If you haven't heard about it yet, an audio recording by a North Carolina high school student has gone viral on YouTube. He recorded an exchange (that's misleading--it wasn't nearly that civil) with his Social Studies teacher, in which she tells him that he could be arrested for criticizing the president. Apparently, she was suspended once the furor escalated, but for what hasn't been made clear. For 'teaching while stupid'? I don't know.
The focus has been on her obvious ignorance; the student pointed out to her that he had in no way threatened the president, he had simply countered her 'fact of the day' (that Romney bullied someone in high school) with a question--namely, hadn't Obama also admitted to bullying someone--and that he was only exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
There are many disturbing things about this episode. For starters, this was the teacher's 'fact' of the day?? From my reading of it, it's not undoubtedly a fact. Romney may indeed have been a high school bully, but was this teacher going to start a discussion about the Washington Post's incredible lack of journalistic ethics (putting words into the mouth of a supposed witness to the effect that he had 'long been bothered' about the incident, then simply altering the story rather than issuing a retraction when this man made it known he hadn't even been aware of the incident until the Post contacted him a few weeks earlier), or mention the fact that the 'victim's own family disavowed the Post's portrayal of him and the incident?
Something tells me...no. And then there is the atmosphere in the classroom and the way this woman interacts with her students. I taught high school for many years, and while there often were laughs and spirited discussion, at no time--ever--was I trying to teach or conduct a debate while shrieking, laughing, unrelated conversation, and general 'carrying on' reigned while I simply tried to shout over it. These kids clearly had no respect for this woman--but why should they? She had no control over her classroom because she had no control over herself. She screamed like a fishwife, cut students off and shut them up because she wouldn't tolerate being disagreed with.
And quite frankly, she was an ideology-driven dummy. What a waste of time for all involved with her. If you can stand her loud, grating voice, you can find the clip and listen, but towards the end, she smugly tells the students that, 'as a Social Studies teacher,' she can't 'allow' them to disrespect any president--past or current--only _moments_ after she has responded to the student's comment that people 'talked shit' about Bush all the time with the shrieking rejoinder that he (Bush) "was shitty!"
I'm sorry to say that, based on my own observations over a long period of time, very few teachers maintain the objectivity they should when it comes to politics and their students. Their job is to challenge students' assumptions and reasoning (whatever their opinions) so they can make them better thinkers. But, by and large, they don't. They freely try to influence, and it's safe to say that most of them don't have a sufficient level of self-awareness to realize they are profoundly wrong--even immoral--to do so.
This woman is a temporary embarrassment to the education establishment in Rowan County, NC, but she is a great illustration of why we are pouring tax dollars down a hole, shortchanging our young people, and falling ever farther behind the countries who demand the very best of their students and teachers.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Why would Hillary even want to be vice president?
Much speculation is floating around at the moment about the possibility of President Obama dumping Joe Biden as his running mate and bringing Hillary Clinton on board. The same thing happened a while ago and then died down; no doubt it's been revived because of the belated realization (on the part of Obama's campaign) that they might not coast to victory, after all.
I have read at least four or five opinion pieces on the subject, all related to whether or not it will actually happen and how it would be accomplished so as not to make Obama look bad. (The most popular guess seems to be that Biden and Hillary would make a switch, and he would be Sec. of State in a second Obama administration--in effect, that he would not be 'dumped,' but would agree to the swap.)
None of what I've read, though, addresses what seems the most obvious and important question. Why would Clinton even consider such a move? Why would it be in her own best interest? The assumption seems to be that it would--but I don't see it.
It's certainly in Obama's, because she could well boost him to a win (although I suspect this would be a particularly bitter pill for him and Michelle to have to swallow--needing Hillary...) She remains highly popular with her fans and her tenure as Sec. of State has earned her respect even among non-fans and past critics. Her substitution onto the ticket is unlikely to change any votes among those who've already decided Obama's performance doesn't merit a second term, but it could easily energize disillusioned Dems and still-undecided Independents who voted for Obama the first time.
But what's in it for Hillary? Regardless of her many strengths, she would still be just the vice president--the "spare tire in the automobile of government' as one v.p. famously put it. Certainly, if she's v.p. for a popular, accomplished president, her chances of succeeding him would be boosted. But if Obama wins, I don't see that happening. Obviously, for the good of the country and all the people out of work, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that if he gets reelected, he'll double down on what he's already done and what he wants to do, and the backlash will be that in 2016, the Republicans could run almost anyone and win. Being associated with Obama could be a huge liability for her, rather than a help.
In a situation like that, she would actually have a better chance running as the Democratic nominee if she had not been involved with the administration in such a capacity. Really, an Obama win, with or without her, doesn't necessarily improve her 2016 chances. If Romney wins, he's inheriting as big or an even bigger mess than Obama did, and a Democratic challenger will have more traction against him than against a new challenger after 8 years of Obama. Unless--and once again, for the good of the country, this would be the best scenario--Romney did a bang-up job.
Either way, it's a political calculation, but I don't see that hitching her wagon to Obama as his second-in-command really is the smart gamble. And my opinion of her (for 2016) is not going to be improved at all if she cooperates with Obama to turn Uncle Joe loose as Sec. of State. That's really what we need in today's world, isn't it? As our top diplomat, a man who merely opens his mouth and people hold their breath and cringe because they don't know what might come out. Oy.
I have read at least four or five opinion pieces on the subject, all related to whether or not it will actually happen and how it would be accomplished so as not to make Obama look bad. (The most popular guess seems to be that Biden and Hillary would make a switch, and he would be Sec. of State in a second Obama administration--in effect, that he would not be 'dumped,' but would agree to the swap.)
None of what I've read, though, addresses what seems the most obvious and important question. Why would Clinton even consider such a move? Why would it be in her own best interest? The assumption seems to be that it would--but I don't see it.
It's certainly in Obama's, because she could well boost him to a win (although I suspect this would be a particularly bitter pill for him and Michelle to have to swallow--needing Hillary...) She remains highly popular with her fans and her tenure as Sec. of State has earned her respect even among non-fans and past critics. Her substitution onto the ticket is unlikely to change any votes among those who've already decided Obama's performance doesn't merit a second term, but it could easily energize disillusioned Dems and still-undecided Independents who voted for Obama the first time.
But what's in it for Hillary? Regardless of her many strengths, she would still be just the vice president--the "spare tire in the automobile of government' as one v.p. famously put it. Certainly, if she's v.p. for a popular, accomplished president, her chances of succeeding him would be boosted. But if Obama wins, I don't see that happening. Obviously, for the good of the country and all the people out of work, I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid that if he gets reelected, he'll double down on what he's already done and what he wants to do, and the backlash will be that in 2016, the Republicans could run almost anyone and win. Being associated with Obama could be a huge liability for her, rather than a help.
In a situation like that, she would actually have a better chance running as the Democratic nominee if she had not been involved with the administration in such a capacity. Really, an Obama win, with or without her, doesn't necessarily improve her 2016 chances. If Romney wins, he's inheriting as big or an even bigger mess than Obama did, and a Democratic challenger will have more traction against him than against a new challenger after 8 years of Obama. Unless--and once again, for the good of the country, this would be the best scenario--Romney did a bang-up job.
Either way, it's a political calculation, but I don't see that hitching her wagon to Obama as his second-in-command really is the smart gamble. And my opinion of her (for 2016) is not going to be improved at all if she cooperates with Obama to turn Uncle Joe loose as Sec. of State. That's really what we need in today's world, isn't it? As our top diplomat, a man who merely opens his mouth and people hold their breath and cringe because they don't know what might come out. Oy.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
NC Amendment One passes--a follow-up
Wow, what a news day, yesterday. North Carolina passed Amendment One (defined in my last post as stipulating that marriage between one man and one woman will be the only legally recognized relationship in the state) and President Obama finally made a definitive statement on the subject.
Coincidence? Probably not. Although the state’s fourteen electoral votes don’t constitute a huge number, they could make a critical difference, and after months of reports that North Carolina seemed very winnable to the Obama campaign (with many visits scheduled, to that end) more recent rumors have been that they are wondering whether they should expend the effort. One has to wonder if the timing, partly, is a message to the base and to undecided, socially liberal independents.
The pronouncement was a gamble, and carefully calibrated, I think, to try to do three things: reassure and appeal to the two groups just mentioned, and at the same time, not lose undecided independents who are more socially conservative and/or consider the 10th amendment an important issue. This tightrope-walking consisted of voicing a definite personal opinion in favor of gay marriage while maintaining that it’s still an issue for individual states to decide. Whether this works or backfires is yet to be seen.
I am not overly critical of the political opportunism involved; Mr. Obama is, after all, a politician, and one who had to get elected and is trying to be re-elected by a center-right country. Obviously, Mr. Romney—who was against gay marriage, then for it when he was running for governor of the most liberal state in the union, and is now against it—will have to tread carefully here.
But what makes it such a gamble is the issue of his base. As most people know, turnout among the young and among blacks are critical, and there is simply no appealing to both with this. Young people will respond positively, but the majority of black voters will not, and will be very conflicted, as a result. Neither demographic is likely to turn out for Romney, but they might stay home out of a dearth of 2008 enthusiasm. (This is an unscientific observation, I know, but a black friend—intelligent, passionate about politics and issues, an intriguing mix of liberal and conservative who nonetheless tends to the former, and a devout Christian—had already told me he couldn’t vote for Romney. He’s not thrilled with Obama anymore, but would have voted for him. Now he expects to stay home.)
Thinking of this young man’s support for Amendment One leads me back to the vote, itself. As polls predicted, it wasn’t close—about 60/40 was what I saw. One thing did surprise me, though, given that the polling numbers were readily available. On Facebook, where the majority of my friends are liberal (or perhaps the conservative ones stay quiet; I don’t know) there was an outpouring of surprise, even shock. “Who are these people who voted yes?” one of them asked. I don’t know any of them.” One of his friends assured him they were just uneducated rednecks, so of course he wouldn’t have known any. There were numerous posts decrying the ‘bigotry’ of this vote, and as I pointed out in my last post, this is dangerous ground when people often want to paint ‘bigots’ with as broad a brush as possible, given that black voters overwhelmingly agreed with the ‘rednecks.’
There is a kind of insulated thinking here that hampers the efforts of those who opposed this amendment—and they would do well to consider it as they marshal their efforts toward repeal. When you only talk to one another, when you reinforce each other about how your own feelings are the only valid ones, when you demonize those who disagree with you as either ignorant, bigoted, or both, you lower your preparedness and your effectiveness. (I believe this same phenomenon is at work in the Obama re-election campaign—they have seemed ignorant or dismissive of the genuine reservations of intelligent, concerned voters, and have relied, unwisely, on the supportive coverage of a largely biased press, to the point where they have up to now believed the seas ahead were largely smooth. I’m not surprised that James Carville is currently trying to sound the alarm that a defeat is entirely possible.)
I should make it clear that I’m not saying it’s just those who opposed the amendment who should do more listening to those who supported it. That goes both ways. Those whose religious convictions are firm, like my friend, are unlikely ever to change their mind, but those convictions do not make him ignorant, or a bigot, or a hater. And some sincere interchange might change the minds of those whose concerns are cultural and societal, or whose religious reservations are more open to amelioration.
I was kind of heartened to see a post on one of my Facebook friends’ pages, in which one of his friends (who was clearly opposed to the amendment) seemed to be making a genuine appeal to supporters to explain their thinking. Dialogue may not promote agreement but—engaged in with a determination to be civil—it can promote understanding and respect, and a renewed will to find solutions.
Coincidence? Probably not. Although the state’s fourteen electoral votes don’t constitute a huge number, they could make a critical difference, and after months of reports that North Carolina seemed very winnable to the Obama campaign (with many visits scheduled, to that end) more recent rumors have been that they are wondering whether they should expend the effort. One has to wonder if the timing, partly, is a message to the base and to undecided, socially liberal independents.
The pronouncement was a gamble, and carefully calibrated, I think, to try to do three things: reassure and appeal to the two groups just mentioned, and at the same time, not lose undecided independents who are more socially conservative and/or consider the 10th amendment an important issue. This tightrope-walking consisted of voicing a definite personal opinion in favor of gay marriage while maintaining that it’s still an issue for individual states to decide. Whether this works or backfires is yet to be seen.
I am not overly critical of the political opportunism involved; Mr. Obama is, after all, a politician, and one who had to get elected and is trying to be re-elected by a center-right country. Obviously, Mr. Romney—who was against gay marriage, then for it when he was running for governor of the most liberal state in the union, and is now against it—will have to tread carefully here.
But what makes it such a gamble is the issue of his base. As most people know, turnout among the young and among blacks are critical, and there is simply no appealing to both with this. Young people will respond positively, but the majority of black voters will not, and will be very conflicted, as a result. Neither demographic is likely to turn out for Romney, but they might stay home out of a dearth of 2008 enthusiasm. (This is an unscientific observation, I know, but a black friend—intelligent, passionate about politics and issues, an intriguing mix of liberal and conservative who nonetheless tends to the former, and a devout Christian—had already told me he couldn’t vote for Romney. He’s not thrilled with Obama anymore, but would have voted for him. Now he expects to stay home.)
Thinking of this young man’s support for Amendment One leads me back to the vote, itself. As polls predicted, it wasn’t close—about 60/40 was what I saw. One thing did surprise me, though, given that the polling numbers were readily available. On Facebook, where the majority of my friends are liberal (or perhaps the conservative ones stay quiet; I don’t know) there was an outpouring of surprise, even shock. “Who are these people who voted yes?” one of them asked. I don’t know any of them.” One of his friends assured him they were just uneducated rednecks, so of course he wouldn’t have known any. There were numerous posts decrying the ‘bigotry’ of this vote, and as I pointed out in my last post, this is dangerous ground when people often want to paint ‘bigots’ with as broad a brush as possible, given that black voters overwhelmingly agreed with the ‘rednecks.’
There is a kind of insulated thinking here that hampers the efforts of those who opposed this amendment—and they would do well to consider it as they marshal their efforts toward repeal. When you only talk to one another, when you reinforce each other about how your own feelings are the only valid ones, when you demonize those who disagree with you as either ignorant, bigoted, or both, you lower your preparedness and your effectiveness. (I believe this same phenomenon is at work in the Obama re-election campaign—they have seemed ignorant or dismissive of the genuine reservations of intelligent, concerned voters, and have relied, unwisely, on the supportive coverage of a largely biased press, to the point where they have up to now believed the seas ahead were largely smooth. I’m not surprised that James Carville is currently trying to sound the alarm that a defeat is entirely possible.)
I should make it clear that I’m not saying it’s just those who opposed the amendment who should do more listening to those who supported it. That goes both ways. Those whose religious convictions are firm, like my friend, are unlikely ever to change their mind, but those convictions do not make him ignorant, or a bigot, or a hater. And some sincere interchange might change the minds of those whose concerns are cultural and societal, or whose religious reservations are more open to amelioration.
I was kind of heartened to see a post on one of my Facebook friends’ pages, in which one of his friends (who was clearly opposed to the amendment) seemed to be making a genuine appeal to supporters to explain their thinking. Dialogue may not promote agreement but—engaged in with a determination to be civil—it can promote understanding and respect, and a renewed will to find solutions.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Trying to decide how to vote on the NC 'marriage amendment...'
I prefer to make voting decisions based on facts, not emotions, and I'm currently deciding how to vote on the so-called 'marriage amendment,' which will be on North Carolina's primary ballot next Tuesday, May 8. The proposed amendment to the state's constitution reads as follows: "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state." Backers of the amendment cite a desire to make sure this definition is determined by a majority of voters, with immunity to reversal by a judge or judges. Opponents dismiss the concern, and allege that the motivation is simply anti-gay bias.
For many people there is no hesitation on how to vote. Either their faith and religious convictions motivate them to vote for, or their conviction that the amendment constitutes discrimination motivates them to vote against. Others, and I include myself here, are less passionate and are weighing intent, concerns about possible legal confusion down the road when disputes end up in court, vague wording, possible unknown consequences, etc.
For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage, in itself. But there has been a host of unanticipated consequences in the states where it exists--most notably public school education that clearly crosses the line from promoting tolerance to indoctrinating approval--and parents have no right to opt out of this if they wish to keep their kids in public school, no matter how much it conflicts with their most deeply held convictions. To endorse or promote gay marriage without at least considering the possible ramifications is unwise, I think.
And I guess where I differ with a lot of the amendment's opponents is that I don't dismiss those who are against it as 'haters' and 'bigots.' Polls routinely show that support for civil unions, for example, continues to rise among those who object to gay marriage, and while all some people may see in this is evidence of discrimination, it clearly doesn't indicate 'hate,' or a desire to leave people in gay relationships without any legal protections or status.
The religious objection to gay marriage is a discussion that almost always goes nowhere, because if someone else doesn't share the same foundation or worldview, it's never going to be a view that makes sense to them. In most cases they don't truly respect the conviction because they believe it's without any logical underpinnings, so they suspect it's just a smokescreen for bigotry and ignorance. The fascinating thing in terms of how this turns out next Tuesday is that, often, that implication (of bigotry and hate) is subtly or not so subtly coupled with hints that it is to be found in the 'right wing,' among 'conservative Christians' and 'Republicans,' with the subtext being that those groups are probably racial bigots as well.
But blacks--almost all of whom are Democrats--tend to be religious conservatives who are not in favor of gay marriage. Black pastors are solidly against the amendment and it is noteworthy that while the NAACP, in a difficult political position, has come out against the amendment, they caution explicitly that their opposition should not be interpreted as a position on gay marriage.
I have been leaning towards an 'against' vote for the reasons mentioned above and a number of others, but now am tempted to just abstain because of how turned off I am by the campaign of distortion being waged by the amendment's opponents. Here are two examples of 'facts' they are disseminating:
"This amendment would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people..." Please see the link below (you may need to cut and paste) for an unequivocal statement by a dozen or more prosecutors/judges/law enforcement personnel across the state--some of whom do not support the amendment but would like to set the record straight--to the effect that this allegation is 'utterly false.'
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Domestic-Violence-Statement-5.1.12.pdf
Another 'fact' being put out there by opponents is this: "The amendment would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners..' when the truth is that _no one_ who receives these benefits from companies that provide them will be affected. The state already doesn't provide benefits to unmarried couples, whatever their sex, so the only couples who may lose partner coverage are employees of one of the few municipalities--Chapel Hill is one--that provide these benefits. I am not saying this isn't of concern--it is--but to state that everyone with partner coverage will lose it is, quite simply, a blatant lie.
I haven't had time to investigate the other claims being made by opponents, but I really dislike being manipulated and since they are 0 for 2 so far, I'm not confident of their veracity. I am also deeply offended by some of the more absurd propaganda--such as the suggestion that abused women will be forced to consider marrying their abusers so they can have legal protection from them. Fearmongering is ugly and inexcusable no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
So, I am sincerely interested in input from both sides, and I'm particularly interested in feedback from people who live in states where gay marriage is legal.
Thanks
For many people there is no hesitation on how to vote. Either their faith and religious convictions motivate them to vote for, or their conviction that the amendment constitutes discrimination motivates them to vote against. Others, and I include myself here, are less passionate and are weighing intent, concerns about possible legal confusion down the road when disputes end up in court, vague wording, possible unknown consequences, etc.
For the record, I don't have any problem with gay marriage, in itself. But there has been a host of unanticipated consequences in the states where it exists--most notably public school education that clearly crosses the line from promoting tolerance to indoctrinating approval--and parents have no right to opt out of this if they wish to keep their kids in public school, no matter how much it conflicts with their most deeply held convictions. To endorse or promote gay marriage without at least considering the possible ramifications is unwise, I think.
And I guess where I differ with a lot of the amendment's opponents is that I don't dismiss those who are against it as 'haters' and 'bigots.' Polls routinely show that support for civil unions, for example, continues to rise among those who object to gay marriage, and while all some people may see in this is evidence of discrimination, it clearly doesn't indicate 'hate,' or a desire to leave people in gay relationships without any legal protections or status.
The religious objection to gay marriage is a discussion that almost always goes nowhere, because if someone else doesn't share the same foundation or worldview, it's never going to be a view that makes sense to them. In most cases they don't truly respect the conviction because they believe it's without any logical underpinnings, so they suspect it's just a smokescreen for bigotry and ignorance. The fascinating thing in terms of how this turns out next Tuesday is that, often, that implication (of bigotry and hate) is subtly or not so subtly coupled with hints that it is to be found in the 'right wing,' among 'conservative Christians' and 'Republicans,' with the subtext being that those groups are probably racial bigots as well.
But blacks--almost all of whom are Democrats--tend to be religious conservatives who are not in favor of gay marriage. Black pastors are solidly against the amendment and it is noteworthy that while the NAACP, in a difficult political position, has come out against the amendment, they caution explicitly that their opposition should not be interpreted as a position on gay marriage.
I have been leaning towards an 'against' vote for the reasons mentioned above and a number of others, but now am tempted to just abstain because of how turned off I am by the campaign of distortion being waged by the amendment's opponents. Here are two examples of 'facts' they are disseminating:
"This amendment would take away domestic violence protections for all unmarried people..." Please see the link below (you may need to cut and paste) for an unequivocal statement by a dozen or more prosecutors/judges/law enforcement personnel across the state--some of whom do not support the amendment but would like to set the record straight--to the effect that this allegation is 'utterly false.'
http://www.voteformarriagenc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Domestic-Violence-Statement-5.1.12.pdf
Another 'fact' being put out there by opponents is this: "The amendment would automatically strip health benefits from unmarried people who receive coverage through their partners..' when the truth is that _no one_ who receives these benefits from companies that provide them will be affected. The state already doesn't provide benefits to unmarried couples, whatever their sex, so the only couples who may lose partner coverage are employees of one of the few municipalities--Chapel Hill is one--that provide these benefits. I am not saying this isn't of concern--it is--but to state that everyone with partner coverage will lose it is, quite simply, a blatant lie.
I haven't had time to investigate the other claims being made by opponents, but I really dislike being manipulated and since they are 0 for 2 so far, I'm not confident of their veracity. I am also deeply offended by some of the more absurd propaganda--such as the suggestion that abused women will be forced to consider marrying their abusers so they can have legal protection from them. Fearmongering is ugly and inexcusable no matter which side of the political spectrum it comes from.
So, I am sincerely interested in input from both sides, and I'm particularly interested in feedback from people who live in states where gay marriage is legal.
Thanks
Friday, April 27, 2012
Sex with the dead in Egypt
A U.K. newspaper, The Daily Mail, has reported that a law is in the works in Egypt that would legalize a man's having sex with his wife's corpse (although 'with' doesn't seem exactly the right word...) up until six hours after her death. According to the news report a Moroccan imam, who last year opined that marriage is an institution which extends beyond death, was somehow the impetus for this legislation. Apparently, he demonstrated his support for equal rights by stating unequivocally that women enjoyed the same right to sex with their dead husbands, which is less magnanimous than it sounds, once one thinks about it for a short moment.
But, I digress. There is no solid evidence at this point that the story is true, and defenders of the Muslim Brotherhood (which is poised to take control of Parliament and is fielding a presidential candidate, in violation of a promise made last year not to) say it is just a story cooked up by Mubarak supporters to make the Brotherhood look bad. Time will soon tell, no doubt.
But even if it is a hoax, Egyptian women aren't laughing. They know that the advancement of legal equality for women will be significantly less of a priority for the Brotherhood than it was under the hated Mubarak regime. Less ghoulish but more concerning in terms of the broader implications, are proposed laws (according to the Daily Mail piece and other accounts) that would lower the marriage age and repeal a ten-year old reform which made it less legally onerous and time-consuming for women to divorce. Whether these become law or not there is little reason to doubt that the Brotherhood, once in control, will not only halt women's advances but attempt to roll back gains already made. Democracy, overall, doesn't look nearly as imminent as it did back in the heady days of the Arab spring, but hey, one didn't need a telescope to see this coming.
Which leads to the question, did the Obama administration see it coming? One assumes these highly-educated and reportedly brilliant people considered what would happen in the aftermath of Mubarak's ouster before they promoted it, so perhaps this is the outcome they expected, but still think it will all turn out in the end. Or maybe they were naive enough to think it was going to work out right away; who knows? Perhaps they didn't have a clue, but feared they'd be on the wrong side of history if they kept quiet or propped up Mubarak, not that the latter would have been likely given Obama's views about the past use of American power. I am not saying he should have, either, because I don't know, but serious arguments for that can be made.
I have a friend whose opinion I respect, but we disagree fundamentally about Obama's foreign policy record. He thinks it's what he's done best. I think the President's inexperience shows glaringly, although the consequences may not fully bloom for a while. Persuasion wasn't utilized much in Libya where we had comparatively little national security interest; we were told the bombing and material/logistical support for the rebels (something one suspects Obama would have condemned were he still a senator and it was authorized by George Bush) was necessary for humanitarian reasons, yet upwards of 10,000 people have died at the hands of the Syrian regime and we've done nothing active to help them. Obama lent his voice and American support for regime change in Egypt, but kept silent when a million (or maybe it was two million) people took to the streets of Tehran seeking the ouster of a government which openly threatens us and inexorably marches toward the means to make good on the threat.
I don't claim to be a foreign policy expert, but much of this is incomprehensible to me. I have the uneasy feeling these are not foreign 'policies' at all, but simply reactions. Perhaps Obama has discovered what hubris kept him from seeing when all he had to do was criticize his predecessor. It's a lot more complicated than it looks.
But, I digress. There is no solid evidence at this point that the story is true, and defenders of the Muslim Brotherhood (which is poised to take control of Parliament and is fielding a presidential candidate, in violation of a promise made last year not to) say it is just a story cooked up by Mubarak supporters to make the Brotherhood look bad. Time will soon tell, no doubt.
But even if it is a hoax, Egyptian women aren't laughing. They know that the advancement of legal equality for women will be significantly less of a priority for the Brotherhood than it was under the hated Mubarak regime. Less ghoulish but more concerning in terms of the broader implications, are proposed laws (according to the Daily Mail piece and other accounts) that would lower the marriage age and repeal a ten-year old reform which made it less legally onerous and time-consuming for women to divorce. Whether these become law or not there is little reason to doubt that the Brotherhood, once in control, will not only halt women's advances but attempt to roll back gains already made. Democracy, overall, doesn't look nearly as imminent as it did back in the heady days of the Arab spring, but hey, one didn't need a telescope to see this coming.
Which leads to the question, did the Obama administration see it coming? One assumes these highly-educated and reportedly brilliant people considered what would happen in the aftermath of Mubarak's ouster before they promoted it, so perhaps this is the outcome they expected, but still think it will all turn out in the end. Or maybe they were naive enough to think it was going to work out right away; who knows? Perhaps they didn't have a clue, but feared they'd be on the wrong side of history if they kept quiet or propped up Mubarak, not that the latter would have been likely given Obama's views about the past use of American power. I am not saying he should have, either, because I don't know, but serious arguments for that can be made.
I have a friend whose opinion I respect, but we disagree fundamentally about Obama's foreign policy record. He thinks it's what he's done best. I think the President's inexperience shows glaringly, although the consequences may not fully bloom for a while. Persuasion wasn't utilized much in Libya where we had comparatively little national security interest; we were told the bombing and material/logistical support for the rebels (something one suspects Obama would have condemned were he still a senator and it was authorized by George Bush) was necessary for humanitarian reasons, yet upwards of 10,000 people have died at the hands of the Syrian regime and we've done nothing active to help them. Obama lent his voice and American support for regime change in Egypt, but kept silent when a million (or maybe it was two million) people took to the streets of Tehran seeking the ouster of a government which openly threatens us and inexorably marches toward the means to make good on the threat.
I don't claim to be a foreign policy expert, but much of this is incomprehensible to me. I have the uneasy feeling these are not foreign 'policies' at all, but simply reactions. Perhaps Obama has discovered what hubris kept him from seeing when all he had to do was criticize his predecessor. It's a lot more complicated than it looks.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Maureen Dowd uses the phony 'mommy wars' to wage the real war on Romney's Mormonism
In her column, "Phony Mommy Wars," Maureen Dowd dismisses as 'piffle' Hilary Rosen's comment that Mitt Romney was foolish to say he depended on his wife's feedback about women's economic concerns because she 'actually never worked a day in her life.' But next, Dowd goes on to criticize Ann Romney for capitalizing on the attack and turning it to her husband's advantage.
Hello? Maureen! Remember all the mileage the left got out of Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student whose starting salary after graduation will approach $200K but who wants her Catholic university to pay to protect her from the consequences of her own sex life? That's what people _do_ when they're jockeying for political advantage; it's kind of like you snarking about the "wealthy Palm Beach donors who came in fancy cars to eat snapper," while they listened to Mitt, while failing to mention the many dozens of high-dollar fundraisers Obama has attended over the last year. Or your newspaper calling the 'mommy wars' phony while it legitimizes the phony 'war on women.'
Actually, I don't usually mind Dowd--her opinions are rarely a surprise but she's generally not overtly hateful and, occasionally, she'll make me laugh (as when she described Newt Gingrich as a 'crazed Chuckie doll.' I kind of like Newt, but when something's funny, it's funny...)
But, Dowd's partisan panties are clearly showing. In mocking Mitt's claim to have promoted welfare reform in Massachusetts by spending more on state-funded daycare so mothers could have the 'dignity of work' than it would have cost to just continue their welfare, Dowd asks the question "So the dignity of work only applies to poor moms?"
The subtext of this clumsy attempt at sarcasm is that women who stay home with their kids are all like Ann Romney--they can do it without fear or anxiety because a well-off husband can afford it, and the only other moms out there are either welfare moms or 'waitress moms.' It was a silly thing to say, but in spite of its casualness, the remark conveys remarkable ignorance about a big swath of stay-at-home moms--those who aren't poor but who are far from wealthy. The ones who thought long and hard about the material sacrifices their families would have to make, about the added pressure on their husbands, about the possibly permanent effects of the hiatus on their own career trajectories. Those parents are not only letting their children know how much they're valued, but are teaching them by example about frugality, self-reliance, and discipline. So are millions of other parents who would like to make it work with only one earner, but can't, and who still struggle valiantly to do it all.
One gets the sense Dowd doesn't know many of the stay-at-home moms of the sort I describe, but that's no excuse for misrepresenting the choice as the province only of the privileged, like Ann Romney, so she can then call her husband a hypocrite for trying to do something to disrupt the cycle of dependent parents bringing up dependent children. Not only is that transparent partisan hackery, it doesn't even make sense.
The cries by Dowd and others about how the Romney campaign is exploiting what is--I agree--pretty much a tempest in a teapot, are laughable given their determination to similarly exploit anything they can. No doubt we'll be in for that, from both sides, for another six months. But watch for her and her cronies to amp up the sneak attack on Romney's religion. It's already begun, actually, and I say 'sneak' attack because they won't risk a direct one; they'll supply 'information' that's damning and creepy. A little more than a month ago, I commented to a friend that there had been very little floated about Romney's Mormonism, and that I thought it was deliberate--that the Obama campaign (through its surrogates in the media) were leaving the topic alone until Mitt was safely the nominee. Only days later, this column came out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-is-elvis-a-mormon.html?ref=maureendowd
Not surprisingly, Dowd has worked the Mormon angle into the 'mommy wars' column, along with others. It won't be the last time. I am not a Mormon and don't know many Mormons and, frankly, even though I'm less than enthusiastic about him, I don't really care that Romney is one. If I thought he might be unduly influenced by it in a negative way as President, I would be concerned, but I don't.
I really hope I'm wrong, but I predict that a just-under-the-radar assault on him, because of it, is forthcoming, and it's going to be ugly. David Axelrod is no fool. He knows he can't run a positive campaign unless things dramatically improve soon, and those voters who aren't currently deceived by the spin aren't likely to fall under the spell. So to capture the undecideds and the waverers, it will be fear and smear. It's going to be a long six months...
Hello? Maureen! Remember all the mileage the left got out of Limbaugh's attack on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student whose starting salary after graduation will approach $200K but who wants her Catholic university to pay to protect her from the consequences of her own sex life? That's what people _do_ when they're jockeying for political advantage; it's kind of like you snarking about the "wealthy Palm Beach donors who came in fancy cars to eat snapper," while they listened to Mitt, while failing to mention the many dozens of high-dollar fundraisers Obama has attended over the last year. Or your newspaper calling the 'mommy wars' phony while it legitimizes the phony 'war on women.'
Actually, I don't usually mind Dowd--her opinions are rarely a surprise but she's generally not overtly hateful and, occasionally, she'll make me laugh (as when she described Newt Gingrich as a 'crazed Chuckie doll.' I kind of like Newt, but when something's funny, it's funny...)
But, Dowd's partisan panties are clearly showing. In mocking Mitt's claim to have promoted welfare reform in Massachusetts by spending more on state-funded daycare so mothers could have the 'dignity of work' than it would have cost to just continue their welfare, Dowd asks the question "So the dignity of work only applies to poor moms?"
The subtext of this clumsy attempt at sarcasm is that women who stay home with their kids are all like Ann Romney--they can do it without fear or anxiety because a well-off husband can afford it, and the only other moms out there are either welfare moms or 'waitress moms.' It was a silly thing to say, but in spite of its casualness, the remark conveys remarkable ignorance about a big swath of stay-at-home moms--those who aren't poor but who are far from wealthy. The ones who thought long and hard about the material sacrifices their families would have to make, about the added pressure on their husbands, about the possibly permanent effects of the hiatus on their own career trajectories. Those parents are not only letting their children know how much they're valued, but are teaching them by example about frugality, self-reliance, and discipline. So are millions of other parents who would like to make it work with only one earner, but can't, and who still struggle valiantly to do it all.
One gets the sense Dowd doesn't know many of the stay-at-home moms of the sort I describe, but that's no excuse for misrepresenting the choice as the province only of the privileged, like Ann Romney, so she can then call her husband a hypocrite for trying to do something to disrupt the cycle of dependent parents bringing up dependent children. Not only is that transparent partisan hackery, it doesn't even make sense.
The cries by Dowd and others about how the Romney campaign is exploiting what is--I agree--pretty much a tempest in a teapot, are laughable given their determination to similarly exploit anything they can. No doubt we'll be in for that, from both sides, for another six months. But watch for her and her cronies to amp up the sneak attack on Romney's religion. It's already begun, actually, and I say 'sneak' attack because they won't risk a direct one; they'll supply 'information' that's damning and creepy. A little more than a month ago, I commented to a friend that there had been very little floated about Romney's Mormonism, and that I thought it was deliberate--that the Obama campaign (through its surrogates in the media) were leaving the topic alone until Mitt was safely the nominee. Only days later, this column came out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-is-elvis-a-mormon.html?ref=maureendowd
Not surprisingly, Dowd has worked the Mormon angle into the 'mommy wars' column, along with others. It won't be the last time. I am not a Mormon and don't know many Mormons and, frankly, even though I'm less than enthusiastic about him, I don't really care that Romney is one. If I thought he might be unduly influenced by it in a negative way as President, I would be concerned, but I don't.
I really hope I'm wrong, but I predict that a just-under-the-radar assault on him, because of it, is forthcoming, and it's going to be ugly. David Axelrod is no fool. He knows he can't run a positive campaign unless things dramatically improve soon, and those voters who aren't currently deceived by the spin aren't likely to fall under the spell. So to capture the undecideds and the waverers, it will be fear and smear. It's going to be a long six months...
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Will any good come out of Trayvon Martin's death? Final thoughts.
Sooner or later, Trayvon Martin's death will fade from the headlines. Not in the next few weeks when a determination should be forthcoming as to whether George Zimmerman should be charged with a crime--and the certain backlash if he isn't--but eventually, it will be old news.
When that happens, will the utterly shameful Sharpton and Jackson, and others who have incited violence in the name of 'justice,' recognize their hypocrisy and perfidy and have a genuine change of heart? Highly doubtful, given that their past rushes to judgment (Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse incident, etc.) have had no discernible chastening effect, and no apparent effect on the media's eagerness to give them a megaphone.
Will NBC think twice, next time, before they edit something to deliberately misrepresent and deceive? Will the rest of the media pack hold back and wait for the facts before they sensationalize the next big story in order to scoop their competitors and keep on top of the 24/7 news cycle? I think we all know the answer to those questions.
So who might actually learn some lesson of value, going forward? Consumers of news, hopefully, but it will only be those with some intelligence and discrimination. But those whom one would really like to see profit are the people--both black and white--who genuinely desire to see the black community flourish and fulfill its enormous potential.
Here is one of the things writer and professor Shelby Steele (who, like Barack Obama, is a product of a black father and a white mother) had to say about the exploitation of the Martin situation: "After the '60s—-in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—-we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake. It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt."
It is hard not to agree that those who have fanned the flames in this situation have done so with that goal of manipulating white guilt. How else could they claim, with straight faces, that young black men are being 'hunted down in the streets,' as several have put it, by whites? The numbers are there, and they don't lie. As Steele said--"blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites...the absurdity of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites." (Writers on the left are attacking Steele, of course, largely on the basis that he is a black conservative, and therefore not worthy of any consideration.)
Someone they would dismiss even more on matters of race (as a white, Jewish conservative) is Mona Charen, who zeroed in on what is probably the most important takeaway in this whole thing. She asks the question, "Why do African-Americans, 12.6 percent of the nation’s population, account for 50 percent of the murder victims?" (And as Steele and a host of others have reminded us, they are overwhelmingly the victims of other blacks--not whites.)
Her answer? "Because fatherlessness is most pervasive among blacks."
She goes on to say that "among blacks, 72 percent of births are to unmarried women. And while some unmarried mothers go on to marry the fathers of their babies, it’s rare in the African-American community, where only 31 percent of couples are married (in 1960, it was 61 percent)...a full 85 percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, as do 80 percent of rapists, 71 percent of high-school drop-outs, and 63 percent of teen suicides..."
This statement of hers is the one that should really make people sit up and take notice: "In The Atlantic Monthly, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead wrote that the 'relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.'"
_Erases_ the connection. That's big.
So while this will have to be the subject of another post, I have to comment that there is a tie-in here, for sure, with the latest canard of those who are trying to shore up the women's vote for Obama--the so-called 'war on women.' The illogical equation being posited is that opposition to forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception is the same as trying to take away contraception, or that the mere mention of the fact that sexual freedom hasn't been an unalloyed good indicates the desire to send women back into the kitchen, barefoot. It's absurd, of course, but as I said above, there are many credulous people.
But how can it be a matter of dispute between people of good will, whatever their political persuasions, that fathers and family structure matter. As a letter writer to the WSJ rather succinctly put it: "I have nothing to say about whether the sexual revolution has been good for women or not. But I think an important question is, has it been good for children?" Wouldn't it be great if the Sharptons and Jacksons asked that question about black children?
When that happens, will the utterly shameful Sharpton and Jackson, and others who have incited violence in the name of 'justice,' recognize their hypocrisy and perfidy and have a genuine change of heart? Highly doubtful, given that their past rushes to judgment (Tawana Brawley, the Duke lacrosse incident, etc.) have had no discernible chastening effect, and no apparent effect on the media's eagerness to give them a megaphone.
Will NBC think twice, next time, before they edit something to deliberately misrepresent and deceive? Will the rest of the media pack hold back and wait for the facts before they sensationalize the next big story in order to scoop their competitors and keep on top of the 24/7 news cycle? I think we all know the answer to those questions.
So who might actually learn some lesson of value, going forward? Consumers of news, hopefully, but it will only be those with some intelligence and discrimination. But those whom one would really like to see profit are the people--both black and white--who genuinely desire to see the black community flourish and fulfill its enormous potential.
Here is one of the things writer and professor Shelby Steele (who, like Barack Obama, is a product of a black father and a white mother) had to say about the exploitation of the Martin situation: "After the '60s—-in a society guilty for its long abuse of us—-we took our historical victimization as the central theme of our group identity. We could not have made a worse mistake. It has given us a generation of ambulance-chasing leaders, and the illusion that our greatest power lies in the manipulation of white guilt."
It is hard not to agree that those who have fanned the flames in this situation have done so with that goal of manipulating white guilt. How else could they claim, with straight faces, that young black men are being 'hunted down in the streets,' as several have put it, by whites? The numbers are there, and they don't lie. As Steele said--"blacks today are nine times more likely to be killed by other blacks than by whites...the absurdity of Messrs. Jackson and Sharpton is that they want to make a movement out of an anomaly. Black teenagers today are afraid of other black teenagers, not whites." (Writers on the left are attacking Steele, of course, largely on the basis that he is a black conservative, and therefore not worthy of any consideration.)
Someone they would dismiss even more on matters of race (as a white, Jewish conservative) is Mona Charen, who zeroed in on what is probably the most important takeaway in this whole thing. She asks the question, "Why do African-Americans, 12.6 percent of the nation’s population, account for 50 percent of the murder victims?" (And as Steele and a host of others have reminded us, they are overwhelmingly the victims of other blacks--not whites.)
Her answer? "Because fatherlessness is most pervasive among blacks."
She goes on to say that "among blacks, 72 percent of births are to unmarried women. And while some unmarried mothers go on to marry the fathers of their babies, it’s rare in the African-American community, where only 31 percent of couples are married (in 1960, it was 61 percent)...a full 85 percent of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, as do 80 percent of rapists, 71 percent of high-school drop-outs, and 63 percent of teen suicides..."
This statement of hers is the one that should really make people sit up and take notice: "In The Atlantic Monthly, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead wrote that the 'relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.'"
_Erases_ the connection. That's big.
So while this will have to be the subject of another post, I have to comment that there is a tie-in here, for sure, with the latest canard of those who are trying to shore up the women's vote for Obama--the so-called 'war on women.' The illogical equation being posited is that opposition to forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraception is the same as trying to take away contraception, or that the mere mention of the fact that sexual freedom hasn't been an unalloyed good indicates the desire to send women back into the kitchen, barefoot. It's absurd, of course, but as I said above, there are many credulous people.
But how can it be a matter of dispute between people of good will, whatever their political persuasions, that fathers and family structure matter. As a letter writer to the WSJ rather succinctly put it: "I have nothing to say about whether the sexual revolution has been good for women or not. But I think an important question is, has it been good for children?" Wouldn't it be great if the Sharptons and Jacksons asked that question about black children?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)