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.
From Mr. Obama's speech yesterday in Elkhart County, Indiana [bold added for emphasis]:
"...let me just talk about the so-called stimulus package, or the Recovery Act, because there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the Recovery Act. Let me tell you what it is and what it's not.
"The plan was divided into three parts. One-third of the money has gone to tax relief for families and small businesses. One-third of the money is cutting people's taxes. For Americans struggling to pay rising bills with shrinking wages, we kept a campaign promise to put a middle-class tax cut in the pockets of 95 percent of working families -- (applause) -- a tax cut that began showing up in paychecks of 4.8 million Indiana households about three months ago.
"We also cut taxes for small businesses on the investments that they make. And more than 425 small businesses in Indiana have received SBA loans through the recovery package. So that's -- one-third of the money was tax cuts.
"Another third of the money in the Recovery Act has been for emergency relief that is helping folks who've borne the brunt of this recession. For Americans who were laid off, we expanded unemployment benefits –- and that's already made a difference for 12 million Americans, including 220,000 folks right here in Indiana. We're making health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families relying on COBRA while looking for work. Some of you know people who lost their jobs, were worried about losing their health care, couldn't afford COBRA -- we were able to reduce their costs by 65 percent so they could keep their health care while they looking for jobs.
"And for states facing historic budget shortfalls, we provided assistance that has saved the jobs of tens of thousands of teachers and public -- and police officers and other public servants so that you wouldn't see the recession get even worse.
"So that's the second half. First half, tax relief. Second half, support for individuals, small businesses, and states that had fallen on hard times.
"The last third of the Recovery Act -- and that's what we're going to talk about here today -- is for investments that are not only putting people back to work in the short term, but laying a new foundation for growth and prosperity in the long run."
I can't remember the exact line, but in a Seinfeld episode Jerry, smitten by a woman he bumps into in Monk's who says she likes his shirt, distractedly replies, "Thanks. It's 50% cotton, 50% silk, and 20% rayon." Obviously, Mr. Obama has ripped off Seinfeld.
I guess a case could be made that 1/3 of 3/3 is also 1/2 of 2/3 -- if 2/3 were actually 2/2 and 1/3 was 1/2. But Mr. Obama seems to imply that 2/3 is 1/2 of 3/3. No?
I hate this blog. I hate my voice. I hate my own words. I do not like the sort of writer I've become.
Over the past couple of years, my life has become increasingly focused on caregiving for my elderly mother. This focus has reached a rather acute point, as my days -- all seven of them each and every week -- place me at my mother's home caring for her nearly every need. I am a nurse, really. I've gone far beyond what I thought myself capable. I am hip-deep in disposable vinyl gloves, incontinence briefs, commode cleaning, barrier cream and personal-with-my-eyes-closed-hygiene. It is what I do. Everything else is just an aside.
This blog, being a part of everything else, is therefore one of those asides. In fact, I just fling off thoughts here with a few finger strokes. For a long time now I have not entered a string of sentences with anything approaching concentration. It's all more like playing a parlor game during a holiday party with family than anything else: you pay attention, but just enough to avoid seeming a party-pooping fool and just long enough to conceal the fact you'd like to go home. Keep to the surfaces, play the game, talk about the weather, ask about the kids, quickly assemble an opinion and hastily speak it toward the cacophony of interruptions. And then seek more wine.
My mother groans constantly.
I do have help -- finally. I've a nurse who visits at least once a week, and a physical therapist and a home health aide who show up twice a week. And I have found an adult care center for my mother that keeps her safe and occupied for 6 hours each Monday, Wednesday and Friday. While this day care service is a godsend, it is a bit like going into some sort of weird reverse gear; it seems not all that long ago I was bringing my son to day care, carrying his little bag, finding his little cubby. Now I do it for my mother. The only striking difference is that my son wasn't swearing at me.
And his diapers were a lot smaller.
I don't know. I hate to blame my mediocrity on my mother or my circumstances. Sometimes I wonder if blogging, and simply using the internet in general, have actually made me stupid. And if not stupid, well, clearly I have become stupider since immersing myself in the online world. Seriously, I simply feel dumb. Flat out, straight out, unadulteratedly and precipitously dumb. In fact, a confession: I am so dumb that when I approach any stop sign, I've been suddenly given to trying to stop the sign. Why shouldn't I? It says "STOP." And I do this even when I discover, after expending my vast muscular reserves, that stop signs are not actually moving all that fast.
But I digress. The fact is that blogging is to literacy what Madonna is to deep thought. Actually, blogging is not quite that bad. But MY blogging is. Or so it feels.
Tonight I have a few free minutes to tap out a few words, though I feel like a weak fighter tapping out of an UFC match. Oh well. I've become what I am. I can't do much about it, except, perhaps, throw in the towel. It's just so hard to catch my breath, to bring some new strength and vigor to the fight. I can play the rope-a-dope, I can bob and weave and pray for a break. But why bother? I am in the midst of real life, the real stuff. You know what I mean.
What can I change about the facts of life? This is biology, baby.
In case readers have had a difficult time accessing this site, I have to report that BLOGGER contacted this writer at 11:34 AM to announce that Contratimes had been flagged as a SPAM blog and that it was subject to review. In fact, if I did not follow the link provided in the BLOGGER email body, Contratimes would be automatically deleted in 20 days.
Anyhow, my apologies if I've made access difficult for you.
I am guessing that this site was flagged because I posted three links to three separate and unrelated sites that also featured essays titled "Clunkers For Cash Hurts The Poor," or some variation thereof. I initially did this to show readers that my essay of the same title was indeed my own and yet the headline was rather common. To qualify as a SPAM blog, these links would be generated by some sort of spam-bot and would lead readers to just one place. My links were real and purposive; readers went to real links of sites managed by real individuals who were sharing real ideas.
It seems obvious that if BLOGGER chooses to recognize a blog as a spam blog or some such other deviation of the norm, it should do so based on better evidence than what is at hand here. BLOGGER is a Google subsidiary, and it seems to me that Google should be able to analyze, instantly, that Contratimes is not a SPAM blog, nor were my three links circular or self-looping in any way.
Needless to say, my initial visceral reaction was that I was being harassed; it FELT like harassment. That I can't post any essays or comments until BLOGGER clears me is really disconcerting. But, in the scheme of things, well, this is hardly a big deal.
As an addendum to my essay below, "Cash For Clunkers Hurts The Poor," I ask readers to consider -- for fun -- which political party's constituents are more likely to participate in the Cash For Clunkers program. I haven't the requisite skills or time to divine this sort of thing; perhaps no one does. But it would be interesting to see if this program attracts people from BOTH parties, or just one, and if only one, which one.
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.
I have to agree with those commentators who have opined that the clear winner in last night's so-called "Beer Summit" was Sgt. James Crowley. He has maintained a level of dignity, decorum and self-control throughout this whole episode that is truly reassuring. He has stayed within himself, he has not over-reached or over-spoken or over-reacted. He is the epitome of cool calm.
And he is quite resistant to beer pressure, even when it comes from the most popular man in the world.
It seems there is some uncertainty about the location of Michael Jackson's body. Lest you believe I am inventing things, permit me to direct you to this story, or this blog post (one of many possible examples).
Adding to the alleged mysteries around the pop icon's death and the whereabouts of his body is Louis Farrakhan's two-hour lecture given this past Sunday in which he suggests Mr. Jackson was crucified.
The Final Call published (of course) a report on "The Crucifixion of Michael Jackson," the apparent title of Mr. Farrakhan's lecture; there we read the following:
“Why would we, as intelligent believing people, put Michael Jackson in the same kind of trauma, dilemma, torture and scourging as the man Jesus?” the Minister asked early in his lecture.
“They mocked Jesus. When they crucified him, they had at the top of the cross, ‘Jesus, King of the Jews.' Michael, also a king was crucified, the so-called king of pop. I see Michael much deeper than those who have talked about him,” said Min. Farrakhan.…
[skip]
But his [Jackson's] thinking was Black-oriented and lyrics in songs reflected his changing mind, said Min. Farrakhan. “Michael, then, was on his way to the cross because Michael had touched the hearts of people all over the world. Michael touched every race, every culture, every ethnic group, every tribe—there was nothing Michael hadn't touched,” said the Minister. “And now he's becoming Dangerous? Dangerous to who? To those who want to keep you ignorant to who you are so they can continue to use us as tools and slaves. It's not about hate. This is not about anti-Semitism. It's about showing who is anti-Black.”
I will not comment on Mr. Farrakhan's eulogy here, at least not now. I will simply state that if Mr. Jackson was crucified and his body is now missing, I would not be surprised to learn that the King of Pop has risen from the grave. At least, that's how the story ended when that other king was crucified. Why should things be any different now?
What would be perfect tonight is if, at the great Summit of Beer, after Messrs. Obama and Gates choose their respective lite pilsners, Sergeant James Crowley asks for a glass of pinot noir.
Sergeant James Crowley is in the White House as I write, dispatched there by the occupant of the Oval Office. The good sergeant will be joined by the man he arrested, Henry Louis Gates Jr.; both men will have beers with Mr. Obama.
Of course, this all strikes me as an incredible teachable moment -- in propaganda.
The facts of this entire story are rather plain, at least to me, and the great social ills allegedly highlighted by the arrest of Mr. Gates in Cambridge, Massachusetts have nothing to do with what is truly important. Racial profiling, racial tension, bigotry, systemic or institutionalized racism; whatever it is called, what brings these three men together -- alleged differences -- are all distractions. Red-herrings. The facts are not relevant; the story is not the story.
What is at issue here is simple.
What is the story is perfectly obvious.
The only thing that matters is that Barack Obama abused his power and his office to protect a friend, to insinuate racism where there was none, to denigrate a police department, to obfuscate the legal basis for his friend's arrest, and to refuse to accept responsibility for his reckless and shameful actions. This is a story about a president who behaved foolishly, without regard for law or decorum; who acted prejudiciously and arrogantly; who forsook his responsibility as chief law enforcement officer of the land. And he did this after admitting he did not have all the facts about the Cambridge affair.
What offends us most about racism? Is it that racism is based on superficiality? Is it that racism is the result of irrational prejudice? Indeed, this IS what offends us most: it is an unthinking, unreflective, loveless act of pre-judgment -- of prejudice -- based solely in surfaces. We loathe shallowness. (Oscar Wilde's epigram comes to mind -- "The supreme vice is shallowness.")
Many people have focused all their attention on the prejudice of Sgt. Crowley, that he pre-judged someone solely because he was black. Others have focused their attention on the prejudice of Mr. Gates, that he pre-judged a white policeman for talking to a black man.
But no one seems to care that the evidence for the prejudice of either Sgt. Crowley or Mr. Gates is rather scant and that the evidence for the prejudice of Mr. Obama is absolutely undeniable. Mr. Obama pre-judged an entire police department. He pre-judged how that department "acted" and why it acted the way it did. And this he did by his own admission on primetime TV before the press corps and the world.
Where is the outrage at Mr. Obama's obvious prejudice? Where is the outrage at his obvious abuse of power? Where is the outrage at his arrogance? Where is the outrage at his using his office to protect a friend and abuse a law enforcement agency? Where is the outrage at his obfuscation of law? Where's the outrage at his undeniable shallowness?
Here's hoping Sgt. Crowley will not allow himself to become a propaganda tool. Here's hoping that he will not be peer-pressured, or beer-pressured, into protecting Barack Obama's image. Here's hoping that he will stick to his convictions, defend his integrity, and uphold the laws he daily defends. Here's hoping that he is not swayed by star-power, or celebrity. That he is not swayed by craft or cunning. That he will not take one for the team, the Obama brand.
Here's hoping that he recognizes prejudice and speaks to it directly.
Since the "Birther" thing is hot right now, and because I have dismissed the conspiracy as belated and frivolous, I nonetheless feel a need to be utterly transparent. I posited, in October 2008, that the much-touted "October Surprise" would be built on charges that Barack Obama was NOT a natural-born US citizen. I posted two times on this matter, and then I posted THIS ARTICLE after reading Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama. You will find therein the links to my first two articles; you will also find therein these words of mine:
What disturbs me considerably is something I've spotted in myself, namely a cynicism so deep I have come to distrust nearly everyone running for political office. And there is no doubt I am of the psychological constitution where I find myself distrusting left-leaning peers more often than those who lean right. Since Barack Obama is undeniably left-leaning, I was too quick to suspect him of profound wrongdoing, of defrauding the American public by essentially gaining the presidency without meeting all constitutional prerequisites and by taking advantage of what is ostensibly the vague and seemingly unenforcable rules of Article II. Again, I am not saying I believed the lawsuit had legitimacy or that Mr. Obama was not born on American soil. I am saying that I am duly cynical enough to believe those things possible and plausible.
Moreover, I divined that my cynicism did not go deeply enough. I did not bring to the Pennsylvania lawsuit the next level of inquiry. I did not ask whether Mr. Berg himself was trustworthy; enamored of his former status as deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania, I did not ponder that he might be something of a rogue litigant. After all, I learned in my simple research that Mr. Berg had earlier submitted a motion to the same court for protections in a bankruptcy procedure, and that the case was dismissed for the exact same reasons as Berg v. Obama. Add to that the item I picked up that reported Mr. Berg, shortly after 9/11, created a website asserting that the Bush administration either was involved in or knew beforehand the atrocities of that infamous day, and I am left holding something inherently suspect (it is no secret I have zero tolerance for 9/11 "truther" schemes).
And, of course, the zenith of my cynicism, if you will, manifested itself in my wondering aloud whether we would see a spate of similar lawsuits over the next few days and weeks.
I just thought you should know that I do not pretend to have gone through the fire of doubt without having been burned.
[Dear Readers: For the following comments to make any sense, they need to be placed in context. Please read James Taranto's first entry in yesterday's column, "Birthers Lay An Egg." What follows here is what I posted in the comments thread at Mr. Taranto's Wall Street Journal blog.]
Dear Mr. Taranto,
I hope this note finds you well.
Re: "BIRTHERS"
Again (though this is a new topic), I don't see what you seem to see. Now let me jettison this whole theory about Mr. Obama's place -- or places -- of origin. He's a natural-born US citizen. Fine.
How, pray tell, does it help ANYONE, particularly Mr. Obama himself, to have “The 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii” included in a non-binding resolution honoring Hawaii's reception into the union? If this whole "birther" thing is simply a wacko conspiracy fit for madness, doesn't this resolution bring madness into the very heart of the US House? The blogger you quote, a Mr. Sargent, thinks this little tack was to force "birthers" to shut up or crash into a contradiction. But if this is true, then the powers in the House really thought that the "birthers" arguments had some merit; and if not merit on rational grounds, at least merit on political grounds: they believed some political hay could be made by Republicans sowing doubt and fear. But can you recall ANY non-binding resolution drafted as a trap to catch those congressional Democrats who might be prone to thinking that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney devised 9-11 for oil? No, you can't, because the "truthers" arguments were dismissed as utterly and completely preposterous. By your own admission the "birthers" argument is sheer madness, and yet you countenance, with something of a chuckle crossing your keyboard, that this resolution is a birther's smelly egg. Interesting.
You have consistently pointed out in your column that certain words are considered to be racially charged in large part because the fusspots among us keep reviving dying and/or dormant racial innuendoes and stereotypes each time they protest about those very words. I am surprised that you don't see how this resolution has only revived and enlivened the whole "birther" conspiracy. Don't you see that Mr. Sargent, the blogger, has opened the door to suspicion, i.e., that Democrats have used a sneaky clause in a non-binding resolution to hide something? Here, at a moment when Barack Obama's poll numbers are slipping, a congressional resolution is passed in part to silence those who doubt Mr. Obama's birth certificate. Is this funny? Is this brilliant? I think it is neither. And it surely does not help Mr. Obama's slide into the abyss of the ordinary. MORE attention, not less, will now be directed at his "phony" birth certificate. Or so I suspect.
Lastly, there are those who believe that sowing seeds of doubt about Mr. Obama's nationality or lack thereof make him vulnerable to those who would seek to harm him in some way. Doubts about his legitimacy only fuel hatred and invite violence. Fair enough. But what about sowing seeds of doubt about another president's legitimacy? What about theories that posit George W. Bush orchestrated 9-11, that he killed 3,000 people in September 2001? What about asserting that same president rushed into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans, 100's of thousands of Iraqis; that he made us "less safe" with his war of "distraction"? What of his penchant for spying on Americans and his fetish for torture? Did these sorts of charges not make Mr. Bush vulnerable to harm?
It seems that the non-binding resolution touted by blogger Sargent and yourself as something ironic and even amusing has only exacerbated the problem of Barack Obama's origins. Or so I will guess.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
[A note to Contratimes readers: It seems that Mr. Sargent, the blogger mentioned above, has REALLY elevated the "birther" movement by contacting the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Sargent has Steele's spokesman announcing that Mr. Steele believes this is all a distraction and that Mr. Obama IS a "US citizen." All this proves my point that instead of tamping down an issue the US House, Mr. Sargent, and Mr. Taranto have actually elevated it. I am sure Mr. Obama is grateful for all the help.]
It seems that during, or just prior to, the month of July 2009, in a place of dubious certitude and of equally dubious parentage, "Birther" was born. This word, by some accounts a bastard word, came into the world to denote, and to denigrate and marginalize, those who have doubts about the authenticity of Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate or claims that he is a natural-born citizen.
I have discovered that I am something of a rare bird, an odd duck. A cuckoo in the snow. I am not particularly surprised by this discovery. I know I am just strange.
In fact I am just strange enough to believe that what is most important about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Cambridge (MA) police sergeant, James Crowley, is not that it was a faulty arrest, or that the arrest was the result of racism or racial profiling. And I am strange enough to believe that the many conversations about disorderly conduct and race that have been started as a result of the arrest of one Harvard professor are distractions, diversions. I am also strange enough to think that locutions like "teachable moment" and "we have a long history in this country of racial-profiling" are red-herrings.
Indeed, I am just strange enough to believe that the most important thing about this whole story is that Barack Obama abused his power and office in an effort to protect a friend by denigrating law enforcement officers and by obfuscating the legal basis for the arrest of his friend.
I admit, however, that I am humbled, or, perhaps more accurately, bewildered, by the great pundits of our time who have allowed themselves to follow the red-herring trails spread across the real issue of a president's abuse of power. My humility AND bewilderment come in noticing that I have stood rather alone in thinking that this is not about race, police abuse; profiling and prejudice. I opined here within minutes of Barack Obama's reckless and absurd remarks that he should apologize and immediately resign his post. I have suggested that his words were meant to inflame and rebuke; and that his later expressions of regret were further proof that he was intent on protecting a friend and his self-image at the expense of a police department.
Apparently few people heard and saw what I saw and heard. Bloggers and pundits seemed mostly interested in the racial dimension of an incident on a Cambridge porch. Yes, their interest was attracted by the spotlight aimed at Cambridge by Mr. Obama himself; but even then their interest was not on whether he had failed his presidential obligations as commander in chief and guardian of law. The fix was on, so to speak; Obama's protectors were out in force to discuss everything but Mr. Obama's obvious abuse of the Office of President. The Obama apologists' ploy was to get everyone's attention fixated on the non-essentials, to keep the critical eye from noticing the president's sin. Or so it all seemed to me.
I have watched the Sunday "news" shows; I have read sundry columns and blog headlines on the matter, and I am convinced I am alone. If right now I do a Google search with the query "Gates + Barack Obama should resign", the first thing Google shows, at least right now, is an essay I posted at Contratimes. And the next Google offerings are not even close. Odd that I alone should see something that merits Barack Obama's resignation when others clearly do not. I am undeniably alone. Or so it feels.
I am a strange bird, an odd duck. A flying kiwi. A plumeless peacock. A saharan penguin, a teal flamingo, a harlequin without a mask. A blind owl.
A foul fowl, alone on an eerie aerie. From thence I prey -- and pray.
If Barack Obama possesses any sort of genius, it is not the sort of genius that works toward something positive. It seems rather obvious that the man has a gift for obfuscation, and of covering his tracks. Let me show you a perfect example of what I mean.
The question that Barack Obama answered Wednesday night that set off such a firestorm about alleged police incompetence and alleged racial profiling (and race-baiting) after an unfortunate incident that led to an arrest in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was rather straightforward. Here it is as asked by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times:
"What does that incident [the arrest of Henry Gates] say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?"
Of course, we all know how Mr. Obama answered.
But let us note how he defended that answer in his interview with ABC News' Terry Moran:
"...But I was asked [by Ms. Sweet], you know, uh, 'Did it make sense for it to escalate to the levels that it did?' I said, 'Probably not. And that, uh, it, it would have been more sensible for everybody to just, once it was established that Mr. Gates was in his own home, that, uh, we should just settle this thing down.'"
So, before the eyes of the whole world, Mr. Obama does two things. First, in his press conference on Wednesday night, he admits that he does not know all the facts about an incident, and that he is biased. And yet, despite that ignorance and bias, he chooses to denigrate the Cambridge police, accusing them of "acting stupidly."
Second, confronted later by a reporter about his statement, he not only rewrites his answer, he rewrites the question. Mr. Obama WAS NOT ASKED WHAT HE SAYS HE WAS ASKED. Hence, he responds to a fiction, a fabrication. In fact, what he does is shove blame away from himself: he creates a false loaded or leading question that he was not asked, and by doing so he implies that the real source of his mistake is OUTSIDE OF HIM, it is in the questioner, and not in his answer. Please, read the quote above again. Look what Mr. Obama has done.
Moreover, please listen to Mr. Obama's entire response to Terry Moran. Notice the red-herring dragged through the whole debate. This red-herring is typical Obama: he is surprised by this "distraction" (one of his favorite defensive tools, only implied in his comments here) from the real issues of our day, like "health care" and "two wars."
Seriously, listen to Mr. Obama when Mr. Moran asks essentially a second time, "Do you still believe the Cambridge Police acted stupidly?"
Here's Mr. Obama's response:
[leans head back, tips it to right; looks down]
"Well, [serious face turns to big smile, laugh, head back, chin up] this is, this is, this is a, Terry, [head down, looks to his right] I think this is a classic example, at a time when we are talking about health care, energy, we got two wars going on, uh, that, um, issues like this get elevated in ways that probably don't make much sense."
And please note the next sentence: Mr. Obama goes on to say that the behavior of the Cambridge police department made "no sense."
If I was Terry Moran, my next question would have been, "But Mr. President, wasn't it you who 'elevated,' as you just said, this whole issue by pronouncing judgment on a case that, by your own admission, you knew nothing about, and this at a time when you were talking about health care? Aren't you the one who actually allowed things to escalate by speaking when you should have remained silent? Didn't you lose control and let things get out of hand? And how do your words and actions make any sense?"
This is all so stunning. And ironic.
I have to say that I am appalled that people are focusing on the minutiae of the "he said/he said" battle that occurred in Cambridge, MA between a policeman and a professor. What is at issue here, what is clearly appalling, is the behavior of the man who sits in the Oval Office. He is the one who has abused his power; he is the one who has allowed things to escalate. And yes, he is the one who is playing the race card.
All this from a man who publicly admitted -- his admission was his preface! -- that he did not know all the facts.
Over the last few days -- perhaps only in the last day -- I've noticed the use of the word "presser." Apparently this hip new noun denotes press conferences, like the one last Wednesday night in which Barack Obama discussed health care. This word is even so new Wikipedia has yet to hand out a definition; a search online reveals presser is fresher than any other word in this post.
It's all a bit like calling the president POTUS (a new hybrid oriental flower, I hear) or prezzy. Or yo.
I recently noticed, too, the seemingly ex nihilo creation of the word Norks, or norks, used in commentaries, blogs and headlines. This seemingly new noun denotes North Koreans. One day, well, there it was: Norks. For a moment I thought it might be some twist on a new type of dork, or even some queer reference to an underground secessionist movement in New York.
I swear, too, that Twitter, and more importantly, tweet, were not in my internal lexicon, at least as they are now, until just a few months ago. I do recall adoring the very lovely word twitterpated, first presented to me as a child watching one of the greatest scenes in Disney film history (see below). But tweet as a signifier for a type of human communication? Oiks!
Of course, I have readily absorbed blog as an effective noun or verb, but I admit I do not use it without feeling a tiny bit low-brow. And though I initially loathed 24-7 (or 24/7), I've come to use this without the slightest compunction.
But presser? I don't know. That word sucks. It is just too mule. It's not, at least for me, the least bit fly. It strikes me as even a bit of a diss, particularly since it emerged as a noun indicating an Obama press conference. Really, word! For some, I am sure it is totally chill, even downright dank. But for me, well, it ain't given props to the POTUS, that's for sure. There was a time I would have been up with being down with it. But not now.
Barack Obama, the US Commander in Chief, chose cowardice today in his back-pedaling statements on the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Mr. Obama did not manifest any of the manly qualities one expects of a commander, nor did he show any of the courage common to the average police officer. Refusing to apologize, the unrepentant commander chose instead more obfuscation, and more hair-splitting, mind-numbing rhetoric. What we get is a person who believes, at best, that he "could have calibrated" his language "differently." (Please note that he says he could have, not should have.) What we are left with is a man safe-guarding his pride, his apparent infallibility and popularity; the very keys to his power.
Somehow, Barack Obama expects us to reconcile his contradictory statements:
Proposition 1: "...the Cambridge police acted stupidly..." (July 22) Proposition 2: "It doesn't make sense, with all the problems we have, with all the problems we have out there, to arrest a guy in his own home if he is not causing a serious disturbance." (July 23) Proposition 3: "I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department and Sergeant Crowley, specifically." (July 24) [bold added for emphasis]
I am sorry, but Mr. Obama is lying. Of course he meant to malign the Cambridge police in general and Sgt. James Crowley specifically. How do we know this? Perhaps because he maligned the sergeant and the Cambridge police department in his statement of "regret" offered today:
I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. [bold added for emphasis]
Note the language! Note what this man thinks! He continues to believe "that there WAS an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his house" (professor Gates was NOT PULLED); this is a statement of fact presented by Mr. Obama. But then he offers -- again, abusing his power in order to protect his friend -- a statement of probability: "I believe... that Professor Gates PROBABLY overreacted as well."
This is not a man of principle. This is no leader. This is despotic and reckless: this is a man protecting his self-image, i.e., his power, who is also protecting his friend. In other words, and I can't say this enough, this is another ABUSE OF POWER.
And then this coward -- sorry! -- tosses a red-herring into the whole debacle:
The fact that this has become such a big issue is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of society. Whether I were black or white I think me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to something constructive — as opposed to negative — is part of my portfolio.
Ah, hah! So this is not about his ABSURD, RECKLESS comments; this is not about his abuse of power, or his abuse of the office of president, or that he is using his presidency to protect a friend! No, no. All of us who are reacting to his despotic, arrogant, self-aggrandizing abuse of the Oval Office are really struggling with race!
Such a dire, desperate lie has probably never before been uttered by a president. This man clearly and undeniably made a huge blunder; he has shown he is either incompetent in handling the law or he is equivocating about the law in some effort to draw all power unto himself. But instead of taking RESPONSIBILITY LIKE A MAN, he sloughs it all off onto us, onto America. It's America's fault, for we are still struggling, mired in racial division and all he did was highlight that divide. This is a "teachable" moment, and his pedagogy is just part of his "portfolio."
What crap!
Shame on this man!
Let me say this WITHOUT ambiguity or equivocation: The issue at hand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE! NOTHING!
And what is that issue? It is that the president of the United States has purposely abused his office and power to protect a friend and besmirch an entire police force. For this he should -- and must -- resign.
(And this is not the ONLY issue at work here. But that will have to wait for another day.)
Allow me to suggest that Barack Obama's advisers believed he could gain some political cover if he distracted America from spotting the systemic weaknesses in his party's health care reform plans by claiming the "Cambridge (MA) Police Department acted stupidly." Perhaps he also sought to distract Americans from the fact that his health care press conference performance was rather mediocre (at best). Call it red-herring politics: drag a stinky fish across the trail to prevent the dogs from finding the sickly fox posed as health care reform.
OK. Fine. Let's say that Mr. Obama and his team thought this a good idea. There even seems some evidence that this is not one whit fantastical on my part for the simple reason that Mr. Obama ENDED his press conference on health care by taking a question about the arrest of his friend, Robert Louis Gates Jr. (Reports I've heard state that the president was told beforehand to expect such a question.) But if this is true, what a ridiculously risky tack to take: it seems the Obama Yacht will smash into the breakers. But...maybe not.
Barack Obama today has called the attention his remarks have earned a "distraction" and "an obsession." How nice. Every dubious thing this president has done, as well as the dubious things his associates have done, are dismissed by him as a distraction. But what if this really was meant to be a distraction; what if the president sought protection behind this "gaffe," and his health care objectives actually pass through the House and Senate? What then? Was his gaffe a mistake? Was it worth the risk?
But if his health care goals are not achieved in part because of his gaffe, intentional or not, Mr. Obama will find himself in far more trouble than if he had simply said Wednesday night, "No comment."
It is utterly ironic that the city dismissed so often by conservatives (and self-effacingly by some liberals) as the People's Republic of Cambridge (Cambridge, MA), the arguable center of New England and perhaps even American liberalism, is the epicenter of Barack Obama's largest domestic problem to date. It may be the very epicenter that fractures his presidency.
I am watching the Cambridge police departments' and Massachusetts police unions' press conference right now. Needless to say, the rebukes directed at Barack Obama are stern, clear and unwavering.
He is in trouble. And the source of that trouble is an event involving a black intellectual, Barack Obama's friend, in the city where Barack Obama probably has more friends per square inch than anywhere else on the planet and where he studied LAW at arguably the most prestigious university in the world.
The police department of the city that loves Barack Obama expects an apology. Not only does that department deserve an apology, the country deserves one, too. But I do not see how the president can apologize without ending his presidency. For if he can be so reckless with something he so obviously should have avoided, something quite simple, how can he be trusted with anything else? If he can be so WRONG, when even the guy on the street without Barack Obama's legal credentials can get this matter right, who can take Barack Obama seriously? Is not his gravitas lost?
For those of you who are outside New England or are unfamiliar with the controversy around the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr. by Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge, MA police department, please let me state the obvious: This story is going "nuclear." By this I mean that it is expanding quickly and exponentially. This is no flash-in-the-pan kind of story. This is a story that reaches to the very heights of America. And as more information comes forth, the recent remarks made by Barack Obama -- remarks that were apparently premeditated -- that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly," may not only define his presidency, they may end it (and I believe they should end it). Call it whatever you wish. Call it a "tipping point." Call it his "Waterloo." Call it Gates-gate. Whatever it is named, it reveals two important things: It reveals an abuse of power by Barack Obama, and it reveals that he lacks competence and/or integrity. But before delving into these bold assertions, a relevant aside might prove helpful.
___________________
GETTING UP TO SPEED
If readers have not closely followed this story, they should, because this is history in the making. Real history.
First, this tidbit reported by the Associated Press (also reported here) is nearly too good to be true:
"Cambridge Sgt. James Crowley has taught a class on racial profiling for five years at the Lowell Police Academy after being hand-picked for the job by former police Commissioner Ronny Watson, who is black, said Academy Director Thomas Fleming."
Readers should know by now that Mr. Gates, who is apparently rather famous, is a professor at Harvard University and is touted as something of an authority on race relations. Forgive this writer's undue lack of deference. All I can say is that I had not ever heard of Mr. Gates until this week. I cannot vouch for his credentials, though I will admit that, on paper, he is surely a qualified academic. But there is something richly ironic in the fact that the policeman Mr. Gates accuses of being a racist, is himself something of an authority on race relations, particularly on how race plays out in law enforcement.
It seems quite safe to say that Mr. Obama, who admitted before calling Sgt. Gates stupid that he did not know the facts, was profoundly ignorant of the amazing fact that Sgt. Gates is considered a specialist in racial profiling.
Another important thing is to hear what NPR's Juan Williams, a left-leaning black journalist who moonlights on Fox News, said about Mr. Obama's unarguably reckless remarks. Check out Mr. Williams in this video:
_____________________
MR. OBAMA'S FALL
Please note the one thing Juan Williams highlighted about Barack Obama's remarks. He highlighted that Mr. Obama was trying to sell a plan to sweepingly reform health care in America, and yet, in a senseless incident, shifted attention from that important topic to something not only irrelevant to health care, but to something incendiary, controversial, and divisive.
In fact, the Obama mistake seems so foolish as to suggest that Mr. Obama's advisors led him to commit political suicide before the entire country; it was as if they intentionally set out to make him look the fool. What, pray tell, was he thinking?
Here are a few of things to understand.
First, Barack Obama is, as president of the United States, ostensibly the chief law enforcement officer of the land. It was to this post he was elected; people expected him to enforce the laws that keep the peace in America. He was NOT elected to serve as Race-Relations Expert-in-Chief. In fact, his position is to be race-neutral in a very real sense, as he is the incarnation of the body politic: he represents us ALL.
Second, since Mr. Obama's first statement on this issue was to say that "Skip Gates" is a "friend," and that as a result, he might be "biased," it behooves us to note that Mr. Obama failed to add that, as chief law enforcement officer of the land, and as the figurehead of a democracy who was, at that moment, speaking as PRESIDENT of the United States, he is also and PRIMARILY the "friend" of all law enforcement officers in the country. Hence, he should have at best recused himself completely; at worst, he should have said that he would withhold judgment until he KNEW ALL THE FACTS. But he had already admitted he was ignorant of the facts; the sophomoric summary of the facts he presented proved that the facts he thought he knew were utterly fantastic and invented.
Hence, Barack Obama ABUSED HIS OFFICE, he abused his POWER, by throwing the power of the presidency into the assertion that the Cambridge police "acted stupidly," and Mr. Obama did this in order to protect his friend, Henry Gates. Mr. Obama assumed a privilege of clairvoyance and understanding he believed his office gave to him intrinsically; he believed that, despite his ignorance of the facts, he could nonetheless conclude that the Cambridge police were stupid.
Third, Mr. Obama DOES NOT UNDERSTAND simple law regarding disorderly conduct. Either that, or he lacks the integrity to admit that he made a huge mistake in prime time. Even today, Mr. Obama continues to conflate the breaking and entering report with disorderly conduct. He seems to think that, because Mr. Gates proved he was rightfully in his own home and he rightfully broke into his own domicile, the Cambridge police had no business arresting him for disorderly conduct. This idiocy on Mr. Obama's part is doing him no favors; it is only compounding his problem. What is also compounding his problem is that his spokesman yesterday said that his remark that the police "acted stupidly" did not mean he was calling the arresting officer "stupid."
All this shows a man -- arrogant to no end -- clinging to power by saying whatever the hell he feels like saying. Mr. Obama either clearly DOES NOT understand law, or he does. If he doesn't, he has no right being in the White House (nor should he have ever been editor of the Harvard Law Review). But if he does understand the law, then Mr. Obama is being dishonest: he is manipulating language in order to save his position. But if this is the case, then the man lacks integrity. He is a deceiver, a charlatan, an equivocating con man.
Without question Mr. Obama has backed himself into a corner. What are his options? Can he say he made a mistake, that what he said was stupid? I doubt it. Can he continue to equivocate? Can he continue to conflate basic trespassing or illegal entry with disorderly conduct; can he continue to act surprised that a man "with a cane" could be arrested for disorderly conduct even after proving he was in his own home? No, he can't. There is no out for this man, is there?
Bottom line: This was, and continues to be, an abuse of power on the part of Barack Obama. He will do as he wishes; he will speak as he sees fit, and to hell with the consequences. Because he is president, he will pronounce judgments from his bully, thuggish pulpit against a police officer in order to protect a "friend." And he will make those judgments even if he -- by his own admission -- does not know all the facts.
For this, and for his inability to square with America and the nation's police, Barack Obama should immediately resign.
___________________
A BRUTAL IRONY
Recall with me that the first people in America to deny that Barack Obama was authentically black, were black intellectuals. Mr. Obama's credentials as a true African-American were called into doubt precisely because his narrative did not include one essential ingredient, namely, that he was a descendant of African-American slaves. In fact, Mr. Obama himself admitted his struggles with black identity; he "chose" to self-define as black despite the fact that his story was not typical at all. Nevertheless, as time passed and he gained political advantage, his critics pulled away from their claim that he would not be the first black president. His critics became his supporters.
Henry Louis Gates is, without doubt, a black intellectual. Since he is a "friend" of the president, I doubt he ever dismissed Barack Obama as inauthentic. However, what is amazing is that this lofty professor, this Harvard intellectual who was trained at some of the world's finest schools; this expert on race relations in America, may have, in his petulant temper tantrum wherein he played the race card, fatally damaged the presidency of the "first black president in US history."
Wall Street Journal on-line columnist James Taranto, whose work consistently impresses me, was so incredibly wrong in his analysis of most of the Gates/Crowley/Obama story that he may have lost my adoration. Here is what Mr. Taranto wrote yesterday:
As he is the first president who is black, Obama’s views on a subject involving race relations were bound to be of interest and to carry considerable weight. And Obama evidently did have a strong interest in the matter.
Because this was ESSENTIALLY a legal and not a racial matter; because Mr. Obama is the chief law enforcement officer of the land; because Mr. Obama was not elected to weigh in on matters of race; because Mr. Obama chose loyalty to a black friend over his duty as guardian of law; Mr. Obama's words on the matter should not have carried any weight in matters of race. NONE.
But because Mr. Obama is convinced he is bolstered by millions of people who think like Mr. Taranto, he believed his skin color -- and his POWER as president -- entitled him to speak with reckless abandon.
This all may become the most ironic moment in presidential history. And we witnessed it.
