May God help us all if the Republicans actually win this thing.

  2. You'll earn no points with this blogger by stating that anybody is better than Bush. I've got a lot of respect for W and think that once the dust settles on history, he will be regarded as one of the greatest American presidents, specifically for the stand he took against the West's enemies, often alone (much to this Canadian's shame). Lincoln and Reagan were both pilloried in their day, but now nobody disputes their legacies and the positive impact they had on freedom. Mark my words - 20, 30, 50 years from now, Bush will die, and the nation will mourn.

    As for Palin, do you know what a VP does all day? Why on earth should her lack of experience frighten anybody? I don't care about Obama's green sheen either. I've learned that no matter what the job is, if you put a quality person in it, it will be done right, and well. Don't confuse qualified with quality. Bush, McCain, Palin - these are quality people. Gore, Kerry, Obama - I have my doubts about their abilities.

    In my view, the abortion question is key not just in getting a handle on the moral perspective of a candidate, but also for ascertaining their ability to grasp simple logic and the concept of absolute truth. No pro-choice candidate will dare to tell you that life begins at moment x. For as soon as they draw that line in the sand, an exception will pop up on the wrong side of the line. If a person has the character to draw that line at conception (or even more daringly, intercourse), there is no wrong side of it. That takes guts in today's world, and I always vote for guts.


Comments are welcome, but must be on topic. Spam, hateful/obscene remarks, and shameless self-promotion will be unceremoniously deleted. Well, OK, I might put on a little ceremony when I delete them.