I was going to do a final installment of the summer health care reform series, but then Obama decided that he wanted to speak to the nation this week, so I am going to wait to hear what he has to say before I conclude.
For the moment, I can say that there really has been a great deal of posturing and very little debating. Congress has shown exactly why it has horrible poll numbers, and why it is not seen in any real regard within the country. Our political discourse has reached new depths, and we are far from reaching the true depths.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
A Torturous Cheney Sunday II: the "Great White Hope?"
I am surprised that it took this long for someone to invoke the century old call for a "great white hope" to defeat Barack Obama. The subject of my master's thesis has been all over the news of late, because it was Jack Johnson's ascension to the heavyweight boxing championship in 1908 that touched off this original call for a redemption of the strength of the white race.
Of course Congresswoman Jenkins claimed not to be aware of the racial implications of the phrase, but as this article shows, Jenkins joined in a resolution (which passed both houses of Congress) for Obama to posthumously pardon Jack Johnson for his conviction for "violating" the 1910 Mann Act.
I decided to go back to some of my books and papers and refresh my memory about Jack Johnson and the calls for a "great white hope." I was reminded that the novelist Jack London was one of the earliest to call for someone to redeem the white race from the spectre of Johnson. As I was looking through Thomas R. Hietala's book, The Fight of the Century: Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and the Struggle for Racial Equality, I found a couple of interesting quotations from London, who was reporting on the July 4, 1910 fight between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries. London, in observing Johnson, noted that he "is not capable of seriously adjusting his actions to remote ends." (Hietala, 35). Yet in observing Jeffries, London noted that "this fight does not mean to Johnson what it does to Jeff." (Hietala, 36)
When I read those lines, I thought immediately of the Dick Cheney interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Though the racial context is not there, the sentiment that "this fight [against terrorism] does not mean to [Obama] what it does to [Cheney]" is. Cheney, according to the Fox News Sunday transcript of his interview with Chris Wallace, stated plainly that the Justice Department's investigation is "...clearly a political move," and that "there's no other rationale for why their doing this." When Wallace asked if Cheney thought that some of the actions of the interrogators was wrong, Cheney reiterated that their actions saved American lives. Cheney also added, later in the interview, that he thought that Democrats were weak on national security. And when asked about his thoughts on Obama, Cheney had this to say: "Well, I was not a fan of his when he got elected....I have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."
Sounds a bit like this fight doesn't mean the same to Obama as it does to Cheney, right?According to Cheney, Obama isn't prepared, or doesn't quite understand the gravity of these issues. Jack London already mapped out a rationale for Cheney there.
Finally, I was taken aback when I saw this headline on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal's website: "Cheney for President." James Taranto follows Cheney's line of thought, and ponders if the moves of the Bush administration kept the country safe, then perhaps it's possible that the Obama administration is endangering us.
So maybe Congresswoman Jenkins has been given her answer to the question of who that "great white hope" to take on Obama may be: Dick Cheney. Though I am not sure that he is as good a bet as Taranto seems to suggest. Cheney, like so many of Jack Johnson's "great white hopes," has some real weak spots that could be exploited to Obama's advantage, especially as Cheney tries to land some serious, though misguided blows on Obama about national security.
Perhaps Obama really is like Jack Johnson, who was one of the best defensive fighters in the history of boxing, and is simply looking for those weak spots and will strike his blows when the time is right. I hope that the Justice Department's investigation will provide the necessary ammunition.
Of course Congresswoman Jenkins claimed not to be aware of the racial implications of the phrase, but as this article shows, Jenkins joined in a resolution (which passed both houses of Congress) for Obama to posthumously pardon Jack Johnson for his conviction for "violating" the 1910 Mann Act.
I decided to go back to some of my books and papers and refresh my memory about Jack Johnson and the calls for a "great white hope." I was reminded that the novelist Jack London was one of the earliest to call for someone to redeem the white race from the spectre of Johnson. As I was looking through Thomas R. Hietala's book, The Fight of the Century: Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and the Struggle for Racial Equality, I found a couple of interesting quotations from London, who was reporting on the July 4, 1910 fight between Jack Johnson and Jim Jeffries. London, in observing Johnson, noted that he "is not capable of seriously adjusting his actions to remote ends." (Hietala, 35). Yet in observing Jeffries, London noted that "this fight does not mean to Johnson what it does to Jeff." (Hietala, 36)
When I read those lines, I thought immediately of the Dick Cheney interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Though the racial context is not there, the sentiment that "this fight [against terrorism] does not mean to [Obama] what it does to [Cheney]" is. Cheney, according to the Fox News Sunday transcript of his interview with Chris Wallace, stated plainly that the Justice Department's investigation is "...clearly a political move," and that "there's no other rationale for why their doing this." When Wallace asked if Cheney thought that some of the actions of the interrogators was wrong, Cheney reiterated that their actions saved American lives. Cheney also added, later in the interview, that he thought that Democrats were weak on national security. And when asked about his thoughts on Obama, Cheney had this to say: "Well, I was not a fan of his when he got elected....I have serious doubts about his policies, serious doubts especially about the extent to which he understands and is prepared to do what needs to be done to defend the nation."
Sounds a bit like this fight doesn't mean the same to Obama as it does to Cheney, right?According to Cheney, Obama isn't prepared, or doesn't quite understand the gravity of these issues. Jack London already mapped out a rationale for Cheney there.
Finally, I was taken aback when I saw this headline on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal's website: "Cheney for President." James Taranto follows Cheney's line of thought, and ponders if the moves of the Bush administration kept the country safe, then perhaps it's possible that the Obama administration is endangering us.
So maybe Congresswoman Jenkins has been given her answer to the question of who that "great white hope" to take on Obama may be: Dick Cheney. Though I am not sure that he is as good a bet as Taranto seems to suggest. Cheney, like so many of Jack Johnson's "great white hopes," has some real weak spots that could be exploited to Obama's advantage, especially as Cheney tries to land some serious, though misguided blows on Obama about national security.
Perhaps Obama really is like Jack Johnson, who was one of the best defensive fighters in the history of boxing, and is simply looking for those weak spots and will strike his blows when the time is right. I hope that the Justice Department's investigation will provide the necessary ammunition.
A Torturous Cheney Sunday
Virtually every Sunday, I take advantage of C-Span radio by listening to the re-broadcasts of the Sunday talk shows. In all honesty, it is the most of Fox News that I can take (Fox News Sunday), and as I listen to the likes of Chris Wallace and Bill Kristol, I find myself wondering if I've somehow stepped into an alternate universe, a twisted Narnia if you will. Occasionally, Juan Williams and Mara Liasson will say something that sounds similar to most of the news that I will have been aware of, but the rest of the conversations usually leave me with my mouth agape.
This past Sunday was particularly galling. I listened to the Wallace interview of Dick Cheney, and could not believe what I was hearing. Take a look:
Incredible, just incredible. I've never heard so many misleading and offensive statements. The idea that the Bush Justice Department wasn't politicized, and that the Obama Justice Department is, is just outrageous. Cheney's outright dismissal of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was signed by Reagan, is equally outrageous. That alone should trigger investigations. And I find it interesting that some on the right are using the "morale of the CIA" as a cover for potentially illegal actions. If what the Bush Justice Department did was solidly legal, then a solid review from a new Justice Department should yield similar results. Right?
Andrew Sullivan rightly puts Wallace's business out in the street for this sad excuse for an interview. I would love to know how Cheney would fare in an interview with Rachel Maddow. If her debut on "Meet the Press" is any indication, then I think we might see real television drama.
Speaking of Cheneys, I saw the Huffington Post link to the Liz Cheney/Sam Donaldson confrontation. There were two things that intrigued me about that entire vid clip. First, I thought that Gwen Ifill did an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies with what the Bush administration did and existing public policy, and made it clear that an investigation would only make sense. Second, I was astonished to hear Liz Cheney say that waterboarding "isn't torture."
Yet, John McCain said that waterboarding is indeed torture, and more importantly that "torture harmed us." Our reputation is stained in the world; our moral authority is compromised. And, in that twisted Narnia that the Cheneys occupy, torture helped us.
McCain has this bizarre idea that investigating something in violation of our laws, our treaties, is a bad thing. How can we not look into it? I have not a single doubt that if this were a new GOP administration following a Democratic administration with all that happened in the last seven years, the GOP would want full scale investigations into every possible law that might have been broken, and it would have neither shame nor hesitation in calling for such investigations.
I disagree with the idea that we need to look away. I think that Dick Cheney is just itching for a fight, almost daring the Obama administration to try to take him on. I wish Obama would. With each new interview, Cheney happily displays his disregard for past public policy on the issue of torture; he also sends a message out to the world that the current administration is weak on terror and foreign policy, that Obama simply doesn't know what he is doing and isn't taking American security seriously. That type of commentary once was considered close to treasonous during the Bush administration; it's amazing how standards change so rapidly.
Ultimately, I hope that the special prosecutor, John Durham, finds information that will force the Obama administration to act finally, conduct a full scale investigation, and eventually restore the rule of law (and if Dick Cheney, among others, finds himself in all sorts of legal trouble, I will not be sad).
This past Sunday was particularly galling. I listened to the Wallace interview of Dick Cheney, and could not believe what I was hearing. Take a look:
Incredible, just incredible. I've never heard so many misleading and offensive statements. The idea that the Bush Justice Department wasn't politicized, and that the Obama Justice Department is, is just outrageous. Cheney's outright dismissal of the UN Convention Against Torture, which was signed by Reagan, is equally outrageous. That alone should trigger investigations. And I find it interesting that some on the right are using the "morale of the CIA" as a cover for potentially illegal actions. If what the Bush Justice Department did was solidly legal, then a solid review from a new Justice Department should yield similar results. Right?
Andrew Sullivan rightly puts Wallace's business out in the street for this sad excuse for an interview. I would love to know how Cheney would fare in an interview with Rachel Maddow. If her debut on "Meet the Press" is any indication, then I think we might see real television drama.
Speaking of Cheneys, I saw the Huffington Post link to the Liz Cheney/Sam Donaldson confrontation. There were two things that intrigued me about that entire vid clip. First, I thought that Gwen Ifill did an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies with what the Bush administration did and existing public policy, and made it clear that an investigation would only make sense. Second, I was astonished to hear Liz Cheney say that waterboarding "isn't torture."
Yet, John McCain said that waterboarding is indeed torture, and more importantly that "torture harmed us." Our reputation is stained in the world; our moral authority is compromised. And, in that twisted Narnia that the Cheneys occupy, torture helped us.
McCain has this bizarre idea that investigating something in violation of our laws, our treaties, is a bad thing. How can we not look into it? I have not a single doubt that if this were a new GOP administration following a Democratic administration with all that happened in the last seven years, the GOP would want full scale investigations into every possible law that might have been broken, and it would have neither shame nor hesitation in calling for such investigations.
I disagree with the idea that we need to look away. I think that Dick Cheney is just itching for a fight, almost daring the Obama administration to try to take him on. I wish Obama would. With each new interview, Cheney happily displays his disregard for past public policy on the issue of torture; he also sends a message out to the world that the current administration is weak on terror and foreign policy, that Obama simply doesn't know what he is doing and isn't taking American security seriously. That type of commentary once was considered close to treasonous during the Bush administration; it's amazing how standards change so rapidly.
Ultimately, I hope that the special prosecutor, John Durham, finds information that will force the Obama administration to act finally, conduct a full scale investigation, and eventually restore the rule of law (and if Dick Cheney, among others, finds himself in all sorts of legal trouble, I will not be sad).
Monday, August 24, 2009
Boycotting the Whole Paycheck? II
I received a note from the author of the blog "Bloggasm" letting me know that he'd had an opportunity to interview some of the primary organizers of the national boycott. It's definitely an article that I would recommend folks checking out, particularly with regard to how the use of social networks is really helping to connect those who intend to boycott the "Paycheck."
I found out that there was a protest at the P Street Whole Foods on the 21st. The Washington City Paper was there to cover the event. Check out this link (which includes video). Local GOP supporters of Mackey's point of view came out this past weekend to represent.
I wonder if there was any real effect on sales at the P Street location?
Hat tip to Simon at Bloggasm
I found out that there was a protest at the P Street Whole Foods on the 21st. The Washington City Paper was there to cover the event. Check out this link (which includes video). Local GOP supporters of Mackey's point of view came out this past weekend to represent.
I wonder if there was any real effect on sales at the P Street location?
Hat tip to Simon at Bloggasm
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Boycotting the Whole Paycheck?
I am not sure about this move to boycott Whole Foods Market ("Whole Paycheck"), because of the comments of the CEO John Mackey. Unless I missed something in his op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal," Mackey did not come across to me as one of those scary, strange and apoplexy edging town hall protesters. He presented 8 reform suggestions. Is there something wrong with considering them on the merits?
What fascinates me about this hullabaloo is that Mackey clearly does not share the political perspective of many of the people I know who haunt the P Street Whole Foods. These markets seem to appear in the affluent/soon to be affluent/hip urban neighborhoods. I don't think too many of these neighborhoods are hotbeds of conservatism (though the few conservatives in my neighborhood are most likely gay).
I mean, for this lot, one of the signs of a revitalizing neighborhood's "arrival" is the presence of a Whole Foods. I vividly remember the strong push to gain a Whole Foods in Columbia Heights a couple of years ago, even with the opening of a pretty snazzy Giant supermarket. But to the newest members of the Columbia Heights community, only a Whole Foods would have the "transition" complete (Harris Teeter came to nearby Adams-Morgan instead).
In spite of the politics of the CEO, I am confident that the sales at Whole Foods will not diminish significantly. Too many people still seem invested in being seen with the ubiquitous Whole Foods paper bag. It's a status symbol, a lifestyle indicator. There are just some things that politics will not penetrate.
Now where is that organic brine soaked crumbled feta cheese?
What fascinates me about this hullabaloo is that Mackey clearly does not share the political perspective of many of the people I know who haunt the P Street Whole Foods. These markets seem to appear in the affluent/soon to be affluent/hip urban neighborhoods. I don't think too many of these neighborhoods are hotbeds of conservatism (though the few conservatives in my neighborhood are most likely gay).
I mean, for this lot, one of the signs of a revitalizing neighborhood's "arrival" is the presence of a Whole Foods. I vividly remember the strong push to gain a Whole Foods in Columbia Heights a couple of years ago, even with the opening of a pretty snazzy Giant supermarket. But to the newest members of the Columbia Heights community, only a Whole Foods would have the "transition" complete (Harris Teeter came to nearby Adams-Morgan instead).
In spite of the politics of the CEO, I am confident that the sales at Whole Foods will not diminish significantly. Too many people still seem invested in being seen with the ubiquitous Whole Foods paper bag. It's a status symbol, a lifestyle indicator. There are just some things that politics will not penetrate.
Now where is that organic brine soaked crumbled feta cheese?
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Summer Thinking on Health Care Reform IV: Of Protesters and Jews
In less than a week, we have witnessed two protestors against health care reform resort to making direct references (here and here) to the era of the Third Reich to Jewish supporters of health care reform. I'll ask a variation of Cong. Barney Frank's question: On what planet do these protesters spend most of their time?
How dense can one be to bring up Nazi references to Jews, and then accuse them of supporting a "similar" policy, or to invoke the name of Hitler to make one's point (and then look sheepish when called out on it)?
As I've said before, there are legitimate questions regarding health care reform legislation that is bubbling up through Congress, but neither of these protestors seem very interested in having a substantive debate. I suppose that substance can only be found in post Weimar Republic era Germany.
How dense can one be to bring up Nazi references to Jews, and then accuse them of supporting a "similar" policy, or to invoke the name of Hitler to make one's point (and then look sheepish when called out on it)?
As I've said before, there are legitimate questions regarding health care reform legislation that is bubbling up through Congress, but neither of these protestors seem very interested in having a substantive debate. I suppose that substance can only be found in post Weimar Republic era Germany.
Tom Ridge's "Shocking" Revelation
I was watching Hardball this afternoon, and not really paying attention (we had company), but I did notice that there was something on the screen about a revelation from former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.
Ridge has written a book, The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again, due out on September 1. In it, Ridge reveals that he was pressured to raise the terror alert to help affect the outcome of the 2004 election.
Tom, tell us something many of us already didn't know. I assumed that the terror threats were manipulated so that people could remain in a constant state of fear.
I admit it. I had no confidence in former President Bush with regard to "keeping us safe." That position hardened when we dropped the ball in Afghanistan and set our sights on Iraq. So, of course it should come as no surprise that the terror threat levels were occasionally manipulated for political purposes.
As with General Colin Powell, I respect Gov. Ridge; however, I am disappointed in both them for not leaving the Bush administration when they first realized that it was shady. Duty should only go so far. Both men are now on the road to redemption, but I am sure that I am not alone in feeling sad to see the reputations of genuinely good men tarnished by the fatuous actions of the last administration.
Ridge has written a book, The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege...and How We Can Be Safe Again, due out on September 1. In it, Ridge reveals that he was pressured to raise the terror alert to help affect the outcome of the 2004 election.
Tom, tell us something many of us already didn't know. I assumed that the terror threats were manipulated so that people could remain in a constant state of fear.
I admit it. I had no confidence in former President Bush with regard to "keeping us safe." That position hardened when we dropped the ball in Afghanistan and set our sights on Iraq. So, of course it should come as no surprise that the terror threat levels were occasionally manipulated for political purposes.
As with General Colin Powell, I respect Gov. Ridge; however, I am disappointed in both them for not leaving the Bush administration when they first realized that it was shady. Duty should only go so far. Both men are now on the road to redemption, but I am sure that I am not alone in feeling sad to see the reputations of genuinely good men tarnished by the fatuous actions of the last administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)