Frankly, I don't care that Chicago lost its bid for the Olympics. Really, I don't.
But maybe the president's trip to Copenhagen was useful since his top battle commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, traveling from England to Denmark, had the opportunity to meet Barack Obama on Air Force One. Their talking with each other is, after all, a rarity. In fact, Obama and McChrystal had spoken but once since the general took on AfPak as his turf in early June 2009. With whom, then, is Obama conversing? And how independent of mind on military matters are they? Or are they of the touchy-feely persuasion?
Speaking in diplomatese, the White House press office graded the Obama-McChrystal conversation as "productive," which means neither a disaster nor especially gratifying. My guess is that, in this context, it actually means not impolite. Their differences have been a big topic in the news, and the standoff is clear: McChrystal wants more troops and has a strategy to mobilize them; the president wants less, many many less, and to get Kabul off the nightly news. During the campaign, he spoke of the American involvement in Afghanistan as a war of necessity rather than a war of choice, like Iraq, which was made to seem like a war of sinful desire. No longer.
If the president is true to his essential beliefs about foreign affairs, Obama actually wants out but can't design a clean exodus. His party swallowed deeply when it played along with his election strategy of pitting Iraq against Afghanistan. At rallies, the candidate's mention of a free Afghanistan was never an applause line. But now, nine months into the administration's life, there is much Democratic rumbling in the Capitol cloakrooms against more troops on the AfPak war front, the demand for which everyone knew was on its way, and even against maintaining the present troop level. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a man full of himself, will be nearly as puffy and cantankerous with Obama as he was with George Bush.
So, while the president did make time for a rather brief conversation with McChrystal in Copenhagen, the real purpose of his rushed trans-Atlantic flight was to grease the International Olympic Committee into naming Chicago as epicenter of the 2016 games. If you read closely in the newspapers, it wasn't as if Chicagoans were so ecstatic for the prize. Having the Olympics in town often turns out to be a big bust, burdening its residents, businesses and taxes for years thereafter. And, since the president is so much against national chauvinism, he might have contemplated that the games turn out to be among the most ritualized examples of hate on the planet, with the added cost of moving the poor around to make way for the rich visitors. When I was in Capetown, South Africa this summer, I saw from afar the still-being-built stadium for the 2010 World Cup soccer games. Now, South Africans are mad for soccer. But the talk in the street was against the expenditure, which comes to billions of rand and hundreds of millions of dollars even before anybody faces up to the inevitable cost over-runs. How many shanty-towns could have been replaced with this money? Or how about putting a water supply into these jungles of human refuse?
Anyway, whatever thought Obama may have given to these matters about Chicago, Valerie Jarrett had his ear. (The last time we know she had his ear was when she convinced him to bestow the National Medal of Freedom on that nice frigid anti-Semite, Mary Robinson. Beware!)
The front-page lead headline in the weekend edition of the Financial Times said it much too clearly for Obama's vanity: "Rio in carnival mood after Brazil beats Obama to the 2016 Olympics." By contrast, it was a huge triumph for Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who has long created his persona as an antagonist to the U.S. Not a Hugo Chavez, mind you, but an antagonist nonetheless. And not a danger to foreign investors. Lula actually held the line against the new Latin cult of socialism.
As the FT went on to say, the IOC "delivered an astonishing snub" to the president "by eliminating Chicago in the first round of voting." Chicago was dumped before Madrid was dumped and before Tokyo was dumped. Had the Obama folk not done any canvassing which would have alerted them to the fact that they were jet-setting to a humiliation? Maybe Michelle's presence added to the over-confident sense of invincibility. Moreover, how could they lose with Oprah Winfrey in tow?
So this question arises: If Obama could not get Chicago over the finish line in Copenhagen, which was a test only of his charms, how will he persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons capacity or the Arabs, to whom he has tilted (we are told) only tactically, to sit down without their 60 year-old map as guide to what they demand from Israel.
What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical narcissist. This is not necessarily a bad condition if one maintains for oneself what the psychiatrists call an "optimal margin of illusion," that is, the margin of hope that allows you to work. But what if his narcissism blinds him to the issues and problems in the world and the inveterate foes of the nation that are not susceptible to his charms?
Chicago will survive its disappointments and Obama will, as well. It is the other stage sets on which the president struts--like he strutted in Cairo and at the United Nations--that concern me.
I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query to him is: "Does he believe America to be a good country?"
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (34)
Perhaps he could get them to stage the Special Olympics in Chicago...
I watched on CNN last night Dan Lemon's expose about the recent violence. A few of the people he interviewed were in essence saying: The hell with the Olympic games. They are just games. How can they be more important than the 37 murders that took place last year? Make this city livable for decent folk.
When these voices about priorities come from his own power base President Obama should do well to listen very carefully.
About Afghanistan:
http:// ... view full comment
Perhaps he could get them to stage the Special Olympics in Chicago...
I watched on CNN last night Dan Lemon's expose about the recent violence. A few of the people he interviewed were in essence saying: The hell with the Olympic games. They are just games. How can they be more important than the 37 murders that took place last year? Make this city livable for decent folk.
When these voices about priorities come from his own power base President Obama should do well to listen very carefully.
About Afghanistan:
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2009/10/to-my-victoria-companeros-mond...
Noga I saw an impassioned plea from an even closer asymmetry, the plea of Reverend Eugene Rivers: teh asymmetry: lots of weighing in on Gates/Crowley, an afternoon beer, a political farce with the farce being the only, may God forgive me, "teachable moment" and and the limp silence on the latest inner city black on black violence in America.
See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fj_4kSQCxo
Noga I saw an impassioned plea from an even closer asymmetry, the plea of Reverend Eugene Rivers: teh asymmetry: lots of weighing in on Gates/Crowley, an afternoon beer, a political farce with the farce being the only, may God forgive me, "teachable moment" and and the limp silence on the latest inner city black on black violence in America.
See for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fj_4kSQCxo
The last time we know she had his ear was when she convinced him to bestow the National Medal of Freedom on that nice frigid anti-Semite, Mary Robinson. Beware!
Aha! I think we may be getting somewhere at last. I imagine the scene like this:
A room in an expensive hotel in New York City. Dawn is greying the window. In the bed are two people, a man and a woman. MARY and MARTY are lying side by side, staring at the ceiling. There is an obvious tension between them.
MARY: It's not you, honey, it's me. Sometimes . . . you know.
MARTY: It works with other women -- they like it.
MARY: Don't obsess about it. She leans over and gives him a peck on the cheek.view full comment
The last time we know she had his ear was when she convinced him to bestow the National Medal of Freedom on that nice frigid anti-Semite, Mary Robinson. Beware!
Aha! I think we may be getting somewhere at last. I imagine the scene like this:
A room in an expensive hotel in New York City. Dawn is greying the window. In the bed are two people, a man and a woman. MARY and MARTY are lying side by side, staring at the ceiling. There is an obvious tension between them.
MARY: It's not you, honey, it's me. Sometimes . . . you know.
MARTY: It works with other women -- they like it.
MARY: Don't obsess about it. She leans over and gives him a peck on the cheek. I just like being with you anyhow.
MARTY: I never had a problem before.
MARY: Look, we're neither of us spring chickens. These things happen. It's worse if you just keep on thinking about it.
The lie there in silence for a short while.
MARTY: You're frigid, that's what it is.
MARY: I am so not frigid. Her voice rising a little. It takes a man with some sensitivity, that's all.
MARTY: And you're an antisemite!
MARY: Where did that come from? For chrissake don't you think I know I fucked up the Durban thing. I've said I'm sorry. What do you want -- blood?
MARTY: And you talk in that weird accent!
MARY: What accent?
MARTY: That one, right there.
MARY: That's an Irish accent. I'm Irish. That's why I speak that way.
MARTY: Oh.
They look at each other.
MARTY: Well, you're frigid anyway. I'm outa here.
He climbs out of bed and struggles into his clothes.
MARY: Marty, don't go like that! Please. I don't want us to end like this.
Marty opens the door.
MARY: Did you ever realize . . .
MARTY: What?
MARY: That our names our only one letter apart?
He leaves. The door clicks shut behind him. Mary lies there a few moments, thinking. Then she sits up, grabs her cellphone from the side table, and dials a number.
MARY: Ban-Ki? It's Mary. Yeah. Remember how I said I wouldn't be free for dinner this week? Well, as it turns out . . . .
Call it...?
Call it... ...?
Call it... ... ...?
I know: "Marty: Love's Labour Lost".
Call it...?
Call it... ...?
Call it... ... ...?
I know: "Marty: Love's Labour Lost".
partial do over
Love's Labour's Lost
partial do over
Love's Labour's Lost
I thought you were busy this weekend, ironyroad. Why is it that the slightest sexual innuendo gets men all excited in any conversation? Do you know how easy you (men) are to manipulate that way?
I don't think Mary Robinson is an antisemite. Or frigid. I mean, Marty is revealing his age by resorting to this diagnosis. It's been years since anyone referred to sexually unresponsive women as frigid. The last time I encountered it was in Allan Bloom's book: Love and Friendship, in a chapter about Jane Austen. He. diagnosed Elizabeth Bennet as frigid! Well, I ask you... does this make sense?
I thought you were busy this weekend, ironyroad. Why is it that the slightest sexual innuendo gets men all excited in any conversation? Do you know how easy you (men) are to manipulate that way?
I don't think Mary Robinson is an antisemite. Or frigid. I mean, Marty is revealing his age by resorting to this diagnosis. It's been years since anyone referred to sexually unresponsive women as frigid. The last time I encountered it was in Allan Bloom's book: Love and Friendship, in a chapter about Jane Austen. He. diagnosed Elizabeth Bennet as frigid! Well, I ask you... does this make sense?
Noga, you're right. Back to the 22 remaining papers and 100 pages of Henry James for tomorrow!
It was, however, a little difficult to resist the sudden opening . . .
I am aware of my gender-based manipulability.
Noga, you're right. Back to the 22 remaining papers and 100 pages of Henry James for tomorrow!
It was, however, a little difficult to resist the sudden opening . . .
I am aware of my gender-based manipulability.
"(The last time we know she had his ear was when she convinced him to bestow the National Medal of Freedom on that nice frigid anti-Semite, Mary Robinson. Beware!)"
Yes, this is pretty crass stuff. Not only because Marty has no notion about the extent of Robinson's sexual activity, but also because it assumes that one has to be frigid to be an antisemite.
This is, as was suggested, a 1950's idea when Wilhelm Reich captured and ruined the work of many an intellectual. According to this sexual repression was responsible for all the evils in the world and hence all bigots and racists were portrayed as repressed and frigid.
This, to say the least, is pretty simplistic.
"(The last time we know she had his ear was when she convinced him to bestow the National Medal of Freedom on that nice frigid anti-Semite, Mary Robinson. Beware!)"
Yes, this is pretty crass stuff. Not only because Marty has no notion about the extent of Robinson's sexual activity, but also because it assumes that one has to be frigid to be an antisemite.
This is, as was suggested, a 1950's idea when Wilhelm Reich captured and ruined the work of many an intellectual. According to this sexual repression was responsible for all the evils in the world and hence all bigots and racists were portrayed as repressed and frigid.
This, to say the least, is pretty simplistic.
What constantly amazes me is how such a nincompoop could produce such a good magazine.
What constantly amazes me is how such a nincompoop could produce such a good magazine.
Yeah, I thought that was Marty I saw with the baton in the Weekly Standard newsclip. Conducting foreign policy from afar as it were.
And I've never met a narcissist [clinical or otherwise] who wasn't absolutely convinced that all that is Good in the world is derived from all that he says it is.
But this is not the point of the rambler above. Instead, the point is to cover a wide terrain of important matters, from a puffy and cantankerous Carl Levin to Barack, Michelle and Oprah's humiliation in Copenhagen, and pluck out all that is Bad in the world.
In other words, Good and Bad are ever distilled precisely from the narcissist's sense that he is the center of the universe.
But, again, I suspe ... view full comment
Yeah, I thought that was Marty I saw with the baton in the Weekly Standard newsclip. Conducting foreign policy from afar as it were.
And I've never met a narcissist [clinical or otherwise] who wasn't absolutely convinced that all that is Good in the world is derived from all that he says it is.
But this is not the point of the rambler above. Instead, the point is to cover a wide terrain of important matters, from a puffy and cantankerous Carl Levin to Barack, Michelle and Oprah's humiliation in Copenhagen, and pluck out all that is Bad in the world.
In other words, Good and Bad are ever distilled precisely from the narcissist's sense that he is the center of the universe.
But, again, I suspect that not much thought goes into the narcissist's assessment of the philosophical implications of this. How, for example, does narcissism differ from solipsism? And how does solipsism reflect a mind not able to probe the existential components of identity embedded in ever evolving circumstantial contexts?
The meglomaniacal mind is impervious to complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty. Otherwise how could it possibly know everything there is to know about everyone who ever was, is or will be?
From Chicago to Kabul, from Obama to McChrystal, from soccer stadiums in Capetown to the shanty-town remnants of South African, uh, apartheid.....all is revealed.
george walton
Noga, don't you think it presents a false dichotomy to suggest that Obama was prioritizing the Olympics over the 37 murders that took place in Chicago last year? The rap on Obama's trip to Copenhagen was that it would distract him from addressing Afghanistan, health-care reform, and the economy, not that it would distract him from addressing the murder rate in Chicago. Nor is there any logical argument that Chicago's hosting of the Olympics would distract Chicago's law enforcement establishment from addressing the crime rate in Chicago. Indeed, the opposite seems more plausible. And though Chicago's bid for the Olympics was in fact controversial in Chicago itself, there is no indication ... view full comment
Noga, don't you think it presents a false dichotomy to suggest that Obama was prioritizing the Olympics over the 37 murders that took place in Chicago last year? The rap on Obama's trip to Copenhagen was that it would distract him from addressing Afghanistan, health-care reform, and the economy, not that it would distract him from addressing the murder rate in Chicago. Nor is there any logical argument that Chicago's hosting of the Olympics would distract Chicago's law enforcement establishment from addressing the crime rate in Chicago. Indeed, the opposite seems more plausible. And though Chicago's bid for the Olympics was in fact controversial in Chicago itself, there is no indication that the people Dan Lemon interviewed are representative of the majority, or even a substantial minority, of Chicagoans.
Another preachy off the point post by uber-narcissist George Walton who thinks he is being "ambiguous."
This sorry old loony had the temerity (no not temerity since he is ignorant of the what he said) to talk about "bad faith" and being reified into stone.
To call oneself "iambiguous' is to be in perpetual bad faith.
In any case, it would more just for that mental midget Waltune to call himself 'iamignorant." Ignorance fits him like a pair of sneakers on someone pretending to be a basketball player, it allows him to jump and it gives him the illusion of height.
Another preachy off the point post by uber-narcissist George Walton who thinks he is being "ambiguous."
This sorry old loony had the temerity (no not temerity since he is ignorant of the what he said) to talk about "bad faith" and being reified into stone.
To call oneself "iambiguous' is to be in perpetual bad faith.
In any case, it would more just for that mental midget Waltune to call himself 'iamignorant." Ignorance fits him like a pair of sneakers on someone pretending to be a basketball player, it allows him to jump and it gives him the illusion of height.
Basman,
Obama is sending Eric Holder and Arne Duncan (Secretary of Education) to Chicago this coming to week to address the murder of Eric Carson. They will meet with with school officials, students and residents to talk about school violence. Gibbs commented about the murder last week.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/obama-sending-cabinet-mem_n_306...
So what are you talking about? Obama was asked about the Gates/Crowley incident, and probably should have declined comment on it, but there is no a ... view full comment
Basman,
Obama is sending Eric Holder and Arne Duncan (Secretary of Education) to Chicago this coming to week to address the murder of Eric Carson. They will meet with with school officials, students and residents to talk about school violence. Gibbs commented about the murder last week.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/obama-sending-cabinet-mem_n_306...
So what are you talking about? Obama was asked about the Gates/Crowley incident, and probably should have declined comment on it, but there is no asymmetry here.
And why is black on black violence thought to be more problematic than black on white, white on black, or white on white violence? Violence is violence.
"Noga, don't you think it presents a false dichotomy to suggest that Obama was prioritizing the Olympics over the 37 murders that took place in Chicago last year?"
I was only quoting the complaints I heard from the interviewees on Dan Lemon's expose. Perhaps they are too concerned about their life in that city to be bothered with "false dichotomies".
"Noga, don't you think it presents a false dichotomy to suggest that Obama was prioritizing the Olympics over the 37 murders that took place in Chicago last year?"
I was only quoting the complaints I heard from the interviewees on Dan Lemon's expose. Perhaps they are too concerned about their life in that city to be bothered with "false dichotomies".
It is not true, Noga, that you were merely quoting the interviewees. You were suggesting that those complaints should have affected Obama's decision to go to Copenhagen: "When these voices about priorities come from his own power base President Obama should do well to listen very carefully." That is a non sequitur.
It is not true, Noga, that you were merely quoting the interviewees. You were suggesting that those complaints should have affected Obama's decision to go to Copenhagen: "When these voices about priorities come from his own power base President Obama should do well to listen very carefully." That is a non sequitur.
Yes, dhurtado, I'm so intimidated by the brilliance and morality of your criticisms that I repeatedly attempt to conceal my true intentions, which of course would be nonsensical, manufactured, irrelevant. It's not what I say I mean, it's what YOU say I mean that counts.
Yes, dhurtado, I'm so intimidated by the brilliance and morality of your criticisms that I repeatedly attempt to conceal my true intentions, which of course would be nonsensical, manufactured, irrelevant. It's not what I say I mean, it's what YOU say I mean that counts.
You ought to know about cynical narcisism
You ought to know about cynical narcisism
criticize Obama about a thousand things, but the boosterism for his adopted hometown isn't one of them. He was in a no win situation (unless, that is, Chicago had won). If he didn't go, everyone would have said he forgot about Chicago and how could he not go. If the Olympics had been in South America not long ago, then Chicago would have had a much better chance.
I find this question absurd: "Does he believe America to be a good country?" Really? Has Marty been watching Glen Beck? I think America is a great country, it is a large segment of the American population I can't stand.
I find the notion that if a person disagrees with my policy beliefs than they are anti-American risible.
And of cours ... view full comment
criticize Obama about a thousand things, but the boosterism for his adopted hometown isn't one of them. He was in a no win situation (unless, that is, Chicago had won). If he didn't go, everyone would have said he forgot about Chicago and how could he not go. If the Olympics had been in South America not long ago, then Chicago would have had a much better chance.
I find this question absurd: "Does he believe America to be a good country?" Really? Has Marty been watching Glen Beck? I think America is a great country, it is a large segment of the American population I can't stand.
I find the notion that if a person disagrees with my policy beliefs than they are anti-American risible.
And of course Obama is a narcissist. Outside of Harry Truman and maybe Ike tell me any modern President that wasn't. And the ones that were less so, like Papa Bush were not real leaders. The question is, is his narcissism deranged, like Bill (bj in the oval office) Clinton, or George (God chose me to be President) Bush. I see zero evidence of that.
"how will he persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons capacity"
Yes, the situations are precisely parallel -- the IAEA may ultimately decide that it's now Iran's "turn" to have nukes, and Obama's diplomacy will come to naught.
"how will he persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear weapons capacity"
Yes, the situations are precisely parallel -- the IAEA may ultimately decide that it's now Iran's "turn" to have nukes, and Obama's diplomacy will come to naught.
I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query to him is: "Does he believe America to be a good country?"
Marty,
I read your post and don't understand the basis for this question. Does Obama believe America to be a good country? That's not nervy so much as it is simply from left field. You're obviously an intelligent man, or at least someone who believes himself an intelligent man. Is it too nervy to point out that your writing, and perhaps your thinking, is simply incoherent?
Neil
I know that the president believes himself a good man. My nervy query to him is: "Does he believe America to be a good country?"
Marty,
I read your post and don't understand the basis for this question. Does Obama believe America to be a good country? That's not nervy so much as it is simply from left field. You're obviously an intelligent man, or at least someone who believes himself an intelligent man. Is it too nervy to point out that your writing, and perhaps your thinking, is simply incoherent?
Neil
"What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical narcissist."
Speaking as someone licensed to make that diagnosis, it is really very funny for Martin Peretz, of all people, to be asserting this.
"What I suspect is that the president is probably a clinical narcissist."
Speaking as someone licensed to make that diagnosis, it is really very funny for Martin Peretz, of all people, to be asserting this.
Noga,
If you wish to disavow your own words, that is you prerogative. But you ought to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that is what you are doing.
Noga,
If you wish to disavow your own words, that is you prerogative. But you ought to have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that is what you are doing.
dhurtado:
“….And why is black on black violence thought to be more problematic than black on white, white on black, or white on white violence? Violence is violence….”
Ya’ think? (I knew he was ending Holder when I wrote my post: so did Eugene Rivers.)
We’ve been down this road before.
For example:
“…A new study of homicide among young black males prompted this latest editorial. James Alan Fox and Marc Swatt of Northeastern University found that the number of homicides committed by black males under the age of 18 rose 43 percent between 2002 and 2007, while the number of gun homicides by this same group rose 47 percent. Homicides by white youth during that period decreased slightl ... view full comment
dhurtado:
“….And why is black on black violence thought to be more problematic than black on white, white on black, or white on white violence? Violence is violence….”
Ya’ think? (I knew he was ending Holder when I wrote my post: so did Eugene Rivers.)
We’ve been down this road before.
For example:
“…A new study of homicide among young black males prompted this latest editorial. James Alan Fox and Marc Swatt of Northeastern University found that the number of homicides committed by black males under the age of 18 rose 43 percent between 2002 and 2007, while the number of gun homicides by this same group rose 47 percent. Homicides by white youth during that period decreased slightly. But more significant were the different homicide rates that the report calculated, which no news story dared to divulge. Whereas the report’s graph for white homicides over the last 30 years plots the rate in increments of 10, the black rate is demarcated at intervals of 100. The highest homicide rate for whites over the last three decades was 32 homicides committed per 100,000 males between the ages of 18 and 24 (reached in 1991), whereas the highest homicide rate for blacks was approximately 320 homicides per 100,000 males between the ages of 18 and 24 (reached in 1993).
Even this apparent ten-to-one disparity between black and white homicide rates doesn’t tell the full story. Fox and Swatt include Hispanic homicides in the white rate, though they do not disclose that they are doing so (both the inclusion and the silence about it follow FBI practice). Hispanic crime rates are between three and four times that of whites—meaning that if one excluded the Hispanic homicides from the white rate, the black-white differential would be even larger than ten to one….”
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0105hm.html#
Obama needs to think what he opens up his mouth about and what he doesn’t. He can send Holder places, but that doesn’t crowd out him saying something. His stony silence here compared to the charade he put on—all involving him-- sitting around drinking beer and with an added white guy for black white balance for the optics of the thing, and all for political cover-- with Gates and Crowley after he stepped in it compared with saying nothing *himself* doing nothing *himself*. In my book, the same one read by Reverend Rivers it seems, that is asymmetrical.
And that’s what I’m talking about.
What a crock. If Obama had not gone to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics to come to the US, these same people would be criticizing him for that ("Obama doesn't care enough about this country to lobby for the Olympics; he probably wanted the games to go to Rio, since he's not a real American, yadda, yadda......").
For a sane perspective on this, see Paul Krugman's piece in today's Times, pointing out the unseemly cheering from so-called conservatives when Chicago lost out.
It must be driving Peretz up the wall that we seem, so far, to be making progress with the Iranian negotiations. Nothing short of bombing Iran will satisfy him.
Obama is probably the most psychologically healthy person to ... view full comment
What a crock. If Obama had not gone to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics to come to the US, these same people would be criticizing him for that ("Obama doesn't care enough about this country to lobby for the Olympics; he probably wanted the games to go to Rio, since he's not a real American, yadda, yadda......").
For a sane perspective on this, see Paul Krugman's piece in today's Times, pointing out the unseemly cheering from so-called conservatives when Chicago lost out.
It must be driving Peretz up the wall that we seem, so far, to be making progress with the Iranian negotiations. Nothing short of bombing Iran will satisfy him.
Obama is probably the most psychologically healthy person to assume the presidency since Eisenhower, or Ford. He is a realist, as David Brooks noticed early on. A realist with ideals.
Now, let's start a game: "Being lectured by Peretz on narcissism is like......"
e.g., "...being scolded for chutzpah by Madoff."
Basman,
First, with regard to so-called black-on-black violence, I acknowledge that violent crime is particularly prevalent among young black males and that that is a critical problem. But to decry violent behavior among young black males is not the same as decrying black-on-black violence. The latter implies that the race of the victim matters; that violence among young black males is less objectionable to the extent the victims are white. I am certain that is not what you believe.
With regard to the "asymmetry," thank you for the clarification. With all due respect, however, if you knew that Obama was sending the AG and the Secretary of Education to Chicago to substantively address the i ... view full comment
Basman,
First, with regard to so-called black-on-black violence, I acknowledge that violent crime is particularly prevalent among young black males and that that is a critical problem. But to decry violent behavior among young black males is not the same as decrying black-on-black violence. The latter implies that the race of the victim matters; that violence among young black males is less objectionable to the extent the victims are white. I am certain that is not what you believe.
With regard to the "asymmetry," thank you for the clarification. With all due respect, however, if you knew that Obama was sending the AG and the Secretary of Education to Chicago to substantively address the issue, then I think it was a bit misleading of you not to have acknowledged it. Instead, your post leaves the reader to believe that Obama has demonstrated no concern for the matter.
But I still don't see any real asymmetry. Certainly, if Obama were questioned at a press conference about the Eric Carter murder or about violence among young black males in general, he would respond to the question. On the other hand, I doubt he ever would have taken any action at all about the Gates/Crowley incident had he not been asked about it at a press conference. I agree with those who say he used bad judgment in responding to the question. If he answered it at all, he should have said something along the lines of "I don't know the facts of the case, but the reaction to the incident demonstrates that we still have a lot of work to do regarding the relationship between law enforcement and the black community."
I agree with you that the beer-meeting was a show that was meant to repair the political damage from Obama's initial response to the matter. (That said, the entire incident, including Obama's response to it, did inspire discussion about the issue of police relations with the black community, and the meeting did demonstrate the possibility of addressing these kinds of issues in a conciliatory, or at least respectful, manner, rather than a confrontational manner. So I do not think the moment was as devoid of teaching value as you apparently do.) But consider this: Did Obama send any cabinet members to the Boston area to address the issue of police relations with the black community? No. If anything, there is an asymmetry in FAVOR OF the issue of violence among young blacks in Chicago.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should the black-on-black murder rate in Chicago (a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but it's in a city with a history of crime and violence long predating Obama's career there) be something that the president is obligated to put on his own already crowded agenda?
The comparison with Gates/Crowley is a little strange. Firstly, Obama knows Gates personally, and secondly he was asked a direct question at a press conference.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but why should the black-on-black murder rate in Chicago (a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but it's in a city with a history of crime and violence long predating Obama's career there) be something that the president is obligated to put on his own already crowded agenda?
The comparison with Gates/Crowley is a little strange. Firstly, Obama knows Gates personally, and secondly he was asked a direct question at a press conference.
Oh, I meant to also say, regarding the silly question:
Blackie, right on! As Jon Stewart once remarked: "The conservatives love America. It's just Americans that they can't stand!"
Oh, I meant to also say, regarding the silly question:
Blackie, right on! As Jon Stewart once remarked: "The conservatives love America. It's just Americans that they can't stand!"
One more thing: if Obama did talk regularly with Gen. McChrystal, Peretz and his fellow neocons would criticize the president for going around the chain of command! ("Doesn't he know he's supposed to go through Gates and Mullin?? If he had served, he would know about the chain of command!!")
One more thing: if Obama did talk regularly with Gen. McChrystal, Peretz and his fellow neocons would criticize the president for going around the chain of command! ("Doesn't he know he's supposed to go through Gates and Mullin?? If he had served, he would know about the chain of command!!")
Itzik, the president has, many times, been critical of black youth behavior, be it their lag in education or their violent crime rate. He has preached parental and personal responsibility, which is all he can do. And unlike the Cambridge cop/Gates fiasco, he has done so unprompted. It’s not accurate to say he’s been stony silent on the issue.
Many of those speeches that he gave made no major headlines like the Gates affair. One of them, though, managed to make a little wave when Jesse Jackson, if you remember, threatened to cut off Obama’s “nuts” for “talking down to black people”.
Itzik, the president has, many times, been critical of black youth behavior, be it their lag in education or their violent crime rate. He has preached parental and personal responsibility, which is all he can do. And unlike the Cambridge cop/Gates fiasco, he has done so unprompted. It’s not accurate to say he’s been stony silent on the issue.
Many of those speeches that he gave made no major headlines like the Gates affair. One of them, though, managed to make a little wave when Jesse Jackson, if you remember, threatened to cut off Obama’s “nuts” for “talking down to black people”.
Y'all sure do spend a lot of time imagining what conservatives would say in this or that situation. What's the point?
I'm fairly conservative, and served for 21 years, and if the CinC wants to talk directly to a theatre CinC, I think he should cc the guy's boss, but why shouldn't he speak directly? Chain of comand is a wonderfule thing and should be respected, but sometimes going to the source is the best way.
Y'all sure do spend a lot of time imagining what conservatives would say in this or that situation. What's the point?
I'm fairly conservative, and served for 21 years, and if the CinC wants to talk directly to a theatre CinC, I think he should cc the guy's boss, but why shouldn't he speak directly? Chain of comand is a wonderfule thing and should be respected, but sometimes going to the source is the best way.
Well, the contention that Obama had not spoken to McChrystal since March or June or whatever is a canard. He had not met with McChrystal face-to-face in a long while (McChrystal, of course, was half way around the world), but had been been communicating with him via videoconference.
Well, the contention that Obama had not spoken to McChrystal since March or June or whatever is a canard. He had not met with McChrystal face-to-face in a long while (McChrystal, of course, was half way around the world), but had been been communicating with him via videoconference.
butchie, it was the conservatives who made a big issue of speaking directly -- or not -- to the theater commander. The attempt by Republicans to make political hay out of it is the real issue. Some of us are just pointing out the hypocrisy and cynicism of the GOP.
butchie, it was the conservatives who made a big issue of speaking directly -- or not -- to the theater commander. The attempt by Republicans to make political hay out of it is the real issue. Some of us are just pointing out the hypocrisy and cynicism of the GOP.
As opposed to the hypocrisy and cynicism of the Dems when the GOP had the Congress, Senate and WH from 2001-2007. Ho-hum. C'mon, scrubby, the out party makes hay wherever they can.
BTW, Pelosi said today that generals should use the chain of command. Whatever happened to speaking truth to power? Or does that situation only obtain when there's a GOP POTUS?
As opposed to the hypocrisy and cynicism of the Dems when the GOP had the Congress, Senate and WH from 2001-2007. Ho-hum. C'mon, scrubby, the out party makes hay wherever they can.
BTW, Pelosi said today that generals should use the chain of command. Whatever happened to speaking truth to power? Or does that situation only obtain when there's a GOP POTUS?
Obama is overexposing himself which may be a sign of his narcissism. But his real problem is inexperience and letting Congress lead as a result. This arguably is even worse than Bush's inexperience which made him allow Cheney to lead. Neither Pelosi nor Reid (nor Chaney for that matter) could ever have been elected President so they should not be allowed such power.
Obama is overexposing himself which may be a sign of his narcissism. But his real problem is inexperience and letting Congress lead as a result. This arguably is even worse than Bush's inexperience which made him allow Cheney to lead. Neither Pelosi nor Reid (nor Chaney for that matter) could ever have been elected President so they should not be allowed such power.