I have been on vacay this week, trying to dig myself and BMNB out of our garage full of twenty years' worth of crap in time for a neighborhood garage sale. I'd been avoiding the Internet, avoiding anything related to work, and not reading the newspaper. I was doing well until I tuned in to watch President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress on health care reform. I was multi-tasking, I admit, trying to listen and load the dishwasher and sort clothes that had been in storage for five years when I heard the following in response to the President's statement that illegal immigrants would not be covered under health care reform:
"You lie."
WTF? I knew I didn't hear what I thought I'd heard. Considering the audience was, or should have been, members of Congress and high-ranking officials associated with the President, who would dare to call the President of the United States a liar in the Capitol building, on the floor of the House? What idiot would dare?
That idiot would be GOP Representative Joe Wilson, courtesy of South Carolina, the same state whose governor is intent on not only flying, but flaunting, his freak flag AND staying in office.
Mind you, Black Woman Blogging is not a role model when it comes to decorum. I've blogged about throwing shoes at President George W. Bush. But I wouldn't have really done it. He was, after all, the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World. And I wasn't an elected representative held to a higher standard, nor will I ever be, given this blog.
But calling the President a liar in the nation's Capitol? That's going way too far. Representative Wilson wasn't alone in his breach of decorum, however. What we out in television land couldn't see were the members of Congress who held up signs like they were at a party convention instead of a joint session of Congress. What we did hear was the mocking laughter when the President said that some specifics of his plan remained to be ironed out. I think Representative Joe Wilson, along with some conservative members of Congress, the Tea Party people, the conservative shock jocks, and the Birthers, are, as we say, "smelling themselves." Now that Rep. Wilson has broken the decorum ceiling and heckled the President in the House chambers, what's next? Throwing shoes? Dare I say it -- the "N-word"?
There's a strange dynamic going on here that no one seems to want to talk about, including President Obama: Some, but not all, of the disrespect and disagreement shown him is the product of racism. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel noted that no president has ever been treated like this by Congress, ever. Hmmm . . . I wonder why? What makes this president different than all the rest that he would be treated so rudely?
Race. Let's just tell the truth and shame the devil, or devils, as it were.
Ask yourself: Do you think President Obama would be treated as poorly as he has been by those who disagree with him if he were white? Somehow, I don't think so. That's not to say that some who disagree with his policies and plans aren't rational or well-reasoned, even if they express their disagreement in a fever-pitched and shrill manner. But the rational and well-reasoned folks seem to be in the oppositional minority, and, unlike John McCain, they aren't checking their whackjob and sometimes racist compatriots. I just don't recall the disagreement rising to such a level of disrepect under the Bush Administration -- at least not on American soil -- or under previous administrations, but let me know if I'm wrong. And those aspiring assassins like John Hinckley and Squeaky Fromme don't count, since they were plain crazy.
I bet President Obama probably thinks that by drawing attention to the veiled racism in all this, he will ultimately lose the battle for the ideas and programs he believes in because the race discussion will become a distraction. I get that. What I don't get is why the rest of us -- of all races, mind you -- who can and should call attention to the role of racism in the opposition politics aren't saying more about it.
Is it fair to ask those who oppose President Obama's policies in such strident and rude ways, "Would you have heckled President Clinton? Do you contend that Senator McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base in Panama, is not a citizen?" I think it is incumbent upon those of us who see the covert racism involved in some of the fanatical opposition to expose it for what it is. I bet that most of those who oppose health care reform on the grounds that it's socialism can't spell socialism or don't know the difference between socialism, communism, and capitalism. You can usually get to the bottom of the racism at work when you ask, "What about President Obama's policies don't you like?" and the only response you get is something on the order of, "I just don't like him at all."
And I'm just waiting for a member of Congress or some other elected official to forget their mic is "hot" and say the word they've probably been using all along about President Obama: The N-word.
Think about it -- what else could unite people who, on paper, have interests that could not be more divergent? How is it that working class and poor whites -- do you see wealthy whites at the Tea Parties or among the Birthers? -- would line up with big Pharma, the insurance industry (on the DL), and other corporate interests against health care reform when, given their proportion of the population, working class and poor whites have more to gain from health care reform than any other group?
In the meantime, I think it's time for the President to stop taking strategic communications advice from Axelrod and Gibbs and start taking it from Williams and Iverson -- Katt and Allen, to be precise. I think the time has come for him to stop being so magnanimous with his opponents and stop assuming that wise and reasoned discussion will prevail. It's time for some presidential swagger as only a black man and Bill Clinton can provide. He needs to stop being so articulate and reasoned and start throwing some 'bows like Iverson and smacking around those blue-dog Democrats, like they were, well, you know, to get the votes he needs to get the job done. He needs to go all out with the votes he has and with the votes he's entitled to --yes, I said entitled to I -- merely because he is the leader of his party. He needs to act like he won't get a second term. Hell, he won't even get a second half of his first term if the mid-term elections turn ugly, so he has nothing to lose by acting up.
I'd suggest he signal the beginning of this race-conscious and less magnanimous Obama adminstration with a private meeting with Representative Wilson in the Oval Office behind closed doors that begins with his head slightly cocked, his eyes slightly squinted, and the greeting, "What did you call me? I know you didn't call me a liar . . . . "
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Someday We'll All Be Free
I admire that President Obama has taken the high road and is trying to make peace between Officer Crowley and Professor Gates. What concerns me is whether he felt forced to do so by the firestorm of media coverage and the outrage of whites who felt that Professor Gates was playing the race card. To the extent that Professor Gates was playing any such card, in my opinion, he was probably playing the class card, refusing to be discriminated against based on race because he had the class clout to trump the officer's power. That Professor Gates has the ear of the President and is part of a vast network of African American elites that many whites don't know of might have been disconcerting to some.
But to watch the Leader of the Freakin' Free World "walking back" his "stupidly" comment when many like me in the African American community agreed with it? That was disconcerting to me, not because I think I'm right, but because I think the President has the right to say what he thinks like those who came before him. When was the last time you heard a President say anything approximating an apology for a political opinion?
I always thought that the President had the freedom and the right to say what he thinks, even if it's disagreeable to some, and to stand by his words merely because he is the Leader of the Freakin' Free World. Like President Bush, he could admit to no mistakes and the public would have to live with it. I thought it was the privilege of being POTUS.
Apparently President Obama isn't as free as we thought, nor does he enjoy the same privileges as President as did his predecessor. Or perhaps he simply chooses not to enjoy those same privileges of saying what he thinks, no matter what others think. I hope it's the latter. If he walked back his comments for the purpose of focusing on health care, cool. If he walked back his comments because they were displeasing to a large part of the populace, not cool. Officer Crowley did indeed act stupidly. Unless Professor Gates was a physical threat to him or others, there was no need to arrest him other than to make a point unrelated to public safety and welfare: I'm the one with power, you're not. That Officer Crowley was intransigent in his position afterwards was the exclamation mark over this point. He, as a public servant, should be held to the higher standard, not Professor Gates.
First, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has to sit there and take it during her confirmation hearings when some hick Senator told her she "had some 'splainin to do." Then the Leader of the Freakin' Free World walks back his comments about a cop on a power trip.
We ain't free yet, y'all. Don't get it twisted.
But, perhaps, in the words of a Donny Hathaway song, "Someday We'll All Be Free."
Just not this week.
But to watch the Leader of the Freakin' Free World "walking back" his "stupidly" comment when many like me in the African American community agreed with it? That was disconcerting to me, not because I think I'm right, but because I think the President has the right to say what he thinks like those who came before him. When was the last time you heard a President say anything approximating an apology for a political opinion?
I always thought that the President had the freedom and the right to say what he thinks, even if it's disagreeable to some, and to stand by his words merely because he is the Leader of the Freakin' Free World. Like President Bush, he could admit to no mistakes and the public would have to live with it. I thought it was the privilege of being POTUS.
Apparently President Obama isn't as free as we thought, nor does he enjoy the same privileges as President as did his predecessor. Or perhaps he simply chooses not to enjoy those same privileges of saying what he thinks, no matter what others think. I hope it's the latter. If he walked back his comments for the purpose of focusing on health care, cool. If he walked back his comments because they were displeasing to a large part of the populace, not cool. Officer Crowley did indeed act stupidly. Unless Professor Gates was a physical threat to him or others, there was no need to arrest him other than to make a point unrelated to public safety and welfare: I'm the one with power, you're not. That Officer Crowley was intransigent in his position afterwards was the exclamation mark over this point. He, as a public servant, should be held to the higher standard, not Professor Gates.
First, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has to sit there and take it during her confirmation hearings when some hick Senator told her she "had some 'splainin to do." Then the Leader of the Freakin' Free World walks back his comments about a cop on a power trip.
We ain't free yet, y'all. Don't get it twisted.
But, perhaps, in the words of a Donny Hathaway song, "Someday We'll All Be Free."
Just not this week.
President Obama's First 100 Days --- Hell, Yeah!
There were those Italians who said their country was better when Mussolini was in charge, citing the timeliness of trains under his reign.
There were those Spaniards who said their country was better when Franco was in charge, citing the increased sexual openness after his demise.
And I’m sure there are those Iraqis who say their country was better when Saddam Hussein was in charge. They might have a point, from a day-to-day living point of view.
But those Americans who say this country was better when President George W. Bush was in charge?
They’re full of shit.
First, it’s only been 100 days since President Obama took office.
Second, I believe, but I’m not certain, that:
*President Obama has had more press conferences during his first 100 days then President Bush had during his last term;
*President Obama has taken more action to fight the recession than President Bush did.
*President Obama has done more to earn respect from foreign nations than did President Bush.
*President Obama has put the U.S. on higher moral ground in terms of foreign policy and international law than the moral morass we were in under the Bush administration. For those ignorant Americans who believe that American foreign policy means beating your opponents into submission and twisting the arms of your allies to get them to fight with you, just wait and see what happens when the U.S. is no longer the largest economic engine in the world and India and China start twisting our arms. No empire – whether it’s the Roman, British, Chinese, or Persian – stays on top forever. That’s just God’s way of shuffling the power deck, IMHO.
*President Obama actually wants to observe international law, not subvert it. By the way, Dick Cheney, I wouldn’t accept any packages or heavy envelopes from The Hague if I were you.
*President Obama has taken policy stances on or has stated his intention to take policy stances on issues of importance to everyday Americans – health care, education (I’m so digging the direct student loan program), the environment (no more silence on the mountaintop mining issue!), tax cuts for the middle class, the war on terrorism (It’s Afghanistan, stupid!), the credit card industry (die, Visa, die!), federal spending (going over the budget with a fine-toothed comb and finding savings, even if they are small in comparison to the deficit -- still waiting for that Republican budget!), international economic competitiveness (no more gas guzzling SUVs, GM – what’s good for GM isn’t necessarily good for American OR the environment), torture (waterboarding IS torture!) and more.
And what’s impressive is that I, an everyday citizen, can actually tell you what the President is working on. President Bush? If he was working at all, it was a mystery to me.
The stock market is slowly starting to edge up. The real estate market just might be bottoming out. And I actually know what my President is trying to do for my country. That alone is a stark improvement over the last eight years.
I’ll take President Obama’s first 100 days over President Bush’s eight years any day, hell yeah!
Tax Protesters: Put Your Signs Down
I was walking back to my office when I saw the Tax Tea Party protest in front of the State Capitol in Sacramento. It looked like Woodstock for angry neo-cons. Many of the signs expressed sentiments that were anti-tax and anti-deficit. Too many of them expressed sentiments that were simply anti-Obama.
First, let’s define our terms. The national deficit is the amount of government spending that exceeds government revenues in any particular year. The national debt is the accumulation of all the past national deficits. As far as the national debt, to borrow from a familiar phrase, we didn’t get this far by President Obama alone.
Truth be told, many people who were participating in these tax protests had no business being out there. Many of the people who were out there have contributed, in one way or another, to the national debt and the current expected deficit. Let’s separate the wheat – the honest-to-goodness fiscal conservatives – from the chaff – the Obama haters. If you participated in any of the Tax Day Tea Parties, go ahead and grab your protest sign and continue reading to see which you are:
If you voted solely for Republican presidential candidates from President Reagan on, put your sign down. Reagan incurred huge national deficits, and on average, Republicans have incurred more national deficits than Democrats since Reagan. When Bill Clinton left office, he had a surplus to go with his articles of impeachment.
If you ever received a Pell grant, put your sign down.
If you were ever on welfare, put your sign down.
If you never wrote a letter to Congress about U.S. corporations moving their corporate headquarters to avoid paying federal corporate taxes, put your sign down.
If you supported the war in Iraq solely because you thought Saddam Hussein was a “bad man” and needed to go, put your sign down. There are many despotic world leaders who need to be deposed – Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, you name it -- but that’s no reason to go into debt.
If you continued to support the war in Iraq after it had been made abundantly clear that there were no WMDs or Al Qaida there at the time the war started, put your sign down. In fact, hit yourself on the head with your sign. Don’t worry – the damage has already been done because clearly your momma dropped you on your head when you were a baby.
If you didn’t make a peep of protest about the no-bid contracts to Blackwater and Halliburton, put your sign down.
If you are among the 95% of people who will benefit from the tax cuts proposed by President Obama or if you benefited from the Bush tax cuts, put your sign down. You can’t complain about a deficit or the national debt and pocket the change from a tax cut at the same time.
If you are collecting Social Security, put your sign down. Entitlement spending is the largest part of the federal budget. Yes, I know you paid into Social Security, but we all know Social Security is a big Ponzi scheme. Your money went to support the folks before you, and my money is going to support you. If you want to reduce the national debt, take up drinking and smoking, put down the Lipitor, and contract a quick-acting terminal disease.
If you are on Medicare or Medicaid and have an obesity- or smoking-related disease, put your sign down because that is totally within your control and you’re sucking up entitlement dollars. Grab a Nicorette, a carrot, and a Tae-Bo DVD and handle your business. Don’t tell me you can’t do Tae-Bo on a scooter.
If you’ve claimed tax deductions for your children, put your sign down. Unless your children were child actors or child prostitutes, they benefited more from federal expenditures than they contributed to the public fisc during their years as minors. I don’t think you should get a tax deduction just for being fertile and popping out a baby, especially if you’re the Octumom.
If you drive a gas-guzzling SUV or truck, put your sign down. We’re bailing out the auto industry because you continued to prop up a business model that was doomed to fail – vehicles reliant on low gas prices for sales in a nation that relies on other nations for its gas. If you drove a Hummer to the protest, hit yourself with the sign.
If you bought a house after 1999 that cost more than 3 times your gross income without a down payment and lost it due to foreclosure, put your sign down. You are so much a part of the problem, you shouldn’t have had the nerve to even show up. And you know you had no business buying that house. You were as wrong as the day is long.
By my count, that leaves about 3 protesters . . . .
First, let’s define our terms. The national deficit is the amount of government spending that exceeds government revenues in any particular year. The national debt is the accumulation of all the past national deficits. As far as the national debt, to borrow from a familiar phrase, we didn’t get this far by President Obama alone.
Truth be told, many people who were participating in these tax protests had no business being out there. Many of the people who were out there have contributed, in one way or another, to the national debt and the current expected deficit. Let’s separate the wheat – the honest-to-goodness fiscal conservatives – from the chaff – the Obama haters. If you participated in any of the Tax Day Tea Parties, go ahead and grab your protest sign and continue reading to see which you are:
If you voted solely for Republican presidential candidates from President Reagan on, put your sign down. Reagan incurred huge national deficits, and on average, Republicans have incurred more national deficits than Democrats since Reagan. When Bill Clinton left office, he had a surplus to go with his articles of impeachment.
If you ever received a Pell grant, put your sign down.
If you were ever on welfare, put your sign down.
If you never wrote a letter to Congress about U.S. corporations moving their corporate headquarters to avoid paying federal corporate taxes, put your sign down.
If you supported the war in Iraq solely because you thought Saddam Hussein was a “bad man” and needed to go, put your sign down. There are many despotic world leaders who need to be deposed – Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, you name it -- but that’s no reason to go into debt.
If you continued to support the war in Iraq after it had been made abundantly clear that there were no WMDs or Al Qaida there at the time the war started, put your sign down. In fact, hit yourself on the head with your sign. Don’t worry – the damage has already been done because clearly your momma dropped you on your head when you were a baby.
If you didn’t make a peep of protest about the no-bid contracts to Blackwater and Halliburton, put your sign down.
If you are among the 95% of people who will benefit from the tax cuts proposed by President Obama or if you benefited from the Bush tax cuts, put your sign down. You can’t complain about a deficit or the national debt and pocket the change from a tax cut at the same time.
If you are collecting Social Security, put your sign down. Entitlement spending is the largest part of the federal budget. Yes, I know you paid into Social Security, but we all know Social Security is a big Ponzi scheme. Your money went to support the folks before you, and my money is going to support you. If you want to reduce the national debt, take up drinking and smoking, put down the Lipitor, and contract a quick-acting terminal disease.
If you are on Medicare or Medicaid and have an obesity- or smoking-related disease, put your sign down because that is totally within your control and you’re sucking up entitlement dollars. Grab a Nicorette, a carrot, and a Tae-Bo DVD and handle your business. Don’t tell me you can’t do Tae-Bo on a scooter.
If you’ve claimed tax deductions for your children, put your sign down. Unless your children were child actors or child prostitutes, they benefited more from federal expenditures than they contributed to the public fisc during their years as minors. I don’t think you should get a tax deduction just for being fertile and popping out a baby, especially if you’re the Octumom.
If you drive a gas-guzzling SUV or truck, put your sign down. We’re bailing out the auto industry because you continued to prop up a business model that was doomed to fail – vehicles reliant on low gas prices for sales in a nation that relies on other nations for its gas. If you drove a Hummer to the protest, hit yourself with the sign.
If you bought a house after 1999 that cost more than 3 times your gross income without a down payment and lost it due to foreclosure, put your sign down. You are so much a part of the problem, you shouldn’t have had the nerve to even show up. And you know you had no business buying that house. You were as wrong as the day is long.
By my count, that leaves about 3 protesters . . . .
Unspoken Assumptions and Unfounded Fears
This week, President and Mrs. Obama are touring Europe, their first stop being Great Britain and the G-20 summit. The media have spent almost as much energy discussing Mrs. Obama’s potential fashion choices as they have the chances of Mr. Obama getting other European governments to increase their own domestic stimulus spending. However, the tone of discussion surrounding Mrs. Obama’s potential fashion choices wasn’t solely upbeat and optimistic (“Gee, I wonder which designer she’s going to surprise us with!”), but more of trepidation that Mrs. Obama wouldn’t know exactly what was proper attire for a visit with Queen Elizabeth (“She does know that sleeveless might not be appropriate for meeting the Queen, doesn’t she?”) or other official protocol, like not touching the Queen, who, by the way, touched Mrs. Obama FIRST.
Let me just put it out there: The unspoken assumption was that Mrs. Obama wouldn’t know how to dress or act properly for formal occasions on foreign soil. She’s already been called “trash” by some in the media, and one commentator had the nerve to compare her to the female dog the Obamas plan to get for their daughters.
The unfounded fear was that she might embarrass the nation. Let’s take that apart first.
For those Americans who have not traveled to Europe, here’s a news flash: You can’t embarrass the United States in Europe, or any place else in the world for that matter, any more than the United States has already embarrassed itself. The bar for Europeans’ expectations of American civility and culture is pretty darn low, and it was set that way long before Mrs. Obama met Queen Elizabeth. Mrs. Obama would have had to have worn a pair of Apple Bottom jeans, a metallic tank top with no bra, and some Candies shoes and dropped it like it was hot in Trafalgar Square before she had lowered Europeans’ expectations of Americans when it comes to civility and culture.
Let’s see – wasn’t it our last president, the then-Leader of the Free World, who had the temerity to wink at Queen Elizabeth when she came for a state visit? (Dude, she’s married, happily or unhappily, for over what – 50 years?) And Mickey Rooney all but dry humped Her Majesty during her visit here. I can imagine she couldn’t get back to stalking at Balmoral soon enough. She probably thought the elk in the Scottish highlands were better behaved than the Americans she met on her last visit here.
And no one said a peep about what First Lady Laura Bush wore to meet the Queen. Oh, but she must know how to act and dress properly, right, since she’s a . . . wait, isn’t she a chain smoker who actually killed someone while driving? Right. But she probably knows how to comport herself with heads of state, though.
Then, let’s not forget President George W. Bush’s visit to Brazil, where he openly admitted his ignorance of the fact that Brazil has the largest population of people of African descent outside of Africa. “Did you know that?”, he openly questioned the then-Tutor-in-Chief, Condi Rice, who had to school our President publicly about the racial makeup of Brazil. During a state visit. In public. I don’t know about you, but I was embarrassed. Almost as embarrassed as I was when the first President Bush threw up and passed out at a state dinner in Japan.
Mrs. Obama couldn’t have possibly done worse, even if she tried.
America, get it through your heads: Mrs. Obama isn’t Lil Kim. Or Britney Spears for that matter. She had a proper upbringing, went to elite schools, and probably knows a lot more about protocol and manners than most of the trash, trailer and otherwise, who are worried that she, of all people, might not know how to dress and carry herself. My message is simple: Before you worry about how Mrs. Obama is handling her business, you need to ask yourselves how you’re handling your own. Do your own children have good manners? Do they know how to dress appropriately for different occasions, i.e., t-shirts and/or jeans are not appropriate for church or funerals? Does your husband know to take a hostess gift to a party? Do you know which fork is the salad fork and where the bread plate is? America, before you check Mrs. Obama on her wardrobe and manners, you really need to check yourselves first. Don’t assume that just because she’s black that she doesn’t know protocol and doesn’t have manners.
And don’t act like you weren’t.
Let me just put it out there: The unspoken assumption was that Mrs. Obama wouldn’t know how to dress or act properly for formal occasions on foreign soil. She’s already been called “trash” by some in the media, and one commentator had the nerve to compare her to the female dog the Obamas plan to get for their daughters.
The unfounded fear was that she might embarrass the nation. Let’s take that apart first.
For those Americans who have not traveled to Europe, here’s a news flash: You can’t embarrass the United States in Europe, or any place else in the world for that matter, any more than the United States has already embarrassed itself. The bar for Europeans’ expectations of American civility and culture is pretty darn low, and it was set that way long before Mrs. Obama met Queen Elizabeth. Mrs. Obama would have had to have worn a pair of Apple Bottom jeans, a metallic tank top with no bra, and some Candies shoes and dropped it like it was hot in Trafalgar Square before she had lowered Europeans’ expectations of Americans when it comes to civility and culture.
Let’s see – wasn’t it our last president, the then-Leader of the Free World, who had the temerity to wink at Queen Elizabeth when she came for a state visit? (Dude, she’s married, happily or unhappily, for over what – 50 years?) And Mickey Rooney all but dry humped Her Majesty during her visit here. I can imagine she couldn’t get back to stalking at Balmoral soon enough. She probably thought the elk in the Scottish highlands were better behaved than the Americans she met on her last visit here.
And no one said a peep about what First Lady Laura Bush wore to meet the Queen. Oh, but she must know how to act and dress properly, right, since she’s a . . . wait, isn’t she a chain smoker who actually killed someone while driving? Right. But she probably knows how to comport herself with heads of state, though.
Then, let’s not forget President George W. Bush’s visit to Brazil, where he openly admitted his ignorance of the fact that Brazil has the largest population of people of African descent outside of Africa. “Did you know that?”, he openly questioned the then-Tutor-in-Chief, Condi Rice, who had to school our President publicly about the racial makeup of Brazil. During a state visit. In public. I don’t know about you, but I was embarrassed. Almost as embarrassed as I was when the first President Bush threw up and passed out at a state dinner in Japan.
Mrs. Obama couldn’t have possibly done worse, even if she tried.
America, get it through your heads: Mrs. Obama isn’t Lil Kim. Or Britney Spears for that matter. She had a proper upbringing, went to elite schools, and probably knows a lot more about protocol and manners than most of the trash, trailer and otherwise, who are worried that she, of all people, might not know how to dress and carry herself. My message is simple: Before you worry about how Mrs. Obama is handling her business, you need to ask yourselves how you’re handling your own. Do your own children have good manners? Do they know how to dress appropriately for different occasions, i.e., t-shirts and/or jeans are not appropriate for church or funerals? Does your husband know to take a hostess gift to a party? Do you know which fork is the salad fork and where the bread plate is? America, before you check Mrs. Obama on her wardrobe and manners, you really need to check yourselves first. Don’t assume that just because she’s black that she doesn’t know protocol and doesn’t have manners.
And don’t act like you weren’t.
Professor in Chief
The pundits are weighing in on President Obama’s second press conference. Gee, isn’t that one more press conference than President Bush had during his second term? Anyhoo, the responses have ranged from a “not a good night at all” rating from William Bennett (as if I expected anything else) to the folks on MSNBC calling his performance that of the “Professor in Chief.”
Bingo!
As I watched the press conference with BMNB (my husband, Black Man Not Blogging), I told him, “You know, he’s had the best preparation for this press conference that there could ever be – being a law professor.” As a former law professor, I couldn’t help but smile.
As a law professor, you have to be knowledgeable about your subject matter, yet humble and confident enough to say when you don’t know something and get back to your students with an answer. You know that not all questions posed by your students will be for the purpose of seeking knowledge. If you’re a rookie professor or, depending on what part of the country you’re in, a professor of color, you know that many questions will be asked by students to test you, to demean you, to marginalize you. The key is to give every question equal respect and tone lest you be perceived as arrogant, cold (the adjective most often applied to women law professors, as if we’re supposed to be warm and fuzzy by virtue of possessing ovaries), or angry. You can, if you're as skillful as President Obama, phrase your answer in a tone that is respectful but with words that smack down your offending questioners, e.g, "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." And like the press corps, law students will ask follow-up questions if they think you’ve dodged their question. President Obama handled the press corps like a class of first-year law students, and, unlike the wide latitude they gave President Bush’s rambling filibusters, I don’t think the press corps knew quite what to make of or do with President Obama.
Like a law professor, a president in a press conference is, ultimately, in control. You choose whom to call on, and the power to ignore someone – and in the case of a class of law students, to publicly ignore someone with a hand raised for a substantial amount of time – is a source of control. Law professors have even more power in that they can defer questions you think aren’t germane to the day’s lecture to the time when that subject will be discussed, or explain, ever so tactfully, why the question isn’t relevant. But like a president in a press conference, you can never, ever lose your cool, because then the lecture or press conference becomes less about the information you’re trying to impart and more about you and your performance. If the message gets lost in the medium, you’ve lost the game and given your potential critics a legitimate criticism – you’re unclear, unfocused, or emotional. Kinda like President Bush.
I think President Obama played it like a pro – a professor, that is.
But I did detect a slight saunter, a bit of a “pimp roll,” shall we say, when he departed the East Room.
He’s cool like that.
Bingo!
As I watched the press conference with BMNB (my husband, Black Man Not Blogging), I told him, “You know, he’s had the best preparation for this press conference that there could ever be – being a law professor.” As a former law professor, I couldn’t help but smile.
As a law professor, you have to be knowledgeable about your subject matter, yet humble and confident enough to say when you don’t know something and get back to your students with an answer. You know that not all questions posed by your students will be for the purpose of seeking knowledge. If you’re a rookie professor or, depending on what part of the country you’re in, a professor of color, you know that many questions will be asked by students to test you, to demean you, to marginalize you. The key is to give every question equal respect and tone lest you be perceived as arrogant, cold (the adjective most often applied to women law professors, as if we’re supposed to be warm and fuzzy by virtue of possessing ovaries), or angry. You can, if you're as skillful as President Obama, phrase your answer in a tone that is respectful but with words that smack down your offending questioners, e.g, "I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." And like the press corps, law students will ask follow-up questions if they think you’ve dodged their question. President Obama handled the press corps like a class of first-year law students, and, unlike the wide latitude they gave President Bush’s rambling filibusters, I don’t think the press corps knew quite what to make of or do with President Obama.
Like a law professor, a president in a press conference is, ultimately, in control. You choose whom to call on, and the power to ignore someone – and in the case of a class of law students, to publicly ignore someone with a hand raised for a substantial amount of time – is a source of control. Law professors have even more power in that they can defer questions you think aren’t germane to the day’s lecture to the time when that subject will be discussed, or explain, ever so tactfully, why the question isn’t relevant. But like a president in a press conference, you can never, ever lose your cool, because then the lecture or press conference becomes less about the information you’re trying to impart and more about you and your performance. If the message gets lost in the medium, you’ve lost the game and given your potential critics a legitimate criticism – you’re unclear, unfocused, or emotional. Kinda like President Bush.
I think President Obama played it like a pro – a professor, that is.
But I did detect a slight saunter, a bit of a “pimp roll,” shall we say, when he departed the East Room.
He’s cool like that.
Well, Hell, I've Got Some Shoes To Throw
An Iraqi journalist throws two shoes at the President as an insult, one of the highest insults in his culture. And the mainstream American press brands him "crazy."
The hell he is. If he's crazy, so am I.
First, what kind of punk-ass Secret Service do we have that anyone could get close enough to throw not one, but two shoes at the Leader of the Free World? I don't know who was on duty that day, but they need to be furloughed before the REAL President, Barack Obama, takes office. Those kinds of mistakes are not acceptable. Not at all.
However, if I had known that it was that easy to roll up on POTUS and show my discontent by throwing shoes, I, too, would have hurled some shoes. And I don't part with my shoes easily. But if it got the point across that this president, more than any in my recent 45 year-old memory, was a complete and total failure, then, yes, I would have hurled some shoes, too. For example:
* A pair of stack-heeled black pumps to the side of the head for lying about WMD and getting us into the Iraq morass in the first place.
* A pair of stinky Nike Airmax's for having the temerity to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the government has the power to detain anyone indefinitely without trial, habeas corpus be damned.
* A pair of pink stilleto slingbacks in the ear for sanctioning torture at Abu Ghraib. Only cowards use torture.
* A pair of worn-out hiking boots for not getting rid of Donald Rumsfeld earlier.
* A pair of worn-out house slippers for having nothing more to say or do about the economy other than to say, "I'm sorry." Just shuffle on out of the White House in these house slippers so a real leader can take charge of the economy.
* A pair of navy blue pointy-toed Nine West pumps to Alberto Gonzalez and Harriet Meiers for firing U.S. Attorneys for their unwillingness to play politics with their prosecutorial power.
* A pair of cheap Payless running shoes for sanctioning rendition. That's just wrong on so many levels.
* A pair of faux suede pumps for a false effort to curry favor with the African American community through the faith-based initiatives.
* A pair of pointy-toed ankle boots to the head of Dick Cheney. Hell, any shoe to the head of Dick Cheney will do.
* A pair of worn-out sandals for setting up Guantanamo and trying to defend its purpose.
* A pair of peep-toe pumps for outing Valerie Plame, saying that anyone in the Administration who had anything to do with it would be punished, and then commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
* A pair of ballerina flats for the Administration's flat response to Hurricane Katrina and all those who were displaced by it.
* A pair of clear heels for the lack of transparency in creating energy policy and in trying to deny global warming. Well, I don't really own any clear heels, but I'd buy some just for this purpose.
I could go on, but I'm starting to run out of shoes . . .
The hell he is. If he's crazy, so am I.
First, what kind of punk-ass Secret Service do we have that anyone could get close enough to throw not one, but two shoes at the Leader of the Free World? I don't know who was on duty that day, but they need to be furloughed before the REAL President, Barack Obama, takes office. Those kinds of mistakes are not acceptable. Not at all.
However, if I had known that it was that easy to roll up on POTUS and show my discontent by throwing shoes, I, too, would have hurled some shoes. And I don't part with my shoes easily. But if it got the point across that this president, more than any in my recent 45 year-old memory, was a complete and total failure, then, yes, I would have hurled some shoes, too. For example:
* A pair of stack-heeled black pumps to the side of the head for lying about WMD and getting us into the Iraq morass in the first place.
* A pair of stinky Nike Airmax's for having the temerity to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court that the government has the power to detain anyone indefinitely without trial, habeas corpus be damned.
* A pair of pink stilleto slingbacks in the ear for sanctioning torture at Abu Ghraib. Only cowards use torture.
* A pair of worn-out hiking boots for not getting rid of Donald Rumsfeld earlier.
* A pair of worn-out house slippers for having nothing more to say or do about the economy other than to say, "I'm sorry." Just shuffle on out of the White House in these house slippers so a real leader can take charge of the economy.
* A pair of navy blue pointy-toed Nine West pumps to Alberto Gonzalez and Harriet Meiers for firing U.S. Attorneys for their unwillingness to play politics with their prosecutorial power.
* A pair of cheap Payless running shoes for sanctioning rendition. That's just wrong on so many levels.
* A pair of faux suede pumps for a false effort to curry favor with the African American community through the faith-based initiatives.
* A pair of pointy-toed ankle boots to the head of Dick Cheney. Hell, any shoe to the head of Dick Cheney will do.
* A pair of worn-out sandals for setting up Guantanamo and trying to defend its purpose.
* A pair of peep-toe pumps for outing Valerie Plame, saying that anyone in the Administration who had anything to do with it would be punished, and then commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
* A pair of ballerina flats for the Administration's flat response to Hurricane Katrina and all those who were displaced by it.
* A pair of clear heels for the lack of transparency in creating energy policy and in trying to deny global warming. Well, I don't really own any clear heels, but I'd buy some just for this purpose.
I could go on, but I'm starting to run out of shoes . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)