Archive for the ‘Obama’ category

Obama Witch Hunt – Crowding Out the Broomsticks

August 30, 2010

The airwaves are full of political broomsticks these days.  These are not brooms sweeping away corruption.  They are the brooms of a witch hunt, and they are busy stirring up a dust cloud of obfuscation and flat-out lies.

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Obama American?

Is Obama even President?

The obfuscators have managed to make absolutely crazy questions (were we not all here in November 2008?) somehow mainstream.

The obfuscators, who include ex-drug addicts, serial husbands (serial divorces), sexual harrassers, plenty of non-church goers and multi-millionairess, try to pin every kind of moral, economic and societal evil possible on Obama, despite the fact that he is a clearly abstemious, genuinely Christian, devoted family man, and careful political thinker.

What can be done about it?  What, I mean, can be done by those of us who support Obama, or, at the very least, are against this kind of witchhunt?

Think, do, speak of the positive.  If you support Obama, then openly  (or at least silently) support him.

I understand that this may run against the grain.  Some of you, like me, may have grown up at a time, i.e. during the Vietnam War, when it was hard to be openly patriotic.

Even after the War was over, it was hard for many to let go of the anti-U.S. government stance.   To be openly in favor of a president was like letting go of youth itself, like finally acknowledging that one really didn’t look that great in jeans; like getting reading glasses and noticing a sudden hardness of hearing.

I admit that Obama has not been perfect.  (Yes, I know – no public option.)  But he is thoughtful, intelligent, hard-working, informed, fair-minded, articulate, empathetic.   (If you feel disappointed with him, think of how you would be feeling right now with McCain/Palin.)

All this means it’s time to speak up. When peole say “Obama’s gotta go!”, say “Go Obama!”  (As In “Go Team go!”)

If you don’t feel comfortable speaking up (if you believe, for example, that you really do look good in your old jeans), at least think up. Outmystical Glenn Beck.

Think of Obama’s good points – his grace, his intelligence, his judiciousness.  Then fill the air with these thoughtwaves.  Crowd out the broomsticks.  Do it now.

A Tea Party Wanting Pie (Glenn Beck as Jack Horner)

August 28, 2010

The Idea of Pie

I have to confess that I’ve never actually watched Glenn Beck.  I’ve seen snippets, primarily on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, which can be relied upon to make Beck look ridiculous.  It’s not hard to make Beck look ridiculous.  The snippets are taken out of context, certainly, but they are long enough to give Beck time to make a fool of himself in his own right.

I can’t understand the attraction–not of what he says–I’m talking about the attraction of Beck as a person.  He (sorry, Glenn) looks pudgy, spineless, patronizing, fake.   Shouldn’t a demagogue have charisma?

What about the attraction of what he says?

I started to write a long catty post about what Beck and the Tea Partiers were actually “reclaiming” today at the LIncoln Memorial.  (This is written before the speeches have taken place.)    It boiled down to dominance for white, or sort of white, people, who may not be exactly Christian but are not non-Christian.

But that’s not really fair.  While some of Beck’s supporters may be bigoted, there are a lot who simply feel cheated.  They feel as if they have played “by the rules” and deserve a certain pre-agreed reward (job, house, pension).

And now the rules have changed, have even disappeared; the expected reward certainly has.

In their anger, they look for scapegoats: somebody must be getting the pieces of pie that have been snatched from their mouths.   It’s hard to understand that maybe the pie has gotten smaller, or was never actually slated for them, or that the rules have, in fact, been rigged for some time.

The Tea Party types do not like to blame the rich for the rigging of the rules.  The stated view is that the  rich are “pie-creators.”  In saying this, they talk of small businesses; they don’t seem to realize how rich some rich are, how much of the pie they reserve for themselves, or how much pie they send overseas (reserving even more for themselves).

No, the Tea Party sees government as (a) the salivating wolf who (b) messes up all the recipes.   (To some degree this may be borne out by negative experience with state and local government, which can have itchy fingers in lots of pies.)

And then, there’s Obama.  The Tea Partiers suspect that Obama doesn’t even like pie.  Also, it’s hard for Tea Party types to side with others whom the rules have habitually cheated – even when hurting, they do not want to put themselves in the same category as people of color, people who are different–they instinctively feel these people have not followed the rules, or at least not the right rules. (They may also, secretly, believe that their own lives were better when these people didn’t even expect pie.)

Obama, a person of color who is clearly sympathetic to the poor generally, and supports an over-arching fairness is seen as the worst kind of pie-snatcher–someone who doesn’t appreciate pie doling it out way too freely.

While in the meantime, pudgy Glenn Beck, the little Jack Horner, seems not to care if he despoils the national pie, as long as he’s personally banking plums.  Ka-ching$ Kaching$

Double Standard re Facts – Tea Party – Obama

August 23, 2010

See Footnote 1*

Footnote 1*. Mamas do often know, but this knowledge generally arises from careful (both short and longterm) observation, attentive listening, even spying, and not from “just kindaness.”

More Double Standards – Re Health Care (Crossing the Border to Canada)

August 22, 2010

Double Standard re Constitutional Rights (Palin/Obama)

August 21, 2010

Double Standard Re Blessing America

August 20, 2010


(For those too young to know, Kate Smith was barrel-chested/voiced singer who helped popularize Irving Berlin’s now-perhaps-oversung ballad.  For those too young to know, he – Irving Berlin – is the guy who wrote God Bless America.)

Double Standard – Tea Party and O.

August 19, 2010

Bush Flag Pin

Obama Flag Pin

Can’t stand to write about this stuff any more, so switching to drawings for a while.   (Hope you’ll put up with the erasures, poor lines, poor caricatures!  I’m used to elephants.)

Lies Around Obama – Bad Dream

August 19, 2010

I dreamt the other night that Obama was resigning as President; the reason – the war in Afghanistan – his feelings of sadness, culpability for, the losses.   He did not know how to stop the deaths, but, at the same time, felt that he could not go on participating in them.

I tried to convince him to stay in office; tried to convince him that no one else would be able to do better; that his sadness and sense of responsibility was part of what would allow him to fix things.

I woke up in a lot of pain – this had something to do with some really-messed up muscles in my neck and shoulder–but also was the residue of the dream, the thought of Obama not being in a position to govern.

Yes, I know O is not as clear a spokesperson as he might be; he may try too hard to appease a side that will simply never be appeased (and I don’t mean the Taliban here, but the right wing at home.)  He may not have handled legislation in the exact right order, or with the exact right force; he may have made mistakes in pursuing the wars; he may not be the magical action figure that some (now disgruntled) supporters had hoped.

But I am deeply troubled that so many chips are stacked against him, so many crazy lies.

Sometimes it seems as if there are two very strong groups in the country – the willfully-ignorant ignorant; and the willfully-misleading informed.  Lies are thrown around like eggs on Halloween; maybe they don’t break windows but they surely cause a tremendous loss in clarity.  People, like Obama, who are dignified, judicious, who refrain from the simplistic and the kneejerk (who refrain from basic jerkdom), are great targets for these lies.  (Remember, the guy who got spat on in To Kill a Mockingbird was Atticus Finch.)

Unfortunately, the lies stain, especially when they are thrown into niches of longtime prejudice and distrust.  Apparently 20% of Americans now believe that Obama was not born in the U.S.  (His birth certificate has been publicly posted, for Christ’s sake.)  Speaking of Christ – another big chunk believe Obama’s Muslim.   (He prays every day – not necessarily five times – frequently with Christian pastors.)

It sometimes seems to me that just about the only lie that people are not willing to believe is that black is white.  I don’t mean here that all of the lies around Obama are racist; but there’s an unwarranted distrust that racism seems to promote.

It makes me despair.  It also makes me blog.  I really do want to change what I’m doing here – I’m not even a political person – but the plethora of lies and disgruntlement  seems to call for a show of support, even from a tiny little blog.

Business of News – the News Corp Business (and others)

August 18, 2010

"Conflict of Interest Wall"

I started today to write a post about conflicts of interest:  all that business about the News Corporation (as in Rupert Murdoch’s empire and parent company of Fox News) and its $1 million donation to the Republican Governors’ Association–

I started to write about News Corporation’s protest that the donation did not represent a shadow on the “fair and balanced” reporting of Fox News.  News claims any conflict of interest is nullified by the separation in its news division (the subsidiary company that didn’t make the donation) and its business division (the parent company that did make the donation).

This immense separation between the business side of the conglomerate and the news side is apparent even in the corporate name: “News” being one word and “Corporation” being another.

I included (in that not-published post) paraphrased jokes from Going Postal, the wonderful satire by the wonderful Terry Pratchett, in which Mr. Slant, zombie lawyer, explains the “Agatean Wall”, a barrier against abuse arising from conflicts of interest.

“‘How does it work exactly?” asked Vetinari.

“People agree not to do it, my Lord,” said Mr. Slant.

“I’m sorry.  I thought you said there was a wall,” said Lord Vetinari.

“That’s just a name for agreeing not to do it.”

In that post, I had all kinds of witty jokes.

And then, I got too depressed to finish that post.  Because the truth is that few of the people who go to Fox for their news will care about the big Republican donation.  (If they know of it.)

The fact is that news is a business in this country; news organizations have constituencies of consumers;  people tend to prefer reinforcement to challenge; in other words, they don’t mind biases in news, as long as the biases correspond to their own.   Which brings me to the item that kept me from finishing my other post – today’s headline in the New York Daily News (ironically not owned by the News Corporation) which claimed that Obama was supporting the 9/11 Mosque but not health care for 9/11 first responders, the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.  This, in spite of the fact that the Zadroga bill was defeated by Republicans in Congress, not by Obama or the Dems; in spite of the fact too, that Obama has not exactly supported the 9/11 Mosque (that’s been a source of complaint on other fronts) –  he’s supported freedom of religion on private property in accordance with local law.

So this evening Obama has released a statement explicitly saying that he looked forward to signing the Zadroga bill, when passed by Congress.  This, of course, is being touted by the Daily News as its personal victory.   No where does the victory article mention that Republicans have so far killed the bill, not Obama.   (I guess this level and kind of detail would not sell papers, even in NYC .)

Confused In And About Afghanistan

July 30, 2010

I admit to being stymied on the political front this week, particularly as it relates to the issue of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and the U.S. war in Afghanistan.

First, I must confess to a knee-jerk dislike of Mr. Assange.  His face bears (to my mind) an unmistakeable imprint of narcissism.  His statement about wanting to crush bastards strikes me as, well, arrogant.  The whole notion of someone being able to leak 92,000 classified documents, and Wikileaks publishing them, is worrisome (and kind of repugnant).  I understand whistle-blowing and uncovering cover-ups, but so far, the documents do not seem to be truly revelatory.  The war is not going well;  the goals are confused;  our “friends” – the Pakistani and Afghani governments – don’t really like or trust us, and we would be stupid to trust them.  Does this actually surprise anyone?

Can there ever be a true handing over of power in this area?  Possibly, hopefully, but it is doubtful that the handees will have the same priorities and goals as we do.  (Any gains in women’s rights, for example, seem unlikely to be safeguarded, and bases for terrorists seem likely to continue in force.)

Putting questions relating specifically to the leaked documents aside – questions of their benefits, the morality of leaking, the mantle of self-aggrandizement of the publishers- they heighten the focus on the Afghan conflict.  So what about it?

For my part, I hate war.  When Bush first announced the invasion, I wept.  But (call me partisan),  I cannot believe that Obama has continued the conflict carelessly.  I just can’t accept that the guy who went to Dover so soberly in the middle of the night reinforced the war effort because he did not want to seem insufficiently macho, or tough on terrorism, or inconsistent.   While I certainly worry that Obama could have been over-influenced by the sanguine hopes (or despairing predictions)  of military advisors, I have to believe that Obama himself (and even most of these advisors) are sincere in thinking something good or, at least, necessary can result from this conflict.

(What really scares me though is that, if push came to shove, I’d probably have to say the same thing about Bush;  that, for all my disagreement with him, he thought something good or necessary was to be gotten from these wars.)

Which means that I’m not willing to accept Assange’s characterization of all those involved as “bastards.”  At the same time I also know that if I had a child killed or injured in Afghanistan (God forbid), I would not be able to understand why.  My grief would not be mitigated by some sense of meaning, my distress would not be comforted.