“When a man tells you who he is…believe him.” ~ Maya Angelou

“I could have been reading into it more than was there.”  ~ Cornell West, 2011

Yes, indeed.

“I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” ~ Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

I have nothing but admiration for Cornell West. He has always inspired me and it grieves me to see his bitter disappointment.  But the evidence was there all along.

Obama is exactly the person he claimed himself to be.  Unfortunately for us, that person is indeed a man without a clue as to what it means to hold fast to any deepest commitment. Witness the paragraphs before the “blank screen” paragraph, in which Obama lays out what he “believes.” I read these two paragraphs and wonder to myself, what is Obama’s “kernel of truth?”

In one paragraph he declares what he considers to be his Democratic bona fides by invoking the New York Times, a touch of populism, science, and his race. I cannot help but add some editorial commentary.

I suspect that some readers may find my presentation of these issues to be insufficiently balanced. To this accusation, I stand guilty as charged. I am a Democrat, after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times that those of the Wall Street Journal. I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans [really? That Wall Street bailout could have fooled me!], and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; [Um, Barack, so does Michael Shermer - an outspoken skeptic and Libertarian. I am pretty sure that respect for science is not limited to Democrats, as I've not always seen strong confirmation of that in my liberal circles, where often all manner of woo and pseudoscience are embraced. But I digress.] I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody’s religious beliefs – including my own – on nonbelievers. [So what was that promise to expand of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives all about? (see also) Why all the foot dragging with repealing DOMA, DADT? Why the Executive Order enshrining the Hyde Amendment and  Bush's "conscience rules?"].  Furthermore, I am a prisoner of my own biography [a prisoner?]: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives. [Yeah, growing up in Hawaii,  where you went to an exclusive private school, where mixed races are common-place, and where you looked like everyone else must've given you deep understanding of the plight of African-Americans.]

In the following paragraph Obama touts his “conservative” credentials, and I would say, that based on Obama’s words and deeds in the last 23 months, this is closer to his “deepest” commitment. He starts out by disparaging his own party, implies that only conservatives love America and support the troops, and spits on every civil rights movement of the 20th century, and again, implies that only conservatives are spiritual and/or have “values.”

But that is not all I am. I also think that my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. [Oh, I see, Republicans are never dogmatic. Tea Party anyone?] I believe in the free market, competition [except when it come to insurance companies and the so-called Public Option], and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. [So you became a lawyer because?] I think America has more often been a force for good that for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity [though you were happy to invoke it just a paragraph before], gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.

Gawd, what a self-serving mish-mash of left-right stereotyping.  No wonder Obama has no rudder, no inner core. As they say, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Deflection

The corporate tax “rate” may be, indeed, be too high. And as always, that’s a matter of opinion and up for debate.

But that wasn’t the question, now was it?

Obama held captive? Hardly.

Frank Rich seems to think that Obama is victim of Stockholm Syndrome.

THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” in the online archive of The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin. It explains that hostage takers are most successful at winning a victim’s loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors’ “good side” and develop psychological characteristics to please them — “dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think.”

“. . . bogus show of kindness . . .”  Um, Frank, when did that happen? From Day One, Republicans have refused to work with Obama or his party. Can you point me to any Republican ”show of kindness?”  I can’t think of a single one.  No, they’ve kicked his ass from the get-go, and yet, Obama races to embrace them and piss on his alleged “base.”

Rich moans:

A Rorschach test may make for a fine presidential candidate — when everyone projects their hopes on the guy. But it doesn’t work in the Oval Office . . .

Ya think?

Except, wasn’t it Frank Rich who was all over Obama’s candidacy? I seem to recall many a column lauding the fine young senator from Illinois and, more significantly, column after column vilifying his primary opponent. That Obama was a self-identified Rorschach test was just fine with Rich then! The way he was mainlining Obama during the primaries, I would have thought he’d at least have read to the end the prologue of The Audacity of Hope.

Undoubtedly, some of these views will get me in trouble. I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book – namely, how I, or anybody in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments.

Since the election, Rich has written a number of columns calling on Obama to step up to the plate and release his inner progressive. It’s quite sad, really.  If only Rich had taken Obama at his word, his disappointment would not be so keen, nor perhaps, his delusion so entrenched.

Obama is exactly the person he claimed himself to be.  Unfortunately for us, that person is indeed a man without a clue as to what it means to hold fast to any deepest commitment. Witness the paragraphs before the “blank screen” paragraph, in which Obama lays out what he “believes.” I read these two paragraphs and wonder to myself, what is Obama’s “kernel of truth?”

In one paragraph he declares what he considers to be his Democratic bona fides by invoking the New York Times, a touch of populism, science, and his race. I cannot help but add some editorial commentary.

I suspect that some readers may find my presentation of these issues to be insufficiently balanced. To this accusation, I stand guilty as charged. I am a Democrat, after all; my views on most topics correspond more closely to the editorial pages of the New York Times that those of the Wall Street Journal. I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans [really? That Wall Street bailout could have fooled me!], and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all. I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; [Um, Barack, so does Michael Shermer - an outspoken skeptic and Libertarian. I am pretty sure that respect for science is not limited to Democrats, as I've not always seen strong confirmation of that in my liberal circles, where often all manner of woo and pseudoscience are embraced. But I digress.] I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody’s religious beliefs – including my own – on nonbelievers. [So what was that promise to expand of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives all about? (see also) Why all the foot dragging with repealing DOMA, DADT? Why the Executive Order enshrining the Hyde Amendment and  Bush's "conscience rules?"].  Furthermore, I am a prisoner of my own biography [a prisoner?]: I can’t help but view the American experience through the lens of a black man of mixed heritage, forever mindful of how generations of people who looked like me were subjugated and stigmatized, and the subtle and not so subtle ways that race and class continue to shape our lives. [Yeah, growing up in Hawaii,  where you went to an exclusive private school, where mixed races are common-place, and where you looked like everyone else must've given you deep understanding of the plight of African-Americans.]

In the following paragraph Obama touts his “conservative” credentials, and I would say, that based on Obama’s words and deeds in the last 23 months, this is closer to his “deepest” commitment. He starts out by disparaging his own party, implies that only conservatives love America and support the troops, and spits on every civil rights movement of the 20th century, and again, implies that only conservatives are spiritual and/or have “values.”

But that is not all I am. I also think that my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. [Oh, I see, Republicans are never dogmatic. Tea Party anyone?] I believe in the free market, competition [except when it come to insurance companies and the so-called Public Option], and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. [So you became a lawyer because?] I think America has more often been a force for good that for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity [though you were happy to invoke it just a paragraph before], gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.

Gawd, what a self-serving mish-mash of left-right stereotyping.  No wonder Obama has no rudder, no inner core. As they say, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Stockholm Syndrome, my ass. The only thing Obama is held captive to is his “hunger to please” and “fear of loss.”

And the fact that Obama is a conservative.

A Walk Around the Block

Posted without comment.

Where have we seen this before? Updated

Aside from the Constitutional issues involved here, the fact has been lost that there is community and interfaith support for the cultural center and mosque which is taking property that was destroyed during 9/11 and since abandoned (no one else wanted it) and attempting to create a neighborhood center that all can use. Yes, there will ultimately be two floors of the building that will be a mosque, because the mosque that exists a few blocks from the WTC is far too small to serve the current Muslim population in the area.

Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities:
•outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
•a 500-seat auditorium
•a restaurant and culinary school
•cultural amenities including exhibitions
•education programs
•a library, reading room and art studios
•childcare services
•a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
•a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

The planning for this project has been going on for years. But it is summer, Congress is recessed until September, and just as John Kerry was swiftboated in the lead-up to the 2004 election in July/August 2004 and the Tea Party had it’s fun last summer with Health Care Reform and marches against anything that sounded ‘bad’ to them,  guess who is behind this suddenly “divisive” issue? None other than (now former) Tea Party chair, Mark Williams.

Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer, State Senator Daniel L. Squadron, Council Member Margaret Chin, other elected officials, and community and religious leaders, today stood together outside the proposed location of the Cordoba House in a show of unity against the racist comments made by Tea Party Express Chairman Mark Williams.  They were joined by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative, Dhalia Mahmoud of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and representatives of Community Board 1.  

Borough President Stringer responded sharply to a statement posted yesterday on Williams’ web site that the planned Cordoba House facility would “consist of a Mosque for the worship of the terrorists’ monkey-god.”

And now the Right is trying to tie this community center to terrorism. (*See update below)

Booga booga!!!  When all else fails, play the terrorist card. Nothing new here, I fear. And once again, the Dems are falling for it.

Valerie Elverton Dixon, Founder JustPeaceTheory.com; former teacher of Christian Ethics at Andover Newton (Mass.) Theological School and United Theological Seminary in Ohio, writes in the WaPo:

Does Obama’s hedging show a lack of ethical convictions? Does Hamas’ endorsement change the debate? What is behind public opposition to the site? Can you believe in religious freedom but not believe the mosque is appropriate?

I have seen this movie before.

A few years back, while I still taught ethics at Andover Newton Theological School, I also sat on the board of the Interreligious Center on Public Life (ICPL). This is an organization that started under the auspices of Andover Newton and Hebrew College to bring together religious scholars, clergy and lay leaders to think about how religion impacts our public life. Its mission and goal was to provide a space for respectful dialogue and problem solving.

One problem we faced in 2006 was the controversy at that time over a proposed mosque to be built in Roxbury. The Islamic Society of Boston planned a mosque and cultural center. However, questions around the propriety of the land agreement with the city of Boston along with concerns about whether or not leaders of the Islamic Society of Boston had ties to terrorist groups and concerns about its sources of funding resulted in lawsuits and counter lawsuits. The problem was causing animosity between the Muslim and Jewish communities.

[. . .]

The difference between this present controversy over the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center and the case in Boston is that politicians stayed out of the Boston dispute. Religious leaders took the initiative to find the facts and to mediate the dispute. The goal was reconciliation. The political goal is not reconciliation. The political goal is to keep people angry enough about this issue so they will go to the polls to cast a proxy vote against the mosque. Thus, we see politicians of both parties who have to face the voters in November issuing statements against the mosque. A candidate for governor in Florida has put his opposition in a campaign commercial. This is a crass exploitation of people’s genuine emotion and pain that is beneath contempt.

Politicians who are using this issue as a wedge issue deserve nothing but our utter disapprobation. The philosopher Immanuel Kant gave us the categorical imperative as a moral guide. It says: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kant also argued that one ought to treat others not as a means to an end, but as ends in themselves. The people who are saddened and angry about September 11, about the loss of their loved ones and/or about the assault on this nation are being used as a means to an end, and that end is the election of this or that candidate.

To answer the questions: I do not agree that President Obama hedged his position on the mosque. As president of the United States, he is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and that is what he did in his initial remarks on this subject. When he said the next day that he would not comment on the wisdom of building the mosque, that too was appropriate in my opinion. Such a statement would have been a step too far for the president of the United States to take. There are enough others to comment on the wisdom of building the mosque. Hamas’ endorsement of the project is neither here nor there. To give it too much weight either way is to fall into the logical fallacy of guilt by association, or to judge a proposition wrong because someone we do not like thinks that it is right. Moreover, in my opinion, the mistaken idea that Islam attacked the United States is behind public opposition to the mosque. To return to a question this panel addressed several weeks ago, terrorists are criminals and not religious leaders or heroes. They do violence for the sake of politics and economics, not for the sake of religion. God does not want, need, or require human violence.

This is a complicated issue. It is possible to believe in religious freedom and to think that the mosque is not appropriate. Some people say it is a matter of time, that after more time has passed, people will be willing to see a mosque and a community center near ground zero. I do not think this is true. I know that for me, more than a century after the Civil War, I still do not want to see a confederate flag flying on state property. When I see it on someone’s personal property, I wonder what the symbol means to them. I know what it means to me.

Thus, it is imperative to disconnect Islam from terrorism. And that is why the building of this mosque is not only wise but necessary. We need the space for interreligious dialogue. We need to know more about Islam because we do not fear what we know. We fear the unfamiliar. But, most importantly, we need to demonstrate to the terrorists that they have not sown seeds of fear and hatred in our hearts nor in our country. America’s values of pluralism, acceptance, respect and radical love remain intact, and if anything are growing stronger.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve got no use for religion, but I have plenty of use for the Constitution. As Ian Welsh puts it:

Freedom of religion is a fundamental American value.

If you are against a mosque near the World Trade Center you are against freedom of religion.  That means you are anti-American.  You are a person who does not believe in the freedoms many Americans fought and died for.

There. I said it.

UPDATE: For those who want to claim that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is some kind of wild-eyed terrorist:

And yet Park51′s main movers, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan, are actually the kind of Muslim leaders right-wing commentators fantasize about: modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents — ironically, just the kind of “peaceful Muslims” whom Sarah Palin, in her now infamous tweet, asked to “refudiate” the mosque. Rauf is a Sufi, which is Islam’s most mystical and accommodating denomination.

[...]

Since 9/11, Western “experts” have said repeatedly that Muslim leaders who fit Rauf’s description should be sought out and empowered to fight the rising tide of extremism.

Huh. Isn’t that just the kind of person we’d want the State Department to send as our envoy to the Middle East?

Somerby: The Triumph of the Dumbest Idea

A must read:

Republican pols almost never voice this idea—they leave that to hacks like Sean Hannity. Presumably, Kyl’s blunder explains why McConnell did voice the dumbest idea in the world. But it doesn’t answer Paul Krugman’s question:

How can this dumbest idea survive, as it has for the past thirty years?

Why can’t we kill this dumbest idea? How can it continue to sow mistrust and confusion in the minds of talk-show listeners? In part, it’s a tribute to mainstream press lethargy—to the inability of big famous “journalists” to discuss almost any budget issue. But in larger part, the failure rests with us hapless liberals. It isn’t just this dumbest idea which has made a rolling joke of our discourse. Here’s a list of the world’s five dumbest ideas, all of which are alive and well, sowing confusion, after a good many years:

If we lower our tax rates, we get higher revenue!

Social Security will go bankrupt in the year [xxxx]!

The top one percent pay [xxx] percent of federal taxes, a vastly disproportionate share!

European-style health care has failed everywhere it’s ever been tried!

When it snows in Washington, that proves that global warming’s a hoax!

These dumbest ideas continue to thrive, enabled by liberal indolence. We liberals love to complain about Fox. But the real problem lies with us—with our hapless, dishonorable, highly indifferent “intellectual leaders.” Lower tax rates produce higher revenue? Even the gods on Olympus avert their gaze as we “liberals” allow this cant to survive, as we’ve done for the past thirty years.

Name a famous TV liberal. He or she has played a role in letting this nonsense persist. They’ve been kissing the keisters of fame—and letting the dumbest ideas in the world rule the American discourse. Have you ever seen a serious effort to address those dumbest ideas in a systematic fashion? Have you ever seen a serious effort to tell centrist and conservative voters about the ways they’re being misled in this long, rolling, ludicrous con game?

In a word? No.

In a nutshell

The recent flap over the Shirley Sherrod firing is a crystal clear example of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party and why there appears to be no hope for it whatsoever.

Krugman nails it:

What’s shocking here isn’t the behavior of the right, which was par for the course. It’s the seemingly limitless credulity of the inside-the-Beltway crowd. I mean, there’s a history here: ACORN, Climategate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, and much much more. (Someone recently reminded me that the GOP held two weeks of hearing on the Clinton Christmas card list.) When the right-wing noise machine starts promoting another alleged scandal, you shouldn’t suspect that it’s fake — you should presume that it’s fake, until further evidence becomes available.

But no. That isn’t what happened. Without even so much as a phone call to Ms. Sherrod, without even a cursory examination of the evidence, and by evidence, I mean the full videotape, not some taken-out-of-context piece of crap on a rightwing web site. Without even a call to the NAACP, for crying out loud, to ask them what they knew of this, the Obama administration and Tom Vilsack believed the wingers. Hook. Line. Sinker. Then, without doing as much as your average Human Resources Specialist would do, they went straight for the nuclear option and forced her to resign. No investigation, just, OMG! We’re gonna be bad-mouthed on FOX tonight! You’ve gotta go!

Gawd.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!  And don’t even get me started on the flat out, in-your-face, racist and yes, sexist, bullshit this all was. That they would believe that this woman would stand up in front of the NAACP and tell a tale of how she got one over on Whitey is ridiculous to you and me. But it wasn’t to the beltway insiders. And it wasn’t to Tom Vilsack or Barack Obama.  Well of course they believed it. Well of course a black woman would do this. And they wanted her gone, because she made The O look bad.  Bastards.

Well now, they’ve realized that they have stepped in a big pile of shit, and they are in damage control.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack personally apologized to the black USDA employee he ousted after a furor over an edited videotape of remarks she made in a March speech, saying he “did not handle this situation well.”

Vilsack said yesterday he called Shirley Sherrod to extend “my personal and profound apologies” and that he took full responsibility for turmoil caused when he demanded her resignation without fully investigating the circumstances. He also extended a job offer to Sherrod, 62, who had been the agency’s director of rural development for Georgia.

“This is a good woman; she’s been put through hell,” Vilsack said at a news conference in Washington. “I could have done and should have done a better job.”

President Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, earlier issued an apology on behalf of the administration and said “a disservice” was done to Sherrod.

Vilsack fell on his sword to protect The O.

Vilsack said the White House didn’t pressure him to seek Sherrod’s resignation.

“This was my decision and I made it in haste,” Vilsack said. “I asked for Shirley’s forgiveness, and she was gracious enough to extend it to me.”

Tell me, why hasn’t Vilsak been forced to resign?

And these people are running the country? They couldn’t even do what your average Human Resources  investigate this and we think they can investigate the BP oil disaster? Rein in Wall Street? Reform Health Care?

Vilsack has offered Ms. Sherrod another job. If I were her, I’d find a good attorney instead.

So, what’s on your mind today? This is an open thread.

What Cinie said

All of it, but most especially THIS:

Buy a clue, people.  The man sold out his own pastor for political expediency, for crying out loud!   As just about any PUMA hearted voter could have told you from Day One, the man has no motivating principles and beliefs other than self aggrandizement.  He is the equivalent of a picture of a hologram, a shape shifter, a charlatan, a fraud, and now, Spokesmodel-In-Chief.  He equivocates, pontificates and backtracks on things he said just minutes ago, because he doesn’t have a clue about what he’s supposed to say until he’s briefed immediately before the latest taped TelePrompTer reading.

Contrary to popular belief, many self-identified current and former PUMAs came to support Clinton not only out of a fervent belief that  she was the far better Democratic candidate, but by an equally unassailable conviction that Barack Obama was such an incredibly awful, unvetted one.  For those voters, me included, it was never a “six of one, half dozen of the other” proposition.  And, the fact that he prevailed without doing one single thing to prove himself better that her, or anybody else, or even independently worthy, for that matter, only adds insult to injury.

And if this makes me “bitter,” well then, so be it.

“a practical vision of principled incrementalism”

What’s not to like?

Allaying public concerns about health security can be achieved by addressing a few basic problems directly–and without unraveling the current system. The easiest way to do that is by pursuing the short list of reforms for which there is already a national consensus. Relatively simple changes to insurance regulation, for example, can eliminate the barriers to health insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions. The unemployed or people whose employers do not provide health insurance should be able to deduct the full cost of their premiums. The federal government could target its health spending to provide clinics in rural areas and inner cities where access to health care remains a problem. Long-overdue reforms to medical malpractice law would help lower insurance rates across the board. And a simplified, uniform insurance form would reduce paperwork, another unnecessary irritant of the current system. All these small steps would make health insurance less costly and health care easier to obtain.

[...]  States might be permitted to operate Medicare and Medicaid programs through managed care, for example, rather than through now-mandated fee-for-service plans–and thereby realize huge cost savings in their own budgets. [...] In fact, there are all sorts of cumbersome and costly health care mandates and regulations now imposed on states: they should be lifted to allow governors to allocate their federal programs in the most efficient way. The potential savings from Medicare and Medicaid–the engine of our escalating federal deficit–are enormous.

[...] A more ambitious agenda of free-market reforms remains open for the future: medical IRAs, tax credits and vouchers for insurance, and the like.

[...] a practical vision of principled incrementalism.

This set of guidelines sounds just like the HCR bill that is now going down in flames because there aren’t enough Republican votes for it. 

So, who wrote this?

“…a facsimile of liberal values tied up in a “clean” package”

Anglachel has been dark for awhile now and only graces us with one of her posts when something really sticks in her craw. To those of us who’ve been hanging on and waiting for Anglachel’s laser beam, today we have been rewarded.

Are you taking your well-heeled asses to local produce stands, mom-and-pop owned corner markets, and some of the run-down independent grocers in the area who keep the money in the community? No? Why not? Because they don’t sell perfectly shaped, organically grown, blemish-free red bell peppers imported from Holland for $4 each? Just the kind of dinged-up weird looking ones from Mexico at two for $1? Because they don’t have nice looking stores with artfully arranged end caps and bright, colorful posters? Because they are a bit grimy around the edges and have people using food stamps at the checkout line? Becuse poor people with bad eating habits shop there and you don’t like having to mix with the non-beautiful people?

Uh-huh. Riiiiight, you’re there for the healthy, organic, natural food. Which is packaged at the same factories and comes from the same industrial farms and ranches as the other stuff, but has that pretty “365″ label on it.

No, you’re there to shop in an upscale grocery store where dirty poor people aren’t able to join you, but marketed in such a way that you can pretend you’re doing this for socially responsible reasons.