Posted tagged ‘Obama’

« ManicDDaily home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Line Between Satire and Sneer–UFO’s and Palin, Tea Partyers and Obama

February 16, 2010

Tea Pot and UFOs

I freely confess that I’m not a Family Guy kind of gal.  I just don’t care for crass.

Even my beloved Robert Pattinson has really turned me off lately with his gross and negative remarks concerning female private parts.   (Better watch out for your constituency, Rob.  You haven’t exactly shown yourself to be Laurence Olivier, after all.)

Because of my dislike of crudity, I haven’t watched the Family Guy clip of the Down’s Syndrome character whose mother is the Governor of Alaska.  I  just wish it hadn’t been aired.   Mainly because I personally think it is wrong and offensive to make jokes at the expense of little children with disabilities.

Secondly (and I’m sorry if I’m being crass here myself), it feeds Palin’s mantle of media martyrdom, consequently diminishing the impact of jokes and criticism justifiably aimed at instances of her hypocrisy and untruth  (that is, meaningful satire.)

How to distinguish between mindless stupid crass jokes and meaningful satire?  I feel a little bit like Stephen Colbert here, who recently tried to use Palin’s calculus for acceptable uses of the word “retard”, distinguishing between what Palin called Rush Limbaugh’s acceptable use of the word as “satire”, and Rahm Emanuel’s unacceptable use (to characterize certain Democrats) .

(Yes, even as I write that, I’m conscious that I’m jumping onto the whole “making fun of Sarah Palin” boat.)

But here’s one of the problems with jumping on to that boat.  There are a lot of frustrated, fearful, angry people in this country who feel that Palin speaks to and for them.

Some of these people, the Tea Partyers, are relatively easy to mock.  They tend not to be “hip”;   they sometimes seem ignorant; some of their views (seccession!) seem pretty outlandish.

I especially cannot understand these people’s take on Obama.  (Some of them view him not only as  a non-U.S. citizen, but terrorist witch doctor).   The people who espouse such views  seem to me like the kind of people who believe in UFOs.  (Particularly UFOs sent into space by the Federal Government.)

But these people are not truly crazy;  they drive cars, hold jobs, pay taxes (reluctantly), raise children, take care of the elderly, work.    But they feel that they/we are in terrible trouble, and they act like people both steaming mad and desperately seeking a cure.  (They make me think of those books that advocate eating nothing but garlic or watermelon.)    The cure they want is to go back to a past that never actually was; to a simplicity that never was.

Making stupid jokes at their expense, sneering at them (and at Palin), is not a good way to quell fears,  ease resentments.

While Obama can be professorial, he is also extremely good at explaining complicated issues in simple, but not reductive, ways.    He needs to use that skill more to remind Americans of how the country arrived at this economic downturn, of why the banking system was saved, of how the Republicans in Congress (and in the White House) both contributed to the current crisis and are now blocking its repair.   He needs to keep it simple, make it direct.

And while hypocrisy may deserve satire, Obama (and his supporters) should avoid the side of the sneer.

Categories: news, Obama, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Jon Stewart On O’Reilly – Fending Off the Rudeness and Hypocrisy Factor

February 6, 2010

Energized by anger today.  Well, anger, a good weekend night’s sleep, four or five cups of strong tea, and chocolate rice cakes.

Part of this comes from the recent Jon Stewart interview on Bill O’Reilly’s the O’Reilly Factor.   (Note—you have to pay to watch it on O’Reilly’s website, but it’s free on the Fox News site.)

I don’t much like Bill O’Reilly.  I don’t much like any news opinion show.  To tell the truth, I don’t much like TV news.  (Make that TV.)   So, it’s difficult for me to watch these things.

Part of the problem is that I’m not used to so much rudeness.  Stewart, the ex-stand up comedian, is the one you would expect to be profane or interrupting, but he is polite, amicable.  Although he’s certainly not a pushover, he does not lower himself to O’Reilly’s barrage of dismissive and reductive ridicule.

The other part of my problem with watching is my own rudeness.  I have a nearly uncontrollable urge to hiss things like ‘a——————‘ every time O’Reilly opens his mouth.

I did stay quiet enough to focus, however.  This is partly because Stewart clear, as well as engaging, made points which have not been adequately stressed by the more mainstream, and less comically-gifted, powers-that-be.  (Caveat– I’ve modified Stewart’s points somewhat while trying to stay within their spirit.)

First, Stewart noted the issue of hypocrisy–all the conservative commentators (and politicians) who screamed treason at any criticism of George W. Bush, while commander in chief of a nation at war, who now treat Obama as if he were not even a true U.S. citizen.

Secondly, there’s the issue of hypocrisy:  all of the conservative commentators (and politicians) who allowed Bush to spend and untax the country into the biggest deficit in history who now call themselves fiscal conservatives.

Third, there’s the issue of hypocrisy:  all of the conservative commentators (and politicians) who allowed Bush to spend, untax, deregulate, and ignore, the onset of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and now blame it on Obama.

Fourth, well, you know, hypocrisy—all the conservative commentators (and politicians) complaining about a lack of bipartisanship who filibuster even relatively low level appointments.

(There is a ton more that could be said about hypocrisy and O’Reilly personallybut I won’t go into that here.)

The American people, unfortunately, seem to expect miracles.  They seem to believe that Obama should be able to undo years of damage, in a few swift strokes.  Fox news encourages this view, while at the same time making a huge outcry when Obama undertakes any stroke at all.

The conservative media feeds a notion that only one basic change is necessary—the poof! disappearance of our problems. They foster the notion that this change could happen by, as Obama put it in the State of the Union, simply continuing the same policies that got us into this mess;  they (crazily) imply that Obama caused the damage.  (I would remind them that Lehman Brothers fell in September 2009.)

A repair with no actually fixing involved.  Wouldn’t that be nice? It’s sort of like the idea of a country waging two expensive wars while cutting taxes.

BackStroke Books was founded in 2009 by Karin Gustafson. Karin lives in downtown Manhattan, with a dog, husband and, occasionally, two grown daughters and a variety of nephews. They all give her lots of ideas, especially the dog.

Karin writes poetry, fiction and the ManicDDaily blog. She also draws pictures. These are, currently, mainly of elephants, but Karin is slowly branching out to other species. (Her dog thinks that’s a very good idea.)

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

Deficit of Trust in Government – The Difference Between Coke and Pepsi

February 4, 2010

Continuing to think about the deficit of trust in government.    (See prior post.)

Part of the problem (aside from a pusillanimous, self-interested congress, the unfettered flood of special interest moneys, and periodic out-and-out scandals) is that many people’s day-to-day interactions with governmental institutions have an unpleasant aspect–taxes; speeding tickets; waiting at one of those blinking yellow lights for an endless road repair; the Post Office, which, if not exactly unpleasant, often involves lines, and a high background level of frustration.  (The phrase “going postal” did not arise out of a void.) 

Then too, there’s seeming arbitrariness of government — the perception that some people unfairly get benefits while others are denied. 

Which brings us to the judicial system.   I happen to be someone with faith in the U.S. court and justice system.  I believe that it is (more or less, fundamentally, at least in principal) sound (certainly compared to many other countries.)    But its high costs combined with its power and political underpinnings can make its verdicts both terrifying and burdensome.   When they are eventually delivered.  It tends to have a velocity equivalent to molasses in a snow storm.   (Extremely expensive molasses, a very long snow storm.)   A  friend of mine living in Queens has recently spent over eight months and thousands of dollars in legal bills evicting a tenant who never paid a single dollar’s rent.  

I’m not writing here about judicial reform, or nuisance suits, or even unscrupulous lawyers.  I understand that many landlords perpetrate horrible abuses on tenants.  (I’m a tenant.) 

The point is that these factors engender an instinctive distrust for all government, not simply the difficult parts.

Unlike corporate brands, which people readily differentiate, with clear preferences for either Coke or Pepsi, Burger King or MacDonalds, Toyota (oops!) or Ford, many seem to conflate different levels and types of government–federal and local government (where money has especially undue influence), the  executive, and judicial branches, the state trooper and the FEMA social worker, the random INS or TSA worker and Obama himself. 

It’s a problem that can only be solved by individual effort; all involved (both workers and citizens) genuinely trying to do better.  

I’m not holding my breath.

Categories: news, Obama, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Deficit of Trust in Government – How To Carry An Old Dog Downstairs

February 3, 2010

Obama and other politicians speak of “a deficit of trust” in governmental institutions.

I have a little, old, dog.  She is little enough and old enough that I generally can (must) carry her through the halls of my building, and out through the small back yard, until we get to the public sidewalk, before I can put her down without fear of prohibited incident.

I carry my dog on this journey like a baby, legs up.  She is incredibly passive in my arms, motionless through the bounces of the few flights of stairs, through the turns in the hall and yard, through the plunge into the frigid winds of lower Manhattan. Her stillness seems to reflect an absolute faith that, as her person, the one who feeds and shelters and takes care of her, I will do the right thing by her, carrying her to her appointed spots, not dropping, dislodging, or otherwise discombulating.

People are not really like dogs.  (Some may find this unfortunate.)  Yet the bases for trust are similar—a relationship or experience of a person or institution that gives rise to a feeling that the trusted one is competent, well-meaning, and that the relationship is beneficial, even necessary,  for the trustor’s well-being.

A belief in competence is paramount.  My dog is downright wiggly in unsure hands.  Babies are often like that too, fussing and crying when they sense inexperience.

Many adults do not seem to have an innate gauge of competence.  (Many voted for George W. Bush, for example.  Twice.)   Still, they must, at least, believe in competence.

Integrity’s important too, a lack of scandal.  But integrity is really a part of meaning well, of the trusted one looking out for the trusting.

Then there’s the question of benefits.  And necessity.  My dog (children too) trust me even when I have to do painful things to them, such as cleaning that yucky eye hair (that’s in the case of my dog), in part because they have been  acutely aware of all I have provided– food, shelter, college tuition (that’s in the case of my children).  It’s not as if the benefits are a quid pro quo for the painful treatment;  it’s more that the benefits somehow prove that the painful treatment is not arbitrary or mean, but a necessary part of taking care.  (Different versions of trust based on necessity/desperation arise in the case of a plumber, doctor,  accountant.)

Because benefit/necessity is so important to  maintaining trust, it’s difficult to understand how government can engender it simply by cutting taxes.  For trust to be felt, value must be provided, not just reduced expense.

Of course, the urge for endless tax-cutting arises in part because of a disbelief in government competence.  Then too, many refuse to believe that government benefits reach them.  (These kinds of people shout that the government should “keep its hands off their Medicare.”)

Others simply don’t see a need for government.  (I don’t know how these people plan to provide for fire departments, child labor laws, clean air and water.)

What to do?   In order for a “deficit of trust” in government to be filled, people have to be convinced that a more secure, stable, educated, and unpolluted society is a particular benefit to them, a necessity for the future, and something government is capable of helping to provide.

A tall order.

Of course, getting rid of the scandals would help too.

Categories: dog, news, Obama, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Good for Him! (Re State of the Union Address)

January 27, 2010

Promising jobs, better than Jobs.

(See earlier post re Obama and Jobs.)

Categories: Obama
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Disturbance on the Central Florida Coast – Views of Obama

December 27, 2009

Arrived in Florida (Central Atlantic Coast) in the middle of the night.

Arriving in Florida is always a bit of a shock;  usually, it’s the humidity, the immediate and improbable moistness of the air.  But this time we left an onslaught of driving rain in New York City and arrived to a dry cool night.

We were met by a car service driver I’ve used for years whom I view as something of a friend.  I think the friendship is reciprocated (as evidenced by the fact that he was willing to wait for us till 1 a.m.)

Although my daughter asked me, before we met our driver’s car, to please not get in an argument about Obama, one started almost immediately.  The driver began it, actually, bringing up a story about how some other passenger, a military guy, had told him Obama was a terrorist against the U.S.  (This seemed to be a view for which the driver had some sympathy.)

I protested, despite my daughter’s stiffening in the backseat.

Our discussion heated up from there.  Eventually, even the daughter who had asked me not to argue broke in on the pro-Obama side.

I really like this driver.  He is extremely good-natured and sweet.  Even after I resorted to the F-word— our discussion had moved on through a variety of topics to 9/11–as a New Yorker who lives in downtown Manhattan, I feel like I have a closeness to 9/11 that simply cannot be approximated by people living on the Florida coast—he chuckled,  surprised both by my vehemence and my views, but not offended.

It all goes to show how different the country is outside of New York City, a difference that is almost unimaginable to me from downtown Manhattan.

The difference was reinforced later in the day, as we walked (which is unusual in itself here–but hey I’m a New Yorker, I walk) to a fast food franchise to pick up a favorite dish of my dad.  These places exist in New York City, but they are not on my immediate family’s radar.  Yes, this is probably due to a kind of elitism–though it’s really more of a nutritional and culinary elitism than economic.  New York has a plethora of amazing, unfranchised, food.   If my kids are hungry, they’ll go for a slice, a bagel,  spring rolls,  salt and pepper squid.

All the young and middle-aged people both serving and being served  were big, almost overflowing.   It’s a cliché, but, in this case at least, the truth.    We felt puny in comparison, ordered baked potatoes to share.

In the evening, the difference I went jogging on the only  nearby bit of sidewalk.  I tripped twice—the sidewalk turned out to be rutted—then was chased by a free-roaming Pomeranian that actually ran all the way across the street.

Okay, I’ll admit it;  I’m emphasizing the negative.   Frankly, there are lovely things about Florida and almost all the people  I deal with here are kind, polite, patient, personally generous; many  are not in the least bit overweight; the State, in fact, went for Obama in the 2008 election.

But when I hear this knee-jerk dislike/distrust of Obama, a distrust that not only questions the legitimacy of his presidency but also of his citizenship, it’s hard to feel like we are from the same planet, much less the same country.

The good news, I guess,  is that I called the driver to apologize;  he laughed again, said he really enjoyed our discussion, seemed to mean it.

Categories: Obama, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Hating War – Supporting Obama

December 1, 2009

I hate war.   But anyone listening to Obama’s speech at West Point tonight must acknowledge the care he has taken over his decision to deploy more troops to Afghanistan and the deep and pained sense of moral responsibility that was present in his eyes and voice.

The choices are terrible   As a New Yorker especially, I would like all of these dangers to simply go away, to not exist now or ever.   I hate that intermittent  feeling that I really should move  (soon) so as not to be at the epicenter of a devastating attack.  Living in Manhattan through 9/11 and in the post-9/11 years, one wonders whether history will look back at New Yorkers as people who were blind to the writing on the wall, like Pompeians living just below Mount Etna, or German Jews in the 30’s.    (Unlike many German Jews, most of us could leave.)

Obama makes one conscious that these kinds of dangers will not dissolve on their own.  Will war fix them?  I don’t know.  I wept when Bush called the terrorist attack of 9/11 an act of war rather than a crime,  in part because I did not want any kind of war to be waged, and in part because I simply had a harder time trusting Bush’s judgment.   My disagreement with him on other issues, and his difficulty in conveying knowledge or thoughtfulness, made it hard for me to ever be swayed by him.

I worry now that Obama’s continuation of the war feels very short in terms of reaching long-term goals.  (At the same time, I also really don’t want U.S. involvement in the conflict to be longer.   Aside from my general pacificism, anything long-term feels like an occupation, doomed from the start.)

But in the end, I find myself anxious to trust Obama’s judgment.     It is clear that he has thought deeply, explored details, is knowledgeable, and is guided by a clear and well-articulated moral compass.   (He’s like the oldest child in the family, the one who both studies up and leads.)    Listening to him also makes me very anxious that nothing untoward or violent happens to him.  His speeches are sometimes imbued with such a strong sense of destiny and purpose, that it is hard not to worry about his personal safety.

I try to feel better about it all thinking about girls in Pakistan, Afghanistan.  There was a wonderful set of videos earlier this year in the New York Times about a school girl in Swat Valley, the daughter of the headmaster of a girls’ school.  The girl, fierce in her pursuit of an education, was inspiringly articulate; her father’s bravery incredible.   One has to hope that these efforts can somehow help her and girls like her–that is, all girls and women who live or may live in Taliban or Al Quaeda dominated territory.  Ultimately, one feels that it is only through the education of women in these parts of the world that lasting progress towards peace can be made.  Obama, ever the diplomat, did not mention the plight of women in these extremist Islamic cultures, but between his wife, two daughters, and Hillary in the front row, one has to hope he’s giving thought to that as well.

Categories: news, Obama
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Ten Reasons To Be Thankful In 2009

November 25, 2009

1.  That Robert Pattinson was not in fact hit by a taxi fleeing fans in New York;

2.  and that he exists.

3.  That Lehman Brothers could only fall once;

4.  and that it didn’t happen this year.

5.  That our President (thank God!) has not been the subject of violent attack, despite all the crazy talk.

6.  That we still have a banking system, despite all the crazy talk.

7.  That Captain Sully Sullenberger did not allow his plane to crash into midtown Manhattan, even if the automatic pilot system supposedly could have landed the plane on its own.  (I don’t believe that.)

8.  That Levi Johnston is not our son-in-law.

9.  That Swine Flu has not mutated into a life-threatening epidemic like the 1917 Spanish Flu.

10.  Speaking of the 1917 Spanish Flu, that Edward Cullen didn’t  survive it.   Or did survive it.  Or did whatever he was supposed to have done.

Enjoy your thanks-giving.

And, as always, thank you all for reading.

(If you get a chance, please check out 1 Mississippi by Karin Gustafson at Amazon or on ManicDDaily home page.)

Categories: news, Obama, Robert Pattinson, Twilight
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Political Acrimony–Throwing Out Baby With Bathwater

November 18, 2009

In their treatment of Obama, some members of the Republican Party lately remind me of a really angry spouse following an acrimonious divorce.  (Odd, as it’s not clear that there was ever a marriage there.)

Most of us have seen an Angry Spouse (hopefully not our own, or in a mirror).  But ex-spouses do sometimes go through these phases, when things haven’t worked out as planned, and when they are so furious, so cheated-feeling, that they are a bit out of control.

Frustrated, the Angry Spouse resorts to taking it out on the children (the “children” in this case being the U.S. populace.)

By taking it out on the children, I mean, badmouthing the other parent (you know who) to the children; undercutting his/her authority;  denigrating him/her with knee-jerk, snide, negativity.

It doesn’t really matter what Parent No. 2 (the non-angry parent) suggests; the Angry Spouse will put it down.  So, Parent No.2  urges the child to wear a bicycle helmet; the Angry Spouse goes on about how controlling that parent is.

So, Parent No. 2 wants to give the child an allowance; the Angry Spouse criticizes the allowance as either incredibly spendthrift or ridiculously paltry.

So, Parent No. 2 wants the child to do some chores; the Angry Spouse, muttering about child labor, tells the child he doesn’t have to.

So, the child has a behavioral problem about which Parent No. 2 expresses concern.  What? explodes the Angry Spouse, proceeding to blister the air with comments about labeling and low-expectations.

Maybe, says Parent No. 2, the child should take better care of his teeth.   “A little candy never hurt anyone,” snorts the Angry Spouse, buying a case of lollipops.

“Be respectful,'” instructs Parent No. 2, ” especially when visiting another country.”    ‘Absurd,’ growls Angry Spouse.  ‘Who made them king of the world?’

What’s always troubling in such situations is that the Angry Spouse, though perhaps well-meaning, has lost sight of the true goal, which is to help the child grow and thrive.  Rather, he/she, obsessed by fury and disappointment, literally throws out the baby with the bathwater.

A real life child, stuck in such a sorry situation, quickly learns to play one parent off of another, and sometimes ends up a pretty troubled kid. I’m not sure what happens in the case of a country.

Categories: news, Obama
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Context – World Series, Fort Hood, Obama’s Remarks

November 5, 2009

The effect of context.   As some ManicDDaily readers may recall, I was lucky enough to be given a ticket to Game 1 of the World Series last week.  As grateful as I was, the combination of Cliff Lee (the Phillie’s amazing pitcher), a wet, cold night, and the materialism and misogyny of a small set of other Yankees’ fans, made the evening a bit of a bummer.

What amazed me this morning was how much better that Game 1 experience felt in light of the Yankees’ overall Series’ triumph.  It was like the Yankees had once more pulled a difficult game out of the hat, only this time it was a game that they had actually lost, and the “pulling” was all done retrospectively.  Now, Game 1 feels simply like one more step on the Yankees’ journey towards victory—a lesson of, and for, New York–a lesson in resilience.

Since thinking all these grandiose thoughts about the Yankees, the horrible events at Fort Hood, Texas have taken place. Sport seems trivial compared to loss of life.  Nearly everything seems trivial when compared to terrible events of this kind, which, unfortunately, are all too common in today’s world.

Obama spoke about the tragedy in the context of a planned speech at a conference concerning Native Americans.   I had not seen Obama’s remarks earlier in the day,  so looked for them this evening online.  What was (sort of) amazing to me is that on youtube, at least, there was already a fair amount of negative commentary about Obama’s sober words, mainly because, since they were given in the midst of a planned speech, they followed introductory thanks to conference organizers and attendees, including a special acknowledgement (“shout-out”) to  one Congressional medal of honor winner.    The negative internet commentary viewed this introductory “shout-out” to the medal of honor winner (who I presume was at one time a soldier) as disrespectful to the current soldiers who were today’s victims.

I admit that the term “shout-out” was not a good choice.  (I’m guessing that part had been planned, like my Yankees’ bit, before the Fort Hood events transpired, and that Obama simply wanted not to forget to acknowledge the medal of honor winner.) However, Obama’s actual remarks, which immediately followed his introductory thanks, were grave and prayerful.  Which again brings up the issue of context.  Viewers expect that Obama is addressing everything he says to the world of TV.  But in this case, the guy is also speaking to a live audience.  People actually sitting in front of him, who have come with a detailed and specific agenda.   The fact that Obama politely acknowledged and thanked these people, before turning to the events at Fort Hood, seems to be a product of a methodical and polite nature, and not reflective of any lack of concern or gravity.  Certainly, this type of polite remark seems trivial in the face of the terrible events of earlier in the day;  just as tomorrow’s parade for the Yankees will seem ridiculous in the context of such horrible events.   It is just this shifting context of the horrible and wonderful, tragic and trivial, extraordinary and commonplace, polite and brutal, that makes up our lives.    Nothing just stops.

I’m guessing that we will hear more about Obama’s speech.   In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this terrible event, and their grieving families.

Categories: news, Obama
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »