I have to agree with those commentators who have opined that the clear winner in last night's so-called "Beer Summit" was Sgt. James Crowley. He has maintained a level of dignity, decorum and self-control throughout this whole episode that is truly reassuring. He has stayed within himself, he has not over-reached or over-spoken or over-reacted. He is the epitome of cool calm.
And he is quite resistant to beer pressure, even when it comes from the most popular man in the world.
It seems there is some uncertainty about the location of Michael Jackson's body. Lest you believe I am inventing things, permit me to direct you to this story, or this blog post (one of many possible examples).
Adding to the alleged mysteries around the pop icon's death and the whereabouts of his body is Louis Farrakhan's two-hour lecture given this past Sunday in which he suggests Mr. Jackson was crucified.
The Final Call published (of course) a report on "The Crucifixion of Michael Jackson," the apparent title of Mr. Farrakhan's lecture; there we read the following:
“Why would we, as intelligent believing people, put Michael Jackson in the same kind of trauma, dilemma, torture and scourging as the man Jesus?” the Minister asked early in his lecture.
“They mocked Jesus. When they crucified him, they had at the top of the cross, ‘Jesus, King of the Jews.' Michael, also a king was crucified, the so-called king of pop. I see Michael much deeper than those who have talked about him,” said Min. Farrakhan.…
[skip]
But his [Jackson's] thinking was Black-oriented and lyrics in songs reflected his changing mind, said Min. Farrakhan. “Michael, then, was on his way to the cross because Michael had touched the hearts of people all over the world. Michael touched every race, every culture, every ethnic group, every tribe—there was nothing Michael hadn't touched,” said the Minister. “And now he's becoming Dangerous? Dangerous to who? To those who want to keep you ignorant to who you are so they can continue to use us as tools and slaves. It's not about hate. This is not about anti-Semitism. It's about showing who is anti-Black.”
I will not comment on Mr. Farrakhan's eulogy here, at least not now. I will simply state that if Mr. Jackson was crucified and his body is now missing, I would not be surprised to learn that the King of Pop has risen from the grave. At least, that's how the story ended when that other king was crucified. Why should things be any different now?
What would be perfect tonight is if, at the great Summit of Beer, after Messrs. Obama and Gates choose their respective lite pilsners, Sergeant James Crowley asks for a glass of pinot noir.
Sergeant James Crowley is in the White House as I write, dispatched there by the occupant of the Oval Office. The good sergeant will be joined by the man he arrested, Henry Louis Gates Jr.; both men will have beers with Mr. Obama.
Of course, this all strikes me as an incredible teachable moment -- in propaganda.
The facts of this entire story are rather plain, at least to me, and the great social ills allegedly highlighted by the arrest of Mr. Gates in Cambridge, Massachusetts have nothing to do with what is truly important. Racial profiling, racial tension, bigotry, systemic or institutionalized racism; whatever it is called, what brings these three men together -- alleged differences -- are all distractions. Red-herrings. The facts are not relevant; the story is not the story.
What is at issue here is simple.
What is the story is perfectly obvious.
The only thing that matters is that Barack Obama abused his power and his office to protect a friend, to insinuate racism where there was none, to denigrate a police department, to obfuscate the legal basis for his friend's arrest, and to refuse to accept responsibility for his reckless and shameful actions. This is a story about a president who behaved foolishly, without regard for law or decorum; who acted prejudiciously and arrogantly; who forsook his responsibility as chief law enforcement officer of the land. And he did this after admitting he did not have all the facts about the Cambridge affair.
What offends us most about racism? Is it that racism is based on superficiality? Is it that racism is the result of irrational prejudice? Indeed, this IS what offends us most: it is an unthinking, unreflective, loveless act of pre-judgment -- of prejudice -- based solely in surfaces. We loathe shallowness. (Oscar Wilde's epigram comes to mind -- "The supreme vice is shallowness.")
Many people have focused all their attention on the prejudice of Sgt. Crowley, that he pre-judged someone solely because he was black. Others have focused their attention on the prejudice of Mr. Gates, that he pre-judged a white policeman for talking to a black man.
But no one seems to care that the evidence for the prejudice of either Sgt. Crowley or Mr. Gates is rather scant and that the evidence for the prejudice of Mr. Obama is absolutely undeniable. Mr. Obama pre-judged an entire police department. He pre-judged how that department "acted" and why it acted the way it did. And this he did by his own admission on primetime TV before the press corps and the world.
Where is the outrage at Mr. Obama's obvious prejudice? Where is the outrage at his obvious abuse of power? Where is the outrage at his arrogance? Where is the outrage at his using his office to protect a friend and abuse a law enforcement agency? Where is the outrage at his obfuscation of law? Where's the outrage at his undeniable shallowness?
Here's hoping Sgt. Crowley will not allow himself to become a propaganda tool. Here's hoping that he will not be peer-pressured, or beer-pressured, into protecting Barack Obama's image. Here's hoping that he will stick to his convictions, defend his integrity, and uphold the laws he daily defends. Here's hoping that he is not swayed by star-power, or celebrity. That he is not swayed by craft or cunning. That he will not take one for the team, the Obama brand.
Here's hoping that he recognizes prejudice and speaks to it directly.
Since the "Birther" thing is hot right now, and because I have dismissed the conspiracy as belated and frivolous, I nonetheless feel a need to be utterly transparent. I posited, in October 2008, that the much-touted "October Surprise" would be built on charges that Barack Obama was NOT a natural-born US citizen. I posted two times on this matter, and then I posted THIS ARTICLE after reading Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama. You will find therein the links to my first two articles; you will also find therein these words of mine:
What disturbs me considerably is something I've spotted in myself, namely a cynicism so deep I have come to distrust nearly everyone running for political office. And there is no doubt I am of the psychological constitution where I find myself distrusting left-leaning peers more often than those who lean right. Since Barack Obama is undeniably left-leaning, I was too quick to suspect him of profound wrongdoing, of defrauding the American public by essentially gaining the presidency without meeting all constitutional prerequisites and by taking advantage of what is ostensibly the vague and seemingly unenforcable rules of Article II. Again, I am not saying I believed the lawsuit had legitimacy or that Mr. Obama was not born on American soil. I am saying that I am duly cynical enough to believe those things possible and plausible.
Moreover, I divined that my cynicism did not go deeply enough. I did not bring to the Pennsylvania lawsuit the next level of inquiry. I did not ask whether Mr. Berg himself was trustworthy; enamored of his former status as deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania, I did not ponder that he might be something of a rogue litigant. After all, I learned in my simple research that Mr. Berg had earlier submitted a motion to the same court for protections in a bankruptcy procedure, and that the case was dismissed for the exact same reasons as Berg v. Obama. Add to that the item I picked up that reported Mr. Berg, shortly after 9/11, created a website asserting that the Bush administration either was involved in or knew beforehand the atrocities of that infamous day, and I am left holding something inherently suspect (it is no secret I have zero tolerance for 9/11 "truther" schemes).
And, of course, the zenith of my cynicism, if you will, manifested itself in my wondering aloud whether we would see a spate of similar lawsuits over the next few days and weeks.
I just thought you should know that I do not pretend to have gone through the fire of doubt without having been burned.
[Dear Readers: For the following comments to make any sense, they need to be placed in context. Please read James Taranto's first entry in yesterday's column, "Birthers Lay An Egg." What follows here is what I posted in the comments thread at Mr. Taranto's Wall Street Journal blog.]
Dear Mr. Taranto,
I hope this note finds you well.
Re: "BIRTHERS"
Again (though this is a new topic), I don't see what you seem to see. Now let me jettison this whole theory about Mr. Obama's place -- or places -- of origin. He's a natural-born US citizen. Fine.
How, pray tell, does it help ANYONE, particularly Mr. Obama himself, to have “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii” included in a non-binding resolution honoring Hawaii's reception into the union? If this whole "birther" thing is simply a wacko conspiracy fit for madness, doesn't this resolution bring madness into the very heart of the US House? The blogger you quote, a Mr. Sargent, thinks this little tack was to force "birthers" to shut up or crash into a contradiction. But if this is true, then the powers in the House really thought that the "birthers" arguments had some merit; and if not merit on rational grounds, at least merit on political grounds: they believed some political hay could be made by Republicans sowing doubt and fear. But can you recall ANY non-binding resolution drafted as a trap to catch those congressional Democrats who might be prone to thinking that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney devised 9-11 for oil? No, you can't, because the "truthers" arguments were dismissed as utterly and completely preposterous. By your own admission the "birthers" argument is sheer madness, and yet you countenance, with something of a chuckle crossing your keyboard, that this resolution is a birther's smelly egg. Interesting.
You have consistently pointed out in your column that certain words are considered to be racially charged in large part because the fusspots among us keep reviving dying and/or dormant racial innuendoes and stereotypes each time they protest about those very words. I am surprised that you don't see how this resolution has only revived and enlivened the whole "birther" conspiracy. Don't you see that Mr. Sargent, the blogger, has opened the door to suspicion, i.e., that Democrats have used a sneaky clause in a non-binding resolution to hide something? Here, at a moment when Barack Obama's poll numbers are slipping, a congressional resolution is passed in part to silence those who doubt Mr. Obama's birth certificate. Is this funny? Is this brilliant? I think it is neither. And it surely does not help Mr. Obama's slide into the abyss of the ordinary. MORE attention, not less, will now be directed at his "phony" birth certificate. Or so I suspect.
Lastly, there are those who believe that sowing seeds of doubt about Mr. Obama's nationality or lack thereof make him vulnerable to those who would seek to harm him in some way. Doubts about his legitimacy only fuel hatred and invite violence. Fair enough. But what about sowing seeds of doubt about another president's legitimacy? What about theories that posit George W. Bush orchestrated 9-11, that he killed 3,000 people in September 2001? What about asserting that same president rushed into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans, 100's of thousands of Iraqis; that he made us "less safe" with his war of "distraction"? What of his penchant for spying on Americans and his fetish for torture? Did these sorts of charges not make Mr. Bush vulnerable to harm?
It seems that the non-binding resolution touted by blogger Sargent and yourself as something ironic and even amusing has only exacerbated the problem of Barack Obama's origins. Or so I will guess.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
[A note to Contratimes readers: It seems that Mr. Sargent, the blogger mentioned above, has REALLY elevated the "birther" movement by contacting the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Sargent has Steele's spokesman announcing that Mr. Steele believes this is all a distraction and that Mr. Obama IS a "US citizen." All this proves my point that instead of tamping down an issue the US House, Mr. Sargent, and Mr. Taranto have actually elevated it. I am sure Mr. Obama is grateful for all the help.]
It seems that during, or just prior to, the month of July 2009, in a place of dubious certitude and of equally dubious parentage, "Birther" was born. This word, by some accounts a bastard word, came into the world to denote, and to denigrate and marginalize, those who have doubts about the authenticity of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate or claims that he is a natural-born citizen.
I have discovered that I am something of a rare bird, an odd duck. A cuckoo in the snow. I am not particularly surprised by this discovery. I know I am just strange.
In fact I am just strange enough to believe that what is most important about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge (MA) police sergeant, James Crowley, is not that it was a faulty arrest, or that the arrest was the result of racism or racial profiling. And I am strange enough to believe that the many conversations about disorderly conduct and race that have been started as a result of the arrest of one Harvard professor are distractions, diversions. I am also strange enough to think that locutions like "teachable moment" and "we have a long history in this country of racial-profiling" are red-herrings.
Indeed, I am just strange enough to believe that the most important thing about this whole story is that Barack Obama abused his power and office in an effort to protect a friend by denigrating law enforcement officers and by obfuscating the legal basis for the arrest of his friend.
I admit, however, that I am humbled, or, perhaps more accurately, bewildered, by the great pundits of our time who have allowed themselves to follow the red-herring trails spread across the real issue of a president's abuse of power. My humility AND bewilderment come in noticing that I have stood rather alone in thinking that this is not about race, police abuse; profiling and prejudice. I opined here within minutes of Barack Obama's reckless and absurd remarks that he should apologize and immediately resign his post. I have suggested that his words were meant to inflame and rebuke; and that his later expressions of regret were further proof that he was intent on protecting a friend and his self-image at the expense of a police department.
Apparently few people heard and saw what I saw and heard. Bloggers and pundits seemed mostly interested in the racial dimension of an incident on a Cambridge porch. Yes, their interest was attracted by the spotlight aimed at Cambridge by Mr. Obama himself; but even then their interest was not on whether he had failed his presidential obligations as commander in chief and guardian of law. The fix was on, so to speak; Obama's protectors were out in force to discuss everything but Mr. Obama's obvious abuse of the Office of President. The Obama apologists' ploy was to get everyone's attention fixated on the non-essentials, to keep the critical eye from noticing the president's sin. Or so it all seemed to me.
I have watched the Sunday "news" shows; I have read sundry columns and blog headlines on the matter, and I am convinced I am alone. If right now I do a Google search with the query "Gates + Barack Obama should resign", the first thing Google shows, at least right now, is an essay I posted at Contratimes. And the next Google offerings are not even close. Odd that I alone should see something that merits Barack Obama's resignation when others clearly do not. I am undeniably alone. Or so it feels.
I am a strange bird, an odd duck. A flying kiwi. A plumeless peacock. A saharan penguin, a teal flamingo, a harlequin without a mask. A blind owl.
A foul fowl, alone on an eerie aerie. From thence I prey -- and pray.
If Barack Obama possesses any sort of genius, it is not the sort of genius that works toward something positive. It seems rather obvious that the man has a gift for obfuscation, and of covering his tracks. Let me show you a perfect example of what I mean.
The question that Barack Obama answered Wednesday night that set off such a firestorm about alleged police incompetence and alleged racial profiling (and race-baiting) after an unfortunate incident that led to an arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was rather straightforward. Here it is as asked by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times:
"What does that incident [the arrest of Henry Gates] say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?"
Of course, we all know how Mr. Obama answered.
But let us note how he defended that answer in his interview with ABC News' Terry Moran:
"...But I was asked [by Ms. Sweet], you know, uh, 'Did it make sense for it to escalate to the levels that it did?' I said, 'Probably not. And that, uh, it, it would have been more sensible for everybody to just, once it was established that Mr. Gates was in his own home, that, uh, we should just settle this thing down.'"
So, before the eyes of the whole world, Mr. Obama does two things. First, in his press conference on Wednesday night, he admits that he does not know all the facts about an incident, and that he is biased. And yet, despite that ignorance and bias, he chooses to denigrate the Cambridge police, accusing them of "acting stupidly."
Second, confronted later by a reporter about his statement, he not only rewrites his answer, he rewrites the question. Mr. Obama WAS NOT ASKED WHAT HE SAYS HE WAS ASKED. Hence, he responds to a fiction, a fabrication. In fact, what he does is shove blame away from himself: he creates a false loaded or leading question that he was not asked, and by doing so he implies that the real source of his mistake is OUTSIDE OF HIM, it is in the questioner, and not in his answer. Please, read the quote above again. Look what Mr. Obama has done.
Moreover, please listen to Mr. Obama's entire response to Terry Moran. Notice the red-herring dragged through the whole debate. This red-herring is typical Obama: he is surprised by this "distraction" (one of his favorite defensive tools, only implied in his comments here) from the real issues of our day, like "health care" and "two wars."
Seriously, listen to Mr. Obama when Mr. Moran asks essentially a second time, "Do you still believe the Cambridge Police acted stupidly?"
Here's Mr. Obama's response:
[leans head back, tips it to right; looks down]
"Well, [serious face turns to big smile, laugh, head back, chin up] this is, this is, this is a, Terry, [head down, looks to his right] I think this is a classic example, at a time when we are talking about health care, energy, we got two wars going on, uh, that, um, issues like this get elevated in ways that probably don't make much sense."
And please note the next sentence: Mr. Obama goes on to say that the behavior of the Cambridge police department made "no sense."
If I was Terry Moran, my next question would have been, "But Mr. President, wasn't it you who 'elevated,' as you just said, this whole issue by pronouncing judgment on a case that, by your own admission, you knew nothing about, and this at a time when you were talking about health care? Aren't you the one who actually allowed things to escalate by speaking when you should have remained silent? Didn't you lose control and let things get out of hand? And how do your words and actions make any sense?"
This is all so stunning. And ironic.
I have to say that I am appalled that people are focusing on the minutiae of the "he said/he said" battle that occurred in Cambridge, MA between a policeman and a professor. What is at issue here, what is clearly appalling, is the behavior of the man who sits in the Oval Office. He is the one who has abused his power; he is the one who has allowed things to escalate. And yes, he is the one who is playing the race card.
All this from a man who publicly admitted -- his admission was his preface! -- that he did not know all the facts.
Over the last few days -- perhaps only in the last day -- I've noticed the use of the word "presser." Apparently this hip new noun denotes press conferences, like the one last Wednesday night in which Barack Obama discussed health care. This word is even so new Wikipedia has yet to hand out a definition; a search online reveals presser is fresher than any other word in this post.
It's all a bit like calling the president POTUS (a new hybrid oriental flower, I hear) or prezzy. Or yo.
I recently noticed, too, the seemingly ex nihilo creation of the word Norks, or norks, used in commentaries, blogs and headlines. This seemingly new noun denotes North Koreans. One day, well, there it was: Norks. For a moment I thought it might be some twist on a new type of dork, or even some queer reference to an underground secessionist movement in New York.
I swear, too, that Twitter, and more importantly, tweet, were not in my internal lexicon, at least as they are now, until just a few months ago. I do recall adoring the very lovely word twitterpated, first presented to me as a child watching one of the greatest scenes in Disney film history (see below). But tweet as a signifier for a type of human communication? Oiks!
Of course, I have readily absorbed blog as an effective noun or verb, but I admit I do not use it without feeling a tiny bit low-brow. And though I initially loathed 24-7 (or 24/7), I've come to use this without the slightest compunction.
But presser? I don't know. That word sucks. It is just too mule. It's not, at least for me, the least bit fly. It strikes me as even a bit of a diss, particularly since it emerged as a noun indicating an Obama press conference. Really, word! For some, I am sure it is totally chill, even downright dank. But for me, well, it ain't given props to the POTUS, that's for sure. There was a time I would have been up with being down with it. But not now.
Barack Obama, the US Commander in Chief, chose cowardice today in his back-pedaling statements on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Mr. Obama did not manifest any of the manly qualities one expects of a commander, nor did he show any of the courage common to the average police officer. Refusing to apologize, the unrepentant commander chose instead more obfuscation, and more hair-splitting, mind-numbing rhetoric. What we get is a person who believes, at best, that he "could have calibrated" his language "differently." (Please note that he says he could have, not should have.) What we are left with is a man safe-guarding his pride, his apparent infallibility and popularity; the very keys to his power.
Somehow, Barack Obama expects us to reconcile his contradictory statements:
Proposition 1: "...the Cambridge police acted stupidly..." (July 22) Proposition 2: "It doesn't make sense, with all the problems we have, with all the problems we have out there, to arrest a guy in his own home if he is not causing a serious disturbance." (July 23) Proposition 3: "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sergeant Crowley, specifically." (July 24) [bold added for emphasis]
I am sorry, but Mr. Obama is lying. Of course he meant to malign the Cambridge police in general and Sgt. James Crowley specifically. How do we know this? Perhaps because he maligned the sergeant and the Cambridge police department in his statement of "regret" offered today:
I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. [bold added for emphasis]
Note the language! Note what this man thinks! He continues to believe "that there WAS an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his house" (professor Gates was NOT PULLED); this is a statement of fact presented by Mr. Obama. But then he offers -- again, abusing his power in order to protect his friend -- a statement of probability: "I believe... that Professor Gates PROBABLY overreacted as well."
This is not a man of principle. This is no leader. This is despotic and reckless: this is a man protecting his self-image, i.e., his power, who is also protecting his friend. In other words, and I can't say this enough, this is another ABUSE OF POWER.
And then this coward -- sorry! -- tosses a red-herring into the whole debacle:
The fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of society. Whether I were black or white I think me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to something constructive — as opposed to negative — is part of my portfolio.
Ah, hah! So this is not about his ABSURD, RECKLESS comments; this is not about his abuse of power, or his abuse of the office of president, or that he is using his presidency to protect a friend! No, no. All of us who are reacting to his despotic, arrogant, self-aggrandizing abuse of the Oval Office are really struggling with race!
Such a dire, desperate lie has probably never before been uttered by a president. This man clearly and undeniably made a huge blunder; he has shown he is either incompetent in handling the law or he is equivocating about the law in some effort to draw all power unto himself. But instead of taking RESPONSIBILITY LIKE A MAN, he sloughs it all off onto us, onto America. It's America's fault, for we are still struggling, mired in racial division and all he did was highlight that divide. This is a "teachable" moment, and his pedagogy is just part of his "portfolio."
What crap!
Shame on this man!
Let me say this WITHOUT ambiguity or equivocation: The issue at hand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE! NOTHING!
And what is that issue? It is that the president of the United States has purposely abused his office and power to protect a friend and besmirch an entire police force. For this he should -- and must -- resign.
(And this is not the ONLY issue at work here. But that will have to wait for another day.)
Allow me to suggest that Barack Obama's advisers believed he could gain some political cover if he distracted America from spotting the systemic weaknesses in his party's health care reform plans by claiming the "Cambridge (MA) Police Department acted stupidly." Perhaps he also sought to distract Americans from the fact that his health care press conference performance was rather mediocre (at best). Call it red-herring politics: drag a stinky fish across the trail to prevent the dogs from finding the sickly fox posed as health care reform.
OK. Fine. Let's say that Mr. Obama and his team thought this a good idea. There even seems some evidence that this is not one whit fantastical on my part for the simple reason that Mr. Obama ENDED his press conference on health care by taking a question about the arrest of his friend, Robert Louis Gates Jr. (Reports I've heard state that the president was told beforehand to expect such a question.) But if this is true, what a ridiculously risky tack to take: it seems the Obama Yacht will smash into the breakers. But...maybe not.
Barack Obama today has called the attention his remarks have earned a "distraction" and "an obsession." How nice. Every dubious thing this president has done, as well as the dubious things his associates have done, are dismissed by him as a distraction. But what if this really was meant to be a distraction; what if the president sought protection behind this "gaffe," and his health care objectives actually pass through the House and Senate? What then? Was his gaffe a mistake? Was it worth the risk?
But if his health care goals are not achieved in part because of his gaffe, intentional or not, Mr. Obama will find himself in far more trouble than if he had simply said Wednesday night, "No comment."
It is utterly ironic that the city dismissed so often by conservatives (and self-effacingly by some liberals) as the People's Republic of Cambridge (Cambridge, MA), the arguable center of New England and perhaps even American liberalism, is the epicenter of Barack Obama's largest domestic problem to date. It may be the very epicenter that fractures his presidency.
I am watching the Cambridge police departments' and Massachusetts police unions' press conference right now. Needless to say, the rebukes directed at Barack Obama are stern, clear and unwavering.
He is in trouble. And the source of that trouble is an event involving a black intellectual, Barack Obama's friend, in the city where Barack Obama probably has more friends per square inch than anywhere else on the planet and where he studied LAW at arguably the most prestigious university in the world.
The police department of the city that loves Barack Obama expects an apology. Not only does that department deserve an apology, the country deserves one, too. But I do not see how the president can apologize without ending his presidency. For if he can be so reckless with something he so obviously should have avoided, something quite simple, how can he be trusted with anything else? If he can be so WRONG, when even the guy on the street without Barack Obama's legal credentials can get this matter right, who can take Barack Obama seriously? Is not his gravitas lost?
For those of you who are outside New England or are unfamiliar with the controversy around the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department, please let me state the obvious: This story is going "nuclear." By this I mean that it is expanding quickly and exponentially. This is no flash-in-the-pan kind of story. This is a story that reaches to the very heights of America. And as more information comes forth, the recent remarks made by Barack Obama -- remarks that were apparently premeditated -- that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly," may not only define his presidency, they may end it (and I believe they should end it). Call it whatever you wish. Call it a "tipping point." Call it his "Waterloo." Call it Gates-gate. Whatever it is named, it reveals two important things: It reveals an abuse of power by Barack Obama, and it reveals that he lacks competence and/or integrity. But before delving into these bold assertions, a relevant aside might prove helpful.
___________________
GETTING UP TO SPEED
If readers have not closely followed this story, they should, because this is history in the making. Real history.
First, this tidbit reported by the Associated Press (also reported here) is nearly too good to be true:
"Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class on racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming."
Readers should know by now that Mr. Gates, who is apparently rather famous, is a professor at Harvard University and is touted as something of an authority on race relations. Forgive this writer's undue lack of deference. All I can say is that I had not ever heard of Mr. Gates until this week. I cannot vouch for his credentials, though I will admit that, on paper, he is surely a qualified academic. But there is something richly ironic in the fact that the policeman Mr. Gates accuses of being a racist, is himself something of an authority on race relations, particularly on how race plays out in law enforcement.
It seems quite safe to say that Mr. Obama, who admitted before calling Sgt. Gates stupid that he did not know the facts, was profoundly ignorant of the amazing fact that Sgt. Gates is considered a specialist in racial profiling.
Another important thing is to hear what NPR's Juan Williams, a left-leaning black journalist who moonlights on Fox News, said about Mr. Obama's unarguably reckless remarks. Check out Mr. Williams in this video:
_____________________
MR. OBAMA'S FALL
Please note the one thing Juan Williams highlighted about Barack Obama's remarks. He highlighted that Mr. Obama was trying to sell a plan to sweepingly reform health care in America, and yet, in a senseless incident, shifted attention from that important topic to something not only irrelevant to health care, but to something incendiary, controversial, and divisive.
In fact, the Obama mistake seems so foolish as to suggest that Mr. Obama's advisors led him to commit political suicide before the entire country; it was as if they intentionally set out to make him look the fool. What, pray tell, was he thinking?
Here are a few of things to understand.
First, Barack Obama is, as president of the United States, ostensibly the chief law enforcement officer of the land. It was to this post he was elected; people expected him to enforce the laws that keep the peace in America. He was NOT elected to serve as Race-Relations Expert-in-Chief. In fact, his position is to be race-neutral in a very real sense, as he is the incarnation of the body politic: he represents us ALL.
Second, since Mr. Obama's first statement on this issue was to say that "Skip Gates" is a "friend," and that as a result, he might be "biased," it behooves us to note that Mr. Obama failed to add that, as chief law enforcement officer of the land, and as the figurehead of a democracy who was, at that moment, speaking as PRESIDENT of the United States, he is also and PRIMARILY the "friend" of all law enforcement officers in the country. Hence, he should have at best recused himself completely; at worst, he should have said that he would withhold judgment until he KNEW ALL THE FACTS. But he had already admitted he was ignorant of the facts; the sophomoric summary of the facts he presented proved that the facts he thought he knew were utterly fantastic and invented.
Hence, Barack Obama ABUSED HIS OFFICE, he abused his POWER, by throwing the power of the presidency into the assertion that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly," and Mr. Obama did this in order to protect his friend, Henry Gates. Mr. Obama assumed a privilege of clairvoyance and understanding he believed his office gave to him intrinsically; he believed that, despite his ignorance of the facts, he could nonetheless conclude that the Cambridge police were stupid.
Third, Mr. Obama DOES NOT UNDERSTAND simple law regarding disorderly conduct. Either that, or he lacks the integrity to admit that he made a huge mistake in prime time. Even today, Mr. Obama continues to conflate the breaking and entering report with disorderly conduct. He seems to think that, because Mr. Gates proved he was rightfully in his own home and he rightfully broke into his own domicile, the Cambridge police had no business arresting him for disorderly conduct. This idiocy on Mr. Obama's part is doing him no favors; it is only compounding his problem. What is also compounding his problem is that his spokesman yesterday said that his remark that the police "acted stupidly" did not mean he was calling the arresting officer "stupid."
All this shows a man -- arrogant to no end -- clinging to power by saying whatever the hell he feels like saying. Mr. Obama either clearly DOES NOT understand law, or he does. If he doesn't, he has no right being in the White House (nor should he have ever been editor of the Harvard Law Review). But if he does understand the law, then Mr. Obama is being dishonest: he is manipulating language in order to save his position. But if this is the case, then the man lacks integrity. He is a deceiver, a charlatan, an equivocating con man.
Without question Mr. Obama has backed himself into a corner. What are his options? Can he say he made a mistake, that what he said was stupid? I doubt it. Can he continue to equivocate? Can he continue to conflate basic trespassing or illegal entry with disorderly conduct; can he continue to act surprised that a man "with a cane" could be arrested for disorderly conduct even after proving he was in his own home? No, he can't. There is no out for this man, is there?
Bottom line: This was, and continues to be, an abuse of power on the part of Barack Obama. He will do as he wishes; he will speak as he sees fit, and to hell with the consequences. Because he is president, he will pronounce judgments from his bully, thuggish pulpit against a police officer in order to protect a "friend." And he will make those judgments even if he -- by his own admission -- does not know all the facts.
For this, and for his inability to square with America and the nation's police, Barack Obama should immediately resign.
___________________
A BRUTAL IRONY
Recall with me that the first people in America to deny that Barack Obama was authentically black, were black intellectuals. Mr. Obama's credentials as a true African-American were called into doubt precisely because his narrative did not include one essential ingredient, namely, that he was a descendant of African-American slaves. In fact, Mr. Obama himself admitted his struggles with black identity; he "chose" to self-define as black despite the fact that his story was not typical at all. Nevertheless, as time passed and he gained political advantage, his critics pulled away from their claim that he would not be the first black president. His critics became his supporters.
Henry Louis Gates is, without doubt, a black intellectual. Since he is a "friend" of the president, I doubt he ever dismissed Barack Obama as inauthentic. However, what is amazing is that this lofty professor, this Harvard intellectual who was trained at some of the world's finest schools; this expert on race relations in America, may have, in his petulant temper tantrum wherein he played the race card, fatally damaged the presidency of the "first black president in US history."
Wall Street Journal on-line columnist James Taranto, whose work consistently impresses me, was so incredibly wrong in his analysis of most of the Gates/Crowley/Obama story that he may have lost my adoration. Here is what Mr. Taranto wrote yesterday:
As he is the first president who is black, Obama’s views on a subject involving race relations were bound to be of interest and to carry considerable weight. And Obama evidently did have a strong interest in the matter.
Because this was ESSENTIALLY a legal and not a racial matter; because Mr. Obama is the chief law enforcement officer of the land; because Mr. Obama was not elected to weigh in on matters of race; because Mr. Obama chose loyalty to a black friend over his duty as guardian of law; Mr. Obama's words on the matter should not have carried any weight in matters of race. NONE.
But because Mr. Obama is convinced he is bolstered by millions of people who think like Mr. Taranto, he believed his skin color -- and his POWER as president -- entitled him to speak with reckless abandon.
This all may become the most ironic moment in presidential history. And we witnessed it.
I was wondering if you had ever really thought much about racial profiling. Have you? Permit me to ask you a few questions.
How many times a day in America's cities do you think a white police officer hears something about racism from the African-American men and women he (or she) arrests or detains? Do you think white policemen hear this sort of thing only rarely? Do you think white policemen rarely hear from a black man or woman that white law enforcement officers single out the "black man" because he's black and the officers are white?
From your comments tonight, I am tempted to conclude that you've never really thought about this issue all that much.
When Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department walked up to Henry Louis Gates Jr. and asked him to produce some sort of identification to prove he had not just broken into someone else's home, do you think he would have expected that a man of Mr. Gates' standing and ability would play the race card? Do you think he expected that a man like Mr. Gates would commit racial profiling of a WHITE man? And do you think he expected Mr. Gates to start raving and screaming in his face when all he was doing was protecting Mr. Gates and his property?
Mr. Obama, you need to apologize immediately to America, and to Sgt. Crowley. And then you should resign. Your remark uttered before the world -- remarks rooted in your self-admitted ignorance -- that Sgt. Crowley behaved "stupidly" is an affront to every law enforcement officer in America. Shame on you. It is you who has acted stupidly.
Sgt. Crowley was called to Mr. Gates' home by a concerned neighbor who saw someone attempting to forcibly enter through Mr. Gates' front door. The details of the story reported today indicate that Mr. Gates' door had been damaged by an earlier break-in, one that Mr. Gates himself reported; it was this door that Mr. Gates himself was trying to enter forcibly because it was still damaged. A neighbor saw this; a policeman responded. (Other reports have indicated that Mr. Gates' neighborhood had seen a recent increase in daytime burglaries.)
Mr. Obama, have you ever responded to a burglary in progress? Had you ever spent any REAL time on America's streets, you would have known what was going through Sgt. Crowley's heart and head as he pulled up to Mr. Gates' lovely home. Sgt. Crowley was, for all he knew, stepping into a life-threatening situation. And what does he find? An ungrateful, abusive, caustic man who accuses him -- in front of eyewitnesses -- of being a racist, a bigot. Perhaps this was easy for Mr. Gates because he knew he was in greater Boston talking to a cop named Crowley.
But that Mr. Gates should have chosen belligerence when he is such a high-brow intellectual is simply dumbfounding. And it must have bewildered the good sergeant. But surely you have the capacity, don't you, to see that Mr. Gates' identity is irrelevant to his disorderly conduct? Just because Mr. Gates PROVED he was the owner of the home it does not follow that he should not have been arrested, as your statements implied. After all, even someone as steeped in law as you allegedly are MUST know disorderly conduct could EASILY HAPPEN AFTER Mr. Gates proved he was the homeowner and not some hapless criminal. Surely you MUST know that countless people have been arrested after traffic stops of alleged stolen vehicles; when the drivers have proven that the vehicle is NOT STOLEN, they still have been arrested for disorderly conduct, failure to obey a police officer, and so on.
No doubt Mr. Gates escalated things; one can see it from the photographs taken at the scene. Of course, it is quite possible he was provoked. OK. Let's stipulate that he was. Does that give him license to act like a lunatic? Does that give him license to resist the police or turn abusive and unruly? I think you should know that the law does not permit him to act like an ass if the police act like asses first.
But, and here's the point: BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION you DO NOT know what transpired in Mr. Gates' home, and thus you should have said NOTHING. Sorry. But you even admitted that you were a "friend" of Mr. Gates; that you were biased. Doesn't a REAL president in such circumstances deliberately and thoughtfully choose silence rather than take sides or inflame a situation that has been nearly extinguished? The answer is yes, a REAL president chooses silence. Yes, a REAL president does defend the rule of law. And a FRIEND of the alleged victim would choose to recuse himself from making public comment, particularly when that friend is the presumptive chief law enforcement officer in the United States, and thus is also assumed to be a friend of every police officer on the job.
You may think that because the Cambridge police department dropped the charge of disorderly conduct against Mr. Gates that charge was unwarranted. But we are not so stupid. Those of us with REAL street credibility know how the game is played: people who in the strictest technical sense deserve to be charged with a crime frequently find those charges dropped. You know this, or you should know this. Moreover, dropped charges do not imply innocence of those initially charged, nor does it even NECESSARILY imply that a case against the alleged perpetrator could not be successfully tried in a court of law.
And what were you thinking when you said that you did not know "all the facts" and yet went on to speculate on the incident, even to the point of getting the facts you said you did not know so dreadfully wrong?
Lastly, your conspicuous use of the words "jimmy" and "jigger" were in rather poor taste, don't you think (and are, at least phonetically, racially insinuative)?
If it is true, as I have heard, that you vetted the questions you would be asked before your press conference tonight, then your reckless and injudicious remarks were premeditated. Is this the BEST we can expect from you? If so, you really have no right being in the White House.
Someone should show up at your house and ask you for proof that you know who and what you really are.
Imagine what it must have been like to study law under the eminent intellectual currently and formally known as the President of the United States. Seriously. Just imagine it.
This man has been presented not only as a god, but as a god of the mind; a man of superior intellect and capacious abilities regarding law and governance. He is a wonder, a genius.
How ANYONE can reconcile such a ridiculous portrait of a man who is a soaring mediocrity with what that man said a few minutes ago completely escapes this writer. Somehow, in Obamaland, the laws regarding disorderly conduct elude Barack Obama or he intentionally conflates such laws with trespassing.
Regardless, there is SHAME HERE. Mr. Obama DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING (his OWN admission) about what happened to esteemed professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., nor does he know what happened in the heart and mind of the police officer who responded to a report of a break-in at Mr. Gates' Cambridge, MA home. And yet OBAMA, arguably the chief law enforcement officer of the land, has the AUDACITY to declare that the Cambridge police department "acted stupidly."
Not only is his remark pure idiocy, a rebuke from ignorance, it is a travesty of the very office of presidency. GREAT PRESIDENTS would choose silence here. But fools speak. And imbeciles say what Barack Obama just said.
If there is a law that would allow the Supreme Court to unseat this man from the presidency, it should be invoked tonight.
Seriously, ALL PARTISANSHIP ASIDE, Obama not only embarrassed the office of the presidency, he cheapened it. He should be ashamed. He should APOLOGIZE profusely. And then he should resign.
I have never heard anyone in a position of leadership speak so arrogantly in such an incredibly ignorant manner.
Barack Obama just embarrassed America. And as one radio personality in Boston said tonight moments after Obama's idiocy, Barack Obama has set race relations in this country back "a hundred years."
Mr. Van Dyk was Vice President Hubert Humphrey's assistant in the Johnson White House and active in national Democratic politics over 40 years.
Those, I believe, are some fairly hefty Democratic Party credentials. However, because Mr. Van Dyk's essay appeared in the Wall Street Journal, a relatively conservative publication, one can be certain he will be dismissed summarily. And that's just too bad, because Mr. Van Dyk gets it exactly right. And this from a man who supports Mr. Obama.
Mr. Van Dyk will be ignored, I suspect, by the White House and by the Democratic Party, but they ignore him to their own peril. He IS right.
In his most recent column in which he discusses Barack Obama's many speeches, Daniel Henninger states the following:
In our time, public remarks remain first of all a photo-op to make a president glow in public. Mr. Obama is taking it to another level, making the public speech the central act of his presidency. [bold added for emphasis]
I confess: the moment I read "Mr. Obama is taking it to another level," I thought of Rob Reiner's brilliant "mockumentary," This is Spinal Tap. (As I said, I just can't help myself.)
The thought of the scene embedded below just won't leave me, as I suspect "These go to eleven" will be the lens through which I see the entirety of Mr. Obama's time in the White House.
Six months into his presidency, with more surely to come, it is an appropriate moment to ask: What is the point and purpose of Barack Obama's speeches?
One answer -- offered by students of talk from Aristotle through Alfred North Whitehead -- is obvious: The purpose of the rhetorician's art is to persuade. John Locke, watching democracy's advance, had a darker view; rhetoric, said Locke, is an instrument of error and deceit. Or both: talking people into error. [emphasis mine]
I disagree with Mr. Henninger in one not-so-small point. He writes
In our time, public remarks remain first of all a photo-op to make a president glow in public. Mr. Obama is taking it to another level, making the public speech the central act of his presidency.…He seems to be on TV every day, talking.…The first thing to be said about this body of work is that it is astonishingly good. Even by the something-for-everyone standards of political speech, much of Mr. Obama's somethings are strong and worth hearing. [emphasis mine]
Mr. Obama speaks so often -- and so imperiously, professorially and with such urgent gravity -- I honestly can't hear his voice. It is as if he has become an adult in a Peanuts cartoon: something is being said but there is no comprehending what it is. I doubt dogs can even hear the president. And the grandstanding! Oh, the raised imperial chin! Look! Look at the dignity and profound bearing of this great orator! Seriously, the moment the teleprompters flicker their cues at Mr. Obama, I wince and fall strangely deaf. And as for the quality of these speeches, well, prima facie they MAY be impressive (I was fooled when he delivered his speech after losing the New Hampshire primary; I'd go deaf shortly thereafter), but I find them, at least when I read them, to be rather vapid and sometimes rather chilling (I think his words are often duplicitous and deceptive).
But if Henninger is right, that Barack Obama seems to be "talking, everyday," doesn't that suggest that Mr. Obama expects me to listen every day, all day? Doesn't it all become just about him?
"Hear me, hear me! Oh, my people!"
Perhaps I can no longer hear Mr. Obama because I live such a harried life. Perhaps I am just too self-absorbed:
Out of the way
I've a busy day
I've got things on my mind!
Well, maybe not. But one thing is certain. Barack Obama has got things on his mind.
There is a technical reason I posted the Peggy Noonan headline twice. I will not bother you with why. Besides, such revelations, I am afraid, might prove I'm ridiculously challenged by simple technology. And I can't have that.
Peggy Noonan's "A Farewell to Harms" in the Wall Street Journal leaves me wondering where I stand in relation to the Republican Party. Ms. Noonan pretty much slams anyone who found Gov. Sarah Palin the least bit interesting. In fact, Ms. Noonan's slam -- so full of the sort of grace and poise one expects from really bright Republicans -- even made its way (no doubt heralded with carbon-neutral fireworks) to the Huffington Post.
And in the comments thread attached to Ms. Noonan's column (commenting is a new feature at the WSJ on-line, by the way), a commenter had the following to say about the GOP and Ms. Noonan's column:
Anyone who disagrees with this article by Noonan is either disingenuous or stupid. It's refreshing to see that there are some intelligent people (i.e. Noonan) in the GOP.
Such sweeping generalizations aside (and rather self-aggrandizing ones, too), Ms. Noonan's criticism of Gov. Palin strikes me as fatally flawed in several places. In fact, I simply don't get it: how can Ms. Noonan be so bright and yet so, well, dim?
Enough. I will not enlarge upon Ms. Noonan's commentary here for fear of unduly influencing those of you who have not yet read it. But I will ask you to pay close attention to Ms. Noonan's extraordinary wit. Just stand in awe of the paronomasia she employs with such ease in her opening sentence:
Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain. [bold mine]
Such slant rhyme, such anagrammatic wit! I love it!
I will end with this: In her essay, Peg Noonan pegs no one but herself. You'll see that Ms. Noonan is not only NOT working class, she is without class. She inadvertently puts a new face on the class-less society.
(See, Ms. Noonan, how easy this is? I would remind you that such slant rhymes and word-plays may be fun, but in your essay, they strike me as rather sterile: You should think of employing no onanism here, if you get my drift. As I said, it's so easy.)
Barack Obama is too open-minded to be any earthly good. Or so one should conclude from Daniel Henninger's excellent Wonderland column, "The Dumbing Down of Democracy." Henninger's is a very important bit of commentary. You should read it immediately.
Such is a man who has been weaned on moral, political and ideological relativism: Mr. Obama can't commit to an absolute even if it was absolutely necessary. Of course what I've just said is patently false, as Mr. Obama does believe in absolutes. He just doesn't believe that absolutes should be pushed on anyone else. There needs to be room, you know, for everyone else's absolutes too. Absolute restraint, absolute equivalency, absolute tolerance, absolute self-doubt, absolute elasticity of definitions, absolute equivocation and ambiguity, absolute fairness; these, perhaps, comprise the very corpus, the viscera, of the Obama administration.
Barack Obama is an absolutist. Except when it comes to the foundational absolutes of his own country.
There is no time to read all the commentary about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's decision to leave her office on July 26. Clearly there is much to say about that decision; some people in fact have much to say about Gov. Palin's every move. Even after she leaves office an abundance of jokes, sarcasm, malice, and derision will be tossed her way. Members of the vituperative, vindictive set will not surrender her as easily as she has surrendered them.
Gov. Palin in the most objective sense was nearly unknown until August 29, 2008. On the day John McCain announced her as his running mate, the small-state-big-state governor was not only thrust into the limelight; her world was suddenly exposed to the glaring, and often leering and sneering, gaze of the media, the blogosphere, and the comedic and pundit classes. Any appeal to privacy; any suggestion that certain things were off-limits; all that fell away the moment she said "Yes" to John McCain.
She would have been better off saying no. That, at least to me, is what I read and hear between the lines. Had she rejected Mr. McCain's offer, the cameras would have focused elsewhere, the blogs -- some even funded by Democratic monies gathered in the lower-48 -- would have gone silent, and she could have completed (most likely) her term as governor.
Two things happened. One was that her critics, critics of all things Republican, understood that even after Sen. McCain's November loss she could and would use her experience as governor of Alaska as a springboard for higher office. And the second thing was that the governor had made -- even if only slightly -- Barack Obama look too much like the man he actually was: an inexperienced novice propped up by the media and the grand spectacle the Democratic Party created around him.
Thus, not only the Alaskan media and Democratic establishment but the entirety of the whole liberal class -- news, entertainment, and party leadership -- turned their guns her way. It wouldn't be an overstatement to describe her life since August 29, 2008 as one filled with harassment, even sexual harassment, and abuse. (Perhaps Sarah Palin has now destroyed what surely could have become a Democratic Party meme: that she only USED Alaska simply for her own inflated ambitions. Now, she has at least seized control of the narrative, which can only tick off her critics.)
I tried to pay attention at the beginning of Gov. Palin's rise to fame and infamy. I tried to follow the metaphors, if you recall, that were used to describe her. Of course, I only touched the tip of the veritable Alaskan iceberg of abusive metaphors that moved toward her destruction. She was reduced to an object, even a sex object, at which her detractors aimed their abuse: she was reduced to a target. Crude stereotypes abounded. They continue to abound.
Sarah Palin is not, nor was she ever, perfect. She may even be extremely imperfect. If I were to know her as a close friend; were I to know her deepest thoughts on life, politics, faith, beauty, I may discover that her imperfections are too great for me to tolerate. But there is no doubt, none whatsoever, that she was abused by people who should have known better. Her many imperfections do not merit hate and vitriol.† Or so I think.
In the end, Gov. Palin has made a choice I actually applaud -- barring her resignation is a flight from scandal -- for the simple reason that I think serving in the public sphere has become, in most instances, a very low calling. She may have "let down her base," as some have said, but my feeling has long been that most of the political classes in America -- especially the alleged intellectual and academic classes -- have long been rather debased. No doubt she has let them down. In that one fact, I think her recent actions are rather complimentary to her.
Continuing with our theme of "we will restore science to its rightful place," I would like to point readers to another Kimberley A. Strassel column. It is a dandy of a piece; Ms. Strassel has combined a rather decent string of hits of late, and this one's good for at least a couple of bases.
In "The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic," Ms. Strassel reports on the all too familiar tunes applauded by global warming alarmists, particularly those arias sung by the alarmists' favorite "Bush Administration" soloist, James Hansen. Mr. Hansen, as some of you know, is a NASA director who positioned himself as something of a martyr for true science; he claimed the Bush Administration was persecuting him for both non-conformity to the party line regarding global warming and for blowing the whistle on the administration's habit of cherry-picking scientific data. I mentioned here that such woes as described by Mr. Hansen were hard to reconcile with his 1,400 public appearances where he spoke his mind boldly without any interference from the White House. The man, as far as I can tell, was not suppressed or persecuted at all.
Ms. Strassel points this all out, but what she also highlights is something far more insidious: the Obama Administration CLEARLY IS SUPPRESSING non-conformity in its (foiled?) attempt to muzzle EPA analyst Alan Carlin; the Democrats really are cherry-picking the data. This should come as no surprise. After all, this is the party that supported the Patriot Act and then pretended to denounce it, with said denunciation simply a cover for their real ambitions, which was to use the Patriot Act and "illegal wire-tapping" for their own totalitarian goals once they gained power. This is the party that supported the war in Iraq, then denounced it as a failure doomed to civil war and that America needed to immediately withdraw its troops, only to announce that the troops should stay a little longer. This is the party that believed Gitmo was a threat to national security -- that it must be closed NOW! -- and then announced, as if it was something new, that certain enemy combatants at GITMO will be held indefinitely at the discretion of the president. But I digress. (See how easy it is to get carried away?)
Please take a few minutes to read Ms. Strassel's column. It IS illuminating, at least for those who care, and care to think.
We've been hearing a lot about false choices these days, especially from the man in the White House. Barack Obama seemingly loves mentioning the many "false choices" made by his predecessor's administration. And I have shown (see link above) that Mr. Obama fails to see the irony in his pop-pronouncements on false choices, since, according to his wife, his very career is built upon a patently false choice.
In keeping with Mr. Obama's penchant for criticizing false choices that are not false and for creating "true" choices that are indeed false, the Democratic Party's statement yesterday regarding Sarah Palin's sudden announcement of her resignation from her Alaska governor's seat is exemplary:
Either Sarah Palin is leaving the people of Alaska high and dry to pursue her long shot national political ambitions or she simply can’t handle the job now that her popularity has dimmed and oil revenues are down. Either way - her decision to abandon her post and the people of Alaska who elected her continues a pattern of bizarre behavior that more than anything else may explain the decision she made today. [emphasis added]
The great and logical minds of the DNC have no problem creating such a false Either/Or, in large part because such minds are neither great nor logical. If I were to advise my readers to meditate on the DNC statement as if it contained profound religious truths -- I am not and it doesn't -- I am certain that readers would have some experience approaching epiphany: The Democrats who issued this statement are incredibly stupid and vapid. And petty.
Just think: the DNC has NO IDEA -- none! -- as to why Ms. Palin has suddenly resigned. And yet, like spiritualists probing through animal scat, they've divined the reasons behind Ms. Palin's actions: She is either overly-ambitious or she is incompetent. But note what the DNC has actually said (and they don't even realize it): Her resignation is solely due to her being a fool. There is no real or even false Either/Or here. Since Ms. Palin's alleged bid for national office represents a "long shot," at least according to the DNC, she is a fool for reaching well beyond her merits. And since she is leaving office because her job has become too difficult, she was a fool to have ever thought she merited the governorship. Really, the DNC's syllogism is dizzying in its rigor:
A. Either p or p B. p _______ C. Therefore, p
What is amazing is that Ms. Palin's alleged "pattern of bizarre behavior," as the DNC so confidently puts it, has not been shown to be either a pattern or bizarre. But the Democrats' demonstrable fixation on and targeting of all things Palin indicate a clear pattern of bizarre behavior among Democrats who accuse her of behaving in a bizarre pattern.
____________________
WHAT IS MS. PALIN THINKING?
If this question can be asked without resorting to the cheap-shot answer -- Ms. Palin is not thinking because she can't think -- then it must be asked in humility: As of right now, no one but Ms. Palin and her husband know what she's thinking. I have no idea what's going on, do you?
I think a sane person of decent intellect and breeding, possessing even a modicum of compassion, would choose reticence and not pompous declamations upon hearing of Ms. Palin's resignation. Is it not possible that she is ill? Is it not at all possible that someone in her family is ill? Perhaps her marriage is in disrepair; perhaps the battering she has personally experienced from the media and the DNC has truly taken its toll on her children, and thus, on her. And if the latter is the case, then Ms. Palin's decision shows an immense amount of competence and gives the lie to the assertion she can't handle the office of governor. A good governor would indeed resign to protect her family from the unjust abuse that constantly comes her way.
I am not suggesting here she has not some other plans. I am not defending or promoting her ambitions (or lack thereof). My fascination, really, has always been about how her enemies -- and they are enemies -- perceive her, and how they've treated her (and her family). In fact, I will admit that Ms. Palin's decision prima facie spells doom.
But I am also quick to point out that if the media and the DNC pile on top of her and there is some sad story behind this decision; or if Ms. Palin makes some stunning announcement in the coming days about an appointment or position that is truly to her political advantage, both the media and the DNC will look incredibly foolish, weak, and, as already said, petty.
I can't help admit that when I read and hear the ridiculously over-wrought and presumptuous criticisms of Ms. Palin, I am hoping she gets the last laugh.
We'll see, of course. But in the scheme of things, at least for me, what Sarah Palin does or does not do matters little. This is not to say she is not important. It is merely an admission about what fills my life. And what does not fill it.
Bottom line: I am hoping that there is not some sort of tragedy behind her announcement. You would think that would be everyone's hope in America. Sadly, it is not.
Mr. Obama is the new science guy. In fact, it's high time Bill Nye step† aside: there is a new science whiz in town, and he is the presumed leader of the free world. Not necessarily the world of free thinking, maybe not even the world of the politically free; but definitely the leader of that world which believes the best things in life should be free. (I jest, sort of.)
I have talked about Mr. Obama's love of science -- and his broadly known aptitudes in the hard sciences, aptitudes as effective as epicycles -- in other essays here, particularly one drafted shortly after Mr. Obama's inauguration. In that fine piece, "Wielding 'Wonders' While Hating Science," I focused particularly on Mr. Obama's proud pronouncement that "we will restore science to its rightful place." (OK, I admit that I laugh every time I type those words.)
It is heartening to know that others, like syndicated columnist Mona Charen, also notice the absurdity of Mr. Obama's claim. In her most recent column, "The Empirical President," Ms. Charen spots the irony in Mr. Obama's aspirations: Mr. Obama's plans for the country, plans he believes are rooted in science, are far more fiction than fact; more fantastical than empirical. Indeed his proposed energy plans are really quite, well, adolescent at best and infantile at worst. Admittedly these are my words, not Ms. Charen's, regarding Mr. Obama's plans, but she does put Mr. Obama's plans into a centrifuge and powers it up. She finds his words separate quite quickly from reality.
Seriously, you should read her essay for yourself.
But there is no longer a disagreement over whether our dependence on foreign oil is endangering our security. It is. There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy. It’s happening. And there is no longer a question about whether the jobs and industries of the 21st century will be centered around clean, renewable energy.
Reading Mr. Obama's statements even now reinforces my suspicion that only a conspiracy of dunces could have put this man into office. Indeed, it was a conspiracy of sorts, perpetrated by the gullible and "open-minded" citizens who voted for the man. But I digress.
Mr. Obama is not really interested in science at all. Well, that's not true. He is interested in exploiting science for political gain in order to convert those gains into politics that reinforce the science he exploits for political gains, or something like that. It is a politics that truly is renewable: circular reasoning always is renewable and sustainable: Mr. Obama is merely ensuring that his infinite loop is suitably and efficiently fueled with fear, anxiety, falsehoods (also known as half-truths), and sweeping proclamations so he and his party can maintain power and control for at least the next three election cycles. His "gift," as he described it to Sen. Harry Reid, is to speak in such a way that people are duly compelled. They may be compelled to stupidity and passive acceptance, but they are compelled nonetheless. Mr. Obama, after all, is irresistible.
He's well nigh the new science guy.
†I recognize that Mr. Nye is not still the televised Science Guy, but his web-site as the science guy keeps his domain safe -- until now. Since Mr. Obama does indeed succeed Mr. Nye, Mr. Obama should be known as the Science Guy de-Nyer and accused of de-Nyeing science.
Barack Obama is too open-minded to be any earthly good. Or so one should conclude from Daniel Henninger's excellent Wonderland column, "The Dumbing Down of Democracy." Henninger's is a very important bit of commentary. You should read it immediately.
We've been hearing a lot about false choices these days, especially from the man in the White House. Barack Obama seemingly loves mentioning the many "false choices" made by his predecessor's administration. And I have shown (see link above) that Mr. Obama fails to see the irony in his pop-pronouncements on false choices, since, according to his wife, his very career is built upon a patently false choice.
Mr. Obama is the new science guy. In fact, it's high time Bill Nye step† aside: there is a new science whiz in town, and he is the presumed leader of the free world. Not necessarily the world of free thinking, maybe not even the world of the politically free; but definitely the leader of that world which believes the best things in life should be free. (I jest, sort of.)
