This is a ridiculous but telling debate over the semantics of race.
Last week I wrote (speaking of Barack Obama):
"...an African American candidate, for the first time in our history, enters the contest as a serious contender to win the biggest prize in American politics."
Joe Biden said this week: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
I bet we meant just about the same thing. I used fewer words, which is always a good policy in that it is safer as well as better form.
But to the bigger point--and my question for you: With what set of facts within Biden's statement, exactly, do you disagree?
Barack Obama responded that he was not offended. I suppose that is the bright side. But Obama noted that Biden's statement was "obviously...historically inaccurate." Obviously?
Obama also asserted: "African American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Mosely Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."
Huh?
Obama's rejoinder is, first of all, mostly a non sequitur; Biden did not call the enumerated African American notables inarticulate. Secondly, Obama's statement, dripping with political correctness, is true enough on its face--but a howler if it were intended to refute Biden's primary political assessment.
One more time, Joe Biden said: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Shirley Chisholm and Carol Mosely Braun were not "nice looking guys." In fact, they were not especially attractive women. Okay so far.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are articulate only in the broadest sense of the word. Their oratory, in fact, is actually quite narrow in its appeal and flows from a specific cultural milieu that is inarguably out of the mainstream. Jackson and Sharpton are both preachers and entertainers. But politically speaking, they are not especially "articulate" or persuasive in an orthodox sense of the term. Joe Biden is still right on the money.
Is Obama "bright" and "clean"?
By this I presume any rational listener would conclude that Biden meant that Obama is a fresh face, unsoiled by past public errors, poor decisions or scandal.
My view: Those who distort "clean" into some sort of racial epithet are beneath contempt.
Obama is a "storybook" figure. He is a dream candidate. He is absolutely unique in the purest sense; that is, he is completely unlike any previous candidate for president of the United States. Biden was absolutely right. This feeding frenzy is completely unwarranted and lacks any sense of proportion or decency. Having said that, if this were a prominent Republican public figure, the story would be a wall-to-wall media event, which would only gain steam until the dastardly Republican was driven from the field of play.
But what about Biden? His biggest problem is that he generally uses too many words. Most of the time, he is too clever by half. He is too confident in his modest intellect and too fond of the sound of his own voice. None of this comes as a revelation to any one who has watched more a minute or two of C-SPAN2.
And he is out (or will be soon enough). Again, not a big surprise and probably for the best. Having said all the bad about Biden, he really is an immensely talented senator and fairly competent and useful when he is not running for president. We will all be better off when Joe Biden reconciles himself to the overwhelming probability that he will never be president of the United States.
I welcome the inevitable: his announcement that he is fishing his hat from the ring.
Just for fun: Who is the next irrelevant senator who doesn't have a chance that is soon likely to see the writing on the wall?
I don't want to say his name, but his initials are Chris Dodd.
Last week I wrote (speaking of Barack Obama):
"...an African American candidate, for the first time in our history, enters the contest as a serious contender to win the biggest prize in American politics."
Joe Biden said this week: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
I bet we meant just about the same thing. I used fewer words, which is always a good policy in that it is safer as well as better form.
But to the bigger point--and my question for you: With what set of facts within Biden's statement, exactly, do you disagree?
Barack Obama responded that he was not offended. I suppose that is the bright side. But Obama noted that Biden's statement was "obviously...historically inaccurate." Obviously?
Obama also asserted: "African American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Mosely Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate."
Huh?
Obama's rejoinder is, first of all, mostly a non sequitur; Biden did not call the enumerated African American notables inarticulate. Secondly, Obama's statement, dripping with political correctness, is true enough on its face--but a howler if it were intended to refute Biden's primary political assessment.
One more time, Joe Biden said: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Shirley Chisholm and Carol Mosely Braun were not "nice looking guys." In fact, they were not especially attractive women. Okay so far.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are articulate only in the broadest sense of the word. Their oratory, in fact, is actually quite narrow in its appeal and flows from a specific cultural milieu that is inarguably out of the mainstream. Jackson and Sharpton are both preachers and entertainers. But politically speaking, they are not especially "articulate" or persuasive in an orthodox sense of the term. Joe Biden is still right on the money.
Is Obama "bright" and "clean"?
By this I presume any rational listener would conclude that Biden meant that Obama is a fresh face, unsoiled by past public errors, poor decisions or scandal.
My view: Those who distort "clean" into some sort of racial epithet are beneath contempt.
Obama is a "storybook" figure. He is a dream candidate. He is absolutely unique in the purest sense; that is, he is completely unlike any previous candidate for president of the United States. Biden was absolutely right. This feeding frenzy is completely unwarranted and lacks any sense of proportion or decency. Having said that, if this were a prominent Republican public figure, the story would be a wall-to-wall media event, which would only gain steam until the dastardly Republican was driven from the field of play.
But what about Biden? His biggest problem is that he generally uses too many words. Most of the time, he is too clever by half. He is too confident in his modest intellect and too fond of the sound of his own voice. None of this comes as a revelation to any one who has watched more a minute or two of C-SPAN2.
And he is out (or will be soon enough). Again, not a big surprise and probably for the best. Having said all the bad about Biden, he really is an immensely talented senator and fairly competent and useful when he is not running for president. We will all be better off when Joe Biden reconciles himself to the overwhelming probability that he will never be president of the United States.
I welcome the inevitable: his announcement that he is fishing his hat from the ring.
Just for fun: Who is the next irrelevant senator who doesn't have a chance that is soon likely to see the writing on the wall?
I don't want to say his name, but his initials are Chris Dodd.
01/02: War and Power and Politics
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution clearly provides that "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Article I, Section 8 of said document clearly provides that "the Congress shall have Power...to declare War...to raise and support Armies" and control the "appropriation of money" to support the troops in the field (my emphasis).
Generally, we think of the executive and legislative war powers as complementary. But what happens when the two branches are no longer in accord. To what extent can one branch (Congress) employ its authority to withdraw the nation from war?
Walter Dellinger, current Duke University Law School professor and former solicitor general in the Clinton White House, and David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan Administration and consistently articulate defender of current war-on-terror policies, discussed that dilemma this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal (view entire program here).
For background:
You may read Dellinger's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary (here), which he revealingly titled: "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War."
You may read Rivkin's equally revealingly "Constitutional Warp" (here) online at the Wall Street Journal, if you are a subscriber.
A brief excerpt of Rivkin for flavor:
"Congressional efforts to limit the exercise of these powers [commander-in-chief] in Iraq by, for example, purporting to limit the number of American troops there...would be unconstitutional, even if linked to an exercise of Congress's own appropriations power."
Rivkin and Dellinger agree that Congress has the Constitutional authority to end the war by defunding it. But they disagree as to whether Congress can lawfully designate money for approved actions only and/or "cap" the number of troops deployed in the theater.
It is an interesting argument.
However, in a much more practical sense, Congress as a whole is currently displaying the folly of delegating the conduct of the war to the legislative branch. For disparate reasons, which include studied logic, political calculation and "gut" feelings, a vast majority of Congressman are convinced that Iraq is a failed policy, which must be curtailed sooner or later, and sooner is better.
Notwithstanding, the House of Representatives is in a holding pattern, waiting for the Senate to come to agreement on a non-binding resolution expressing displeasure with the war and the President's proposed troop "surge." House Leadership is hoping that Republican defectors in the Senate will pave the way for Republican dissenters in the lower chamber.
But the power struggle in the Senate between presidential hopefuls jockeying to appear the most sagacious and statesmanlike or the most responsive democratic legislator or both has thus far produced a plethora of press conferences, dramatic sound bites and passionate rhetoric but very little of substance. Senators are hoping to come to some sort of consensus by the middle of the month. At that point, the House can begin their procedures. Notwithstanding, the Senate did take a break from posturing and "bloviating" to approve unanimously a new commanding general to implement the President's proposed action, which they plan to collectively disown at their earliest convenience.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the President is going forward on his plan announced last month with all deliberate speed. By the time Congress has an official opinion, the executive and the armed forces will be deeply committed to the new strategy. In effect, Congress will voice a non-binding expression of their belief that the military operation to which we are already committed will not work.
The bigger point, however, is that the Senate specifically, and the legislative process in general, is designed to go slow. No student of the Constitution or American history would argue otherwise. Can we survive this war or any war in which the day-to-day operations are dependent on the efficiency of the Senate?
Generally, we think of the executive and legislative war powers as complementary. But what happens when the two branches are no longer in accord. To what extent can one branch (Congress) employ its authority to withdraw the nation from war?
Walter Dellinger, current Duke University Law School professor and former solicitor general in the Clinton White House, and David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan Administration and consistently articulate defender of current war-on-terror policies, discussed that dilemma this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal (view entire program here).
For background:
You may read Dellinger's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary (here), which he revealingly titled: "Exercising Congress's Constitutional Power to End a War."
You may read Rivkin's equally revealingly "Constitutional Warp" (here) online at the Wall Street Journal, if you are a subscriber.
A brief excerpt of Rivkin for flavor:
"Congressional efforts to limit the exercise of these powers [commander-in-chief] in Iraq by, for example, purporting to limit the number of American troops there...would be unconstitutional, even if linked to an exercise of Congress's own appropriations power."
Rivkin and Dellinger agree that Congress has the Constitutional authority to end the war by defunding it. But they disagree as to whether Congress can lawfully designate money for approved actions only and/or "cap" the number of troops deployed in the theater.
It is an interesting argument.
However, in a much more practical sense, Congress as a whole is currently displaying the folly of delegating the conduct of the war to the legislative branch. For disparate reasons, which include studied logic, political calculation and "gut" feelings, a vast majority of Congressman are convinced that Iraq is a failed policy, which must be curtailed sooner or later, and sooner is better.
Notwithstanding, the House of Representatives is in a holding pattern, waiting for the Senate to come to agreement on a non-binding resolution expressing displeasure with the war and the President's proposed troop "surge." House Leadership is hoping that Republican defectors in the Senate will pave the way for Republican dissenters in the lower chamber.
But the power struggle in the Senate between presidential hopefuls jockeying to appear the most sagacious and statesmanlike or the most responsive democratic legislator or both has thus far produced a plethora of press conferences, dramatic sound bites and passionate rhetoric but very little of substance. Senators are hoping to come to some sort of consensus by the middle of the month. At that point, the House can begin their procedures. Notwithstanding, the Senate did take a break from posturing and "bloviating" to approve unanimously a new commanding general to implement the President's proposed action, which they plan to collectively disown at their earliest convenience.
Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the President is going forward on his plan announced last month with all deliberate speed. By the time Congress has an official opinion, the executive and the armed forces will be deeply committed to the new strategy. In effect, Congress will voice a non-binding expression of their belief that the military operation to which we are already committed will not work.
The bigger point, however, is that the Senate specifically, and the legislative process in general, is designed to go slow. No student of the Constitution or American history would argue otherwise. Can we survive this war or any war in which the day-to-day operations are dependent on the efficiency of the Senate?
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Yesterday on the radio I caught part of an interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave, who covered the Tet Offensive as Newsweek‘s chief foreign correspondent and had seven tours in Vietnam between 1951 under the French and 1972. Since I missed the opening segment, I do not know if the interview was live or taped.
Since many are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I think it is important to be clear on what the similarities and differences actually are. To that end, de Borchgrave's 2004 article for UPI is must reading. In it he makes the case (now more widely accepted by historians) that Tet was actually a military defeat for the Vietcong and NVA, but was misreported by the US media as a defeat for us. The political consequences of this misreporting eventually resulted in the fall of South Vietnam.
The UPI article is here.
Since many are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, I think it is important to be clear on what the similarities and differences actually are. To that end, de Borchgrave's 2004 article for UPI is must reading. In it he makes the case (now more widely accepted by historians) that Tet was actually a military defeat for the Vietcong and NVA, but was misreported by the US media as a defeat for us. The political consequences of this misreporting eventually resulted in the fall of South Vietnam.
The UPI article is here.
01/02: Religion of Peace update
A Buddhist ice-cream vendor tries to sell in the wrong village, and is beheaded. Here from Jihadwatch.
Remember, if the Palestinian problem is solved Islamic militancy will vanish.
Remember, if the Palestinian problem is solved Islamic militancy will vanish.
Category: American Culture
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Last week, workers discovered an elderly woman dead in an outdoor heating and air conditioning unit at a local middle school here in Waco. The paper reported that she was "clothed in her bathrobe and slippers," and "huddled up in the corner of the unit." Initially, local authorities were unable to identify the body, labeling her Jane Doe.
Excerpted from a Waco Tribune-Herald story by Erin Quinn in the Wednesday, January 31, 2007 edition (full article here):
"Claire Conger died tormented and alone in a very public way.
"Sadly, she lived her life much the same."
"[Daughter] of former Waco mayor and famed historian Roger Conger..., little was known or said about the girl who was once pretty and popular but later was pulled from Waco High School because of a terrible mental illness."
"Investigators are still looking into what caused her death and why she apparently took refuge inside the [heating and air conditioning] unit."
"Several days passed before Waco police could even identify the woman with the famous roots. Her father was dead. So was her brother. Her husband. And daughter. All that remains of the once-powerful Congers is her 93-year-old mother, Lacy Rose Conger, who resides in a Waco condominium."
"Dental records finally confirmed [Claire Conger's] identity Tuesday."
"But in its heyday, [the Congers were] a prominent Waco family."
"A businessman and one-time mayor, Roger Conger was most revered as a Texas and Waco historian."
"[Conger's wife], Lacy Rose [also belonged to a well-to-do family]. Her father owned a laundry equipment business that Roger Conger eventually took over.
"Roger Conger died in 1996.
"Claire Conger's brother, Roger Lacy Conger, died in a car accident at a young age."
"Claire Conger is remembered as well-liked in high school. Up until her junior year...."
"'She was a straight-A student and one day she was just gone,' said Barbara Martin, a family friend. 'She had a lovely, lovely family. And she was a very nice person. But she was tormented.'"
"Claire Conger was diagnosed with schizophrenia...."
"Medication helped, but the illness often battled back."
For the last two decades of her life she lived alone, unknown and unloved by those who lived nearby.
"To the residents of the complex of townhouses[in which she lived], [Claire Conger] was simply known as an eccentric old woman..., [who] bought expensive cars, drove erratically and often walked around in her nightclothes and slippers."
They had no idea that she once belonged to a celebrated local family.
"[However], they say that none of her neighbors were surprised that she was found dead in such an unlikely place."
Too often we forget how fragile are the threads of family, community and soundness of mind.
Excerpted from a Waco Tribune-Herald story by Erin Quinn in the Wednesday, January 31, 2007 edition (full article here):
"Claire Conger died tormented and alone in a very public way.
"Sadly, she lived her life much the same."
"[Daughter] of former Waco mayor and famed historian Roger Conger..., little was known or said about the girl who was once pretty and popular but later was pulled from Waco High School because of a terrible mental illness."
"Investigators are still looking into what caused her death and why she apparently took refuge inside the [heating and air conditioning] unit."
"Several days passed before Waco police could even identify the woman with the famous roots. Her father was dead. So was her brother. Her husband. And daughter. All that remains of the once-powerful Congers is her 93-year-old mother, Lacy Rose Conger, who resides in a Waco condominium."
"Dental records finally confirmed [Claire Conger's] identity Tuesday."
"But in its heyday, [the Congers were] a prominent Waco family."
"A businessman and one-time mayor, Roger Conger was most revered as a Texas and Waco historian."
"[Conger's wife], Lacy Rose [also belonged to a well-to-do family]. Her father owned a laundry equipment business that Roger Conger eventually took over.
"Roger Conger died in 1996.
"Claire Conger's brother, Roger Lacy Conger, died in a car accident at a young age."
"Claire Conger is remembered as well-liked in high school. Up until her junior year...."
"'She was a straight-A student and one day she was just gone,' said Barbara Martin, a family friend. 'She had a lovely, lovely family. And she was a very nice person. But she was tormented.'"
"Claire Conger was diagnosed with schizophrenia...."
"Medication helped, but the illness often battled back."
For the last two decades of her life she lived alone, unknown and unloved by those who lived nearby.
"To the residents of the complex of townhouses[in which she lived], [Claire Conger] was simply known as an eccentric old woman..., [who] bought expensive cars, drove erratically and often walked around in her nightclothes and slippers."
They had no idea that she once belonged to a celebrated local family.
"[However], they say that none of her neighbors were surprised that she was found dead in such an unlikely place."
Too often we forget how fragile are the threads of family, community and soundness of mind.
I spent part of mid-day at the University of Oklahoma Medical Center in Oklahoma City. On my way there the roads began to get icy in the city. I saw one wreck (a pickup pulling a trailer jacknifed on an overpass) and fish-tailed a bit myself. (I was driving the smaller church van, a 1989 Ford Aerostar that looks like it has driven every one of its many miles.)
Leaving the hospital about 1:30, the drive out of the city was bad. Every overpass had at least one wreck; occasionally fellow drivers would fishtail or even slide sideways. It took me about an hour to get out of town. (I followed a plan of bypassing overpasses by using service roads.) Then, we had icy conditions for the next 30 miles; I had to stop once to bang the ice off the windshield wipers so that they would function properly. The last 30 miles were OK. Glad was I to get home.
The majority of vehicles that wrecked seemed to be 4WD pickups. We do, of course, has a lot of pickups on the roads (maybe not quite as high a percentage as Texas). But four-wheel-drive pickups seemed over-represented in the wrecks. I think I know why. (cont. below)
Leaving the hospital about 1:30, the drive out of the city was bad. Every overpass had at least one wreck; occasionally fellow drivers would fishtail or even slide sideways. It took me about an hour to get out of town. (I followed a plan of bypassing overpasses by using service roads.) Then, we had icy conditions for the next 30 miles; I had to stop once to bang the ice off the windshield wipers so that they would function properly. The last 30 miles were OK. Glad was I to get home.
The majority of vehicles that wrecked seemed to be 4WD pickups. We do, of course, has a lot of pickups on the roads (maybe not quite as high a percentage as Texas). But four-wheel-drive pickups seemed over-represented in the wrecks. I think I know why. (cont. below)
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
My wife and I saw the new Will Smith movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, this past Friday. Interesting and well done. Based on a true story.
In a nutshell: Will Smith's character is a down-on-his-luck salesman. He and his wife have purchased into a plan to sell portable bone-density scanners, new technology at the time. He is not selling the machines fast enough to recover his costs and pay rent. His wife works double-shifts at her job to try to provide for them. Eventually she tires of the struggle and leaves him. Smith's character insists that their son remain with him. He desires to rise in the world. Observing the car driven by a stockbroker, he decides to apply for an opening in the internship program at a brokerage house, and gets a position. Then he discovers that the job pays nothing during the internship. Driven to be the one person hired from the 20 interns, he pushes himself to succeed. As he is trying to do this he loses his apartment, then a run-down motel room, winding up sleeping in a shelter with his son. But, he perseveres, selling the remaining bone scanners on weekends, creatively building relationships with potential clients, and taking care of his son. In the end, he gets the job.
(my reaction below)
In a nutshell: Will Smith's character is a down-on-his-luck salesman. He and his wife have purchased into a plan to sell portable bone-density scanners, new technology at the time. He is not selling the machines fast enough to recover his costs and pay rent. His wife works double-shifts at her job to try to provide for them. Eventually she tires of the struggle and leaves him. Smith's character insists that their son remain with him. He desires to rise in the world. Observing the car driven by a stockbroker, he decides to apply for an opening in the internship program at a brokerage house, and gets a position. Then he discovers that the job pays nothing during the internship. Driven to be the one person hired from the 20 interns, he pushes himself to succeed. As he is trying to do this he loses his apartment, then a run-down motel room, winding up sleeping in a shelter with his son. But, he perseveres, selling the remaining bone scanners on weekends, creatively building relationships with potential clients, and taking care of his son. In the end, he gets the job.
(my reaction below)
Category: American Culture
Posted by: an okie gardener
Toqueville suggests we read and discuss this article on conservative Christians and support for the Republican party. The author's thesis is that such support may be dwindling. (It'll be a couple of days before I can respond myself)
30/01: Comments from Bernard Lewis
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
When Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis speaks, it is a good idea to listen. Here is a summary of recent remarks.
29/01: End-of-Life Decision Making
Category: From the Heart
Posted by: an okie gardener
My pastoral work this week has me thinking about life and death and modern medicine: when to fight death and when to accept it.
Here is my view, for what its worth.
If I were diagnosed with cancer, and told I needed extensive chemo and radiation, I would ask the following questions: what are the odds that the treatments would bring me to a state of being cancer free? if I take the treatments, how much longer would I live than if I refused treatment? if I take the treatments, what would the extra time be like?
If I were told that the treatments would give me a better than even chance of becoming cancer free, then I would accept treatment. If I were told that the odds were good that treatment would add years to my life, years that could be productive, then I would accept treatment. On the other hand, if I were told that there was almost no way treatment could make me cancer free, that treatment probably would add minimal time to my life, and that this time would not be productive, I would refuse treatment. These decisions I would make as a Christian.
(my reasoning below)
Here is my view, for what its worth.
If I were diagnosed with cancer, and told I needed extensive chemo and radiation, I would ask the following questions: what are the odds that the treatments would bring me to a state of being cancer free? if I take the treatments, how much longer would I live than if I refused treatment? if I take the treatments, what would the extra time be like?
If I were told that the treatments would give me a better than even chance of becoming cancer free, then I would accept treatment. If I were told that the odds were good that treatment would add years to my life, years that could be productive, then I would accept treatment. On the other hand, if I were told that there was almost no way treatment could make me cancer free, that treatment probably would add minimal time to my life, and that this time would not be productive, I would refuse treatment. These decisions I would make as a Christian.
(my reasoning below)
