In a previous (recent) case, the private parties hollering resulted in the POTUS weighing-in on the topic.
That's a remarkably strong private party, non?
That's a remarkably strong private party, non?
I sympathise with Obama, I really do. He can either use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to address race issues in America, or he can pretend there are no such issues. If he does the former, the Republicans go crazy(er). If he does the latter, the Demcrats' heads explode.In a previous (recent) case, the private parties hollering resulted in the POTUS weighing-in on the topic.
That's a remarkably strong private party, non?
I sympathise with Obama, I really do. He can either use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency to address race issues in America, or he can pretend there are no such issues. If he does the former, the Republicans go crazy(er). If he does the latter, the Demcrats' heads explode.
So Obama, being a natural-born seeker of the middle ground, seeks a middle ground. And both wings hate him.
This may be a good thing. Eisenhower called it "equality of dissatisfaction," meaning if everybody's pissed at you, whatever you did was probably right.
I don't disagree with your points, although I will suggest that Obama's actions in the Martin case in terms of stating that 'if I had a son, he'd be just like Trayvon' was a disastrous move
White people in the USA are going to have to get used to rougher treatment as America becomes more socially just.
No, they believe in "justice" for all. . . they simply focus on justice for black people.
.
Oh, you mean like social-entropy, where things can only go the lowest common denominator?
How about "socially just" meaning blacks get nicer treatment?
I don't disagree with your points, although I will suggest that Obama's actions in the Martin case in terms of stating that 'if I had a son, he'd be just like Trayvon' was a disastrous move