Saw a headline that made me smile, I swear: “Obama’s team banks on his ‘regular guy’ appeal.” (Article here.) Our president, regular guy? Where? An Antioch faculty lounge?
Herman Cain was explaining to Fox News why he was facing questions about sexual-harassment charges in the past: “A lot of people have a problem with the fact that I’m doing so well and I’m so likable.”
You know the thing about likable people, or so likable people? They usually don’t say they’re so likable.
Advertisement
Michelle Obama is a piece of work, there’s no doubt about that. She was lauding her husband’s Supreme Court choices (the Wise Latina and Kagan). And she said, “Let’s not forget the impact those decisions [his choices for the Court, I guess] will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here [in the 2012 election, I think].”
Dare we try a little analysis? I think I get “love whomever we choose.” I think she’s talking about gay marriage — but isn’t her husband against?
“Privacy and security,” I don’t understand. Is she talking, somehow, about the right to abort? How about “speak freely”? As far as I know, all the speech codes on campus are imposed by the Left, right? By people who are fans of the Obamas.
“Worship openly” has me completely stumped. Completely. I pride myself on understanding the Left, but sometimes I fall short.
UNESCO has now admitted “Palestine” as a full member. The PLO has long had some partial membership. In the Seventies, you may recall, Israel was kicked out. (It was readmitted later.) And this leads me to one of my favorite stories:
It was told to me by Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East scholar. He had invited Golda Meir to speak at Princeton. When she faced the students and the rest of the audience, she said, “Look, you know my views. I’ve been in public life for a long time. I won’t give a speech. Why don’t you just ask me some questions instead?”
In the course of the session, someone said, “Prime Minister, why is it that the PLO belongs to UNESCO while Israel does not?” She said, “Well, let’s think about it. ‘UNESCO’ stands for ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.’ Obviously, the Palestinians have more to contribute to education, science, and culture than we do.”
This must be one of the finest uses of sarcasm I know of.
Impromptus readers are well familiar with Chen Guangchen, the blind lawyer in China who has drawn attention to forced abortion and sterilization in his country. For what he has done, the state has punished him with jail, torture, isolation, and all the other cruelty it can muster. It has done everything but kill him, so far.
I should note, however, that recent reports say that Chen is, in fact, dead. That they have at last killed him. These reports are unconfirmable.
But a recent event is perfectly confirmable: “. . . on October 30, 2011, 37 rights defenders and netizens who attempted to visit [Chen] in Linyi, Shandong Province, were beaten by around 100 unidentified individuals. Many of them were injured, and seriously.” I have quoted from Human Rights in China, an invaluable group. Their full report is here.
Among Chinese, there is something called “the sunglasses campaign.” Chen, like many blind people, wears sunglasses. Chinese have begun taking photos of themselves in sunglasses, and posting the photos to a website, in solidarity. What other action is available to them? Precious little.
A group based here in the United States is supporting this sunglasses campaign. This group, too, is invaluable. For the website of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, go here.
The group’s president, Reggie Littlejohn, said, “The way the Chinese Communist Party has jailed, tortured, and starved this innocent blind man is nothing short of hideous. Chen is one of the greatest heroes alive today. He is the very heart and soul of China — the conscience of the nation.”
“Worship openly” has me completely stumped. Completely. I pride myself on understanding the Left, but sometimes I fall short.
Again, the only place freedom of worship is threatened is in the public sphere, by leftists who are trying to eliminate any expression of religious belief by government officials or at government events, and by public universities that are driving religious groups from campus by insisting that members adhere to that religion's tenets counts as discrimination.
"Let’s not forget the impact those decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose."
Their decisions will, in fact, have an impact on our lives, on our privacy, our security, on our freedom to speak and worship openly, etc.
Now, she didn't say that the people her husband had picked would *protect* those liberties, she only said that their decisions would *impact* those liberties. That's absolutely true: their decisions will impact those liberties, she just didn't say anything about protecting them.
(I can't close out this comment without complaining about the "love whomever you choose" trope - you can love whomever you choose, but as it turns out, broader society does in fact have an interest along the lines of public health, public safety, and protection of children regarding who you have biological relationships with.)
Freedom to worship openly could mean one of two things:
1) The ability to sit in the pews of a poisonous racist while he spews anti-American, bigoted diatribes for twenty years and not be asked about it when you run for President--oh, wait, we already have that.
I'm no defender of all things Cain, but I've been thinking that he might be growing tried of being so often characterized as likable, not the ideal description for a candidate for the most powerful job in the world. Maybe his statement was an expression of resignation. Maybe he even intended a bit of irony. Maybe not.
Odd that, just checked my own pronunciation and noticed that if I pronounce the 'o', I pronounce the 'a' correctly... 'Halloween'. If I rush it I get 'Hollaween', reversing the 'a' and 'o'. Thanks for a moment's distraction from the news....
First a question about China. There are some great people in China, no doubt. There better be in 1.5 billion, or whatever it's at. But is it fair to say that this courageous and good man is the heart and soul of a country where it seems the vast majority of its citizens are in favor of the government and its actions? I have spoken to many Chinese students in America (who plan to go back). And I assume these can't have that different from those in China (even if those with connections have a better chance of getting here, they are still more Westernized). And they support the government. There's some misplaced nationalism and all that, but seriously - the Chinese support their government. So how are the few good people the heart and soul? And I know China has different peoples living in it, like Mexico, so let's the Han so I'm not blanketing over all the ethnic minorities who hate being ruled by the Han.
As to the Leftists and Michelle Obama - I think she was literally just demonizing the Right and saying that everything good is protected by the Left and the Right wants to destroy it - killing babies and strip mining Yosemite while we're at it. Don't read too much else into it.
Is this really a serious conservative magazine?
You call the first lady a piece of work for saying the obvious that appointments to the supreme court have consequences/
Leave it to a liberal to apply the most absurd spin to any argument. Of course appointments have consequences. The author doesn't deny that - doesn't even come close to denying.
This is where the exasperation comes in - having to repeatedly give lessons in reading comprehension. This seems to be a symptom of the OWSers as well. The author was pointing out the absolutely asinine and scare-tactic manner that Mrs. O was going about it. It's not that she said appointments have consequences, its the idiotic example consequences she used that is objectionable.
No wonder the OWSers are beginning to resort to violence. Using their words doesn't work considereing the limited vocabulary and understanding they have exhibited.
I like the idea of Pakistani Sesame Street. I suppose that before Super Grover lands, other muppets point to the sky and say "It's a bird... no, it's a plane..... no, it's a drone... no, it's ..... SUPER GROVER".
Herman Cain was explaining to Fox News why he was facing questions about sexual-harassment charges in the past: “A lot of people have a problem with the fact that I’m doing so well and I’m so likable.”
