Shelby Steele Is Simply Unbelievable, Again

Shelby Steele's essay "Barack the Good" converts the mind, enlightening it, turning it around. It is the opening of a door in what seemed a hopeless cave. Mr. Steele sees, understands, leads. He points the way toward truths far beyond the mundanity of politics, social stature or achievement. He drops gems for us along our path outward, toward intellectual freedom, toward a broader understanding and greater moral clarity:

A historic figure making history, this is emerging as an over-arching theme—if not obsession—in the Obama presidency. In Iowa, a day after signing health care into law, he put himself into competition with history. If history shapes men, "We still have the power to shape history." But this adds up to one thing: He is likely to be the most liberal president in American history. And, oddly, he may be a more effective liberal precisely because his liberalism is something he uses more than he believes in. As the far left constantly reminds us, he is not really a true believer. Rather liberalism is his ticket to grandiosity and to historical significance.

Of the two great societal goals—freedom and "the good"—freedom requires a conservatism, a discipline of principles over the good, limited government, and so on. No way to grandiosity here. But today's liberalism is focused on "the good" more than on freedom. And ideas of "the good" are often a license to transgress democratic principles in order to reach social justice or to achieve more equality or to lessen suffering. The great political advantage of modern liberalism is its offer of license on the one hand and moral innocence—if not superiority—on the other. Liberalism lets you force people to buy health insurance and feel morally superior as you do it. Power and innocence at the same time.[...]

There has always been a narcissistic charge around Mr. Obama, the sense that in embracing him one was embracing something special in oneself—and possibly even a larger idea of human perfectibility.[...]

Mr. Obama's success has always been ephemeral because it was based on an illusion: that if we Americans could transcend race enough to elect a black president, we could transcend all manner of human banalities and be on our way to human perfectibility. A black president would put us in a higher human territory. And yet the poor man we elected to play out this fantasy is now torturing us with his need to reflect our grandiosity back to us. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

I urge you to read Mr. Steele's essay for yourself. His commentary is incisive, brutal in its accuracy. It is told in the manner of a true intellectual. This is not the sort of pablum common to the academy or the liberal press; it is not remotely like the airs that pass for solids on so many vapid talk shows, or in the prose of Paul Krugman and Frank Rich. This is the sort of work that is the intellectual urgrund, the undefined substrate, of all that it means to think deeply about a matter. And it's moral vision is far more Hebraic than Greek; less like an oracle and more like the proclamations of Isaiah.

Barack Obama is using liberalism as a tool, not to build the Great Society, but to build the Great Legacy,  the Great Boast: Here is a man of great import. 

Let us feel good.  

(Oh, and let us not forget about history.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

The 'Right' Side Of History: Every Knee Shall Bow

It's an idol worth examining. It's the idol of history.

Not long before the U.S. general election in 2008, a reader of this blog emailed me, in light of my opposition to Barack Obama, to ask if I was "afraid of being on the wrong side of history." Another email came shortly after the posting of my essay in which I confessed the election of Barack Obama did not FEEL all that special to me: "Time will prove you are on the wrong side of history," I was told (I could feel the finger wagging). 

A blogging friend, one who supported Mr. Obama, rebuked me at his/her website with similar censorious vigor: I, Bill Gnade, would be stuck on the wrong side of history voting against Mr. Obama (I wrote a poem that partially replied to that rebuke).

But such love of history's good side is not limited to my friends or readers of this blog. Such love reaches high places. For example, regarding Republican opposition to Democratic health care reform projects, U.S. Senator and Democrat Harry Reid had this to say last December:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.'

After it was revealed earlier this year in Game Change that Harry Reid had used racially-charged language in 2008 describing then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, Mr. Obama came to his defense:

[Reid] is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.

What is it about being on history's good side that is so important? What does being on the "right side of history" even mean?

____________________

THE DEIFICATION OF HISTORY

In one sense, this adoration of history is about vanity, even envy. Certain people, Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not least among them, have an obvious existential need to be remembered in the history books: their apparent anxieties about death -- of being forgotten among the riff-raff -- clearly motivate them to get attention, to seek approval; to be remembered as special. After all, at least according to the old progressive adage, history is written by the victors. Mr. Obama and company need to be on the side of history's approving stenographers, not for political but spiritual and psychological reasons: they are desperate to be thought wonderful, good, consequential. This is about the limelight in perpetuity. It's about living an enviable life. It's about leaving an obituary that others will envy.

But it is more than vanity at play, it's religion. Atheist, agnostic, theist -- it matters not. In the secular arena there is the cult of history, where history is divinized and adored (as long as it flows according to progressive ideals). History is spiritual. History is a force, a will: time ALWAYS progresses towards a happy end. It has a plan; progress is God's goal, at least the goal of the idealist's god. Hegel comes to mind here, as do other idealists who believed that the universe was driven by an unfolding self-consciousness that moves ONLY in one purposive direction: more order, more justice, more approval of progressive golden calves in a cheery dialectic. Change, progress, an increase in justice -- these are irresistible and inevitable. To go with the tide of change, to flow with history's wondrous ends in mind, is the essence of being on history's "right side." To stand in the way, to walk against the tide; to deny that history is Spirit unfolding in blessed clarity, is to be on the wrong side of history, where the gods wag their fingers in your face, shaming you for recalcitrance. It's to where history's stenographers condemn you -- "YOU! You are on the wrong side of HISTORY! We are in charge of the narrative now." 

And note that the "right side of history," which is the only authentic side of history, is always infallible, inerrant. It is the place of the always correct idea, deed, policy. It is indeed the place where the gods reside, happily, given to great applause. 

But there is something odd, really, about it all. No doubt there is Darwin to consider. His genius was in seeing that things seemingly change without purpose, without a guiding hand from Spirit or the gods or history. But the heretics who adore him who've corrupted his vision with ideas of progress fail to see their mistake: they've imposed a meaning on the world the world does not provide. No one can say that the human species is more progressed or more advanced than an amoeba. Darwin surely can't. But the tendency toward narcissism, and the apotheosis of history, results in this religious idea that time and evolution and progress are all connected, and that the future is a land of undeniable bliss promised us by the mechanics of Darwin's theory. Humans are more advanced than an amoeba, or so the heretics declare, unaware that they've invented that value out of nothing but their own conceit. Evolution tells us nothing about worth, value, advancement, status -- or sophistication. 

But the odd thing is that no one knows exactly where we are going. We are on a journey toward some progressive end -- some telos -- that is apparently akin to perfection, nirvana. But no one knows what the end looks like, or where it lies. As G. K. Chesterton so wonderfully pointed out, the confidence in progress is thus insane. If we do not know where we are going, then how do we know we've gotten any closer to arriving at our destination? If we don't know our destination, how can we tell our travels are not leading us further from our goals? 

Undeniably and predictably, progressives will scoff at such talk. Of course we know where we are going, they will assert in question-begging confidence. 

We do? Who says? 

Peace.

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY INDEBTEDNESS TO HERBERT SCHLOSSBERG, AUTHOR OF IDOLS FOR DESTRUCTION: THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIAN FAITH AND AMERICAN CULTURE  AND ROGER LUNDIN, AUTHOR OF BELIEVING AGAIN: DOUBT AND FAITH IN A SECULAR AGE. BOTH AUTHORS HAVE CRAFTED EXCELLENT CHAPTERS REGARDING THE IDOL OF HISTORY. 

When Abraham Lincoln Sounds Hostile, Even Scary

In his Missouri speech to supporters of his health care reform projects a few days before those projects became federal law (alluded to earlier here), Barack Obama quoted, albeit brokenly, Abraham Lincoln. It is a quote he has used several times in speeches since his election. But in the wake of health reform legislation that was "historic" precisely because nothing like it (in sheer size and import) had been passed by such a partisan, ideologically-driven and emaciated majority, Mr. Lincoln's words in Mr. Obama's mouth have a very chilling, even dictatorial, quality. 

Here's Mr. Obama:

A big part of our campaign [for the presidency] was about changing the way Washington works.  It was about transforming a politics that's driven by cynicism and a 24-hour news cycle, and the cable chatter, and always focused on the next election instead of the next generation.  Our campaign was about meeting the looming challenges -- in education and in energy, in our health care system, in our financial system -- that helped bring about the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And it still threatens our prosperity.  It was about making our government actually work for you, the people:  a government that lives up to its responsibilities, including the responsibility to live within its means. [...]

You know, President Lincoln said that “the legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not … do at all, or do so well, by themselves.”  That pretty much sums up my attitude.  You let people do for themselves what they can do for themselves; and then if there are some things that we do better together, we should do them together. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It is reassuring to read Mr. Obama will "let" us do for ourselves what we can. I really do appreciate that he has given us his permission.

Here, by the way, is the Lincoln quote (notice how different it is from Mr. Obama's quotation; red letters added to emphasize that difference):

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government. [bold mine, added for emphasis]

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama (perhaps in deference to various court orders that may be pending) will support those states, and even those individuals, who believe they can "individually do as well for themselves" in controlling, maintaining and paying for their own health care without federal involvement. Of course, we know his answer: Individuals and states can't do it "as well for themselves" as the federal government can do it for them. 

In the corporate world, what happened this past weekend regarding health care might be described as something akin to a hostile takeover. Despite overwhelming voter opposition, significant Democratic Party opposition (15% of house Democrats opposed the legislation) and complete Republican opposition, the WE-DO-BETTER-TOGETHER powers of the executive and legislative branches eked out a legislative "victory" regarding health care. 

That is historic, I guess. Of course, since there are some things I can't do all that well for myself, I will have to "let" the government tell me what is historic -- and why. Obviously, some of us can't even opine correctly -- for ourselves.

(Alas, Mr. Lincoln, if "all men were just" indeed.)

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Why FOX NEWS, Mr. Obama?

There is only one reason President Obama is (finally) going on Fox News tonight: He believes he can make the channel look like a peddler of misinformation and lies. He is hoping to stump his interviewer, Bret Baier; he's hoping to inundate the newscaster with such verbosity that Baier will capitulate, or stumble and stammer; that he will look guilty and weak. This is an effort by Mr. Obama to show to the world that Fox News is against his goodheartedness, and that Fox has been in a campaign against not only the facts, but his benevolence. He's been bullied, thwarted, misrepresented.  

OK. Maybe there are two reasons for his appearing on Fox News.

Barack Obama's appearance is not about procuring more votes in the House. It's about this: 

"Look, I've reached out to Republicans, and I've EVEN REACHED OUT TO FOX NEWS, and they STILL refuse to accept the beauty, the clarity and the moral excellence of my vision for America. They continue to mislead and beguile, obstruct and obfuscate. Republicans, with Fox News as mouthpiece, continue to be an obstacle to progress, justice and equality. Hence, we are left with nothing but parliamentary gimmicks to pass health care reform legislation. This is about history, about who stands on the right side of it, and who stands on the wrong. We haven't any more time to waste on the naysayers. The need is too urgent; dialogue has become nothing more than a stall tactic. The TIME TO ACT HAS COME!" 

In other words, Barack Obama is interested in posing, in theater. In pretend. 

Look! Don't you see how earnest he is? He believes. Surely that counts for something. 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

Barack Obama Calls For Civility, But What Is It?

Earlier this month, while speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama urged Americans,  particularly prayerful Americans, to strive for civility.

"Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility."

"Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility."

"I know in difficult times like these -- when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names -- it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint -- civility."

In Mr. Obama's speech, he invoked "civil" or "civility" ten times. But what is civility? And what is the essential component that makes civility civil? Is civility nothing more than being kind, polite, well-mannered?

_________________________

A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON

Let me begin with negation. Civility is not courtesy. It is not good manners. It is not politeness. It is not a kind tone. It is not a strict adherence to protocol or deference to propriety. Of course, it feels like civility must contain all of these things, but it doesn't. If it does, however, these are only accidental. They are not essential.

Civil and civility derive from the Latin civilitas, which stems from civilis, which stems from civis, or "citizen." Civilis meant "relating to citizens" ("citizens" derived from civitas, the Latin word for "city").

I know, I know, this seems all rather academic, but there is a point, and that point is civility has not always meant courtesy or good manners. 

Here is how civility is currently defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary:

CIVILITY, n. formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech

But this note in the same dictionary is important:

In early use the term denoted the state of being a citizen and hence good citizenship or orderly behavior. The sense [politeness] arose in the mid 16th century.

In other words, the current use of civility -- politeness -- is a rather recent one.

This foray into etymology is not frivolous. It is important to note that civility is not essentially about being polite, or, more aptly, civility is not about being "polished or made smooth" (which is the meaning of the Latin root for polite). It is really about something else. Kind tones, nice words -- these are not essential to civility at all, especially when one considers that civilization is really the result of civility: civility creates a civilization. It is essential to it.

But if civility is not essentially about politeness or courtesy, what is it?

Answer: Civility is the honorable use of truth. If society is a marketplace, then those who exchange truth in an honorable way, are civil. Truth is the most essential currency, not only in actual financial markets -- the whole idea of honest scales comes to mind -- but in the marketplace of ideas. Those who refuse to transact in truth are not civil, nor are they civilized.

_________________________

POLITENESS DOTH NOT A CIVILIZATION MAKE

One can easily imagine a world of incredible politeness that does not exchange in truth. Such a world, however, could never be civilized. We all have witnessed incredibly polite people tell nothing but lies; from childhood to old age, we can see that politeness can often be a form of abuse, being little more than the packaging of really damaging goods. And where there is abuse, and where there is the neglect of truth, civilization falters, struggles, and even decays. It is impossible to build or sustain a civilization without truth, just like it is impossible to build anything -- at least anything that lasts -- without a firm foundation composed of truth, of the truth of the laws of physics and the rules of engineering. Imagine a set of architect's instructions -- meticulously spoken with perfect syntax, grammar and politely offered warnings -- and yet his words are filled with half-truths and falsehoods. Imagine travel directions given that are sweetly spoken and yet completely wrong. A perfectly polite world without truth or respect for truth would indeed be one where chaos reigns.

And one can easily imagine a civilization that thrives that is not one whit polite. Imagine an architect offering advice whose speech is laced with profane, crude and abusive language, and yet he is utterly precise in his designs, designs obedient to the laws of physics. Things would get built, and they would stand erect against all forces. A civilization need not be built on courtesy. It may help, but courtesy is tangential at best to the great arch of truth that holds a civilization upright.

As long as any civilization is committed to the honorable use of truth, then that civilization will be civil in the truest sense.

_________________________

THE BIFURCATED TONGUE IS SMOOTH

So why bother with all this? Simple, really. I find Barack Obama utterly polite, and yet frequently given to marketing falsehoods. He is obviously a courteous politician, polished and politic. But even the devil is polite. Even Wormtongue was "civil." Even the serpent hisses courteously.

No, I am not suggesting Mr. Obama is a devil. My point is too refined for that sort of garish accusation. I am saying that we must be careful. I am saying that we must be diligent. I am saying that we must not be swayed by smooth speech, or even kind words -- from anyone. What matters is not the delivery or tone or cosmetics. What matters is how truth is handled. What matters is how facts are shared. What matters is civility -- the honorable use of truth.

_________________________

MR. OBAMA: HOW HIS FAITH INFORMS HIM

Here is an example of the sort of truth-less currency with which Mr. Obama transacts; the quote is lifted directly from his speech at the prayer breakfast; Mr. Obama began that speech with a promise that he would speak of how his faith informs his presidency:

"God's grace, and the compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through the men and women like Corpsman Brossard.  It's expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces, through the efforts of our entire government, through similar efforts from Spain and other countries around the world.  It's also, as Secretary Clinton said, expressed through multiple faith-based efforts.  By evangelicals at World Relief.  By the American Jewish World Service.  By Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs.  By Americans of every faith, and no faith, uniting around a common purpose, a higher purpose."†

This may seem utterly harmless; it may seem as innocuous and innocent as a child talking about fairies. But it isn't innocuous or harmless or innocent. It is grotesque. If it is not meant as deception and propaganda, then it is undeniably stupid. If it is propaganda, then it is an insult to all religions, and all atheists, and it is meant to deceive, confuse, and obfuscate. And what seems a mere sentimental passage in a forgettable speech is surely a celebration -- unwitting, perhaps, which thus confirms the charge of stupidity -- of Unitarian-Universalism, the creed-less church that attracts so many American liberals.

Pay attention! Just follow "God's grace." Look at what Mr. Obama claims expresses that grace: "God's grace ... it's expressed ... [b]y Americans of ... no faith." Imagine! Even the good actions of atheists are an act of God's grace. Moreover, God's grace is "expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces..." It is expressed in "Hindu temples." It is expressed through the Spanish government. But not only God's grace, but the "compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through ... Spain and other countries... ."

And, to top it all off, Barack Obama is celebrating that the religious and non-religious, all expressing God's grace, unite "around a common purpose, a higher purpose." Indeed, one wonders not only what he means, but whether Pope Benedict XVI knows anything about this "higher purpose."

In this speech on his faith, Mr. Obama declared "progress doesn't come when we demonize our opponents." I will spare readers the details of the times Mr. Obama has demonized his opponents; suffice it to say that when he makes such an exhortation he demonizes those who apparently demonize their opponents; he transcends such petty sins by sounding the noble call not to demonize, thus elevating himself, seeing himself as "above all that."

And he wraps up his speech with a quote from Martin Luther King: "Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend." But such is simply not true: Truth can change an enemy into a friend (and some enemies become friends around a shared lie).

But what is most disturbing, perhaps, is this line that epitomizes Obama double-speak: "Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary." [emphasis mine]

In other words, calls for unity, civility, common ground: all vapid, empty. We can part ways -- "when necessary."

I began this essay on Wednesday. I did so in anticipation of Mr. Obama's healthcare "bi-partisan" summit, which is happening as I write this sentence. It will be interesting to see if Mr. Obama exchanges with his opponents the currency of truth; it will be interesting to see whether he demonizes his opponents using straw man fallacies, misrepresenting their views. And it will be interesting to see if he will find reasons to part ways, "when necessary."

Whatever happens, I am sure it will all be very polite.

___________________

†Let's examine this further. Mr. Obama seems to mean that God's grace is really some sort of Idealism, some 'spirit' that inheres in history: that history irresistibly flows towards a progressive end, and it is a shame to be on "the wrong side of history." Or, he is talking about pantheism, that "all" is God, and hence even the actions of an atheist are "God's grace." Or, he is conflating God with the will of the American people: what we will is God, and what we will is good (and spreads throughout all peoples). But these are all philosophically and theologically naive. Surely he cannot mean such things; surely he does not mean to supplant the dogmas of the earth's greatest religions with such bland pantheistic ideals. But if he does not mean them, or if he does not really understand what he is saying, what does this say about his intellectual capacities? And what if he REALLY does mean them? Do we not conclude that he is an intellectual child? And if he does not mean what he said, if he is merely reading words penned by a speechwriter, then is he not deceiving us, lying to us that this is how he feels, that this is how faith informs him as a man and as a president? In conclusion, we can only say that what he said is horrible, (and that he said it is horrible, too). 

©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved. 

The Nobel Peace Prize: The New Spirit In Old Wineskins

Welcome to Fantasy.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama is fantastic in the strictest sense of the word. Truly, when I saw the headline that he had won my initial conclusion was that I was reading parody, satire or spoof. Now I realize I was reading a frightening fantasy, for this fantasy is reality (and far too few people discern it as fantasy).

In the span of a few short minutes listening to talking heads on the radio this morning, I learned that Mr. Obama was awarded this prize a priori; the deadline for nominating him was a mere two weeks into his term, well before he had accomplished anything. And yet, fantastically, he is given this honor, in part, for his great work in fostering a diplomatic spirit throughout the nations. I also learned that Mr. Obama was chosen as the very epitome of peacefulness for his "aspirations and attitude" and for giving the world "hope."

In other words, this is a spiritual award, even a religious one: Barack Obama has baptized the planet with optimism. His term as American president is like a new pentecost: nations speak his name in many tongues that portend peace, unity, hope. This is not about ACHIEVEMENT, but mere sentiment, and the ephemera of personality and perception. It is about the subjective warmth of thought and emotion: Barack Obama has set, like a new Holy Spirit, a fire that burns hot in the breast of the yearning, expectant nations.

I heard someone from the Nobel committee earlier today talk about Mr. Obama's popularity in the world. She said that "his predecessor" was not popular among the nations; that Mr. Obama, in fact, had restored, not so much the popularity of the United States in the world's eyes, though he has helped, but the office of the presidency. But, she added, he has somehow raised his own popularity above the office; that he has elevated his own well-cut figure among the peoples far beyond the mystique of the Oval Office. He is a sign. A portent. He brings hope.

What the world fails to understand about the office of the United States presidency is that the office is not about personal excellence, achievement, or capacious ability. It is about successfully winning a national popularity contest, a national beauty pageant. Mr. Obama is hardly what one would describe as achieved. After all, what has he REALLY done? Granted, one could ask this about many a president; many have asked this of others who've been elected. But Mr. Obama REALLY has done little with his life other than win popularity contests. In fact, his presidency -- like all presidencies -- is not something earned but something conferred: Mr. Obama's success is really nothing more than what has been given him by others. Any president's success, as president, is the result of the will of the electorate. Mr. Obama is not special; he is where he is because millions of people put him there.

Hence, for the world to think that Mr. Obama DESERVES something like the Nobel Prize is patently absurd. It is fantastic, illusory, confounding in its weirdness. Yes, he can read a fine speech, and read it well. But he has not accomplished anything (at least on his own). "Mere words?" Yes, mere words are all he's given.

Of course, the Nobel committee has also stated that Mr. Obama is being honored for his work in calling for the reduction of nuclear arms throughout the world. As if anyone in the western world is calling for the proliferation of nuclear arms and Mr. Obama stands unique in his position; that Mr. Obama is honored for calling for what the nearest child would call for is ridiculous on its face. And when I heard two weeks ago that his great diplomatic achievement as the moderator of the UN Security Council -- the first American president to ever serve in that capacity -- was to pass a resolution calling for a world-wide reduction in nuclear weapons, I guffawed in disbelief. This is the best our president can do? Nothing more than what countless high school student councils have resolved to do for decades?

And that is what I actually think of Mr. Obama. To me, he is, at best, a high school student council chairman. I don't see the brilliance, the expansive intellect, the singular and unique vision, the mastery of language, the openness to new ideas. His whole presidency is rooted in old, stale, hackneyed ideas, the sort of ideas bandied about in AP high school social studies classes and those lecture halls in which matriculating American students gather for Political Science 101. Does anyone really think that universal health care is not the sort of thing that children propose in 8th-grade class assignments about "building utopia"? Does anyone think there is anything one whit adult and "new" and "progressive" about "international, multi-lateral diplomacy" or "reducing the nuclear arsenal"? Or am I the only one Barack Obama's age who recalls being weaned on this stuff from birth? Barack Obama's vision of the world, his views of science and consensus and health care and war and peace all amount to pablum.

Lastly, let us note one important thing. America was rejected (by many) during the Bush years because of its apparent arrogance, aggression; its uni-lateral bullying and its imperialistic "we are right and have the might" attitude. America was disdained in part because it perceived itself as so essential, so necessary; as the super-power par excellence. It pushed democracy on nations that did not want it within their own borders.

Mr. Obama recently said that no world order can succeed when one nation or people dominates, or sees itself as supreme, or the best, or more equal than others. Of course, what this means is that Mr. Obama wants to impose democracy on the world in a different way than his predecessor Bush: he wants to show that the United States, no longer caring that democracies thrive within the borders of its many neighbors, is ready to let all nations democratically give voice not only to the direction of the new world order but also the United States itself. He is a consensus builder, announcing in his many apologies that the United States is now ready to see itself as equal to every other country; it is no longer the best, it will not impose itself on the world without the world's approval. It will lead, yes, but only by following.

What is so insidious, so deeply pernicious, is that Mr. Obama -- merely the winner of a nation's popularity contest -- has presented to the world that while the United States is not absolutely right or absolutely honorable or absolutely necessary or absolutely indispensable, he is indispensable and necessary and honorable and right; that while the United States can't do all the "heavy lifting" and that it ought not to, he himself is necessary to bring the world together, that he is the heavy who lifts the world from divisiveness and strife and hopelessness. He is needed. He is wanted. All nations are to be colonies of his magnanimous vision, his glorious unifying voice.

The world does not need America like it once did, or believed it did. America is not the model or force of empire. But the world sure needs America's Barack Obama, because he is hope.

___________________

Last year about this time, as the election drew near, I told family and friends that I thought Mr. Obama would lose the election in the United States and that charges of racism would course through the country and the world: that it would be perceived that Mr. Obama had been rejected by America because America is a vicious, backward, racist place. I also told family and friends that I thought his defeat would engender world sympathy and that the world would work to place him atop the United Nations. I was wrong. What seems more likely is that Mr. Obama will pass through the Oval Office so he can eventually assume the throne in New York City. Perhaps in 2016, when Michelle Obama runs for the White House and loses, her loss, interpreted as rejection rooted in sexism and racism, will secure Mr. Obama's position as President of the United States of the World.

Lest we forget: Dissent is not unpatriotic. Dissent we do.


©Contratimes/2009. All rights reserved.

[Replay of a Replay] Remembering: Kneeling At The Corner Of Church And Liberty

9.11.09: I forgot that on this date last year both Barack Obama and John McCain visited Ground Zero together. Interesting. I wonder if they will be at Ground Zero today commemorating the 8th anniversary of the date's tragic events. Regardless, I post what I wrote both last year on this day in history and what I wrote a few years before. Peace. BG

_____________________

[It is another cloudless morning here in New England, just like the morning seven years ago. Back then, two planes were already in the morning sky; observers on the ground might have seen them from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont or New York. There would be a different flight plan that day.

Today, 9/11/08, both John McCain and Barack Obama will visit Ground Zero. In honor of that visit, and in honor of that infamous and painful day, I repost a reflection I wrote several years after 9/11/01. Tomorrow, I will offer another reflection, I think, if I feel so moved.]

Yesterday morning, Friday, July 1, I walked west on Liberty Street and came to a slow stop. It was my first time to visit the World Trade Center since it became Ground Zero. I could see the wide-open 16-acre crater left in downtown Manhattan. But it was not the view that stopped me, but something much smaller. For there, in the southeast corner of Ground Zero, stood a street sign that, for me, was full of symbolic irony. I was at the corner of Church and Liberty.

I noted the irony, perhaps with bitterness touching my heart. And then I walked into the open space, tears filling my eyes, sobs erupting from deep within.

I had not expected this. I had not expected to want to fall to my knees, to wail on the ground, to daven before a new sort of Wailing Wall. I had not expected to feel that I could never leave this place; that I could never go back to something simple, safe, tidy, even naive. I had not expected to want to keep this hole in my heart; this hole from which people leapt and fell through tumult and smoke and confusion.

There was no surprise, however, at the enormity. I had always understood that; had felt it; had known its significance. I always understood the mechanics and the engineering; the aerodynamics and the flight paths. I had already stood on the ledge of a broken window; I had fallen. I had huddled with my child in the back of a plane; felt the pressure change in my ears and the turbulence of a bad pilot; I had seen the sparkling Hudson and the September blue; the smoke ahead; and I had felt the tipping of the wings as the engines were throttled full. I had waited for death to come in 3,000 different ways; and yet my imagination remained intact enough to remind me that I had not died even once.

What I had not expected were the tears. I thought that I had passed through that. I thought that I was, if not insouciant, so to speak, I was at least through with all the grief. But I was not. And clearly neither were many of the others walking by me, slowly, each pausing at various signs, reading them, performing a sort of Stations of the Cross along a postmodern Via Dolorosa. An old man, huddled against the massive, imposing fence, his long white hair and flowing beard tangled around his weary face, played an old silver flute, its dulcet tones reaching out and up, Amazing Grace trembling in my ears. He was crying in each breath.

I became quietly indignant (I was too humbled to be truly self-righteous) at those tourists from "far-away" who posed for digital cameras. And I was miffed, though only mildly, by the hawker silently moving through the crowd with a photo album, 9/11 pictures for sale, though numerous postings declared that such sacrilege was strictly forbidden. But I could forgive all this, for grief and horror do strange things to people. The abundance of cameras reminded me of a funeral I went to last spring, where the family of the 39-year-old father killed in a tragic accident gathered at the funeral parlor before the burial so that portraits could be taken around the open casket. My friend, the owner of the parlor, told me that it "happens all the time." Grief does strange things indeed.

I strolled north, stopping frequently. A young woman next to me, her back to the scene as she waited to cross Church - heading toward the Millenium Hilton - blurted into her cell phone, "I am going to get SO f***ed up tonight!" I moved away from her and closer to the fence, admitting to myself, a little sadly perhaps, that the world is indeed a very diverse place. The brown-haired woman to my right stared in disbelief westward, her lips trembling, tears on her cheeks. She wasn't thinking about getting "f***ed up." She was grieving for those who no longer could.

But there was one thing that was physically surprising to me, and beyond the scope of my imagination. It was that, with all the buildings surrounding the site, with the highest to the north, east and south, it was if I was INSIDE something, like a temple, cathedral or sanctuary. What happened on September 11 in New York was literally IN New York; with walls echoing sounds like the Whispering Gallery in St. Paul's Cathedral. I could see the Twin Towers, their heads poking through the ceiling of New York, and I could hear sounds. Sounds unbearable.

Later, I spoke with a woman who witnessed nearly everything on September 11. She told me that she was in the shower of her 23rd floor apartment on Liberty (the southwest corner) when the first plane smashed into the North Tower. She confessed that that she didn't realize what was happening until she was drying herself off. She said she heard a roar of jet engines overhead (the second plane), and then, echoing throughout her house, the sound of thousands of people screaming. (I think I can hear that sound right now.) And I know it was one of the sounds I could still hear trembling in the faint murmurs of the buildings surrounding Ground Zero. The walls do speak. And they speak sorrowfully. (The woman, a Manhattan lawyer I fortuitously met on the train home, told me that she was never able to return to her apartment after closing the door to it just before the towers fell. It was essentially uninhabitable, at least for her. And she told me her entire harrowing story: the dust-cloud filled with glass particles; the people screaming and pressing in the dark, the leaping into a boat on the Hudson, a thrown puppy, the vomiting, the uncertainty about more attacks, and so much more.)

But at the end of my too-short visit to Ground Zero, I could not shake from my mind the street sign, Church and Liberty. For Osama bin Laden attacked America - at least according to his own fatwa - because of its "Christian" infidelity (and its support and alliance with infidel Jews) and the liberty both synagogue and church provide. And it was America's liberties, our very freedoms, he turned against each of us: our freedom of travel, our easy borders, our freedom to build, and work in, tall buildings; our freedom to believe in God and liberty, or not. This is our vacant lot: that our virtues were turned against us by a man and men too impotent to build a nation, too weak to fill it with soldiers and weapons and wealth and commerce and hope; and too poor to attack us with something created by the superiority of their own vision. No, they attacked us with our own virtues, turned into weapons against us. They did not attack us with their virtues, but with their own spiteful vice. And for a moment, we staggered.

This morning, though far from New York, I still stand at the corner of Church and Liberty. I look up and understand: This is the World Trade Center. And I ask myself, "What world are you willing to trade?" My enemy has already asked that question, and he has shown me his answer. And now I give him mine: I am not trading.

Yesterday I walked through New York wearing a T-Shirt my wife gave to me two years ago. It reads on the front, in small print, "July 4, 1776: Remember Why." On the back, in quiet letters, it reads, "Live Free." I was amazed at how many people looked at my simple message as I passed through subway lines or strolled The Mall in Central Park. It is a good message.

Remember why.

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Ground Zero, World Trade Center, wtc, Fourth of July, Independence day, Liberty, Osama bin Laden, 9/11, New York City, Manhattan

"We Have The Votes": What Comes After Mr. Obama's Speech To Congress

Barack Obama is right now addressing the United States Congress solely to justify what comes next: The Democratic Party in power is going to cram through Congress a universal health care project, and this despite overwhelming American opposition to that project. Yes, most Americans support reform, but not the kind sought by the left-ward Democrats; at best, Americans want reform of health insurance, and not of the federal government itself. But tonight you are hearing why Mr. Obama and his party are going to force legislation through the Congress and onto his desk. This is about power, leverage, control. It is not about justice, and it surely is not about health. And it is ultimately about Barack Obama's narcissism: "I will not accept anything other than what I demand."

Of course, the table was set some time ago. Do you remember the stolen election in Iran earlier this summer? Remember how Mr. Obama did not forcefully denounce the Iran regime's totalitarian arts; remember his reluctance to side with the democratic souls who marched in the streets, many of whom were arrested, with some even dying for their convictions?

Remember as well this president's absurd remarks about the crisis in Honduras; Democrats, many in the American media, and the Obama administration spoke about the Honduran crisis either in terms of political injustice or that a coup had occurred. Of course, it was the ousted Honduran president who had been attempting a coup: using his democratic election as a mandate that he could change the country's constitution, he over-reached, and was removed from office by every legal means the Honduran constitution had at its disposal. And recall that leftists -- all of whom support Mr. Obama and many of whom are in his government or in Congress -- applaud the sort of "democratic" bullying of a Hugo Chavez or the tyranny of a Fidel Castro.

The theme, then, is rather clear, and it is consistently presented: Forcing legislation is OK with the Obama camp. I have already heard, like you have no doubt heard, countless leftists say that the universal, single-payer model of health care should be pushed through because "we won, we're in power, and we have the votes." Though no single-payer type plan -- the kind that Mr. Obama and Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi ULTIMATELY seek -- was ever presented to the United States electorate during Mr. Obama's campaign to "win" the White House, Democrats still believe that the "we won" mentality is somehow not only fair and reasonable, but democratic, and thus justifies forcing health care reform onto the very people who largely oppose it because the country faces dire consequences if it "does nothing."

Mr. Obama will brook no other options but his own. He said so this evening; I heard him myself. It is about him: He is the leader.

You are not. So much for di mäk' rə sē < demos, 'the people' + kratia, 'rule'.

Peace.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Busing In Support And Dissent: The Democracy Of Illusion

When former NH congressman Charles F. Bass first ran for the US House of Representatives, I followed him on Election Day, 1994, from the moment he awoke to the very end of his busy day. As a staff photographer for the local paper, I approached my editor with the idea; the goal would be to create a picture story of the aspiring congressman, the hometown boy who had done well in state politics.

While traveling in the Bass campaign RV through the southern and central sections of NH (2nd Cong. Dist.) visiting polling places, I learned what was then -- for me -- an astonishing fact. At that time in my life, I was entirely indifferent to politics; despite a couple of social issues on which I took a vague political stand, I actually hated ALL THINGS political until the 2000 election and 9/11 (and I probably still hate politics). I think many Americans who had been rather indifferent to politics suddenly took notice of what was happening in America during the Bush v. Gore showdown and, of course, after 9/11. Prior to those two events, I was steeped in a cynicism that led to indifference: in 1988, I did not vote for George H. W. Bush or Mike Dukakis. I wrote in Mother Teresa.

What I learned while traveling with Charles Bass only reinforced my cynicism, particularly regarding the Democratic Party, though I was not lacking cynicism toward ANY party or politician. But this one thing stood out.

You see, wherever we traveled we would find lots of supporters of Mr. Bass's opponent, the Democratic incumbent Dick Swett (absurd name, I know). At various intersections along our route, or at the polling places we'd visit, Dick Swett supporters would be doing their level best to influence the vote. Because he is an affable chap, Mr. Bass would jump right into the midst of the Swett supporters, greeting them cheerily, shaking hands, wishing them luck. Of course, as he did this sort of thing, I would be shooting away like mad, looking for decent juxtapositions between the candidate and his opposition.

When each photo-op was over, I would quickly ask the people I had photographed with Mr. Bass for their names and addresses. EVERY supporter of Mr. Bass would immediately and enthusiastically comply. But when I would ask those who were holding Swett signs, or other signs for Democratic Party candidates, I found that they mostly were resistant to giving me either their names or where they were from. Sometimes they'd tell me their names but, no matter how much I pleaded and pried, they would not give me their addresses (this stuff is kind of vital for a photojournalist for a number of reasons). One stubborn guy did finally tell me his name and his address; he was from Massachusetts, he said, but he did not really want his name in the paper.

After several frustrating hours of futility in gathering names and addresses of Dick Swett supporters, at least those gathered along the state's highways, I uttered my frustration aloud to Mr. Bass and his campaign manager. The two looked at me like I had fallen from the sky.

"Don't you know the vast majority of the people holding signs, particularly along the highway, are union workers?" said Mr. Bass. "They're shipped in from Massachusetts and Rhode Island and paid by their unions to support Democrats in seriously contested elections. They don't want to let on that they're not NH residents. Most of these folks don't even know who is running for what office. They just hold signs. Besides, most of them probably called in sick today and don't want to get busted by their bosses."

Now, it takes no degrees in political science to know one thing about American politics: Unions are almost solely the possession of the Democratic Party. These big corporations of labor are indeed big business. I at least knew this much when I heard what Mr. Bass and his manager were saying to me. But I never expected that the supporters lining the highways of southern NH were not New Hampshire residents.

So, when you hear that "Republicans" and special interest groups are "busing in" mad mobs of naysayers to town hall meetings around the country to dispense "disinformation" about Mr. Obama's allegedly just and pellucid health care plans, just remember who also buses folks in to sow "dissent" and "spread disinformation": The unions of the Democratic Party (or is that the Democratic Party of the unions?).

Those of us who witnessed the thousands of non-state "supporters" of Barack Obama descend upon NH during the last election cycle have seen first hand what bused-in mobs actually look like.

Really, it is all a big, sick joke.

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.

Cash For Clunkers Hurts The Poor

I am not the only person who thinks Cash for Clunkers is bad for poor people, but with all the recent analysis dispensed by the talking-head pundit-class seemingly ignoring this simple injustice, I am tempted to think I am among few who do. Clunkers, as you know, is part of an automobile industry stimulus plan signed into law by the Obama administration that enjoys bi-partisan support in both houses of Congress. It is officially called the Car Allowance Rebate System, or CARS.

Apparently the program gained popularity after an op-ed by Alan S. Blinder appeared in the New York Times in July 2008. Mr. Blinder's essay was titled "A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus."

Mr. Blinder (there's a name!) made three claims in his piece, first, that the plan would lead to a cleaner environment, second, that it would distribute income more equitably, and third, the plan would stimulate the economy.

Any reasonable person could doubt Mr. Blinder's claims, especially his claim that this plan would be good for poor people; that it would be "more equal":

"MORE EQUAL INCOME DISTRIBUTION It won’t surprise you to learn that the well-to-do own relatively few clunkers. Most are owned, instead, by low-income people. So if the government bought some of these vehicles at above-market prices, it would transfer a little purchasing power to the poor."

It seems to this writer that Mr. Blinder does not live in the real world. Who buys clunkers -- allegedly gas-guzzlers -- when they are new? The poor? Or the more "well-to-do"? That 1982 Cadillac that sits in the apartment complex in downtown Louisville; did a poor person buy that when it was new? The BMW 740s and the Chevrolet Suburbans and Ford Excursions; did poor people drive these off the lot when they first left the showroom? What about Hummers and Acura MDXs and Ford F-350s? None of these are particularly fuel efficient -- at least in a strict MPG comparison -- but surely it was the more affluent Americans who first drove these off the lot.

The same can be said for nearly any new car, especially the most fuel-efficient ones: Honda Civics are not cheap, at least compared to a lot of entry-level vehicles; and it is not the Honda Civic Hybrid that the poorest buyers purchase new, is it? See that 1998 Subaru wagon over there with temporary plates? That car was not recently bought by a rich person. (Well, in New Hampshire, where I am, one can never really tell.)

The fact is that almost every clunker on the road today that matters was purchased by someone who rather recently bought it used -- because a Clunker was all that person could afford. Cars trickle down just like technology trickles down: the safest, most fuel-efficient and technologically advanced cars NEVER start as entry-level offerings. Never. The best engineering always starts higher up. Yes, it is a sad irony that those who could benefit the most from a hybrid-like fuel mileage rating in their vehicles can't afford it. But that's the way of innovation.

And by the way, for most of my life I've been a Clunker driver. A used Clunker driver.

What does Cash For Clunkers do? It takes cars out of the marketplace that benefit the poor. To hell, really, with the idea that this "saves the environment." Poor people may drive inefficient cars, but they drive far fewer miles to begin with. Do readers know what happens to clunkers that are traded in for new cars? The auto dealership has to destroy the engine, and then crush the old clunker (fines WILL be levied if even certain parts from the clunkers are recirculated in a used-parts market). Just think of the economic foolishness this single fact represents. But think of the environmental impact as well: the auto industry and its parts-manufacturing complex have to deplete more of the earth's resources and consume more energy to create "new" stuff, all of which ARE the clunkers, or parts of the clunkers, of the future. Remember, that Toyota Prius you've got your eye on is a Clunker in the years ahead.

Who benefits economically from all of this? Not the poor, that's for sure. Mr. Jones, who has a Mercedes E-Class for himself, a BMW X5 for his wife, and an old Ford F-250 he uses around his gentleman's farm, will tool down to the nearest Clunker rebate center with his Clunker pick-up truck for the $4500 kickback he can use to get his 16-year-old daughter a brand new Honda Accord. But the poor man down the road who last year bought a dirt cheap Jeep Cherokee for his family will NEVER trade in his Clunker because he knows that even with a $4500 rebate he can't afford the monthly payments on a single new car that sits on the lot. And if he is approved for a line of credit, isn't he a high-risk borrower? Doesn't this perpetuate the sort of reckless lending and borrowing that have undeniably damaged the American economy?

Lest I give you the impression I am the only one thinking this way, let me cite "Marshall," who posted the following comment at Econbrowser:

One should consider the ever present unintended consequences [of the Clunkers program]. If the additional funds are approved, 750,000 usable cars that can be used by those who cannot afford a new one will be gone. How many additional people will be laid off from the auto replacement parts companies with a significant part of their customer base gone? Have an additional 750,000 people just taken on additional debt that they would not otherwise have done? How many additional foreclosures and cutbacks in spending in other areas will result? This crisis was caused by excessive leverage and this only intensifies the problem.

Cash for Clunkers is a NOT a good idea. It is NOT a good plan. It is really a stupid plan.

And it hurts the poor.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

In Command Of Himself: One Cool Cop

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.

Good for him.

Beer Pressure

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.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Strictly Procedural: A Link Of Confession

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.

Peace.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Comments On The "Birther" Conspiracy: A Response To James Taranto

[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.]

©2009/Contratimes. All RIghts Reserved.

BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT: A New Word

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.

It is a very curious word. So new. So fresh.

Birther happily joins his older brother, Truther.

(As an addendum to my earlier post, En Passant: Words Out Of Nowhere.)

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Barack Obama: His Genius At Work

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.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

[Contratimes on the road.]

Our Pusillanimous Commander In Chief

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.)

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.