SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (68183)12/11/2013 9:09:15 AM
From: Peter Dierks2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Blasher
greatplains_guy

  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 71588
 
Pattern Developing for President Selfie
Obama's personality cult lets no photo op go to waste


British Prime Minister David Cameron, from left, Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt and U.S. President Barack Obama pose for a picture during Nelson Mandela's memorial at FNB Stadium in Johannesburg on Tuesday. First lady Michelle Obama, right, stayed out of the frame, and some think the president would also have done well to have saved the snapshot for another occasion. (ROBERTO SCHMIDT, Getty-AFP photo / December 11, 2013)

John Kass
December 11, 2013

There are many ways to remember President Barack Obama's appearance at South Africa's memorial for Nelson Mandela.

Some may remember Obama as Mandela's spiritual son, our president riding on his own soaring rhetoric at that stadium, wrapping himself in Mandela's mantle, dreaming of the father of the new South Africa.

And others will seize on Obama shaking hands with the executioner of Cuba, our president bowing to Raul Castro just as he once bowed to the lords of the Chicago Democratic Machine before beginning his climb.

But those images — Obama riding on his magic rhetorical carpet, reaching for dreams of Mandela, or his clasping of the right hand of Fidel Castro's demonic brother — are about politics.

But there's another image from the memorial that defines Obama. It has nothing to do with ideology.

A news photographer captured the president sitting with the prime ministers of Great Britain and Denmark. He has a cellphone in his hand. The three of them are grinning.

First lady Michelle Obama sits off to the side, somber, dignified, as the world remembers Mandela. Yet next to her like some goofy adolescent who hasn't yet been taught how to behave properly at a memorial service — her husband — is snapping a memorial to himself.

President Selfie.

That's what he's being called now, and it blew up on the Twitterverse. It's not the most compelling photojournalism in history. But it is clear, and as pointed as a pin.

Obama and Denmark's Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt extend their arms, hands on the cellphone, to take the self-portrait. British PM David Cameron leans in. They're as bubbly as school kids ordering a happy meal.

Why would a president take a selfie at a memorial for Mandela? Because it wasn't about Mandela.

It was about Barack.

And isn't it always about Barack?

Earlier, Obama sauntered through the crowd, shaking hands, waving, welcoming the love bath they gave him. He wasn't mourning as much as he was campaigning for adoration, a man determined to receive his due.

And then came the presidential selfie.

It fits into a pattern, of almost uncontrollable presidential selfieism.

A few days ago, when Mandela passed away at 95, Obama's media managers tweeted a photograph. You'd think he'd tweet a photograph of Mandela. But it wasn't of Mandela.

It was of Obama in Mandela's former prison cell, the president having gone to the prison because he couldn't get that photo op he wanted with the ailing South African during Obama's $100 million African vacation.

Obama as Mandela.

And then there was Obama as Rosa Parks.

To commemorate Parks, who 58 years ago this month defied racists who wanted black people to sit in the back of the bus, Obama released another tweet.

Not of Rosa Parks. But of Obama, sitting on the bus by himself, Obama Rosa.

"In a single moment 58 years ago today, Rosa Parks helped change this country," said the presidential tweet.

Yet there was Obama on the bus alone. It's all about Barack.

His social media managers should be sent to Guantanamo for feeding this electronic cult of personality.

There are no Obama selfies from his earlier life in Chicago, the pre-messianic Obama, the man who would later promise to hold back the oceans and heal the planet with a wave of his lips.

I'd have loved a selfie of Obama and his real estate fairy, Tony Rezko, as they stood on the lawn in front of Obama's dream house in the Kenwood neighborhood. That was the home that Rezko helped him get, in a deal that the president confessed was a "boneheaded" move.

Just think of what he might have tweeted at the time, there on the lawn with Tony, wearing khaki shorts, polo shirts and Sox gear:

"The Tony Rezko I know realized I really wanted this house. And he was right!"

And what about tweeted pix of Obama voting "present" all those times in the Illinois Senate, or one of Obama on bended knee before then-Senate President Emil Jones, asking to be made a U.S. senator.

Or selfies with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich or former Mayor Rich Daley or Boss Mike Madigan.

Ah, such tweets, such tweets. They'd be worth the price. Sadly, the Twitterverse back then was nothing like the one today.

Besides, Twitter deals in only 140 characters, and Obama's speech at the Mandela memorial was a tad longer.

It dripped with peace, as Obama told the world that Mandela's death should prompt self-reflection. He said he often asks himself: "How well have I applied his (Mandela's) lessons in my own life?"

"We too, must act on behalf of peace. ... The questions we face today — how to promote equality and justice, to uphold freedom and human rights, to end conflict and sectarian war — do not have easy answers. … Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done."

The man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize without accomplishing anything except demonstrating competence in raw politics and rhetoric forgot a few things.

He forgot those killer drones he sends down from the skies. And he forgot the fact that he would have bumbled us into another war in Syria had not the American people stopped him.

But it's not all talk with the president. There's that picture from the stadium, and he's grinning.

President Selfie.

jskass@tribune.com

Twitter @John_Kass

chicagotribune.com



To: Carolyn who wrote (68183)1/1/2014 11:03:15 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Respond to of 71588
 
Washington's three most irrational arguments in 2013
By TIMOTHY P. CARNEY
DECEMBER 28, 2013 AT 3:12 PM

Washington, they say, is Hollywood for ugly people. It’s also debate club for the logically impaired. The past year included its share of fallacies, sophistries, oversimplifications and utter absurdities.

But a few prominent arguments committed the worst offenses against rational thought. Below are the three worst arguments made in Washington in 2013. These weren’t illogical brain freezes or odd beliefs spouted by backbenchers. These arguments were deliberately devised, promulgated and repeated by prominent politicians, which makes them all the more embarrassing.

“If we can save only one life…”

The demagoguery started early in 2013, as Democrats tried to push gun-control laws in the wake of the December 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn. The White House argued for gun restrictions using a litany of facile talking points, most absurdly this gem by President Obama: “If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try.”

Vice President Joe Biden echoed the line: “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking.” White House spokesman Jay Carney repeated the mantra: “If even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions.”

It sounds nice — in a high school Model Congress sort of way — that we ought to take any action that would save one child’s life. But we all know policies have costs, in terms of freedom, unintended consequences and using up enforcement resources. Obama’s “just one child” argument pretends his gun control proposals have no costs.

Outlawing party balloons would save the handful of kids who choke to death on them. Outlawing swimming pools would save hundreds of children who drown in them every year. A national speed limit of 10 mph would spare untold numbers of Americans who die in automobile accidents. Why didn't Obama push these laws in 2013?

The data suggest that for every life saved by gun control laws, some lives are lost. But Obama wanted Americans to forget about the people unable to defend themselves and think only of the intended consequences of his law.

“Defund it or you’re for it...”

The Tea Party’s central mistake in the government shutdown debate was confusing differences in tactics for differences. Utah Republican Mike Lee put this mistaken view most succinctly on the Senate floor: "Defund it or own it. If you fund it, you’re for it.”

The provision in question would have blocked all federal funding for Obamacare’s implementation. But the “defund Obamacare” strategy never made political and rhetorical sense.

To start with, the defund proposal had near zero chance of passing. Defunding Obamacare required Obama to sign a bill defunding Obamacare. So “defund it or you’re for it” boiled down to: “Join in our doomed posturing, or you’re a big liberal.” That’s not exactly the way to build a coalition within a party.

The line was especially absurd because nearly every single Republican that Ted Cruz and his crew accused of being “for” Obamacare had filibustered the bill and tried to kill it in 2009 and 2010.

Much of the Tea Party distrust of the Republican establishment is earned. That’s why conservative activists roll their eyes when Beltway types say “we share your principles, just not your tactics.” In this case, though, the establishment was right.

“It’s the LAW”

The dumbest argument made during the defund debate, though, was the Democrats' assertion that GOP efforts to delay or change Obamacare were illegitimate because Obamacare “is the law of the land.”

This was an official Democratic talking point, repeated by Democratic politicians and liberal talking heads at every available opportunity.

Democrat Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland implied that using the legislative process to change the law somehow violated the oath of office. “We put up our hands to swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country,” Cummings said on CNN. “It is the law.”

The notion that Congress can’t change or delay a standing law is a hard one to dispute, mainly because it’s so mind-bendingly nonsensical. Congress, after all, is the branch empowered to make laws. The president can veto a law, but he then must send the bill back to Congress for revisions — or a vote to override his veto.

Carney, a former journalist, also busted out the “it’s the law of the land” argument – a great irony because he has also spent the past three months defending his boss’s unilateral, and often illegal, changes to the law.

So this is the White House’s view: Congress may not legislate, but the White House can. The Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves.

The good news for fans of logic is that we probably won't hear these arguments in 2014. The bad news? Washington has a bottomless well of bad arguments to tap for years to come.

Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.

washingtonexaminer.com