Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Monday, January 10, 2011

Snow (Again) + The Attempted Assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords

photoSnow, snow, everywhere snow. Or at least it feels like I'm trailing or it's trailing me here in Chicago. It wasn't snowing in Los Angeles, which I just returned from a few days ago, but it was chilly, though I can't complain because a little chill in the air is better than sliding across icy roadways as snow pour down from an infinite white sky. That was my experience this morning on the way to my first class. But I got there, and am now hoping that the snow here decides to trail off, soon.

***

I am not going to try to diagnose Jared Lee Loughner or offer some overarching rationale for why this past Saturday this 22-year-old evidently disturbed man attempted to assassinate US Representative (D-AZ) Gabrielle Giffords, who is now in critical care and still fighting for her life, though it increasingly appears as though she will make a strong recovery.  In his attempt to kill her he went on a rampage, murdering her aide, Gabe Zimmerman, 30; Federal judge John Roll, 63; Christina Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl born on September 11, 200l, who was deeply interested in governmental affairs; Dorothy Murray, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; and Phyllis Scheck, 79. He also wounded a number of other bystanders, making January 8th one of the most tragic days in 2011 America.

One thing that made this crime possible is the easily availability of semiautomatic weapons, such as the Glock that Loughner apparently was able to acquire without any problems.  Another, that many across the Net have pointed, is the extremist rhetoric that is now so common, though I would suggest that pointing to this backdrop does not mean that I am drawing a direct link and, as I've seen some do, I'd add that not forget such rhetoric isn't new in American history and that as recently as the 1990s not only was such rhetoric in wide circulation, but there was surge in private militias, attacks targeting racial, ethnic, sexual and religious minorities, and spectacularly horrific acts like the Oklahoma City Bombing, which killed over 100 people, occurred in 1995.

Let me make two micro points about rhetoric and discourse. First, rhetoric, one of the oldest aspects of verbal exchange (it precedes written language), is meant to have psychophysical effects. The way that one speaks can shape the way others act. This is why orators going back thousands of years were trained in the art of rhetoric. To speak of "rhetoric," even in its degraded contemporary form, then, is to speak of language with the potential make people think and act. We remember the best rhetoric: "Four score and seven years...," "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," "I have a dream..." Second, anyone who has passed through or even near a lit crit class in the last 35 years has learned a little bit about "discourse," primarily via Foucault and his adepts. One lesson anyone who has paid attention learns (and I'm simplifying radically here) is that society, and people in society, change and are changed not simply by individual acts, history, material culture, etc., but also by the discourse that circulates--the language, the ideas, the memes, etc.--throughout an era in any given time. It shapes what people say, think, do, create, and so on. Foucault took the idea in very important and sometimes controversial directions, but it is now pretty much a given, at least in contemporary humanities scholarship, that discursive production, is something always to consider.

I thus do believe this extremist rhetoric and its discursive effects, aided and abetted by fanatics employing the media new and old, have increased, as has the failure of many in the corporate media, or in the upper reaches of the political left even to make any effort to counter it.  I also believe that the "eliminationist rhetoric" in particular, which New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote about on Monday, from politicians no less, is perhaps more prominent.  Yet let me make clear that I am not saying there is a direct causational link between the crazy ranting and the crazy acts. One of the tricks I've noticed online over the past few days is people on the right citing President Obama's "if they bring a knife, we bring a  gun" remark as a counterweight, missing the point that this is an old saw, composed of two metonyms and defensive in its meaning, as opposed to a direct offensive call for violence against opponents, or for revolutionary violence (Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment" solutions), etc.

Nevertheless, to show that the events of this past weekend were not in isolation, I want to post the following link from Dave Neiwert via Digby that details a series of similar events that have occurred since the last presidential election cycle got underway.
-- July 2008: A gunman named Jim David Adkisson, agitated at how "liberals" are "destroying America," walks into a Unitarian Church and opens fire, killing two churchgoers and wounding four others.
-- October 2008: Two neo-Nazis are arrested in Tennessee in a plot to murder dozens of African-Americans, culminating in the assassination of President Obama.
-- December 2008: A pair of "Patriot" movement radicals -- the father-son team of Bruce and Joshua Turnidge, who wanted "to attack the political infrastructure" -- threaten a bank in Woodburn, Oregon, with a bomb in the hopes of extorting money that would end their financial difficulties, for which they blamed the government. Instead, the bomb goes off and kills two police officers. The men eventually are convicted and sentenced to death for the crime.
-- December 2008: In Belfast, Maine, police discover the makings of a nuclear "dirty bomb" in the basement of a white supremacist shot dead by his wife. The man, who was independently wealthy, reportedly was agitated about the election of President Obama and was crafting a plan to set off the bomb.
-- January 2009: A white supremacist named Keith Luke embarks on a killing rampage in Brockton, Mass., raping and wounding a black woman and killing her sister, then killing a homeless man before being captured by police as he is en route to a Jewish community center.
-- February 2009: A Marine named Kody Brittingham is arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate President Obama. Brittingham also collected white-supremacist material.
-- April 2009: A white supremacist named Richard Poplawski opens fire on three Pittsburgh police officers who come to his house on a domestic-violence call and kills all three, because he believed President Obama intended to take away the guns of white citizens like himself. Poplawski is currently awaiting trial.
-- April 2009: Another gunman in Okaloosa County, Florida, similarly fearful of Obama's purported gun-grabbing plans, kills two deputies when they come to arrest him in a domestic-violence matter, then is killed himself in a shootout with police.
-- May 2009: A "sovereign citizen" named Scott Roeder walks into a church in Wichita, Kansas, and assassinates abortion provider Dr. George Tiller.
-- June 2009: A Holocaust denier and right-wing tax protester named James Von Brunn opens fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a security guard.
-- February 2010: An angry tax protester named Joseph Ray Stack flies an airplane into the building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas. (Media are reluctant to label this one "domestic terrorism" too.)
-- March 2010: Seven militiamen from the Hutaree Militia in Michigan and Ohio are arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate local police officers with the intent of sparking a new civil war.
-- March 2010: An anti-government extremist named John Patrick Bedell walks into the Pentagon and opens fire, wounding two officers before he is himself shot dead.
-- May 2010: A "sovereign citizen" from Georgia is arrested in Tennessee and charged with plotting the violent takeover of a local county courthouse.
-- May 2010: A still-unidentified white man walks into a Jacksonville, Fla., mosque and sets it afire, simultaneously setting off a pipe bomb.
-- May 2010: Two "sovereign citizens" named Jerry and Joe Kane gun down two police officers who pull them over for a traffic violation, and then wound two more officers in a shootout in which both of them are eventually killed.
-- July 2010: An agitated right-winger and convict named Byron Williams loads up on weapons and drives to the Bay Area intent on attacking the offices of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, but is intercepted by state patrolmen and engages them in a shootout and armed standoff in which two officers and Williams are wounded.
-- September 2010: A Concord, N.C., man is arrested and charged with plotting to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. The man, 26-year--old Justin Carl Moose, referred to himself as the "Christian counterpart to (Osama) bin Laden” in a taped undercover meeting with a federal informant.
Whether this is a higher or lower number of such incidents, I cannot say. It is clear, however,  that a number of people have come unhinged, and in many of these cases, certain threads keep reappearing. I had pointed to some of them on this blog long before the November 2008 election, and their casual usage even by members of the press (the slurs against Obama's name, etc.), and we are seeing the results. Perhaps now the media will wake up and stop furthering this rhetoric and discourse, though as Foucault and others might say, it is already out there, and how it plays out, especially with the economy listing along, failed right-wing economic ideas still dominating policy discussions, and another major election just on the horizon, we'll have to see.

To give another perspective, from someone living in Tucson, here's acclaimed writer Larry McMurtry's reading of the situation there, "American Tragedy," from the New York Review of Books blog.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Goin' Coconuts For President Barry

With the number of seats in the House turned over to Republicans, one might be under the impression that there is lot a lot of love for President Barry these days. Of course, one would have to be rather dense or watch a lot of cable news (I know, it's kind of redundant) to believe that, but that's the impression that the media is spewing out there right now. But if you're following the preparations that are being made for his upcoming trip to India (and who isn't?!), you'd know that not only is there still a fondness for the man out there, but it's still in that silly stage in a lot of parts.

According to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, they are taking some rather extreme measures over there in India. Sure, there's the regular security measures that are being tended to. Tons of Secret Service, even though they're not very secret because everyone can tell who they are. Bolted down manhole covers or whatever they use to cover their holes for men over there. Removing all of the coconuts from the trees. Wait. What.

Correct. The article tells us that they are "...removing all natural threats to the president as well". Apparently, 'natural threats' include "All coconuts around the city's Gandhi museum" which is one of President Barry's stops, and they "...are being taken down." Really? The coconuts? Are they that big of a threat that it warrants taking a bunch of them down?

According to the executive secretary (whose name is completely unpronounceable) at one of the places where President Barry is staying, "We told the authorities to remove the dry coconuts from trees near the building. Why take a chance?" Is there a reason why they can't just steer him clear of the trees with the coconuts in them? I'm serious about this. Why is that not the optimal solution? Are they everywhere? Why can't he just wear a helmet? Now that would be something!

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Is Obama A Keynesian?

While the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear was, in general, a seeming success, it was even more successful in my eyes after I saw the video below. In it, one of the chaps at the rally has a sign which reads: "OBAMA = KEYNESIAN?" As you may or may not be aware, Keynesian economics is a macroeconomic theory developed by a one John Keynes (hence, the name). However, what with all of the birth certificate hooplah still in full swing, some people (if we're lucky) might mistake Keynesian for Kenyan. And if we're really lucky, someone might video those sort of encounters at the Jon Stewart rally. And if you're super lucky, I just might post such a video of such an encounter below. You're welcome.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Guess The Halloween Costume


Yesterday, I rambled on about the whorish Halloween costumes that have been so popular lately. And while I don't really condone them, I will give them credit for at least putting a little bit of thought into the costume. While the Cookie Monster costume doesn't look a thing like Cookie Monster, if you gave me a minute, I could probably noodle it through and figure it out. Granted, that weird little beret hat that it comes with would still be confusing in the end, but I still think that I could put it all together. I'm not so sure that I can say the same about this next costume. Tell me what you think this is:

See, now, I went with the Creepy Urban Rapper Costume. Strangely enough, that wasn't quite right. What did you guess? Never mind. I'm guessing that you didn't surmise that it was really this:

That's right. It's a President Barry mask. Well, technically, it's a "mr. president set". Do all presidential masks come with a Mr. Microphone or whatever that is supposed to be? If anything, shouldn't it come with a teleprompter? It's not like he's giving all of his speeches (and there have been many of them because he seems to really like the sound of his own voice) as some sort of "man on the street" Commander in Chief. Why the microphone? Shouldn't it come with a birth certificate? Kidding! I'm kidding! I kid! Geez...tough crowd.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Illegal Immigrant Thinks We Owe Her


The twisted logic that people use when it comes to illegal immigration always amazes me. And I mean always. It also really confuses me as to how "illegal immigration" seems to be so easily confused with "immigration" when the folks who seem to favor illegal immigration try and paint people who don't favor it as simply "anti-immigration". But I think that might be simply because some folks seem to not define "illegal" in the traditional sense. You know. That of it actually being not legal.

Let's look at an instance of that. Let's look at the instance of a one Zeituni Onyango. (You can pronounce that however you'd like.) I should probably point out that why you're hearing what she thinks of the whole illegal immigration issue is twofold. Fold one: She is in this country illegally. Fold two: She is the aunt of President Barry. Frankly, it's the first point that is more important than the second one. The second one is kind of a little trivia nugget more than anything. But I'm sure you still want to know what she has to say...or something like that.

Ms. Onyango came here in 2000 from Kenya and, according to
AOL News, "...fell ill and was hospitalized." Aww. Well, these things happen. But then, "Upon her release...she was out of money. So rather than return to her homeland, she continued to live in the country in violation of immigration laws." Umm, OK. Yeah, those things happen, too. But they shouldn't. But what was she going to do? She was out of money, for cryin' out loud! Does Kenya give people money when they don't have any? I don't know if they do, but I could think of several reasons why they wouldn't or why they don't.

Now, in a sane society, one would think that if you're out of money, that's going to be a problem, especially if you're from another land. But not here in the good ol' US of A! Nope. Not a problem at all! See, "After stints in a Boston homeless shelter, Onyango was eventually put in public housing and began receiving disability payments." Hmm. Disability payments. Don't those come out of Social Security? Hmm. Aren't most folks expected to pay into that before they draw on it? Technically, yes. Actually, theoretically, yes. And people wonder why it's going broke. Duh.

Her story continues with us learning that "In 2004, an immigration judge ordered her to leave the country, but Onyango remained. However, she noted that her story was less about intentionally flouting federal immigration policy and more about its ineffectiveness. "I didn't take advantage of the system...The system took advantage of me." Uh, wait. What now? The system took advantage of HER?! How in the hell did the system take advantage of HER?! The system told her to leave! That's not taking advantage of her! That's booting her out! She stayed! How is it not her taking advantage of the system? HOW?! Of course, she doesn't elaborate on that.

But what she did elaborate on sent me over the proverbial edge. She said that "...she's done nothing wrong by illegally living in the United States for years and is therefore deserving of amnesty. "If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen." What the what now?

So, in her book, "illegal" doesn't mean "doing something wrong". It means "the system is taking advantage of you"? Where in the hell does she come up with that logic? And since when is any country obligated to a citizen from another country for anything?! I'm pretty sure there isn't any obligation here (other than on her part to get out). And finally, you delusional woman, you didn't come as an immigrant. You were living here illegally. You weren't an immigrant. You were an illegal resident! There's a difference! Why does everyone keep overlooking the difference between "an immigrant" and "an illegal immigrant"?! They're different, for cryin' out loud!

Wow. This is what it's come to? Really? People that don't have any legal right to be here thinking that they are owed something by this country simply because they are here? Really? Wow. I suppose that I should end this by mentioning that Ms. Unpronounceable was granted asylum earlier this year by the same judge that denied her asylum in 2004. (Gee. I wonder why that was? Hmm.) I should probably also mention that she still lives in public housing and still collects $700 per month in disability. She's never paid into the system and she's totally getting her entire lifestyle paid for out of the system. Sure, that seems reasonable. No, I can't see why that would be a problem in the long run. Or in any run. Good Lord, people....

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

The Condescending President

You know what I can't stand? Wait. Let me narrow that down a little bit, lest we be here all the live long day. You know what I can't stand about politicians? Wait. Hmm. There's no way of phrasing this without generating an incredibly long list of possibilities. I'll just cut to the chase. I can't stand a condescending politician. And I really can't stand a condescending President. I'm talking to you, President Barry.

The huffy folks over there at
The Huffington Post tell us that President Barry was at some town hall meeting that CNBC broadcast live on Monday. And I guess that the question or the issue was simple enough. Apparently, an audience member pressed President Barry to chime in on what it is that makes the Tea Party movement do its thing. For some reason, President Barry seems to think that there are no specific goals that these folks have. I'm not sure why he thinks that. But whatever the reason is, he came across sounding like a condescending jackass.

Here's part of what he replied (and it's the part that really ticked me off): "So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?....It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

There are two basic goals of the Tea Party movement. The second one can be almost automatic if the first goal is met. It's all about smaller government. Yes, it's also about lower taxes, but it's largely about smaller government. The government is huge and bloated. You don't think that there could be some cut backs in government there, President Barry? Really? Because you seem to think that we're all a bunch of idiots who would believe you that the only things that could be cut would be services that are essential.

This is what politicians do. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulls it at least once a year in California when they can't agree on a budget for this fiscally doomed state. They tell folks that, in order to stay within a budget, they're going to have to cut services like firefighters and policemen and school teachers. You don't want that, do you? No, of course not! That's when they justify raising taxes. But hold on a minute! Aren't there things within the governmental bureaucracy that could be cut other than firefighters, policemen and teachers? I'm 100% positive that there are.

President Barry, are you trying to tell me that every single government agency and department and job is absolutely, completely necessary? I don't think that it is. Are you going to tell me that every single government pension plan isn't overly generous? I don't think that you can tell me that and not have your nose grow at least six inches. You're trying to tell me that none of these governmental departments overlap and do the same work that other agencies do? And I'm supposed to believe you? Really?

How about, before you go suggesting cuts to Medicare and to veteran's benefits, you cut all services to those who are in this country illegally. How much money would that save? And that's just one area where money could be saved and where government could be shrunk. Don't go around threatening us by minimizing our obligation to our soldiers by suggesting that we should cut their services. How dare you. Seriously.

Smaller government. Lower taxes. Reduce the size of the government and spending will go down some. Reduce the size of the government to what it really needs to be reduced by and watch spending go down a great deal. Watch spending go down and watch the need to taxes to raise diminish. Remember, over fifty percent of Americans want fewer services and smaller government according to
two different polls, one done in April of this year and the other conducted in September of this year. Over fifty percent want smaller government. Is that specific enough for you, President Barry? How else do we need to spell it out for you?
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...