FireDogLake calls out Kos: "Markos Moulitsas’ Ugly, Reverse-Racist Smear."

Kos: "NSA spying is bad! So is stop and frisk. So is splitting up families by deporting children to countries they’ve never been to and don’t speak the language. So is harassing American muslims. Government overreach is bad. But to act like having the government track who you call is the height of government abuse is a very white privileged view of the privacy issue. But as for Greenwald and Snowden? Seriously, I don’t give two shits."

FDL: "Please, Mr. Moulitsas, tell us, what is the proper, non-privileged, multi-cultural view of the 'privacy issue'? Is it one that stays within the confines of what’s allowed by the Democratic Party? Is it one that is relevant to the war on women, or voting rights, or immigration, but ignores the collapse of the rule of law and the justice system (which is far from a 'white privileged' issue)?"

FDL supplements its posting with a word from our leader, from the days when he was free of the burdens of leadership and leveraging our antagonism for the previous leader:




That video, from August 1, 2007, comes from this speech. Here's the text of the clip. "This Administration," of course, refers to the Bush Administration:

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America....

I'm sure the Obama Administration can argue that it hasn't lost track of any of these fine abstractions,  and that the Obama who spoke all those words in 2007 simultaneously knew the leftist critique of what he was saying — that law protects those already in power and manipulates the electorate to support the continuation of that power. Rhetoric about reverence for law is the way to acquire power in America, and Obama was great at that.

Both FDL and Kos are doing political theater here. They are both on the left and both attacking Obama for not skewing further left. They seem to be diametrically opposed, but they are not. It looks like FDL is devoted to the rule of law, all the time, on every issue, but Kos is saying the rule of law is a con, and powerful people use it selectively, to protect what they want. But I think both want the rule of law to protect all the things they think matter and then to be applied consistently. FDL is trying to pressure Obama to do that, and Kos is expressing dismay that it is not being done.

The stuff about race is just to stir you up. As usual. Don't take the bait.

Read More

Obama says "racial tensions won’t get better."

And "they may get worse, because people will feel as if they’ve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot. If the economy is growing, everybody feels invested."

How to understand that statement? Possible interpretations:

1. He wants all focus on the the economy, so any other topics are portrayed as subtopics to the economy: Worries about race should not distract us, because the best way to improve racial matters is to improve the economy.

2. Obama wants more economic policies that redistribute wealth: The threat of worsening "racial tensions" is meant to drive people accept those policies.

3. Obama realizes there isn't much he can do about racial problems, at least not without annoying some of his base: Stop expecting him to do something about race.

Read More

"President Barack Obama today is giving the first of several speeches this summer that he hopes will get people talking about the economy."

That's "breaking news" according to CNN email.

Obama is giving a speech. He's talking again. It's all about the talk.

And yet... having just said what I said about Jesus... I'm struck mute. 

Read More

The 5 believers and the 5 "cons" — the background to Obama's spontaneous remarks about race.

Talk about context — and he did — look where we find ourselves. After the verdict in the George Zimmerman case — otherwise known as the Trayvon Martin case — Obama may have wanted not to speak, but our nation casts its weary eyes toward the face that we (once) imagined would emanate rays of racial healing. Come on, Obama, you've got to do it. He got profiled all the way into office, and now we expect him to perform in accordance with our stereotype.

He resisted for a number of days. Who knows what he was thinking? Was he waiting to see if there would be riots? To hear what others might say (so he could enter the conversation late and seem, perhaps without really saying anything, like the voice of reason)?

Then, on Friday, he made his way out to the lectern in the White House briefing room — "no advance warning and little of the orchestration that usually accompanies presidential speeches" — and spoke without a teleprompter, extemporaneously. As the NYT has it:

After days of angry protests and mounting public pressure, President Obama summoned five of his closest advisers to the Oval Office on Thursday evening. It was time, he told them, for him to speak to the nation about the Trayvon Martin verdict, and he had a pretty good idea what he wanted to say.

Summoned! So commanding. He talked to 5 advisers. We're not told who, but one of them talked to summoned the NYT — I'm sure that was okay with Obama — and painted this picture:

For the next 15 minutes, according to a senior aide, Mr. Obama spoke without interruption, laying out his message of why the not-guilty ruling had caused such pain among African-Americans, particularly young black men....

So the man is capable of speaking spontaneously for 15 minutes straight, and his 5 companions — obviously 5 believers — refrained from interrupting him. It's not really that amazing to go on for 15 minutes, and we sayw him do that at the lectern on Friday, presumably because he convinced himself — with the support of the 5 — that talking, just like that, would take us to that higher level that was promised by those Hope posters.



We don't know what he said Thursday night, but we do have the full video and transcript of what that became on Friday.  Listening to the remarks again, I imagine what talking points he had in his head, and my guess is 5 "CONs": CONDOLE, CONTEXT, CONVENE, CONVERSE, CONFIDENCE. Let me show you this in the transcript:

[CONDOLE]  ... First of all... I send my thoughts and prayers... to the family of Trayvon Martin....

[CONTEXT] The second thing... a lot of arguments about the legal issues... But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling... in the African American community... a lot of pain... recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.... those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.... black folks do interpret the reasons... in a historical context.... So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.... they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied....

[CONVENE] Now... How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?.. I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program.  I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front.  And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed....

[CONVERSE] And then, finally... There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand...  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise...

[CONFIDENCE] And let me just leave you with a final thought... Each successive generation seems to be making progress...  we should... have confidence that kids these days... have more sense...

That's it: the 5 "cons." Don't even have to write it on your hand. Maybe in his head, he pictured one "con" superimposed on the face of each of the 5 believers he practiced with. Michelle was "confidence," all about the children and the hope, and so forth. That's just my sense of how he got through the 15 minutes, and he did it pretty well if you think about everything he had to pull together, all the people he needed to appease and inspire, and the theater of seeming to speak from the heart and the mind.

Read More

Obama tries so hard to say something and nothing at the same time — about Trayvon Martin.

This halting, awkward performance had to have been carefully thought out, but you're supposed to absorb the anguish and agonizing as he walks back any expectation that the federal government will do anything:



From the NYT write-up:

“You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son... Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”

These are memorable but empty statements. Fill them with whatever you want. This isn't a critique of the legal system and how it handled the case. It's a vague claim of authority to empathize.

“I don’t want to exaggerate this, but..."

But! Have it both ways. I don't want to exaggerate, but I've just got to say it anyway.

"... those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.”

That's utterly banal: People understand things within the context of their own experiences.

“I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations”...

Useful to examine the laws... okay.... He's really not saying anything, and yet the New York Times must sum up by giving him credit:

Mr. Obama spoke in deeply personal terms — an extraordinary moment for a president who seemed, at least during first term, often to shy away from the issue of race.

What is deep and extraordinary? The case was already racialized, and he resonated with a bit of that without saying too much.

Read More

Obama rhetoric on sexual assault in the military may constitute "unlawful command influence."

He said defendants should be "prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged."

In at least a dozen sexual assault cases since the president’s remarks at the White House in May, judges and defense lawyers have said that Mr. Obama’s words as commander in chief amounted to “unlawful command influence,” tainting trials as a result. Military law experts said that those cases were only the beginning and that the president’s remarks were certain to complicate almost all prosecutions for sexual assault...

In his comments on sexual assault, Mr. Obama said, “I expect consequences.”

James Taranto quips: "He got consequences all right."

ADDED: The Godfather emails:

In the military I personally never got above O-3 (Captain), but I've known some very (and fairly) high-ranking officers, and it's clear as glass that many officers would be influenced by what the President said.  When you are up for promotion to general or flag rank (i.e., general or admiral), or have that rank and are looking for another star/stripe, you don't want somebody saying, He let that master sergeant who screwed the corporal off with a reprimand, when he should have thrown him in the stockade and then dishonorably discharged the pig, like the President said he/she should. The guys/gals that figure they'll retire at O-6 (Colonel or (Navy/Coast Guard) Captain) and are almost there, can probably tell the President (figuratively) to kiss-off, but the pressure on those who aspire to the higher ranks to conform to a publicly-stated political policy of the C-in-C is often irresistible.

Read More

Parsing Obama's statement on the occasion of the Zimmerman verdict.

Here's the text:

The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin.

Comments:

1. This is a measured and fairly bland statement. Obama sounds like a mild-mannered pastor.

2.  The word "passion" — which appears in the 3rd and 4th sentences — takes the place of more violence-related words like "anger" or "outrage." He acknowledges and manages the emotion.

3. In sentences #5 and #6, he counters emotion with intellect. First, respect the rule of law and the legal system. And second, respect Martin's parents, who have called for calm reflection. Think, calmly and rationally.

4. There's advice about what we should do to move forward. It's not to brood over the past, but to do positive things for people who are still alive. (I thought of Lincoln's "It is for us the living...")

5. Looking toward the future, Obama draws our focus to "gun violence," which is a standard move for him (used after the Tucson massacre and the Sandy Hook massacre). That's the specific substantive issue he flags.

6. There is no mention of race. The closest he comes is in the idea of "widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities." There's a slight suggestion that some of us are insular, within "circles" or "communities," which could be understood as our racial groups, but you have to stretch to say that. (Similarly, there's "any one community" in sentence #2.)

Read More

"President Obama gave a speech Monday instructing Americans not to be so 'cynical' about government."

I had to do a double take at the date. Yeah, Monday. Yesterday. Didn't he already do that malaise cynicism routine already? (Answer: Yes, in May.)

But here we go again.

President Obama.... then explained that the major problem with government is that it does not run as efficiently as "one of the most inclusive and most successful campaigns in American history." His own....

If that's supposed to make us feel less cynical, it's not working on me. A campaign is about trouncing the other side. The metaphor is military. (The original meaning of the word refers to an open field, and then the idea is of the army operating out in the field.)

And speaking of metaphor...

"What matters in the end is completion. Performance. Results...." Mr. Obama continued. 

Conquer that territory.

You're making me cynical. You're making me laugh. But you're making me cynical.

***

Actually, the original image of a military "campaign" wasn't really about conquering these fields. The (unlinkable) OED says:

The name arose in the earlier conditions of warfare, according to which an army remained in quarters (in towns, garrisons, fortresses, or camps) during the winter, and on the approach of summer issued forth into the open country (nella campagna, dans la campagne) or ‘took the field,' until the close of the season again suspended active operations. Hence the name properly signifying the ‘being in the field,’ was also applied, now to the season or time during which the army kept the field, and now to the series of operations performed during this time. In the changed conditions of modern warfare, the season of the year is of much less importance, and a campaign has now no direct reference to time or season, but to an expedition or continuous series of operations bearing upon a distinct object, the accomplishment or abandonment of which marks its end, whether in the course of a week or two, or after one or more years.

And in the changed conditions of modern political campaigns, there's no longer a particular season. It never ends. But Obama wants a campaign model for the government that must be done after the election campaign is over. It's confusing. It's often been said that Obama wants an endless political campaign. But Obama speaks of completion. So there is the idea of an end. What matters in the end is completion. It will end, but it will end when the goals are accomplished.

Read More