Barack Obama And The "False Choice"

In Mr. Obama's inaugural address we find this statement:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

It's a stunning bit of vapidity: safety is one of our ideals.

And in Mr. Obama's speech regarding the use (and destruction) of human embryos for scientific inquiry, we find this statement:

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent.

The stunning vapidity apparently never ends: No one in the Bush administration ever created the false choice described by Mr. Obama. For President Bush, science informed his ethics, and vice versa: It is science that shows us that life begins at conception, and it is our ethics that draws a clear moral line between the willful destruction of human life for unknown medical gains and research that is not so inhuman. Mr. Obama even acknowledged the "unknown" in his speech the day he repealed Bush's ban:

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains UNKNOWN, and it should not be OVERSTATED. But scientists believe these tiny cells† MAY have the POTENTIAL to help us... [emphasis added]

Of course, lost in Mr. Obama's emptiness is the unavoidable fact that the Bush administration PERMITTED embryonic stem cell research to continue; President Bush only limited the number of embryonic lines that could be generated (and the administration funded stem cell research as well).

In other words, only Mr. Obama has created the false choice: the choice between his false-choice straw man and the actual facts. There was no false choice save the one in his own imagination.

A REAL FALSE CHOICE

Lastly, the capstone: Here is what Michelle Obama said of her husband on the campaign trail; this was meant to sell him to us as something special. Check out this skewed logic:

The first major decision he had to make in his life, after college - "Do I go to Wall Street and make money, or do I work for the people?" - Barack worked as a community organizer in some of the toughest neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago.

Here, finally, we have evidence of a legitimate False Choice. Mr. Obama's alleged quandary is utterly manufactured. He is alleged to be unbelievably bright, and yet apparently not quite bright enough to see his false either/or. For there is no evidence that a man going to "Wall Street" to "make money" does not "work for the people." In fact, a good case could be made that a Wall Street job is far better for "the people" than community organizing in Chicago. Regardless, the point is clear: Michelle and Barack Obama presented themselves as better people than those who they falsely believe don't "work for the people"; and if Ms. Obama's testimony regarding her husband is to be trusted, then she and her husband have either fallen prey to their own false choice, or they've pandered to the envious masses by giving themselves props concealed in a false choice: We are for the people, and our refusal to work on Wall Street -- though we could have! -- proves this.

And yet, somehow, as workers for the people who rejected the allure of Wall Street, they've still managed to become millionaires.

It is now quite clear, I should think, that a colossal false choice was made some time around November 4, 2008.

Perhaps this also makes clear why Mr. Obama looks with such disdain on those who've been more successful than he. Envy nearly always poses as social justice -- for the good "of the people." In fact, it seems perfectly obvious that the whole of Mr. Obama's economic policies rests upon his most fundamental false choice.

_________________

†In the third Obama quote above, I placed a †. I wanted to draw your attention to the Orwellian diminution Mr. Obama provides: he uses a reductionistic euphemism to distract you from the fact that these are HUMAN EMBRYOS that are being destroyed; that these cells are the very rudiments and foundations of each and every human life that has ever existed or ever will exist. Each of us IS one of these "tiny cells", and each of us WAS one of these "tiny cells." This "great man" believes the weakest among us are strictly here to serve those who happen to have the privilege of walking around, you know, the advantaged; the strong. The embryos in power.

And why DID he repeal the executive order? You know why. The answer is almost genomic: $.

Mr. Obama is so disturbing precisely because he has been presented as anything but.

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Wielding 'Wonders' While Hating Science

"There is no problem that surgery cannot make worse."

-- An orthopedic surgeon

_________________________

It was mentioned in an earlier essay here that Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address included one memorably stupid phrase. But that should be emended. Mr. Obama’s address included several ridiculous statements, perhaps this chief among them:

We will restore science
to its rightful place…

The most casual witness to Mr. Obama’s first words as president should have immediately understood what was meant: Mr. Obama was uttering a great boast. He and his many “fellow citizens” would lift science from the dustbin where it had been tossed by the preceding presidency. Mr. Obama implied he was not a small-minded Luddite smashing the machinery of science; George W. Bush was the very emblem of intellectual torpor, whereas Mr. Obama is enlightened, progressive. He and his followers will restore science’s boldest claims:

We will restore science
to its rightful place,
and wield technology's
wonders
to raise health care's quality
and lower its cost.

America will turn its hopes to the competency of men and women devoted to the deepest inquiries into existence, matter, nature, energy; the human body. America the Great, consisting of the most expansive and excellent minds united to Mr. Obama’s new vision, will reject the intellectual indifference of the past, an indifference born of the the fear of change. America will reject those who deny the consensus of scientists that man-made global warming is real. America will reject the refusal to use human embryos for the harvesting of stem-cells, cells that hold so much promise for the infirm. Science has been forsaken for far too long. The time has come to restore science to its rightful place.

It is a bold boast. It is nearly a believable one. But boldness does not make it true: saying that science shall be restored falls rather flat when considering the source of so great a claim. In fact, hearing the leader of the Democratic Party speak of science in such glowing terms is nearly risible. It is hard not to laugh simply because the Democratic Party, particularly its most liberal members, hate science. They always have.

_____________________

What do the following things have in common:

• The Industrial Revolution†
• Global warming gases
• Nuclear waste
• The China Syndrome
• Radioactive Fallout
• Hiroshima
• Gas chambers
• Killer bees
• Gypsy moth infestations
• Asbestos building products
• Lead paint
• Internal combustion engines
• Jet-powered airliners
• Laser-guided missiles
• Dumps filled with computer components
• Blood letting
• Botched abortions
• Mercury-laced flourescent bulbs
• Antibiotic-resistant bacteria
• Thalidomide babies
• Toxic-shock syndrome
  
• Accidental deaths by anesthesia
• Accidental deaths by prescribed pharmaceuticals
• Oxycodone addictions
• Suicide as a result of depression medications
• Cancers caused by exposure to x-rays/radiation
• Lobotomies
• Electro-shock therapy

It is perfectly clear what all of these have in common: they are the fruits of science. Not bad science. Not rogue science, but science in its purest form, even its most beneficent form: Good things were offered, bad things followed. Each good thing was offered as proof of science’s interest in helping; each was offered as a solution to a problem. Who could have predicted that the solutions would cause new problems?

Surely Mr. Obama could not be talking about restoring science to the levels we’ve known in the past, right? Surely he does not mean restoring science to the place where it kills, poisons and maims humanity, and ruins the earth’s environment. Surely he is not suggesting that all those without access to healthcare have nothing but an unalloyed desire to see doctors at any cost, the very doctors who have killed, maimed and wounded so many. (Where is a person most likely to contract a necrotizing, flesh-eating bacteria? That’s right. In a hospital.) He could not be asking us to believe that “technology’s wonders” are particularly wonderful, could he?

No. He could not be.

HOW, AND WHY, LIBERALISM HATES SCIENCE

Barack Obama said yesterday that his administration would not be one that would "deny facts.” (This will be explored more fully in a separate column.) Without making any great leaps of faith, it can be concluded that Mr. Obama is contrasting himself -- again and enduringly -- with his predecessor. But the question is what Mr. Obama means by facts. Does he mean by facts the sort of facts used by the World Wildlife Foundation in its “Save the Polar Bear” campaign, facts like 40%-50% of all polar bears MIGHT vanish by 2050, or that polar bears COULD be extinct by 2100? Does he mean by facts that humans MUST change their ways or the world MIGHT be irreversibly damaged by profound and unmitigated warming? Does Mr. Obama believe that propositions built around such conditionals as “MIGHT” and “COULD” and “MAY” and “PROBABLY” are facts? Does Mr. Obama believe such non causa pro causa fallacies endemic to global warming "science" are the sort of "facts" that should rule the Oval Office? Apparently he does.

Liberals hate science for a whole host of reasons. The most important reason is that science stands in the way of one of liberalism’s most precious beliefs: that all humans are created equal. Egalitarianism is arguably liberalism’s principal tenet; it is its chief cornerstone. Ironically it is a religious and not a scientific conviction: there is actually nothing scientific about it at all (nor is there anything Judeo-Christian about it, either). It is a perfectly humanistic belief, based solely in faith. It apparently does not matter to liberals that Darwin himself would laugh at its naïveté and senselessness. Evolution is unarguably all about inequalities; if all human forbears had coursed through time as equals, the genus, and not just the species, would have been extinct long ago. Inequalities are the very engine of evolution. “Survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” are about one speciatic characteristic having an advantage over another. Progress, if we can call it that, is founded on inequalities. The human species has advanced simply by competition, with the spoils going to the advantaged.

Hence, liberalism hates science. The simplicity of science in animal breeding proves the case of evolution; not all dogs, or horses, or chimpanzees, are equal. But this simplicity is despised by liberalism, as it stands in the way of its political paradigm. Equality under law is one thing, and it is hard to dispute. But equality of beginnings and ends; to promise equality at the start and the finish, at the beginning of a game and its end, is the religious, almost manic, goal of liberalism. Supervising, so to speak, social outcomes is invasive and contra-scientific. But not only is “just trying” sufficient to earn liberalism’s stamp of equality, just “being” is sufficient. The losers get the winnings, even if the winnings were rightfully earned by the winners. To liberals, everyone gets a medal; everyone gets an A; everyone is above average.

But there is an Orwellian aspect to all of this: All men may be created equal, but in liberalism, there are some who are more equal than others. If a liberal accepts Darwin’s theory of natural selection, that there are profound differences between not only the species but even within the human species, he does so assuming that some privileged members of the human species are sufficiently advanced to direct the evolution of the rest who are not as privileged. The “elite” know what is best, not simply politically, but in evolutionary terms: the phalanx of liberal psychotherapists are here to shape and mold, serving as facilitators of “real change,” moving all toward a better humanity. However, this class of facilitators is not equal to those they facilitate; but the whole edifice falls at elitists' feet if they permit themselves one moment of honest reflection.

How else do liberals hate science? They hate it when it does not speak to their deepest prejudices: gay marriage advocates continue to declare that science has shown a genetic cause of homosexuality, even when science has shown no such thing (more on this tomorrow, by the way, in a devastating argument). The science of the gay gene is not only problematic and presumptuous. (Are all things genetically caused desirable and acceptable, and who decides? Are there irresistible, immutable genetic influences on gay behaviors, or do gay behaviors affect the genetic code?) The science of the gay gene is not scientific. It is really wishful political and religious thinking. It seeks to find a genetic cause of a sexual aberration, solely to say the aberration is equal to the norm: Two gay men living in "committed, loving relationship" is equal to a man and woman married, raising children.

Liberals hate the science associated with global warming. They tout consensus; they praise it as if it is incontrovertible proof. But they ignore the facts; they ignore the fallacy (consensus gentium) -- the irrationality -- of the idea of submitting to pop-opinion. Who cares that the mass of scientists who sign on as members of the “consensus” possess expertise in areas irrelevant to atmospheric science? When an electrical engineer, or a radiologist or histologist, signs on to the theory that human influence on TEMPERATURE trumps even the sun -- that humans can influence temperature beyond “repair” -- attentive folks note that liberals disregard the glaring fact that the consensus is rigged by experts ignorant of the facts. The political leverage and convenience gained by liberals who ascribe to global warming “science” is all about control of society and manufacturing, and the redistribution of wealth. Global warming scenarios justify political seizure of industry, profits, assets, all for the "safety of the planet." Any real science that might undermine the liberal premise, or at least give a liberal pause, is anathema.

Liberals hate the science of what is considered straight sexuality; traditional monogamy’s health and social benefits are well-known, but liberals dismiss such as puritanical and simple-minded.†† Liberals hate the science of conception; the obvious beginning of human life is conception -- science and reason show us this -- but (many) liberals choose ambiguity about the genesis of life, solely to placate consciences weighed down by the guilt and shame (imposed by no one but conscience) of abortion known by women (and men) who sought comfort in the life-denying tools used by science to evacuate the unwanted from countless wombs. Liberals also disregard the science about the grief, despair and alienation that follow such "private" choices.

So there is something ironic when Barack Obama declares that he will restore science to its rightful place. At best, this means that Barack Obama will use science selectively, finding just those facts that work, that are convenient. Forget that technology's wonders have unleashed countless nightmares on the planet, many of which were unleashed to chase other nightmares away. Barack Obama will restore science to its rightful, toxic, brutal place.

In other words, science will be used the same way under the new boss as it was used, allegedly, under the old boss. Cynically, manipulatively. Conveniently.

Just look at how smart these people are:


It's easy to boast.


Peace through dissent.


†The Industrial Revolution is added here because it's generally considered the transition to a more toxic era of human behavior. It may have been unavoidable; it quite clearly proved to be a very beneficial transition in many ways. But it is the beginning, in one sense, of humanity emitting "global warming gases" into the atmosphere.
††Not every liberal thinks this way, of course, but by and large liberalism shows a much greater acceptance of pre-marital sexuality -- and other variant forms -- than does conservatism. As for guilt, there are many in the sciences, particularly the social sciences (e.g., psychology), who believe guilt is unhealthy.

Tom Toles' cartoon can be found here.

©Bill Gnade 2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

The Great Emptiness

Yesterday's inauguration, with all its fanfare, pomp and ritual, is a grand part of America's secular liturgy. It is what America does to signify a transition, the "peaceful transfer of power." As such, it is meant to be purely formal, indifferent to personality, taste, mood. It is the American cult, the American rite of the oath of office. It is a ceremony for the country and not for any particular man, woman or party. It is as close to rigid tradition as Americans -- as a democracy -- ever get.

But the inauguration is not all about the oath of office. Yesterday's events were merely meant to conform to the "letter of the law." It was a subdued ceremony; it seemed in a sense almost matter-of-fact. The oratory of Barack Obama, not particularly lofty, inspiring or poetic, drew attention to the people of America, to the very foundations of the country: its laws and founding principles, its heart and conviction, its resilience and resolve. All boilerplate, of course, aimed at all Americans, but the impression one might get is that yesterday's events prove that this was not a "coronation" or "deification;" this was not a worship service for a new god.

However, the reality is that the worship, the public adoration of the blessed and newly-consecrated "Host" of the nation, occurred Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. The adoration of Barack Obama, and the grand applause millions of Americans gave themselves for being so wonderful and good and moral and even -- most importantly -- international, took place during the HBO broadcast (which DirecTV kindly also broadcast to its customers) of the inaugural welcome party. The world may have been watching yesterday's ceremonies for evidence of Obama worship, but the world would not have found any evidence because the world was two days late. Sunday was the day on which the followers of Obama scripted their own celebration, their own pop-culture jubilee. Tuesday would be too constrained, too legal and formal and traditional, to provide celebrants the requisite freedom to adore with all due fervor.

Obama's Inaugural Speech: The Great Emptiness

The "great emptiness" is not necessarily an expression I have chosen to describe the content of Mr. Obama's speech. Rather, it mostly refers to my own feelings of emptiness as I listened to vapidity so incomprehensible one could even call it stupidity.

Let us, for a moment, overlook the fact that in Mr. Obama's third sentence uttered as president, he made a glaring historical error. No. Let us not overlook it, since it points us, once again, to the gross double standards to which Americans are subjected hourly:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

I am sure many will assert that it is petty of me to note what others have pointed out, namely, that forty-three Americans have taken the presidential oath, not forty-four. I note, too, that my pointing this out will be dismissed as a "distraction," as a mere "hiccup"; that I am being small-minded. But I would be remiss if I did not point out that had a Republican made such an historic blunder -- and it is historic -- we would hear no end to the matter: had George W. Bush made a similar gaffe in the first three sentences of his inaugural address, Americans would hear nothing but how much of an embarrassment Bush (that dope!) was to the country and the world.

But let us turn from the petty to the substantive, if you will. Note that Barack Obama's speech is built on the politics of hope, and not of fear. But turn with me a moment to Barack Obama's inscrutable comments made during a debate on January 15, 2007, during the feverish heights of his campaign:

There is no doubt we’ve been dominated by a politics of fear since 9/11… But I have to say that when Sen. Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack … during a campaign, I think that it is part and parcel with what we have seen, the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points, and I think that’s a mistake. Now, I don’t want to perpetuate that. I think that’s part of why we ended up going into Iraq and made a big strategic error that has made us less safe. [my emphasis added in red]

The contradiction did not go unnoticed then, and it will not go unnoticed now: to decry the politics of fear and then suggest that those politics have made us "less safe," particularly with no empirical evidence to support the claim, IS the politics of fear. But just note what Mr. Obama said yesterday:

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met. [emphasis mine, in red]

In other words, there IS much to fear, to be anxious about. (And that ominous "will" in "they will be met" portends to this writer the actions of a dictator, not a democracy.) And then after telling us everything we must worry about, Obama tells us this:

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

Hope over fear. Amazing. This from a man who peddles fear in nearly every statement he makes. And then this emptiness follows:

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Ah, yes. The end to "false promises" (like the promise not to peddle fear). Ah, yes, the end to "petty grievances." But note the contradiction. Note how quickly the promise to end petty grievances is proven false by Obama's own inaugural address:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. [my emphasis in red]

How lovely! America is now "ready to lead once more" now that the fear-mongering, inflexible, pugnacious and isolated President Bush has returned to Texas. Bush, apparently, gave up our founding principles for "expedience's sake." Nothing petty or partisan about that kick to the face. A new age of hope, indeed. And let us not overlook this fresh and non-partisan view of things:

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

Did you know that America had fallen down into the dust? I didn't. Maybe I failed to notice that President Bush had knocked me down to the ground, in his imbecilic and bullying way. But I do note that Obama's locution "begin AGAIN the work of REMAKING America" is not only an ominous one, it is frighteningly Orwellian. "REMAKE" America, Mr. Obama? I thought America was great? I thought you loved your country? Do you love your wife? Do you begin each day reminding yourself to "begin again the work of remaking" your wife? Remake America how? I thought the founding fathers had given us all we needed: Are you suggesting that you might revise the principles and ideals of this land for the sake of some new "expedience"? (Such emptiness brings great cheers, I am afraid.)

And don't forget that we will have an end to "worn-out dogmas," you know, ones like these:

[T]hey have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort — even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.

It is imprudent, I am sure, and even another "distraction," to point out that the sentences above are nothing but cliché and dogmatic: these are the boilerplate dogmas to which all presidents appeal. Never mind that Barack Obama mentions "new threats that demand even greater effort" but is silent about what anxieties and fears those very words generate. Ignore the vapid appeals to emotion, to all that triggers fear and hope. Let us remind ourselves that this is the "new age," where we will see an end to the old ways of doing things. But note that Mr. Obama promises we are "[g]uided by these principles once more," meaning that we have not been guided by these principles in the recent past. A more conciliatory tone, one surely set to heal this nation of its petty divisions, could not be made. Surely Obama's soaring words, his healing words, bring us all together.

Barack Obama's speech merits sarcasm. It was a pathetic effort. Nothing proves this more† than this ridiculous statement, dogmatic and cliché, partisan and petty -- and empty -- to the core:

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.

A return to these truths. What sorrow I feel when I read such empty rhetoric, especially when I know his words are presented as somehow audaciously hopeful. One can't easily imagine a more mind-numbing, thought-deadening inaugural address.

It's a sad second day for America.

Peace through dissent.

BG

†Actually, there is at least one statement in the speech that is even more thought-deadening, if that is possible. I will write about it soon.