Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (69783)	2/23/2009 4:45:50 PM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Obama's Unity Hustle By Ed Kaitz American Thinker Barack Obama ran for office as a unifier, but it was all a hustle.His brand of politics needs enemies. Like southern slave owners of old, today's conservative Republicans represent the enemy to be vanquished by enlightened progressives from the north. This is an old storyline that provides unlimited nourishment to America's liberal elites. Many of us, especially those of us who work in education, have long seen this coming. In the early stages of the diversity movement for example it didn't take long to realize who was and was not included on the ubiquitous rainbow flag. "Diversity" was simply a codeword for a concerted attack on conservative, white, European traditions. The champions of diversity on college campuses rarely had any familiarity with other languages and cultures; rather, they defined themselves simply by their opposition to their white oppressors. For example, thinkers from Confucius to Adam Smith were curiously absent from diversity's suggested reading list, while Marx and Engels seemed to always make the cut. In short, "diversity" was in essence the building of a unified front against everything for which American once stood. Professor Stanley Fish for example, a hero among the diversity cadre, spoke for many on the left when he once said: <<< "Individualism, fairness, merit -- these three words are continually in the mouths of our up-to-date, newly respectable bigots who have learned that they need not put on a white hood or bar access to the ballot box in order to secure their ends." >>> This kind of standard fare, cavalier hatred from the left is what has passed for "tolerance" and "diversity" in our schools for the last couple of decades. What's worse, the most brutal attacks on anything resembling the Enlightenment values of reason, merit, and individualism have occurred in our nation's law schools. We have to understand that students emerging from these institutions may be somewhat confused then about the meaning of either "unity" or "diversity." In Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law, constitutional law professors Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry paint a chilling picture of what "radical multiculturalism" has accomplished in America's law schools. The authors reveal that professors "who cling to Enlightenment aspirations" are "at some risk of being labeled racists or bigots." Why? Because according to the multiculturalists, "conceptions of merit are invented by the powerful to reinforce their dominant position in society." The authors go on to suggest that other groups that take advantage of merit based, objective measurements of success - such as Jews and Asians - will soon join white (especially conservative) Europeans as open targets. In short, any kind of objective measurement, including the law, must be scrapped as simply a tool of an oppressor class. But without objective legal standards, what's an attorney supposed to use as a basis for judgment? According to Farber and Sherry: <<< "For the radical multiculturalists, knowledge is communicated not so much by dispassionate reasoning as by telling stories that inspire faith." >>> Instead of a dispassionate and objective appraisal of the law then, our newly minted law school graduates are taught to listen to criminal "narratives" and life stories, which are just as valid, if not more valid, than the "story" (not the truth) of merit, reason, and objectivity perpetrated by the white oppressors. The goal I presume is to decide between competing "stories." In the weeks leading up to the presidential election Thomas Sowell penned a widely read essay that outlined Barack Obama's use of "sheer deception" in his quest for the White House. Sowell stated in that essay: <<< "Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself as a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide -- after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies." >>> My guess is that our new president, like his allies in the academic world, has a severely truncated notion of unity -- which doesn't celebrate a diversity that includes Rush Limbaugh or his millions of listeners. For decades the left has conducted an all out war against core American values like individualism and merit. I often worry that this is what President Obama means by promising "change." Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that while Americans had their squabbles and their differences, "they are unanimous upon the general principles that ought to rule human society." According to Tocqueville those general principles included the following: <<< "The same notions are entertained respecting liberty and equality, the liberty of the press, the right of association, the jury, and the responsibility of the agents of government." >>> I look across the national landscape today and wonder: If those of us who still believe in self-reliance and merit are simply "respectable bigots" to those on the left, is there truly any "unity" left in America? americanthinker.com