Pearl and Friend Get Front Row Seats
Archive for the ‘Obama’ category
Uninvited Guests At State of the Union Address
January 25, 2011More on Obama’s Speech in Tucson – A Gift a la John Keats
January 13, 2011
John Keats' Tracing of Grecian Urn
The man has a gift.
He can wade through painful murk and leave a balm of clarity in his wake. (No, he can’t change water into wine, but he sure can change whine into water.)
Like many types of gifts, this one may not always be at Obama’s disposal. He’s human, he gets bogged down and worn down. But when he’s inspired, he’s inspirational.
It’s so interesting to compare Obama’s speech in Tucson with Palin’s delivered via Facebook earlier in the day. I don’t mean here to express any particular animus towards Palin—she was speaking in a totally different context—an actual memorial service tends to bring out eloquence in a way that a home video does not. Still, the differences are striking. Even her calls to unity feel a bit like bludgeons—there is a defensive “or else” tone to her voice, and she seems to jump from catch phrase to catch phrase as if they were foothold rocks in a rushing steam. (Unfortunately, some of these catch phrases, a/k/a ‘blood libel’ proved, like foothold rocks, to be a bit treacherous.)
Obama also uses age-old phrases at times—“a more perfect union”, references to Giffords’“updated version of government by the people, for the people, of the people.” Even, I suppose, the remarks about rain puddles in heaven and the juxtaposition of the “hands over our hearts” has a certain very traditional rhetorical cleverness – but he manages to use these phrases in a way that is resonant and not catchy; he captures a kind of poetry. This poetry not only has emotive force, but a certain rightness, the human mind (as noted by John Keats in his Ode to a Grecian Urn) seeking always to equate truth and beauty, beauty and truth.
It’s an amazing gift that Obama has, and that he gives us.
Obama’s Speech in Tucson
January 12, 2011Just read the text of Obama’s speech in Tucson, and I take back everything snarky that I wrote in my prior post re references to prayer by politicians. Yes, I was thinking, when I wrote that earlier post, about Sarah Palin’s references to prayer, more than Obama’s, but I still take it all back. In the interests of not criticizing anybody (in the aftermath of Obama’s speech), I probably should just remove the post.
The text of Obama’s speech is incredibly moving; his references to scripture and prayer and life and death are poetic and beautiful and comforting and wise. Here’s hoping people hear him.
PS – Here’s the link to the video of the truly wonderful speech.
The only New Start some want is the one that begins in January.
December 20, 2010
Certain leading Republicans, such as Lindsay Graham, have now announced a suddenly unbending hostility to the New Start treaty between the U.S. and Russia. The treaty would resume on-site inspections of nuclear missile sites (lapsed last year) and pare down nuclear missile heads and launchers; the provisions are aimed at keeping track of these weapons, attempting to avoid their loss or transfer to third parties (i.e. terrorists.)
Some complain of certain verification provisions. (This could be a legitimate issue for longterm treaty naysayers.) But the newer complaints focus on non-binding language in the treaty’s preamble.
The weapons the Republicans seem truly worried about are their own political salvos: Hey, I thought we torpedoed this President.
And btw since when didn’t you realize a nation with gay soldiers practically deserves to face nuclear weapons?)
And p.s. how dare Obama take credit for tax cuts?
Filibustering majority positions is a-okay, but making congressmen work into December? Through their full terms of service?!
Nuclear proliferation be damned!
(One wants to remind them that Russia can almost be seen from Alaska. Better think again.)
More on Tax Deal – Moving On
December 8, 2010
My view of the deal has been pretty blurry.
Further to this morning’s post about the proposed tax deal between Obama and Congressional Republicans.
I am embarrassed to say that until recently I have only looked at the deal in extremely brief installments, both hands over my eyes. The rhetoric about Obama’s “caving” has been so intense in the media (reported by some as a nearly shameful failure of will) that I couldn’t stand to make myself read the details.
But finally, this morning, I listened to Obama’s press conference about the proposal; his frankness, pragmatism and articulate good sense immediately made me feel better about him and the future of his presidency.
Now I’ve made myself read more details of the proposed plan. Come on, people! I mean by that, come on, liberals! (I have a sense they are the only ones that read this blog.) It’s not that bad. The estate tax provisions call for the return of the Federal estate tax with a $5 million exemption and 35% maximum rates. That’s pretty reasonable from both sides of the aisle. Unlike the 2010 provisions (in which the estate tax is abolished but so is the capital gains step-up), the proposal favors the middle class. It also covers some concerns about the increasing stratification of wealth. (Although, frankly, wealth and income divisions might perhaps be better addressed through better education, support for families, and a shareholder crackdown on excess executive compensation than simply through estate tax policies. Few really like the idea of of confiscatory estate taxes.)
The proposed deal is undoubtedly superior than any Obama will get after January. And some are pushing to simply let the Bush cuts expire under their own terms, the ensuing stalemate would be a terrible quagmire. (For which, Obama would be blamed no matter how many times Republicans voted no.)
Obama – Moving On (Rather Than “Move On. …”)
December 8, 2010
Obama, bruised but not broken
Further to yesterday’s post re not being able to read the newspapers over the last few days due to a feeling of sick stomach, sick heart.
I finally was able to listen to Obama’s press conference on the tax cut issue. I really recommend it (here’s the link) as it assuaged some of the sickness. He’s pragmatic; he’s empathetic; he’s biting the bullet in a manner that avoids egotism and sanctimony (pretty unusual in politics). He has a long-term perspective.
The fact is that the current tax deal is the just about the only practical response to November election. The Republicans won. If Obama pretends that they haven’t won, he is just prolonging the same losing election battle. Instead he is moving forward, changing the terms of the debate to questions of budget cuts, problem solving, rather than hysteria of tax issues.
I feel a little worried here about the image I’m presenting personally. I’m not against the wealthy! Some of my best friends are wealthy! I am simply concerned about (i) the long term health of the economy; (ii) schools! roads! the environment! any social services. And also, I admit, I am also worried about the dangers of living in a society in which the divisions of wealth are so stark and extreme.
Apparently, there is a rumbling of mumbling among liberal democrats about a primary challenge to Obama. The mumblers misunderstand the intense conservatism and fear of the American people (and also, perhaps, the passivity, when it comes to voting, of some more liberal Americans.) Secondly, it seems to me that it’s the Democrats in Congress who’ve failed here more than Obama; they allowed all the misstatements over the last year; they’ve failed to stand up for anything clear; they’ve ducked and ducked and ducked. Now they’re stuck.
But he’s not.
(P.S. after posting this, realized one point that Obama seems conscious of. People say they want change, but what drives them, and the economy, crazy is prolonged uncertainty. He’s creating a stable, if not preferred platform, from which to keep working.)
Legally Blonde- Legally Brunette? Palin and Popular Culture
November 7, 2010
Legally Brunette?
Taking a brief break from Nanowrimo with some thoughts re the mid-term election and the seeming ascendency of Sarah Palin. (I say, seeming ascendency because the failure of Palin-picks, Joe Miller in Alaska, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, would indicate some question about Palin’s influence.)
Commentators have given all kinds of reasons for the “tsunami” of Republican/Tea Party victories: Obama’s failure to communicate, resistance to health care legislation, a still-faltering economy.
To me, part of the appeal of Palin and certain Republicans, and the corresponding disaffection from Obama, comes from the popularity of a “Legally Blonde” approach to the world; the triumph of the cutesy outsider over the elitist professorial.
Now I liked Legally Blonde as much as the next person. (As an unlikely blonde female matriculant at an Ivy League law school, who roomed with a top-notch though even more unlikely blonde female matriculant, I probably liked the movie even more than the next person.)
But the movie’s immediate lessons that (i) a thorough knowledge of hair care, (ii) shoes, and (iii) sassy toe-tapping combined with (iv) a fervant belief in one’s client/cause are sure tools not only to success but to justice should not, in my view, be taken as perfect paradigms for modern governance.
Of course, good hair helps everything. (I say this as a person who does not have it. Thankfully, unlike certain politicians, a/k/a/ John Edwards, I don’t obsess over it. )
But there is a big tendency in popular culture to label any deliberate thoughtfulness, balancing and expertise, as narcissim, obfuscation, and venal elitism. Such qualities are only truly acceptable in the fictional world if they are coupled with a great body or a hyperbolic ability to inflict corner-cutting violence; see e.g. Lizbeth Salander, Bones, Robert Downey as Sherlock Holmes, any of a whole host of movies I’ve not actually seen (due to my dislike of violence.)
To be fair to “Legally Blonde”, the movie does show Belle balancing big books on her stairmaster, but what ultimately saves the day is her knowledge of permanent waves and, oh yes, Pradas.
Great for the silver screen.
Wearing Obama Heart On Sleeve
October 29, 2010In the last few weeks, the news of the elections has been so dispiriting I resolved simply not to care any more. My external groan was ‘what will be, will be,’ but internally, I felt too disappointed with the muddled message and mission of Democrats, and even President Obama, to feel very motivated to defend them.
A part of me told myself that at least I have no children in the school system, that maybe I’d enjoy buying stuff with tax cut dollars, and that, at least, I’d probably die before the planet was destroyed.
But watching President Obama’s interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart yesterday, reminded me of why I love, respect and support him.
The guy is smart, articulate, practical, honest, careful, thoughtful, realistic.
Yes, conditions in this country are terrible. But people forget how much worse they were when he took office.
As Stewart emphasized, many voting for Obama feel that he has not brought promised change, but the fact is that we live in a very conservative country that has been going through a gut-wrenching crisis. While a crisis may potentially bring opportunities for change, it raises an immediate panic that clings to the known. (In the middle of a torrential rain storm, everyone wants the roof to be patched, few want it to be dismantled and replaced, and only the most calm and foresighted welcome a discussion of solar panels.)
A lot of persuasion is needed.
Which takes me to my point: in our channel-changing, gotcha culture, aura often takes the place of substance.
Obama has substance. But all the badmouthing, falsehoods, and difficult compromises have tarnished the glow that enveloped him at the time of the election. This tarnish is difficult for Obama to dispel simply by being measured, intelligent and dignified. (Especially while being dignified.)
Those on the more liberal side have contributed to this loss of aura by their contempt for the doable, fortifying the notion that ther eis no difference between parties and candidates.
Unfortunately, the adoption of this type of hopelessness is a gateway for a longterm series of abuses. (See e.g. Berlusconi in Italy.)
So, how about some enthusiasm, people!? Does anyone really want to play the role of angry Prom Queen whose suitor got the corsage but not the limo?
And, of course, vote! Even if you are not thrilled by your choices, make one!
PS – I want to send out best wishes to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for their rally. I really wanted to go but alas my old dog Pearl is not allowed on Amtrak and is a little too frail right now to be left behind, even with a good friend.
Obama – New York City Cab Driver
October 3, 2010
Mid-term Coming
Like many who voted for Obama in 2008, I’ve found the news these days, particularly prophesies of the upcoming elections, very depressing. I do think O’s in a slump; he seems to be having a hard time rousing himself, much less others, his conviction and confidence worn as thin as his person.
I find it hard to fault him for this, given that almost everything he says is greeted with knee-jerk misinterpretation, misinformation, distrust.
My personal advice is that he should be himself as fully and unapologetically as he can, even if that means being subject to even more distortion. Americans, though divided in terms of issues, almost uniformly dislike perceived artifice; even a super-careful reserve can be interpreted as phoniness.
The fact is that you can’t please everyone. Better to be rejected for who you actually are than for who you are carefully trying not to be.
That doesn’t read quite right–what I mean is that it is better to fail for your whole, real self, than for a carefully promoted dissection of yourself.
In the midst of my depression, I had an experience that made me feel better both about the situation (and the country)–a New York City cab ride.
I don’t take many cabs these days; good for my pocketbook, but a loss. I’ve always found New York City cab drivers to provide a wonderful window onto the greater world (if not the smoothest ride). This guy, for example, who was from Mali, explained that his first language, and one of the main dialects in a country filled with dialects, is Bombara. (I had never heard of it before.)
The driver also spoke French, which he briefly practiced with me, sweetly tolerant of my linguistic clumsiness.
In Mali, he explained, children learn French for the first seven years of school, and then have a choice of English or German.
I asked if his mother spoke French. A long-term postal worker, she spoke it very well, he said. But his father, who had died in 1971, after a trip to Mecca, had only spoken a dialect called Hasani (which seems to be somehow connected to Arabic).
The driver loved the French language, but had less patience for the French people, whom he felt had no sympathy for Africa. He spoke proudly of his U.S. Green Card, which he described as a real protection for him on a recent visit to France. He expressed strong feelings of gratitude for the openness of Americans as opposed to the French.
I gingerly mentioned that some Americans were not all that open, that there was sometimes a certain racism here too, but he brushed that aside, beaming that the United States had elected Obama.
I noted that the country was giving Obama an awfully hard time. He shrugged. The fact that the United States had elected Obama–had elected Obama–was enough for him.
He turned off the meter then, though we were a couple of blocks from my destination, and even when we reached it, drove somewhat further to get me to what he thought was the best entrance.
I thanked him.
Pauvresse Oblige
September 20, 2010
It sounds paternalistic; it is paternalistic; but the concept of noblesse oblige, or as Sergeant Colon of Terry Prachett’s Discworld calls it – nobblyesse obligay–used to make the wealthy and/or aristocratic feel guilty enough to do the right thing, at least some minor sacrifice which passed as the right thing.
The “right thing” in this paternalistic, but noble, world meant something that was fair-minded, generous (i.e. not greedy). This seems to have been a little more clearcut in times before trickle-down economics or of ‘get as much of it while you can’ economics (the system we seem to have now.)
As Paul Krugman points out in today’s New York Times (“The Angry Rich”), many of the rich in the U.S are hopping mad. They feel absolutely entitled to (or perhaps psychotically defensive about) their hundreds of millions and are really really worried about a return to a tax system that was in place a mere ten years ago. An especially angry billionaire, Steve Schwarzman, has compared President Obama’s proposals to tax the earnings of hedge fund managers as ordinary income to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. (I’m not completely sure who is more injured by this type of statement–Obama or the people of Poland, whose suffering in World War II seems horribly demeaned by such an idiotic comparison.)
What’s crazier, and sadder, is that so many ordinary Americans are caught up in the defense of the rich and super-rich. Such Americans, angered by the more visible entitlements of the poor (which in the big scheme of things are pretty paltry–that’s why they are poor). give the rich a free ride. Many of the working and middle class seem to view the rich as a parallel (if luckier) group to themselves; hard-working folks who deserve to keep absolutely all of what they have. They don’t seem to ask if the rich are really thousands of times more hard-working or deserving than a poor guy or gal with two low-paying jobs.
The idea has been spread that protecting a billionaire’s billions from a pre-George W. Bush level of tax is somehow incremental to protecting a middle or working class person’s thousands (or hundreds); the fact that it’s the Republicans who are holding tax reductions for the middle class hostage has also been obfuscated. What’s saddest is that many of the working and middle class do not seem to recognize that by fighting any return to the former tax regime for the rich, they are unknowingly offering to make big sacrifices for them–sacrifices in safety, public services, decent schools, a civil society.
A not so minor sacrifice.
Pauvresse oblige.
ManicDDaily 
Recent Comments