Change We Can Believe In?: Commentaries on the Major Events of Our Time: Volume V

By Anthony Livingston Hall

ANTHONY L. HALL takes aim at every important issue of our time with a unique and refreshing perspective. He comments on:

Obama accepting the Nobel Prize

Many people are still wondering what that mysterious light hovering over Norway was on the night before he arrived. But, despite claims that it was generated by a UFO or the failed test launch of a Russian missile, die-hard believers (like me) will tell you that it was just a celestial sign heralding the Nobel coming of Barack Obama.

The swine flu pandemic that wasnt

An Obama advisor has been quoted saying, You never want a serious crisis to go to waste It is instructive to note that the pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines, as well as the peddlers of surgical masks and other flu paraphernalia, appear to be heeding this advice.

Movie about Nehrus affair with the wife of a British diplomat

One can only imagine the physical passion they shared, especially in light of Edwinas reputed nymphomania, which, notwithstanding Nehrus efforts, she reportedly satiated by making scandalous booty calls on a black man for over 30 years.

Christmas Day underwear bomber

[W]e had the secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, assuring us on Sunday that the system worked in this case. If this good-job-Brownie faux pas doesnt suggest that our whole airline security system is devoid of logic, nothing does.

Cartoon of Obama kneeling and kissing shoe of Chinese leader

To be sure, the cartoon takes some creative license. But the essential point it conveys is undeniable: America cannot stand like a superpower with China squeezing its balls in a financial vise grip!

Expenses scandal that rocked UK Parliament

Who knew that the only swine flu Britons had to worry about was an epidemic of MPs feeding at the public trough like pigs?

Tiger Woodss Thanksgiving-Day spat with his wife

Cheating Tiger, fuming dragon.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Aug 2, 2010
• ISBN: 9781450233149

Anthony Livingston Hall

Anthony L. Hall is a Washington-based lawyer who is licensed to practice in a number of foreign jurisdictions. He hails from The Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands and was educated at some of America’s best schools, including Williams College. Hall is also a syndicated columnist and the author of The iPINIONS Journal, a weblog of enlightening and entertaining commentaries that provide a refreshing take on current events. He lives in Arlington, Virginia. http://ipjn.com

Book preview

Introduction

glyph.jpg

You can be forgiven for thinking that Tiger Woods’s spectacular fall from grace was the biggest news event of 2009. After all, even media coverage of Barack Obama’s historic inauguration as the first black president of the United States paled in comparison to coverage of Tiger’s Thanksgiving Day spat with his wife. Granted, the bimbo eruption (of his sixteen mistresses, and counting) had a lot to do with that coverage.

This is entirely understandable of course—given the worldwide obsession with sports stars. This obsession explains why there was so much media coverage of Yankees superstar Alex Rodriguez dissembling about using steroids, and of swimming phenom Michael Phelps apologizing for smoking pot. It also explains why I dutifully wrote commentaries on these events.

All the same, I hope you will not be too disappointed to learn that the vast majority of entries in this volume are commentaries on events of more political, social, and cultural significance. You will be disappointed, though, if you’re one of those couch potatoes who likes to be spoon fed partisan opinions about everything by talking heads on Cable TV. Because I am a preternaturally progressive thinker whose commentaries reflect the quaint notion that opinions should be informed by good ideas, not political ideologies. This means that I’m just as likely to challenge liberal talking points as I am to challenge conservative ones.

A quick browse through the table of contents will reveal that I write on an eclectic mix of topics: from the first year of Obama’s presidency to the menace of seafaring Somali pirates; from the arrest, on a thirty-year-old rape charge, of director Roman Polanski to the U.S.-inspired coup d’état in Honduras; from China’s increasingly belligerent dominion over Tibet to the banning of a film about Nehru’s forbidden love affair; and from the British takeover of my home country, the Turks and Caicos Islands, to the wide world of sports—just to name a few.

My section on Deaths of Famous People is highlighted by commentaries on the all too predictable death of Michael Jackson.

Most of the events in this volume occurred in 2009; except where failing to include a few from early 2010 (before I submitted my manuscript on March 15) would have constituted an egregious oversight. As a case in point, given my July 2009 commentary entitled Compassion Fatigue for Haitian Refugees, I felt compelled to include the events from January and February 2010 on the earthquake that devastated Haiti. Incidentally, this same reasoning led me to include all of my commentaries on Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 in Volume IV, which covered events that occurred in 2008.

Finally, as with previous volumes, I hope this one serves as a reliable and accessible resource to help you not just recall the major events of 2009, but assess your comprehension of, and perspective on, them as well.

The Character of Obama’s Presidency

glyph.jpg

In Which His Dating Habits

and Nobel Peace Prize

Incite Almost as Much Controversy

as His New War Strategy

and Plan to Reform Health Care

Familiarity Breeding Contempt

New York Post Heralds Obama with Racist Cartoon

I have been an ardent critic of the black-victimology politics that Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have turned into a very profitable business. But even these firebrands occasionally stumble upon a racial slight that warrants public outrage and protest.

Such is the case with the cartoon the New York Post published on Wednesday, which depicts two white cops shooting a chimpanzee under the caption, They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill. For not even a card-carrying member of the KKK can deny the patently racist (black-man-as-ape) stereotype it reinforces.

Ridiculing the first black president of the United States in this fashion is not only insulting but also dangerous. After all, if the Post indicates that it’s okay to laugh about assassinating President Obama because of his economic stimulus plan, some kook might think it’s okay to assassinate him because of his health-care plan, which some right-wingnuts have damned as a treasonous, socialist manifesto. God knows JFK, RFK, and MLK were all taken out for much less.

It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. Period. But it has been taken as something else—as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

Meanwhile, this indignant apology, which presumably was offered today to those (hyper-sensitive blacks and guilt-ridden whites) who didn’t get the joke, is sufficient provocation for Sharpton & Co. to picket the Post until kingdom come. There would be a far greater impact on its bottom line, however, if the black professional athletes on whom this newspaper relies to generate interest in its sports pages were to boycott it.

February 21

UPDATE

Murdoch Apologizes

In an extraordinarily conciliatory move (financial motives notwithstanding), Rupert Murdoch personally apologized today for the publication of this offensive cartoon:

As the chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me. Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted … We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

That’s better. Enough said.

February 24

From HOPE to DOOM in One Month

One of the more ironic features of Obama’s nascent presidency is the way he’s being criticized for not inspiring enough hope that the United States will weather this worsening financial crisis. And it does not matter to his critics that Obama is merely honoring his promise to speak truth to the American people about the state of the Union, which in fact is in pretty dire straits. Even former President Bill Clinton has joined the chorus of those insisting that Obama’s doom-and-gloom truth-telling is only making matters worse.

It is not lost on me, however, that these are the same folks who criticized former president George W. Bush for spinning rosy scenarios about the war in Iraq, when it was clear that it too was in dire straits. Frankly, I think Obama has struck the right balance between informing the American people about the serious nature of this crisis and explaining the initiatives he’s undertaking to deal with it. And this is precisely what I expect him to do in his first address before a joint session of Congress tonight.

For the record, despite what his critics say, Obama actually has been reassuring the nation that financial recovery will come … someday. And he will undoubtedly provide further reassurances in his address. But just imagine the deluge of criticism that would be raining down on him (about being naïve and too full of hope) if he did not make it painfully clear that the road ahead will be rough.

In any event, it is plainly absurd to blame Obama for the fact that investor confidence on Wall Street is so fickle these days that any idle-minded rumor can cause the market to plummet five hundred points in an instant. But the fact that the Dow closed yesterday at its lowest point in over a decade will only embolden his critics. Yet Clinton of all people should know that Obama’s performance should be based more on how many jobs he creates on Main Street than on how much wealth speculators create on Wall Street.

Nevertheless, here’s proof that criticisms of him in this context are wholly unwarranted:

If we do not move swiftly to sign the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, an economy that is in crisis will be faced with catastrophe. I know that people are hurting. I’ve heard their stories, and I’ve sensed their deep frustration. But I also know that these struggles have not diminished the strength and decency of the American people…

We can write that next great chapter in American history. If we stay focused on the big picture; if we never forget the people who we are fighting for; if we represent the strength and dignity of the American people, then I know we can answer’s history’s call and renew America’s promise.

(Obama addressing the House Democratic Caucus, whitehouse.gov, February 5, 2009)

So what more do these Pollyannas want from this honest, responsible, and intelligent president?! They seem utterly oblivious to the fact that it took Bush eight years to create this mess. Surely Obama should be given at least eight months to clean it up….

Meanwhile, this financial crisis is bound to hasten the demise of America as the world’s sole economic superpower … But am I the only one who finds it fateful that clueless (white) folks in Washington and on Wall Street are doing all they can to turn this country into a bankrupt banana republic just as voters are poised to elect the first black president of the United States…?

(Nut-job Republicans defeat bailout bill, The iPINIONS Journal, October 1, 2008)

February 24

Now Cheerleader in Chief?

The impact of this recession is real, and it is everywhere. But while our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken; though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before…

The fact is, our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all of our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank … In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election…

Well that day of reckoning has arrived, and the time to take charge of our future is here.

(New York Times, February 24, 2009)

This is an excerpt from the address to a joint session of Congress that President Obama delivered last night. It was both comprehensive and inspiring, which makes critics of his political rhetoric seem like delusional and begrudging naysayers. I just hope Obama knows there’s no pleasing these folks.

But enough about his substance; I have a beef about his style. Specifically, I find it extremely irritating that Obama can never leave a room gracefully. Why does he have to shake so many hands—as if he were working the line at a campaign rally?! This was a joint session of Congress for Christ’s sake! Even so, there he was, still in the Chamber, reaching ten deep to shake hands with Joe Politician—even after every other dignitary, including Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had already left. Frankly, someone should inform him that to preserve what little remains of the aura and mystique of the presidency he should always be the last to enter a room and the first to leave.

Also, First Lady Michelle Obama is obviously proud of her toned arms, and rightly so. But I do not think this was the occasion to show them off by wearing sleeveless attire more suitable for a cocktail party.

February 25

All Obama All the Time

Researchers have determined that President Obama has made more media appearances at this point in his presidency than any of his predecessors. This makes one wonder if he’s doing more to compete with the likes of the Octomom for media coverage than to fix the ailing U.S. economy.

Obviously, with Obama writing newspaper editorials, publishing podcasts, conducting town hall meetings, doing late-night talk shows, and appearing on enough magazine covers to make supermodels green with envy, we did not need media researchers to tell us that he risks being overexposed. But I have no doubt that if Obama were hiding out in the Oval Office the way George W. Bush did during periods of crisis, his critics would be lampooning him as the invisible man.

Could he have made fewer appearances? I think so. For example, he did not have to command airtime to announce every Cabinet nomination; especially since, with the possible exception of the State and Justice, most Americans couldn’t care any less who heads these various departments.

In his defense, however, Obama has clearly made the very reasonable political calculation that the more he acts like the explainer-in-chief, the more confidence he will inspire in his plan for economic recovery and reinvestment. And given the complex and unprecedented nature of the global financial crisis we’re facing, this seems a very sensible calculation. Not to mention poll numbers, which indicate that the American people just can’t get enough of him…

Accordingly, I’m sure the press conference he held last night furthered this keep-the-people-informed-and-reassured political strategy; notwithstanding that his answers to questions about corporate bailouts and bonuses have become so familiar that a few of us can recite them almost verbatim.

All the same, one exciting moment came when CNN reporter Ed Henry posited that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was doing a better job of extracting concessions from the bonus hogs at AIG than the White House. And, frankly, Henry was making a salient point and seemed to have Obama back on his heels. But then he followed up by effectively badgering the president to explain why, when everyone else vented outrage immediately, it took him several days to voice his anger. This prompted the I’ll bend but not break Obama to respond with icy indignation as follows:

It took a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.

(National Public Radio, March 24, 2009)

Ouch!

Incidentally, this was the second prime-time press conference Obama has given during his short, sixty-four-day presidency. By comparison, both Bush and Clinton gave only four such press conferences during their respective eight-year presidencies. But if Obama’s mug is this ubiquitous in the fall, I too shall hold him in contempt.

March 25

Obama’s Bowing Stirs Controversy

Whispers of disillusionment with President Obama among left-wing pundits are growing louder every day. Their disillusionment stems from the fact that he’s proving to be far more pragmatic than ideological as president.

For example, these pundits—who take credit for getting him elected—lament that Obama has failed to appoint a fresh and diverse Cabinet (there are too many Clinton administration has-beens and too many white businessmen); has failed to make his government initiatives transparent (not a single bill has been published in advance for public scrutiny); and has failed to discontinue many of the war-on-terror tactics Bush deployed (the United States is still renditioning and torturing suspects despite his protestations to the contrary)—just to name a few of his unkept promises.

But I find their whining impatient and naïve. For on all matters of substance, especially those related to the economy and national security, Obama has demonstrated an encouraging willingness to sacrifice political ideology for the sake of good policy. As a case in point, it makes sense that he has continued the war-on-terror tactics that have kept the country safe for over seven years.

This is not to say, however, that I see no cause for complaint. It’s just that, at this point in his presidency, my disillusionment stems mostly from matters of style. For example, I lament that he invited Scarlett O’Hara wannabes to march in his inaugural parade; that he lulls about after official gatherings, shaking hands as if he were still on the campaign trail; and that he gratuitously dissed the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, during his recent visit to the White House.

It is in this context that I feel constrained to comment on the kerfuffle now brewing about the way Obama greeted Saudi king Abdullah at last week’s G-20 summit in London. On April 7, 2009, the conservative-leaning Washington Times accused Obama of a shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate by bowing to Abdullah. This inspired an overzealous presidential aide to defend him by insisting that:

It wasn’t a bow … [the president] bent over and grasped his hands with both hands … he’s taller than King Abdullah.

(Politico, April 8, 2009)

But, as disappointed as I am with the Washington Times and other critics for making this patently absurd charge, I am even more disappointed with Obama’s handlers for putting this Clintonian spin on such an obvious gesture of respect. He clearly bowed, which according to Saudi custom, was the polite thing to do. Besides, if this were nothing more than an accommodation for differences in height, how do they explain Obama’s failure to do the same when he greeted the (even shorter) queen? Do they not see how this inconsistency is such that it will only feed idle speculation about Obama’s affinity for, if not devotion to, Islam—as opposed to his professed Christian faith?

Ironically, his handlers would have made Obama even more endearing (at home and abroad) if they had simply chalked up giving Her Majesty only a slight tilt of the head, while giving the king a full bend at the waist, to an innocent commoner’s mistake. And nothing reinforces his enviable common touch quite like the way he shook hands with the guard outside 10 Downing Street—much to the discreet delight of the guard and obvious consternation of PM Gordon Brown.

I appreciate, of course, that some consider his bow a national humiliation because the founding principles of the United States supposedly make it anathema for any president to bow down before royalty (or any foreign leader). This is why no U.S. president has ever done anything more than give a respectful tilt of the head to the Japanese emperor, for whom it would have been clearly politically correct to bow even lower than Obama did before the Saudi king.

Therefore, it is troubling that the geniuses in the White House decided to deal with this controversy by making Obama seem as congenitally averse to admitting a mistake as George W. Bush. Never mind what it portends for his presidency that his advisers are so inclined not just to buy into this lie about his bow, but to disseminate it unabashedly.

Ultimately, though, one has to wonder why Obama is allowing them to undermine the credibility of his presidency in this way. For he has to know that it’s only a matter of time before a member of the press corps poses the question: Mr. President, did you bend or did you bow? Unfortunately, the Catch-22 now is such that, if he concedes the obvious, he makes his handlers look like dissembling hacks; if he perpetuates this lie, he makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout.

What a silly, amateurish mess!

April 10

UPDATE

Bowing Down to the Japanese Emperor

It is a sad reflection on the current state of the news media that idle gossip and silly punditry now flow unfiltered from the fringe corners of the blogosphere into the mainstream—often as breaking news! And nothing demonstrates this quite like the way conservative wingnuts turned their paranoid delusions about Obama’s birthplace (they say Kenya) and religion (they say Muslim) into national headlines.

Now these dittoheads have the mainstream media propagating their fulminations about the shame Obama supposedly caused the United States by bowing down to the Japanese emperor during his visit to Japan a couple of days ago. And to give credence to their jingoistic indignation, they’ve published a video of cynically edited still shots, juxtaposing other world leaders greeting the emperor with an upright handshake and Obama doing so with a waist-deep bow. Of course, they all seem to have forgotten how Bush held hands with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and fawned all over him like a love-sick puppy.

All the same, it’s a sign of endearing strength for the most powerful man on the planet to show such respect for local protocol and customs wherever he travels. Unfortunately, this concept is hopelessly lost on these partisan idiots who would clearly prefer to see their American president strut all over the world like a conquering military general. Instead of criticizing Obama, they really should learn some manners.

That said, I just hope Obama’s handlers do not respond to criticisms about this bow before the Japanese emperor with the same patently absurd spin they proffered in response to criticisms about his bow before the Saudi king earlier this year.

November 17

Bowing Down to the Chinese President

Virtually every international news organization ran this week with stories about Obama bowing down to the Japanese emperor. But only the Freeport News (in The Bahamas) reported the fact that the most humbling bow of all was the one he made to the Chinese president.

It is depicted in an editorial cartoon, which shows the purported leader of the free world not only bowing but actually kissing the shoe of the Shylockian Chinese leader—as if he were some hapless, Third-World leader showing due deference to the master of his country’s economic fate. To be sure, the cartoon takes some creative license. But the essential point it conveys is undeniable: America cannot stand like a superpower with China squeezing its balls in a financial vise grip!

November 21

The First Pooch

The Washington Post reports that the Obamas have finally ended the national speculation over what breed of dog they would be taking in at the White House. The lucky little fella is a six-month-old Portuguese water dog that was given to them by that Portuguese-water-dog-lovin’ senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, who has two of them.

The Obamas have named him Bo, reportedly because First Lady Michelle Obama’s father was nicknamed Diddley, and it’s a combined tribute to him and singer Bo Diddley.

April 12

The First One Hundred Days

President Obama is off to a flying start. Never mind that the best evidence of this is the way he has engendered goodwill and transformed the image of America abroad—most notably by engaging the Muslim world.

Even at home, though, his accomplishments are noteworthy. They include passing a stimulus package to pull the U.S. economy from the brink of a depression; implementing innovations in White House communications, in particular by using the Web to stream every presidential event (Obama is the first president to deliver a weekly Web address); offering a $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition; putting more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of rivers, and numerous trails and parks under federal protection; and, of course, making unprecedented strides in health-care reform.

Alas, tradition requires me to mark this occasion by grading his performance. Accordingly, I give Obama a B+ on substance and a B- on style (in part, for reasons cited above in Obama’s Bowing Stirs Controversy).

Keep up the good work, Barack!

April 30

The Obamas’ Schizophrenic Date Night

I have a little gripe.

Professional, middle-class women are fast becoming the standard bearers in American society. Therefore, it seems more than a little ironic that Michelle Obama is being heralded for her metamorphosis from a professional, middle-class woman into a stay-at-home, upper-class woman—complete with a fashion style and calendar of social and charitable events that would make any NYC socialite green with envy. The effect is such that telling little girls to grow up to be like this new Michelle is rather like telling them to grow up to be like Cinderella. How progressive is that?!

Having said that, am I the only one who finds it odd that the Obamas went to one of Washington’s most popular restaurants last weekend for a quiet dinner date … alone? Particularly since they have the best chef(s) in America at their beck and call in the White House, and it would have been very easy for them to have a quiet dinner alone in one of the many dining rooms there. I’m sure the live-in mother-in-law would have been happy to keep the kids otherwise occupied in some distant room. And it’s not as if going to a fancy restaurant is a big treat for them anymore.

But here’s the schizophrenic part: they took their fifty-car motorcade to a restaurant just around the corner, where they were promptly escorted to an area that was cordoned off with curtains, only to be served a meal that the White House chef(s) could easily have prepared. Now just imagine the carbon footprint, to say nothing of the traffic jam, this caused. Hell, if they wanted to be alone, why not eat at home?! Not to mention that most people go to fancy restaurants as much for the social ambience (to see and be seen) as for the food. And to complete the oddity, details of their private dinner were leaked to the press even before they finished dessert.

Far be it for me to begrudge the Obamas a date night; especially since they claim that dating is one of the keys to their exemplary marriage. But I humbly suggest they consider a theatre production, a stadium concert, or even a professional ball game next time. At least then it would not cost the rest of us so much gratuitous inconvenience.

May 7

UPDATE

Obama’s Marie Antoinette Faux Pas

It smacks of the political tone-deafness that got Bush in trouble over Katrina that Obama sees nothing wrong with commissioning Air Force One (and all of the resources his presidential travel entails) just to fly him and his wife up to New York City for dinner and a play last night.

Frankly, given his lectures to CEOs, not only about abusing corporate perks in these times of global recession but also about limiting carbon footprints to help stave off global warming, this trip reeks of extravagant hypocrisy. Not to mention the insult to Washington, DC restaurants and theatre companies that could have entertained them just as well.

Obama promised throughout his campaign that he would not lose touch with the common folk. But it’s probably easy to lose that touch when one has the world at one’s feet. Nonetheless, I suspect that even Bush—who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth—would have considered this too imperious a gesture … especially just to impress his wholesome wife!

NOTE: Obama reportedly did this to make good on a campaign promise to his most important supporter—his wife, Michelle. (San Francisco Chronicle, May 31, 2009) But it should have occurred to them to arrange this date when they had other official business in NYC; since Michelle had already made two official visits there this year.

May 31

Obama Brainwashing Schoolchildren?

Throughout August, I watched in utter stupefaction as grownups, displaying a perverse mix of ignorance and arrogance, turned town hall meetings on health-care reform into schoolyard rows.

Therefore, I’m not at all surprised that these same people have now turned a back to school speech, which President Obama hasn’t even delivered yet (it’s scheduled for later today), into an Orwellian ploy to brainwash their kids. His critics claim that he’s proselytizing to make them adopt his socialist ideology and worship his cult of personality. Actually, to listen to some of their protestations, you’d think Obama was some notorious pedophile scheming to lecture their children on the pleasures of sodomy.

Meanwhile, these parents seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that shielding their kids from differing (and invariably more informed) points of view will only retard their intellectual development. Unfortunately, it’s an indication of the woeful state of politics in America today that Obama has reacted to these fulminating idiots as if their inane, if not insane, protests make sense. Specifically, the White House released transcripts of the speech a day early (i.e., yesterday) so that parents could decide whether or not it would be appropriate for their children to hear the president deliver it. Think about that.

Not surprisingly, the speech merely emphasizes the very principles of hard work, personal responsibility, and civic duty that many of those objecting to it purportedly espouse. Obama even instructs schoolchildren to wash their hands pursuant to the growing panic over swine flu:

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills, and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that—if you quit on school—you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country…

(whitehouse.gov, September 8, 2009)

Let me hasten to concede, however, that perverting public discourse in this manner is nothing new. In fact, it smacks of pure hypocrisy that liberals are now condemning conservatives for raising partisan objections in this case, given that they did the same when President George H. W. Bush scheduled a similar speech in 1991. Nevertheless, to set a precedent that any president must seek parental approval before he can address schoolchildren is plainly untenable and unsustainable. Therefore, instead of following pied pipers like Rush Limbaugh in stoking partisan rage against any presidential initiative, no matter how salutary, leaders from both sides of the political divide should confront and marginalize them.

This is not to say that I think the president should be a role model, like parents should be, or a moral leader, like pastors, priests, rabbis, and imams should be. I just think schoolchildren should be taught to listen to the president even when he says things that cause their parents to go berserk. And this should be the case if only to instill in them a sense of civic pride and due respect for the presidency.

In any event, if this belligerent and factional trend continues, the U.S. president will become nothing more than a boogeyman for political opportunists. Hell, it could even lead to there being little difference between Republicans and Democrats in America and Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq.

September 8

Carter: Whites Oppose Obama Because He’s Black

Former president Jimmy Carter has ignited yet another media firestorm by saying that much of the vile, ignorant, and hysterical opposition to President Obama’s initiatives (on display at town hall meetings all across America in August) is based on plain vanilla racism.

Here, in part, is what he said in a television interview in Atlanta on Tuesday:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American…

That racism inclination still exists. And I think it’s bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply.

(CNN, September 15, 2009)

Carter is right, of course. I just don’t think it’s prudent to defend Obama by challenging the Republican wingnuts who can’t stand him, and want to see him fail. (ABC News, January 25, 2009) Instead, Obama (and the country) would be better served by remembering and celebrating the fact that more whites voted for this black man than for any white Democratic presidential candidate in U.S. history. And no matter what the polls say today, I doubt a single white person who voted for him is now suffering such an acute case of voter’s remorse that he has turned into a Obama-hating redneck.

Frankly, I think it’s futile and potentially dangerous for Carter and distinguished black leaders, like Democratic Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, to be publicly lamenting the racist rants of these nincompoops, who clearly thrive on the media attention their fulminations garner. Because crying racism in this context risks confusing and alienating whites who support Obama. Moreover, it unwittingly comingles those who express legitimate criticisms of his policies with those who hurl plainly racist insults at him.

I do worry, however, that just as Congressman Joe Wilson has become a media sensation by yelling you lie at Obama during his address before a joint session of Congress, one of these town hall, tea-bagging morons might try to become an even bigger sensation by doing something more fatal. God knows there are ominous precedents for this.

September 17

Overexposed

There’s nothing surprising about President Obama’s familiar media presence breeding contempt among Republicans. What is surprising, however, is the contempt it’s breeding among Democrats.

Much is being made of his pulling a Ginsburg on Sunday morning (i.e., emulating Monica Lewinsky’s media-loving attorney, Bill Ginsburg, by appearing on all of the major TV networks and reciting the same talking points on each one). But nothing demonstrates how much the novelty of his presidency has waned quite like the fact that while his news conferences drew almost fifty million viewers in the spring, they draw only about twenty-five million now in the fall. Moreover, I think it’s a mistake for Obama to deduce from the fact that he’s the best spokesman for his political initiatives that he should be the only one hawking them on TV.

He is overexposed. And he would do well to lay low for a while so that his absence makes even Republicans grow fonder.

September 26

Obama’s (Affirmative Action?) Nobel Peace Prize

Lord knows I am (still) an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama. But I think this award is, well, a bit much. For no matter how they rationalize it, there’s no denying that the (European) Nobel Committee awarded him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize today (just nine months into his presidency), not for what he has done, but for who he is.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future … [He has ushered in] a change in the international climate.

(The Norwegian Nobel Committee, nobelprize.org, October 9, 2009)

Indeed, the irony is that the committee is awarding Obama this prize, not for doing something to prevent climate change, but for changing the (political) climate with what amounts to a lot of hot air. Even his liberal friends at Saturday Night Live have lampooned the fact that, despite talking up a transformative global agenda, Obama has precious little to show for it. And this prize will only provide more fodder for his critics who already ridicule him as all talk and no action.

To put it in black and white: Obama is being honored primarily because he is not George W. Bush! And it’s debatable whether he or Bush should be more insulted by this. Not to mention the insult to all of the truly accomplished people (like Nelson Mandela) who took such pride in being awarded this prize.

But I’m sure Obama will be gracious and will humbly accept it for what it is.

I suppose if the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, the late Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the former Israel prime minister Shimon Peres could win the Nobel Peace Prize for a Palestinian peace that never was, [then why not Obama for accomplishments yet to be accomplished].

Which brings me to a final word about the Norwegian cabal behind the Nobel Prize. Because it would be naïve to think that petty politics do not govern their selections.

(Gore awarded Nobel Peace Prize, The iPINIONS Journal, October 13, 2007)

Enough said! Well, except that Bush made Europeans so apprehensive that they probably awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize just for giving them some peace of mind.

NOTE: How do you spell jealous today? B-I-L-L C-L-I-N-T-O-N. (Now he must be really convinced that Obama is living a fairy tale.)

October 10

UPDATE

A Nimble Nobel Speech

When President George W. Bush declared that he had to wage war to make peace, he was roundly criticized. It was more than a little ironic, therefore, to see Obama being roundly applauded today when he said essentially the same thing during his acceptance speech.

I can only assume it was thus because—using the nimble rhetorical skills that won him this hallowed prize—Obama spoke so aspirationally about reconciling Ghandi’s philosophy of nonviolence with Clausewitz’s categorical imperative of waging war as diplomacy by other means.

His speech was most distinguished, however, by a robust defense of America’s exceptional history of expending blood and treasure around the world in defense of freedom and democracy. In substance, it was, well, Bush-like. Indeed, this inconsistency is such that only a wanton suspension of disbelief could possibly explain awarding this peace prize to Obama. After all, he’s not just waging two wars, but deploying tactics as commander-in-chief that were condemned as violations of international law when Bush deployed them.

Having said that, it’s a testament to his character and good sense that nobody is more mindful of this inconsistency than Obama himself:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations … I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize—Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela—my accomplishments are slight…

I cannot argue with those who find [others] to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

(New York Times, December 11, 2009)

Still, it’s an indication of how fickle admiration for Obama can be that Norwegians are reportedly expressing shock and dismay that he jetted all the way to their country to accept this prize but refused to attend some of the other traditional events associated with it. These events included a television interview, a children’s event promoting peace, a music concert, and an exhibition in his honor at the Nobel peace center. But nothing has incurred their jingoistic wrath in this respect quite like his decision to decline an invitation to lunch with Norwegian King Harald V, an event every prize winner invariably attends with due deference.

The American president is acting like an elephant in a porcelain shop. In Norwegian culture, it’s very important to keep an agreement. We’re religious about that, and Obama’s actions have been clumsy. You just don’t say no to an invitation from a European king. Maybe Obama’s advisers are not very educated about European culture, but he is coming off as rude, even if he doesn’t mean to.

(Rune Morck-Wergeland, Norwegian public-relations expert, Daily Beast, December 9, 2009)

The irony can’t be lost on any Norwegian that this is the kind of arrogant behavior they would have expected from Bush. So much for change they can believe in, eh?

I just hope Obama’s spinmeisters are prepared to counter the Muslim-related inferences right-wingnuts back home are bound to propagate about him for bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia but refusing to lunch