Remember those giddy days when the Obama-centric media was falling all over itself to compare the then newly elected President to some of his more prolific predecessors like FDR, Lincoln and even, *GASP*, Ronald Reagan? Who knew that they were leaving off one fellow in particular with which they could compare the new history making President: Richard Nixon. Yes, Nixon. Mind you, not the foreign policy wizard Nixon who turned the tables on the Soviet Union by making a friend out of Communist China. Not the progressive Nixon who brought the Environmental Protection Agency into being. Not even the awkwardly comedic Nixon who went on “Laugh In” and in pure straight man fashion delivered the iconic line “Sock it to me?” No, the Nixon which Barack Obama apparently is emulating, and not nearly as subtly, is the insecure, paranoid, spiteful Nixon who felt a need to have a secret enemies list. So far it would appear, however, that in contrast to Nixon President Obama’s enemies list is not so secret nor apparently so long; occupying the top slot of this list: FOX News.
The Democratic Party’s distaste for FOX News is hardly anything new. Though it may seem a lifetime away, it was only March of 2007 when the Democratic Party cancelled a scheduled debate to be co-hosted by FOX News simply for the fact that, well ,it was being co-hosted by FOX News. The “fair and balanced” cable news channel is well known for its ratings dominating lineup of pundits who are the antithesis of modern Liberalism: right of center Bill O’Reilly, Conservative Sean Hannity and most recently Libertarian leaning Glenn Beck. In light of the suppression of a free press in Putin’s Russia and Chavez’s Venezuela, both ostensibly democracies, it is both intriguing and disturbing to think of an American Administration discriminating against and openly attacking a news outlet.
In a less than subtle move to push his healthcare agenda, on September 19th President Obama broke all precedents (and some would say decorum) by blitzing the Sunday news talk shows of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and even Univision all to be capped off by being the sole guest the next evening on “Late Night With David Letterman”. Glaringly absent from this media tour was FOX News. In a most mature fashion White House spokesman John Earnest explained the snubbing by saying that “We figured Fox would rather show 'So You Think You Can Dance' than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform.” (The childish comment is a reference to the FOX Channel not airing the President’s September 9th speech to Congress although FOX News did carry the broadcast live.) All of this was just the first overt opening salvo.
“It’s really not a news network at this point.” These are the words of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn to the apparently Obama approved CNN. Dunn went so far as to say “the way we view it (FOX) is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party.” Well that’s fine and dandy, ma’am, but even were that true isn’t Barack Obama supposed to be the post-partisan President? You know, a uniter and not a divider? Is this the kind of dialogue and outreach to be expected by the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize? Do you mean to tell me that the President of the United States of America is not big enough to stand up to FOX News and yet the American public is supposed to believe he can stand eye to eye with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin in advancing our best interests? Give me a *expletive deleted* break!
In reference to September’s snubbing of FOX News Chris Wallace said that “they are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my thirty years in Washington.” Whereas I do not disagree with Mr. Wallace’s assessment I believe there is something of a much graver nature to be concerned with. In the world of politics where skin is supposed to be thicker than a rhino’s hide, in a land where dissent is a guaranteed right of our Constitution, what else might one expect from a so easily insulted and temper tantrum prone Presidency?
Five days after President Obama’s Sunday media blitz Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appeared on “Larry King Live” bolding declaring that “never in Venezuela we had so much freedom of speech as now.” Larry King brought to President Chavez’s attention the question of opposition media outlets that have been closed by the Venezuelan government or still yet might be. Chavez is well known to have actively silenced his critics through legislation and so in response to Larry’s questions President Chavez said “Listen. Listen, there is a law. You accept that there is a law, right? If I have a car, I drive my car in New York and I go against the — the rules, the traffic rules, I’m going to be detained. If I want to drive in a — in a — in a street in New York 120 miles, I will commit a crime. And there is a law in Venezuela, those who break the law, they lose their right to use the — these networks, because they break the law.” “There is a law.” There used to be a law here too.
John Adams, one of our most prolific and idealistic Founding Fathers signed into law the Sedition Act of 1798 which outlawed the publishing of “false, scandalous, and malicious writing.” From the generation of 1776 men were actually placed in prison for speaking against the President of the United States! Men who would later be freed by Thomas Jefferson; it was only because the law expired coinciding with the swearing in of the Jefferson administration that it was never challenged in the Supreme Court and yet since then many subsequent rulings have mentioned the Sedition Act as having been unconstitutional. So I ask you if a giant in American history such as John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, could be so enraged at his critics that he signed this Act into law should we not be at least somewhat apprehensive of less established leaders with much thinner resumes and extremely thin skin?
The Obama administration’s war on FOX News is at best a childish knee jerk reaction by an administration which was swept into office with the active cooperation of nearly all of FOX News’ competitors. This young, untested and too often unprofessional administration seems to have made the most rudimentary but deadly of mistakes: they believe their own hype. It is inconceivable to them and their supporters that any genuine dissent could exist and so they have revived the “vast Right wing conspiracy” theory or worse still even labeled dissenters as racists. The irony of course is that Americans have an irresistible curiosity of all things taboo and by taking aim at FOX News the Obama administration, rather than silence a critic, has put the already #1 cable news outlet in the spotlight. So far rather than cut the knees off of FOX News President Barack Obama has proven to be, for them, the gift that keeps on giving.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Don't Ask Him When, He Won't Tell You
Saturday night Barack Obama spoke at a dinner hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, proving once again that a little thing like actually winning the Presidency is not enough to switch Barack Obama over from campaigner to decider. Long on promises and short on details President Obama renewed his campaign pledge to end the Clinton era “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of allowing homosexuals to serve in the military so long as they remain closeted. This of course was met with a standing ovation and there is nothing more that Campaigner in Chief Barack Obama loves than a standing ovation.
Fed by the crowd’s adulation the President slipped into his familiar secular tent revival preacher mode vowing that he would “end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. That’s my commitment to you.” In what might be considered throwing a bucket of cold water on this hot topic he had to admit that “our progress may be taking longer than we like”. In other words it is easier said than done, but that certainly did not stop him from talk, talk, talking about it in the least.
Purposely evoking images of the Civil Rights struggle of the mid 50s to late 60s the President sought to keep the audience in his corner by recognizing “that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," still he dared ask them "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” Hallelujah, Mr. President! Lead us to the Promised Land! (See, at times even I get carried away by such a persuasive speaker as Barack Obama.)
So far so good, yes? No.
Repealing, replacing, erasing or just plan getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is no where near as difficult as turning water into wine but despite his Messianic image it will also not take a miracle on the part of President Obama to make good on this campaign pledge. The inherent problem with Obama ’08 never having truly become the Obama Administration is that the campaigner has indeed not yet become the decider. The President hordes the political capital he earned on Election Day as though they were acorns and he a squirrel preparing for the winter! The man nominated by the Democratic Party in 2008 has yet to recognize that now in 2009 he is the President of the United States and Leader of the aforementioned Party. With firm control of both Houses of Congress and a Supreme Court which is virtually split down the middle there is no reason whatsoever for Barack Obama not to make good on this campaign promise NOW. Quite frankly I cannot help but feel that he is laying down a trail of bread crumbs to the Gay community and hoping they will continue to follow him into a second term.
Our Constitution is shamed when we have any legal discrimination in our nation and that shame is even worse when those being discriminated against are patriots risking their lives to preserve and protect that very Constitution. With the President’s already unimpressive track record of appeasement and avoiding conflict the gay community should be on guard to the possibility that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may well be replaced by something of a different name but substantively not much different. If the President is serious there is nothing to consider: just do it; end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
Fed by the crowd’s adulation the President slipped into his familiar secular tent revival preacher mode vowing that he would “end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. That’s my commitment to you.” In what might be considered throwing a bucket of cold water on this hot topic he had to admit that “our progress may be taking longer than we like”. In other words it is easier said than done, but that certainly did not stop him from talk, talk, talking about it in the least.
Purposely evoking images of the Civil Rights struggle of the mid 50s to late 60s the President sought to keep the audience in his corner by recognizing “that many of you don't believe progress has come fast enough," still he dared ask them "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” Hallelujah, Mr. President! Lead us to the Promised Land! (See, at times even I get carried away by such a persuasive speaker as Barack Obama.)
So far so good, yes? No.
Repealing, replacing, erasing or just plan getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is no where near as difficult as turning water into wine but despite his Messianic image it will also not take a miracle on the part of President Obama to make good on this campaign pledge. The inherent problem with Obama ’08 never having truly become the Obama Administration is that the campaigner has indeed not yet become the decider. The President hordes the political capital he earned on Election Day as though they were acorns and he a squirrel preparing for the winter! The man nominated by the Democratic Party in 2008 has yet to recognize that now in 2009 he is the President of the United States and Leader of the aforementioned Party. With firm control of both Houses of Congress and a Supreme Court which is virtually split down the middle there is no reason whatsoever for Barack Obama not to make good on this campaign promise NOW. Quite frankly I cannot help but feel that he is laying down a trail of bread crumbs to the Gay community and hoping they will continue to follow him into a second term.
Our Constitution is shamed when we have any legal discrimination in our nation and that shame is even worse when those being discriminated against are patriots risking their lives to preserve and protect that very Constitution. With the President’s already unimpressive track record of appeasement and avoiding conflict the gay community should be on guard to the possibility that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" may well be replaced by something of a different name but substantively not much different. If the President is serious there is nothing to consider: just do it; end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
It's Only Funny If CNN Says It's Funny
Less than a year into the age of Obama I can’t help but feel nostalgic for so many things that have now seemingly been driven to extinction by hope and change. For example, remember those bygone days when news organizations employed fact checkers to verify the veracity of figures in major pieces of spending legislation or the claims of prominent politicians in political ads and debates? Remember how in the name of journalistic integrity fact checking was employed to provide the public with vital information about their government and leaders? Gosh, were we ever so young and naïve to think those things mattered? Before I go on, however, this reminds me of a joke. *AHEM!*
Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
CNN.
CNN who?
CNN’s got nothing better to do than fact check jokes.
Okay, I’ll admit upfront that is not a particularly funny “knock, knock” joke; in fact it’s not funny at all because based on recent events it appears to be true. Allow me to explain.
For those of you in the political blogosphere who took the past week off to trek through Outer Mongolia and are just now getting caught up, a week ago tonight Saturday Night Live did the unthinkable: they made fun of Barack Obama in a sketch!
I’ll be the first to admit that I too was actually quite surprised that the same people who skewered Sarah Palin without mercy or even a hint of the truth not only turned their comedic cannons on Barack Obama but hit a bulls eye. The thesis of the sketch, if I might use such a serious word, is that thus far Barack Obama is the do nothing President: a campaigner filled with great promises brought to victory by true believers filled with great expectations and yet to date no accomplishments. To highlight this SNL’s resident Barack Obama stand in Fred Armisen goes down a checklist of campaign promises, none of which have, as of yet, been fulfilled and indeed, as in the case of Afghanistan, things have actually gotten worse. A surprisingly unflattering portrayal by SNL to be sure, and the initially nervous laughs of the audience show just how surprised they were; still the truth will set you free and by the time Armisen declares “live from New York it’s Saturday Night” even the most hard baked New York liberal is laughing out loud (that’s “LOL” for you internet geeks; there was no room in the studio to “ROFL”).
CNN, however, was not amused.
Now we return to my initial point about longing nostalgically for the days when news organizations employed fact checking for things of vital national interest. Arms reductions treaties! Social Security surpluses or deficits! Did Bill Clinton have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky?! Those were the days, my friends, but CNN has moved onwards and downwards from there to fact checking SNL’s opening sketch about Barack Obama. Say it ain’t so Wolf Blitzer! You look so serious and distinguished with those nifty glasses and your young Santa Claus good looks! Why have you sunk so low? Did CNN only now discover that SNL pokes fun at our politicians? Don’t they remember Will Ferrell’s portrayal of Bush as a cross between a chimp and someone mentally disabled? Were they not outraged at Darrell Hammond’s lustful and cocky Bill Clinton? Or perhaps it is the culmination of, as Bernie Goldberg calls it, a slobbering love affair the mainstream media has with the president they actively helped elect: Barack Obama. I am fairly certain it is the latter.
Were we to take CNN at face value and believe them sincerely concerned about the “facts” in a comedy sketch we must conclude CNN believes all of us to be too stupid to recognize satire when we see it. The real truth, however, has to be that SNL was too close to the truth to be ignored. Hyperbole though there was in the check list of Obama’s unfulfilled promises not a single one was outright false and that is what really got to CNN: SNL had the nerve to actually point out where the President has fallen short in his never ending transition from campaigner to chief executive.
There is one other possibility as to why CNN was so angry: most of us who are politically literate have long since come to see CNN as a comedy channel and they don’t like the competition from the likes of Saturday Night Live.
Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
CNN.
CNN who?
CNN’s got nothing better to do than fact check jokes.
Okay, I’ll admit upfront that is not a particularly funny “knock, knock” joke; in fact it’s not funny at all because based on recent events it appears to be true. Allow me to explain.
For those of you in the political blogosphere who took the past week off to trek through Outer Mongolia and are just now getting caught up, a week ago tonight Saturday Night Live did the unthinkable: they made fun of Barack Obama in a sketch!
I’ll be the first to admit that I too was actually quite surprised that the same people who skewered Sarah Palin without mercy or even a hint of the truth not only turned their comedic cannons on Barack Obama but hit a bulls eye. The thesis of the sketch, if I might use such a serious word, is that thus far Barack Obama is the do nothing President: a campaigner filled with great promises brought to victory by true believers filled with great expectations and yet to date no accomplishments. To highlight this SNL’s resident Barack Obama stand in Fred Armisen goes down a checklist of campaign promises, none of which have, as of yet, been fulfilled and indeed, as in the case of Afghanistan, things have actually gotten worse. A surprisingly unflattering portrayal by SNL to be sure, and the initially nervous laughs of the audience show just how surprised they were; still the truth will set you free and by the time Armisen declares “live from New York it’s Saturday Night” even the most hard baked New York liberal is laughing out loud (that’s “LOL” for you internet geeks; there was no room in the studio to “ROFL”).
CNN, however, was not amused.
Now we return to my initial point about longing nostalgically for the days when news organizations employed fact checking for things of vital national interest. Arms reductions treaties! Social Security surpluses or deficits! Did Bill Clinton have sexual relations with that woman Miss Lewinsky?! Those were the days, my friends, but CNN has moved onwards and downwards from there to fact checking SNL’s opening sketch about Barack Obama. Say it ain’t so Wolf Blitzer! You look so serious and distinguished with those nifty glasses and your young Santa Claus good looks! Why have you sunk so low? Did CNN only now discover that SNL pokes fun at our politicians? Don’t they remember Will Ferrell’s portrayal of Bush as a cross between a chimp and someone mentally disabled? Were they not outraged at Darrell Hammond’s lustful and cocky Bill Clinton? Or perhaps it is the culmination of, as Bernie Goldberg calls it, a slobbering love affair the mainstream media has with the president they actively helped elect: Barack Obama. I am fairly certain it is the latter.
Were we to take CNN at face value and believe them sincerely concerned about the “facts” in a comedy sketch we must conclude CNN believes all of us to be too stupid to recognize satire when we see it. The real truth, however, has to be that SNL was too close to the truth to be ignored. Hyperbole though there was in the check list of Obama’s unfulfilled promises not a single one was outright false and that is what really got to CNN: SNL had the nerve to actually point out where the President has fallen short in his never ending transition from campaigner to chief executive.
There is one other possibility as to why CNN was so angry: most of us who are politically literate have long since come to see CNN as a comedy channel and they don’t like the competition from the likes of Saturday Night Live.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Obama Snubs the Dalai Lama, Wins Nobel Peace Prize
In the Spring of 2008 then candidate for the Presidency Senator Barack Obama loudly proclaimed that President George W. Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics hosted in Beijing. Chief among Senator Obama’s concerns was China’s horrendous human rights record as it applies specifically to Tibet. In his own words: “If the Chinese do not take steps … to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the president should boycott the opening ceremonies.” Speaking even more firmly he added: “We have not been consistent enough and tough enough in pushing them to deal with Tibet properly.” Taking him at face value one cannot help but conclude that candidate for President Senator Barack Obama was deeply concerned for and respectful of the plight of the Tibetan people enduring Chinese occupation and oppression.
What a difference eighteen months makes.
This second week of October 2009 has seen President Barack Obama make history again. With the Dalai Lama’s arrival in Washington on Monday President Obama became the first President in thirty years not to meet with the exiled Tibetan holy man as he visited the land of the free and the home of the brave. While prominent law makers of both political parties bent over backwards to meet with the Dalai Lama and express their support for the goal of a free Tibet the White House announced the President would “postpone” meeting with the Dalai Lama until after the President’s visit to Beijing next month. Perhaps in an ironic foreshadowing at the same time he was asking President Bush to boycott the Beijing opening ceremonies then candidate Obama observed “it’s very hard to tell your banker that he’s wrong.” Hence whereas candidate Obama asked President Bush to boycott Beijing on behalf of Tibet President Obama has now officially boycotted the Dalai Lama on behalf of Beijing.
Wait, there’s more.
Beginning this historic week by snubbing the Dalai Lama President Obama now ends the week by sharing a unique distinction with the exiled holy man: they are both Nobel Peace Prize winners. Twenty years after the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize, the first President in thirty years to snub him has won one as well. The irony might be less bitter if one could point to some accomplishment of the President’s which would warrant this one time prestigious award finding it’s way to the White House for the third time in history. This begs the question how does Obama’s award compare to that of his two Presidential predecessors?
Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, though politically from different sides of the spectrum, both won Nobel Peace prizes late into their presidencies for genuine, documented, history changing accomplishments. In the case of Teddy Roosevelt he mediated an end to the Russo-Japanese War while Woodrow Wilson would go on to win for founding the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations. Consider that for a moment. Roosevelt actively helped bring an end to a war saving lives and Wilson founded an organization which sought to permanently end wars by establishing an international forum for diplomatic resolution to conflicts. So what exactly has Barack Obama done to deserve this honor?
“For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” the Nobel Committee has awarded Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. To quote Elvis Presley in “Viva Las Vegas”, “there’s just a couple of few things wrong with that”.
The nominating process for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize closed eleven days after Barack Obama took the oath of office. Eleven days! Is there anyone, and I mean anyone, who will dare claim that in eleven days Barack Obama made “extraordiarny efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”? Roosevelt and Wilson were into their second terms as President when they were nominated and then subsequently won this award, not their second week! The only thing that we can conclude, if we are feeling generous, is that the Nobel Prize Committee has faith that President Obama will accomplish these things for he most certainly has not as of yet accomplished anything of substance on the world stage.
We have indeed entered a new age where accomplishments, though nice, are not necessary for (perceived) intentions apparently are all the matter. In that spirit I would like to suggest that all students entering their first year of High School be awarded a diploma on day one as long as they intend to graduate and while we’re at it let’s give gold medals to anyone who ever even thought of someday competing in the Olympics. Still I can’t help but have some nagging doubts about this new era of good intention as I seem to recall an old saying about some road to somewhere nasty being paved with good intentions.
What a difference eighteen months makes.
This second week of October 2009 has seen President Barack Obama make history again. With the Dalai Lama’s arrival in Washington on Monday President Obama became the first President in thirty years not to meet with the exiled Tibetan holy man as he visited the land of the free and the home of the brave. While prominent law makers of both political parties bent over backwards to meet with the Dalai Lama and express their support for the goal of a free Tibet the White House announced the President would “postpone” meeting with the Dalai Lama until after the President’s visit to Beijing next month. Perhaps in an ironic foreshadowing at the same time he was asking President Bush to boycott the Beijing opening ceremonies then candidate Obama observed “it’s very hard to tell your banker that he’s wrong.” Hence whereas candidate Obama asked President Bush to boycott Beijing on behalf of Tibet President Obama has now officially boycotted the Dalai Lama on behalf of Beijing.
Wait, there’s more.
Beginning this historic week by snubbing the Dalai Lama President Obama now ends the week by sharing a unique distinction with the exiled holy man: they are both Nobel Peace Prize winners. Twenty years after the Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace Prize, the first President in thirty years to snub him has won one as well. The irony might be less bitter if one could point to some accomplishment of the President’s which would warrant this one time prestigious award finding it’s way to the White House for the third time in history. This begs the question how does Obama’s award compare to that of his two Presidential predecessors?
Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, though politically from different sides of the spectrum, both won Nobel Peace prizes late into their presidencies for genuine, documented, history changing accomplishments. In the case of Teddy Roosevelt he mediated an end to the Russo-Japanese War while Woodrow Wilson would go on to win for founding the League of Nations, the predecessor to the United Nations. Consider that for a moment. Roosevelt actively helped bring an end to a war saving lives and Wilson founded an organization which sought to permanently end wars by establishing an international forum for diplomatic resolution to conflicts. So what exactly has Barack Obama done to deserve this honor?
“For his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” the Nobel Committee has awarded Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. To quote Elvis Presley in “Viva Las Vegas”, “there’s just a couple of few things wrong with that”.
The nominating process for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize closed eleven days after Barack Obama took the oath of office. Eleven days! Is there anyone, and I mean anyone, who will dare claim that in eleven days Barack Obama made “extraordiarny efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”? Roosevelt and Wilson were into their second terms as President when they were nominated and then subsequently won this award, not their second week! The only thing that we can conclude, if we are feeling generous, is that the Nobel Prize Committee has faith that President Obama will accomplish these things for he most certainly has not as of yet accomplished anything of substance on the world stage.
We have indeed entered a new age where accomplishments, though nice, are not necessary for (perceived) intentions apparently are all the matter. In that spirit I would like to suggest that all students entering their first year of High School be awarded a diploma on day one as long as they intend to graduate and while we’re at it let’s give gold medals to anyone who ever even thought of someday competing in the Olympics. Still I can’t help but have some nagging doubts about this new era of good intention as I seem to recall an old saying about some road to somewhere nasty being paved with good intentions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)