| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The Birth of Electronic Communication | Main | Is Humor Immoral? »

December 22, 2008

Barack Obama and the invention of self

by Evert Cilliers

ScreenHunter_18 Dec. 22 08.05

There are two political figures in America who are masters of self-invention.

One is Arnold Schwarzenegger. The other is Barack Obama.

Arnold invented himself as a body builder, movie star, and Governor. Barack Obama invented himself as a black man, Christian, and President.

(A quick aside about self-invention. It's not starting over, which is the reason people immigrate to America. It goes further. For example, the two richest men in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, didn't self-invent themselves. Bill Gates was fascinated by computers from an early age, and Warren Buffett started trading in his teens. They merely followed their destinies. On the other hand, the Jewish garment guys who started Hollywood not only invented new selves, they also invented a part of all of us.)

As a self-inventor, Arnold had it easier than Barack, because in his teens he discovered a role model: Steve Reeves, the muscleman who became a film star in Italian sword-and-sandal epics such as “Hercules.” Arnold deliberately went into body building to become a movie star.

Barack Obama had a more winding road to his current self-invention as our President. He had no role models, except for his mother: a sixties social rebel, unafraid of the Other (she married a black man from Kenya and an Indonesian), who set high educational and moral standards for herself and her son. But she gave him neither an identity nor a community.

Those he had to invent for himself.

He started as an anomaly. He grew up white, but he looked black.

His path to being a white man was clear. The three people who raised him—his mother, grandmother and grandfather—were all white. The exclusive high school he attended in Hawaii was white. At college in New York, his girlfriend was white. He went to visit her parents and saw the way to whiteness loom beautifully in front of him, which he describes in one of the most wistfully lyrical passages in his memoir “Dreams from My Father”:

“One weekend she invited me to her family’s country house. The parents were there, and they were very nice, very gracious. It was autumn, beautiful, with woods all around us, and we paddled a canoe across this round, icy lake full of small gold leaves that collected along the shore. The family knew every inch of the land. They knew how the hills had formed, how the glacial drifts had created the lake, the names of the earliest white settlers—their ancestors—and before that, the names of the Indians who’d once hunted the land. The house was very old, her grandfather’s house. The library was filled with old books and pictures of the grandfather with famous people he had known—presidents, diplomats, industrialists. There was this tremendous gravity in the room. Standing in that room, I realized that our two worlds, my friend’s and mine, were as distant from each other as Kenya is from Germany. And I knew that if we stayed together I’d eventually live in hers. After all, I’d been doing it most of my life. Between the two of us, I was the one who knew how to live as an outsider.”

It’s as if he beheld a dream he was sad to lose.

After graduating from Columbia, Obama had a white-collar job at a white firm, Business International Corporation. “The company promoted me to the position of financial writer. I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors – see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand – and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal ...”

Barack was good at being white. Yet his childhood experiences weren’t all white. Between the ages of six and ten, he lived with his mother and her second husband in Indonesia, where he encountered a culture neither black nor white, but Asian. Here his mother invoked his absent black Kenyan father as a role model, a man who had grown up poor in a poor country, but hadn’t cut corners or played any angles. “He was diligent and honest, no matter what it cost him … I would follow his example, my mother decided. I had no choice. It was in my genes … Her message came to embrace black people generally. She would come home with books on the civil rights movement, the recordings of Mahalia Jackson, the speeches of Dr. King … If I told her about the goose-stepping demonstrations my Indonesian Boy Scout troop performed in front of the president, she might mention a different kind of march, a march of children no older than me, a march for freedom. Every black man was Thurgood Marshall or Sidney Poitier, every black woman Fannie Lou Farmer or Lena Horne. To be black was to be the beneficiary of a great inheritance, a special destiny, glorious burdens that only we were strong enough to bear. Burdens we were to carry in style. More than once, my mother would point out: ‘Harry Belafonte is the best-looking man on the planet.’”

The white mother was tutoring her mulatto son in the responsibilities of the Other towards the bigger society.

A double major at Columbia University, in literature and political science, Obama read widely in black literature. The one book that really affected him was not by Baldwin, Ellison, Hughes, Wright or Dubois, but by the activist Malcolm X. “His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in its discipline, forged through sheer force of will.”

There’s the story of Barack Obama in a nutshell. A man of books, he found his role model by reading. And alighted on the engine of self-invention: sheer willpower.

Obama’s self-invention hinged on three surprising choices:

  1. To become fully black, by organizing in a black community.

  2. To become a Christian.

  3. To run for political office.

On his way to becoming fully black, he rejected two paths for becoming a black man – that of the buppie born of compromise with whites, which would have been the easy route for him, or that of a militant black nationalist born of black rage against whites, which was problematic for a black boy raised by nice white people.

Of black rage, and the black nationalism engendered by it, most successfully in Minister Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, Obama writes: “Like sex and violence on TV, black rage always found a ready market.” Black nationalism was not a viable platform: it produced a distance between talk and action. “The continuing struggle to align word and action, our heartfelt desires with a workable plan – didn’t self-esteem finally depend on just this? It was that belief which had led me into organizing, and it was that belief that would lead me to conclude, perhaps for the final time, that notions of purity – of race or of culture – could no more serve as the basis for the typical black American’s self-esteem that it could be for mine. Our sense of wholeness would have to arise from something more fine than the bloodlines we’d inherited.”

When he decided to become a community organizer in 1983, he had no clear idea what it meant. “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in Congress, compliant and corrupt … Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grassroots. That’s what I’ll do. I’ll organize black folks. At the grassroots. For change.”

It’s worth quoting in full Obama’s remembrance of how he came to make his biggest leap into self-invention. This blind impulse, he writes, came from “romantic images of a past I had never known. They were of the civil rights movement, mostly, the grainy black-and-white footage that appears every February during Black History Month, the same images that my mother had offered me as a child. A pair of college students, hair short, backs straight, placing their orders at a lunch counter teetering on the edge of riot. SNCC workers standing on a porch in some Mississippi backwater trying to convince a family of sharecroppers to register to vote. A country jail bursting with children, their hands clasped together, singing freedom songs.

“Such images became a form of prayer for me, bolstering my spirits, channeling my emotions in a way that words never could. They told me … that I wasn’t alone in my particular struggles, and that communities had never been a given in this country, at least not for blacks. Communities had to be created, fought for, tended like gardens. They expanded or contracted with the dreams of men – and in the civil rights movement, those dreams had been large. In the sit-ins, the marches, the jailhouse songs, I saw the African-American community becoming more than just a place where you’d been born or the house where you’d been raised. Through organizing, through shared sacrifice, membership had been earned. And because membership was earned – because this community I imagined was still in the making, built on the promise that the larger American community, black, white and brown, could somehow redefine itself – I believed that it might, over time, admit the uniqueness of my own life.

“That was my idea of organizing. It was a promise of redemption.”

A lofty ideal. But community organizing was a down-and-dirty business, invented by the very effective arch lefty agitator Saul Alinsky, who taught his followers to “rub raw the sores of discontent” (Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on Alinsky). The Alinsky-style agitator helps poor people realize how miserable they are, and makes them ascribe their misery to unresponsive governments or greedy corporations. Then the organizer recruits leaders from the ranks of the down-trodden and trains these leaders to raise such a massive stink that the authorities knuckle under, just to stop being harassed. The organizer does not himself become the champion of the damned; he trains the damned themselves to fight the causes he picks for them. It’s not about idealism; it’s all about issues, action, power, and self-interest. “I liked these concepts,” writes Obama, after encountering the real thing. “They bespoke a certain hardheadedness, a worldly lack of sentiment; politics, not religion.” Alinsky had no moral qualms about whatever means it took to transfer power from the Haves to the Have-nots. A confirmed atheist, he looked upon churches as useful platforms for agitation.

Obama’s Alinsky-trained mentor Mike Kruglik (whom he recreated in his memoir as a composite character called Marty Kaufman) said of Obama:

“He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

Obama invented himself not only as a black man committed to a black community. He went the whole hog: he invented himself as a Christian, too.

There was no precedent in his background for this. He was not raised in a religious household. “For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the barb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness … my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.”

So how come he could ever become Christian?

“My fierce ambitions might have been fueled by my father—by my knowledge of his achievements and failures, by my unspoken desire to somehow earn his love, and by my resent and anger toward him. But it was my mother’s fundamental faith—in the goodness of people and in the ultimate value of this brief life we’ve each been given—that channeled those ambitions. It was in search of a confirmation of her values that I studied political philosophy, looking for both a language and systems of action that could help build community and make justice real. And it was in search of some practical application of those values that I accepted work after college as a community organizer for a group of churches in Chicago that were trying to cope with joblessness, drugs, and hopelessness in their midst.”

Working with preachers, they wanted to know where his faith in his mission came from. “I came to realize that without a vessel for my beliefs, without an unequivocal commitment to a particular community of faith, I would be consigned at some level to always remain apart, free in the way that my mother was free, but also alone in the same ways she was ultimately alone.”

And a black church was much more than a religious institution. “It had to serve as the center of the community’s political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life.” Faith was “an active, palpable agent in the world.” Faith “doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts … It was because of these newfound understandings – that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic or social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved—that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear.”

He chose to be a Christian. Sheer self-invention. He did it because he wanted to be a better organizer, and because he wanted to belong to the community. There was no miracle on the road to Damascus.

After four years of community organizing, Obama decided to go to law school. “I had things to learn in law school, things that would help me bring about real change. I would learn about interest rates, corporate mergers, the legislative process; about the way businesses and banks were put together; how real estate ventures succeeded or failed. I would learn power’s currency in all its intricacy and detail, knowledge that would have compromised me before coming to Chicago but that I could now bring back to where it was needed … bring it back like Promethean fire.”

This was when he won his white classmates over to become the Harvard Law Review's first black president in 1990, and got the book deal that led to the memoir from which we are quoting. With this highest of honors under his belt, he surprised his class mates by rejecting the notion of becoming a US Supreme Court law clerk and then moving to the law firm of his choice, even though he was deep in debt.

Interviewed by the LA Times at the time, he said: "One of the luxuries of going to Harvard Law School is it means you can take risks in your life. You can try to do things to improve society and still land on your feet … I come from a lot of worlds and I have had the unique opportunity to move through different circles. I have worked and lived in poor black communities and I can translate some of their concerns into words that the larger society can embrace." He told the LA Times about his childhood in Indonesia: “It left a very strong mark on me living there because you got a real sense of just how poor folks can get. You'd have some army general with 24 cars and if he drove one once then eight servants would come around and wash it right away. But on the next block, you'd have children with distended bellies who just couldn't eat."

Returning to Chicago with a Magna Cum Laude degree, Obama invented himself for the third time as a politician. He lost his first race, but on his second attempt he elbowed his way to success with Chicago-style ruthlessness.

There was a much-revered Civil Rights matron and Illinois State Senator, Alice Palmer, who decided to run for Congress, so Obama figured he could run for her open State Senate seat. But she lost her Congressional race, and wanted to keep her safe seat. The community’s leaders asked Obama to step aside. The brash newcomer refused. He sent his aides to the courthouse to examine the signatures for her, to see if enough of them could be disallowed to knock her off the ballot. A few fake signatures for her were found, as well as for all his opponents, so they were all knocked off; he won his seat unopposed. The Chicago way – bringing a gun to a knife fight.

These three steps of self-invention have led Obama to the presidency; they make him a sui generis political animal in at least six respects:

  1. He’s a self-examining egghead. Adlai Stevenson, Daniel Moynihan. An academic professor, who taught the Constitution for many years at the University of Chicago. A reader, with philosophical favorites like Reinhold Niebuhr. A writer, whose memoir is something of a confessional classic. A writer who has the biggest hand in penning his speeches, the basis of his brilliant oratory, akin to Lincoln and Dr. King.

  1. He presents a new kind of manhood. He’s not some butch swaggering macho bully-boy posturer like a Bush or Cheney. He’s a modern, feminized man. A metrosexual of grace and nuance and subtlety and elegance. A faun not a bull. Compare the way George Bush and Barack Obama walk. Bush walks like a gorilla, Barack like a gazelle. He’s the coolest cat in American life since Duke Ellington, with that thing Hemingway gadded on about: grace under pressure.

  1. He is not ideologically pure; he’s a conciliator, a civil man who listens to those who disagree with him, and likes to incorporate opposing viewpoints into his thinking. Undermining Carl Schmitt’s lauded thesis, his politics does not require an enemy. He really means it when he says that our problems are too big for our small politics to continue as usual, or that there is not a red or blue-state America, but a United States of America. He has both moral and practical intelligence, two qualities that ideologically driven people like Bush/Cheney can’t possess, which is why they wreak such immense havoc.

  1. He really believes in change from the bottom up – in putting power in the hands of the people. He learned it from community organizing. He draws his famous hope from it: from a belief in the decency of regular folk. He enlisted his many campaign volunteers with it. He enters the White House with millions of email addresses and cellphone numbers in his back pocket—an army of believers he can use to browbeat Congress if it dares to cross him.

  1. He is No Drama Obama, devastatingly competent. In two years flat he built a campaign juggernaut that took down the mighty Clinton machine honed over three decades. He reinvented campaign funding with small donations from millions of supporters. And he’s only been in politics twelve years. Arguably his cabinet looks to be the most competent one ever. They'll need to be.

  1. He has the charisma of a Gandhi, a Mandela, a Mick Jagger, a John Lennon. He has involved the entire world in what is for him a personal journey of self-invention and redemption. He’s become a symbol of our own hunger, of all we hope for ourselves.

What can we expect from this master of self-invention?

Nothing less than a reinvention of the presidency itself. Every job he’s had became too small for him, and the biggest job in the world will be no exception. The ending of his campaign speech—“together we will change not only this country, we will change the world”—tells us he intends to lead the world. His trip to Europe and his speech in Berlin affirmed his international mandate. America is too small for Obama. If you can invent yourself, you can invent the world. And when he leaves the White House, he’ll be a sprightly 55, and reinvent the notion of ex-President.

Can Obama be a Gandhi or a Mandela for the entire world? Can he be a Saul Alinsky for the world’s downtrodden, ready to organize all oppressed communities and train the tens of thousands needed to do this? Given his mastery at self-invention, and his immense ambition, yes. A new Messiah—“The One” as Oprah fawned over him, and as the McCain campaign sneered at him.

In his final act of self-invention, Obama will aim to be the man who saved the world. The real change the world needs. A fantasy? Maybe. But hey, look how fast how far he’s come. We can only hope.

Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 12:10 AM | Permalink

Comments

Wow, it sounds like Obama is going to be the coolest, most enlightened, most fascinatingly worldly and multicultural and miraculously transcendent cat to ever prosecute an illegal war of aggression and to kidnap innocent people and torture them to death in secret prisons while spying on his subjects and handing their tax money over to billionaire felons.

Excuse me while I go throw up...

Posted by: Picador | Dec 22, 2008 12:49:21 PM

You forgot to mention that he has an out and out bigot officiating at his inauguration. The man is also a hardcore pol, but that's not what my article was about. More later on his center-right inclinations.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 22, 2008 6:40:24 PM

Dear Picador,

I understand your cynicism.

I also appreciate your pointing out that to project the power of change and transformation onto one person, is unbalanced, unhealthy, and unrealistic.

But one person can be a catalyst, and inspire others to stand up and take action. Consider MLK and Rosa Parks; the choice to march instead of ride. Consider Cesar Chavez and the Gallo grape boycott; the choice made by regular folks nationwide to walk on by the grapes and the label. It happens when the window of opportunity blows open after it has been rattled by crisis.

As Obama says, we all have to take responsibility, and act from the "grass roots" up. He can't do it alone, even with the help of his cabinet appointees.

The windows are rattling. It is time for change. Dare to hope. Take courage. Go for it! What have you got to lose, except your lunch? By now, that's already blown.

"Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."

Regards,
Just Plain Ruth

Posted by: Ruth | Dec 22, 2008 7:36:38 PM

Ruth, I'd be careful talking about "taking action" in this context. Under the new FISA rules that Obama championed, that's probably enough to get you a warrantless wiretap.

Tell me again how actively supporting police state policies provides a "catalyst for change"? And I hope you realize how horribly offensive it is to compare Obama to MLK.

Posted by: Picador | Dec 23, 2008 11:20:09 AM

Actively supporting police state policies does not provide a "catalyst for change," but so many of his other policies will indeed change the US and the world. Climate change and energy is just one HUGE example. Picador, don't let your disappointment with police state support totally color your view of what the man WILL change.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 23, 2008 8:58:57 PM

Picador, you've selected a good user name for your function here, if my memories of the bull ring serve. Sometime, though, I hope you'll do a thing other than stick sharp pointy projectiles into the shoulders of the bull, the better to lower its head and get it angry. I'd like to see another kind of contribution, actually.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 23, 2008 9:14:20 PM

The creepyness continues. Never has so much been anticipated by the adoring alcolytes of someone who has done so little.

Don't get me wrong, I hope he can deliver, but for a crowd that is (generally) so distainful of faith based positions, well...you get my drift.

If it wasn't Mr. Obama, but someone else who espoused the same positions, would you really be disagreeing with the guy with the pointy sticks?

Posted by: Carlos | Dec 23, 2008 10:11:40 PM

Yes, Carlos -- the guy with the pointy sticks is a perennial that needs disagreeing with on principle. It's so easy to criticize, so hard to have anything positive to offer. But our particular picador is smart, and could do better.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 23, 2008 10:18:54 PM

PS -- Jason! Write. More. Here.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 23, 2008 10:20:40 PM

As Obama says, we all have to take responsibility, and act from the "grass roots" up. He can't do it alone, even with the help of his cabinet appointees.

This is markedly different from the sign ol' Harry S. had on his desk.

Posted by: Carlos | Dec 23, 2008 10:22:22 PM

loved the article, evert. its been very easy to be discouraged by obama's choice of warren and forget about the other choices he's made throughout his life. his choice of warren has been infuriating, as was his vote for the wire taps. but almost every other thing he's done has been great.

i doubt i will ever see a politician that i agree with on every issue, but i also know obama is the first and only mainstream politician i've fallen in love with. your article served as a good reminder of why. well done.

Posted by: natron | Dec 23, 2008 10:26:16 PM

Elatia:

Obama might do better if his supporters were a bit more demanding. Rising to the challenge. Sort of thing. Merely making the sun rise in the east can get so tiresome.

Give him some grey hair? No?

Posted by: Carlos | Dec 23, 2008 10:28:39 PM

"I'd like to see another kind of contribution, actually. "

Like what, Elatia? More hagiographical comments about Saint Obama? I'm with Picador on this one. Reading this fine example of ass-kissery almost made me nauseous. Poor American left, really....

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 24, 2008 8:40:28 AM

You're right, Carlos, us Obama supporters should be a bit more demanding. Because when we aren't organizing against him on his own website, or loudly decrying his position on FISA, or lambasting him for his olive branch to Rick Warren, we're demanding universal healthcare, the end to the war in Iraq, an alternative energy revolution, a rebuilt economy, the restoration of our national reputation, and environmental policies that do no less than save the world — geez, it's like we refuse to take off his training wheels.

As for pointy sticks, well, Elatia's right: it's easy to be a cynic. You don't risk anything. If you're wrong, that means the world has come out for the better, which is no dire consequence for you or anyone else; if we're wrong, if Obama fails to live up to our high expectations, a whole lot of people will be affected in a bad way, and along with him we will take the blame — while you gloat, no doubt, having sacrificed nothing.

Posted by: ghostman | Dec 24, 2008 10:35:03 AM

Come now, my liberal friends, when Ron Emanuel was appointed Obama's Chief Of Staff, the first shot was fired across the bow, and everyone knew the best we can hope for was a center-right position.
With Larry Summers and Geithner, it was business as usual, about as mainstream economic bureaucrats as one could find.
Eric Holder for Attorney General--- this guy defended Chiquita (as in banana) for using death squads against labor leaders in Columbia.
Salazar for Interior? Another give away to mining and ranching on public lands.
I could go on, but how is a needed change possible with these people?
This is going to be a janitorial job mainly, finding the 24 year old for Bob Jones ideologue who is heading a major science policy division, or the free market Pepperdine person in Interior. Just getting all the trash out will take years.
But, let's see, maybe I'll be surprised. I work with several Peace and Justice groups, and we are going to be watching every step of the way.
Personally, I don;t think we have time for reformist politics-- Look around- how are things?

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 24, 2008 11:54:49 AM

"it's easy to be a cynic. You don't risk anything. If you're wrong, that means the world has come out for the better, which is no dire consequence for you or anyone else"

It's not about what's 'easy' or not, but about what rationality bring us to expect given the situation we are in and the evidence so far. I have no doubt Obama might be a nice guy, but apart from his empty rhetoric promising 'change' he's done nothing to convince us 'cynics' that he's going to bring anything substantially different; quite the opposite, in fact (see Dave Ranning's list above). Color me unimpressed.

Then again, my view is tainted by the fact that I'm a foreigner. To me, Obama represents the hope of the majority of Americans to be part of a respectable Empire. One whose misdeeds are glossed over by the mainstream media and that could again make the U.S. population proud of exerting what most of them consider their 'natural right' of ruling over the World. As a matter of principle, I'm always going to oppose that view because I consider it perverse.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 24, 2008 12:14:18 PM

"Legitimacy has left the system. Not even the the legions of Obama are immune as his reliance on Wall Street capos Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers seem tainted by the same reckless thinking that brought on the fiasco. His pick last week for chief of the SEC, Mary Shapiro, is already being dissed as a shill for the Big Bank status quo--" JHK

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 24, 2008 12:23:09 PM

What would impress you, Pepito? I'm curious. Because for someone who derisively calls him Saint Obama, you seem to be requiring something of him and his presidency that comes awful close to perfection. If that's the case, then yes, I can see why you're so cynical.

But for the more pragmatic among us, who realize Noam Chomsky is never going to run for, let alone be elected, President, Obama was and is quite a bit more than the lesser of two evils. I'm not ashamed to say that I find him inspiring, that I find his "empty" rhetoric to be quite full of meaning, of hope, of bright ideas, of passion — of all the things that have been missing from our public life. It's refreshing to have promise for once, even if that promise isn't perfect.

Anyway, your criticisms are so abstract as to be meaningless. What does "empty rhetoric" even mean at this point? As of today, he's still 26 days away from his first day in office. At least Dave Ranning's criticisms (which, Carlos, come from the left - but you're right, we follow Obama blindly), are substantive and specific.

Posted by: ghostman | Dec 24, 2008 12:53:16 PM

Ghostman:

Dave's Ranning criticisms are exactly my specific criticisms too. I just don't feel the need to repeat what he so eloquently said before. You might call yourselves pragmatic, but I see the left you are part of as foolish and irrelevant. As a matter of fact, you guys are so irrelevant that Saint Obama, master politician that he is, acts as if he feels he can use you and toss you aside after the election. Why? Because, no matter what he does, those who think like you are still going to vote for him. That's the burden of "lesser-evilism".

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 24, 2008 1:01:01 PM

"I find his "empty" rhetoric to be quite full of meaning, of hope, of bright ideas, of passion"

Really? Would you care to illustrate? What exactly are you people hoping for? What bright ideas are those? Enlighten me.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 24, 2008 1:03:51 PM

First of all, I don't feel "tossed aside" at all, although I know some overly idealistic progressives feel that way. For anyone who paid attention, Obama has always been crystal clear about his intentions. His appointments haven't been the least bit surprising. What, did you really think he was going to appoint a bunch of far left-wingers whose very names would spark an everlasting uproar and cripple his agenda? You say that the left I am a part of (which part is that, I wonder?) is foolish and irrelevant. Funny, I thought my candidate was just elected. One can only wish to be so irrelevant all the time. As for foolish, only time will tell.

As far as Obama's bright ideas, they're our bright ideas, too, and they're rather simple. I listed them already in my first comment, in case you weren't paying attention. That is what we're hoping for.

In general, though, he inspires me because he eloquently and passionately appeals to my better instincts. As simple as this is, it's a rare act, and it is not insignificant. On the contrary, it's of the greatest significance.

A question, in earnest: who would you want for President?

Posted by: ghostman | Dec 24, 2008 1:33:05 PM

My dear, dear, dear Picador:

Listen, twinkletoes, there are two things you have to think about for the rest of your life:

1. You are a fundamentalist. A purist. Hard left. Not the kind of guy whose revolution dances. The longer you remain a fundamentalist, the longer you'll be unhappy with whomever rules. You'd be unhappy with President Noam Chomsky.

2. You are grumpy. The cure for that is:
a) therapy
b) a fat joint
c) a good roll in the hay.

Try any of those three cures for a week or two. Then return to this thread and see how much you feel like whining.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 24, 2008 4:20:39 PM

What do you, o pragmatic ghostman, consider as a 'far-leftwinger'? Do they still have those in your country?

As I said before, my view is 'tainted' by the fact I'm a foreigner. Asking me who do I want as next administrator of the Empire is like asking the Thanksgiving turkey how he would like to be cooked.

Good luck with your 'left' President. I know for a fact the rest of the World is gonna need it.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 24, 2008 6:35:12 PM

Pepito:
There's a world of difference between being cooked by Obama and being deepfried by Bush. As the guy said, the only difference between Republicans (W) and Democrats (Bill Clinton)
when it comes to extraordinary rendition is that "the Democrats drilled airholes in the boxes." It's a small difference, but I'll take breathing over suffocating any day.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 24, 2008 7:18:00 PM

Well, let's see. Most American presidents have consistently had a foreign civilian body count that numbers at least in the tens of thousands. From Evert's comment, it seems that if Obama manages to kill just a few thousands we should consider ourselves happy. Wonderful, isn't it?

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 25, 2008 9:50:16 AM

Not consider ourselves happy with Obama killing just a few thousands, but less disgusted than with Bush/Cheney. It also depends who is killed by Obama. If they're bad guys, we could be way less disgusted.

I for one think we should give ourselves six months to kill Osama Bib-Laden, but stay the hell out of larger Afghanistan. If the Taliban take over again, so be it. That's my position, and I'm not comfortable about it, but it's my position. What's yours, Pepito?

Also, how disgusted should we be with the Allies for having firebombed Dresden and bombing civilians in WW2 to demoralize the Germans and defeat Hitler? How unhappy with Churchill and Roosevelt are you about that, Pepito?

You mind getting more specific, dude?

BTW, Merry Xmas, y'all. I got the "My Fair Lady" movie as a present, and will be watching it many times as I edit my own musical.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 25, 2008 11:58:54 AM

Evert:

Define 'bad guys'. I'm talking about civilians here, what some people would callously dismiss as 'collateral damage'. Also, from the point of view of somebody who comes from a sub-continent repeatedly ruled by dictators actively supported by the U.S., who should I see as the 'bad guys'?

My position about Afghanistan is simple: you should get the fuck out of there ASAP. If you don't engage into talks with the Taliban you're gonna 'lose' Afghanistan. The civilian population is increasingly against the 'coalition' forces. Most of the new Talibs are young people who want to defend their country from what they rightly see as foreign invaders. These are not the same guys that destroyed the WTC, although they partake of their ideology. You don't like it, but that's the way it is.

How disgusted am I with the Dresden firebombing? Very much. Although you guys were on the right side on that one, that was (no pun intended)overkill, and I consider it a crime. Even worse is what you guys did in Japan. The U.S. will be very much remembered by being the sole nation on Earth to have used nuclear weapons against unarmed civilians. If that's not terrorism, then I don't know what is.

As for Churchill, with his proposal to gas the Iraqis into submission, it seems like history almost repeats itself, doesn't it? How much do you think I admire him?

This whole reference to 'bad guys' and 'good guys' has me a little bit curious...how old are you, 'dude'?

Have a merry one.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 25, 2008 2:05:28 PM

Pepito:
I agree with you on absolutely everything you say.

But I also think my man, Obama -- whom I love, but whose Treasury Secretary appointment I absolutely loathe (that guy and Paulson are, as scam artists of my tax money, no better than Madoff) -- is willing to talk to the Taliban.

Bad guys? Osama Bin-Laden and his lieutenants. Hitler. Mugabe.

I come from South Africa, where the CIA tipped off the apartheid security police to Mandela's whereabouts, so I take a very dim view of the American Empire.

I'm very much hoping Obama will rein us in. Otherwise I obviously immigrated to the wrong country.

Please leave me with a little hope, dude.

You have a merry one too.

P.S. I got the rightwing inlaws over here, so cut me some sympathy.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 25, 2008 3:36:16 PM

Evert,

Please forgive me for commenting before reading your article and this thread. I just want to say that I think Obama's charisma rating plummeted with the selection of Rick Warren for the inauguration ceremony, not to mention his picks for the economic team. I find it incomprehensible. If Molly Ivins were here, I expect she'd say that You gotta dance with the one who brung ya.

Sorry about the right-wing in-laws. Perhaps a fat joint would help?

Merry, merry, happy, happy from me, CMI, and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in the Sky

Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 25, 2008 4:25:10 PM

Dear Critical Mass:

Man, I miss Molly Ivins. There's nobody in today's media or bloggery who can remotely take her place as a BS spotter. We really need her like to hold Obama's feet to a progressive fire.

Still, I'm hoping.

As for the right-wing inlaws, they just left. One of them had an argument about assault weapons that appeared to have some vague relation to logic (apparently my grandpa's rifle could penetrate a cop's vest as easily as an assault weapon).

Right-wingers to the right of me, left-wingers to the left of me, what's a moderate leftie to do?

Pepito, about my age. All I can say is that I was alive when heavy metal was born. I was in a group of eight who were the first hippies in South Africa. As our first official act, we went to the local department store and bought beads. My eyes have seen REAL fascism at the breakfast table, staring at me from my father's pupils. I grew up with slaves in the house, cooking my food and washing my underwear. I smelled fascism loud and clear in Reagan's smile.

Politics is frighteningly real to me. I've wept political tears twice in my adult life -- when Nelson Mandela walked out of jail, and when I heard an Obama speech this year, which changed me from a Hillary supporter to an Obama man in 12 minutes flat.

I don't expect him to be a Messiah. I just want him to get a fair shot at changing this country into something less dysfunctional, and at doing something to remind our entitled elite that there is something called community, and that there is behavior called ethical.

I don't only hope; I NEED to hope.

Now more than ever.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 25, 2008 7:14:47 PM

Evert:

Sorry for being so blunt. You got my sympathy. My in-laws are an active (and somewhat important in NY state) part of the Christian Right (absolutely unbelievable, foaming-in-the mouth republicans), so I know what you're talking about.

But I really don't trust your man Obama. Even though I felt inspired by the fact that a (half) black man was elected to the presidency of the most powerful nation on Earth, I also think his corporate commitments are much more important to him that the support of the people who genuinely believe in him and voted for him. Prepare to be disappointed, I'm sorry to say.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 25, 2008 8:33:19 PM

What do you imagine Rick Warren thinks about evolution?
Category: Creationism

o ahead, guess. Would you be surprised to learn that Warren is a creationist?

I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently...Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together. There are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution... My prayer is that you will have this same experience!

The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty...man and dinosaurs lived at the same time...From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs.

Isn't it nice of Obama to grant this clown a prominent place on the national stage?
-- from PZ

Hopefully we can get a center right perspective out of the Obama Regime. But it looks like superstition and delusion, both in economics and the environment will dominate.
Personally, reformist politics have no chance of success in the time we have.
It looks like the other side of the wall is where the real change will happen, at least for the survivors.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 25, 2008 8:41:19 PM

Dave,

But even the survivors may not survive long if another Chicxulub happens. We're doomed!

Sometimes your comments sound as if you're in a Woody Allen sci-fi movie, cast in the role of a 21st-century Jonathan Edwards turned science hobbyist. Richard Dawkins plays the role of science Pope, Dennett's busy with AI or brains in a vat and Sam Harris is dusting off the strappado to torture knowledge of the asteroid trajectory out of a captured space alien.

Relinquish the infinite growth model or you are doomed forever! Edwards booms. Only science can reveal the truth! There is no psychopathic space daddy, only a killer asteroid about to strike. Sam Harris concurs, adding that Mother Nature is not our friend.


Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 25, 2008 9:49:23 PM

I think Dave's position is that we are Chicxulub.

Posted by: Carlos | Dec 25, 2008 10:39:12 PM

Obama invited Warren to the Inauguration because he is willing to tolerate even bigots if he agrees with them in other areas. Yes, he aims to co-opt offensive nutters, too. Which means he's a bit more tolerant than gay movers and shakers can stomach, but as a politician he is counting those extra evangelical votes. That's the ignoble big-tent "pragmatic" side of him you purists don't get.

You also don't get that he himself combines left lurches (his militant pro-union Labor Secretary) with some center-right views (he doesn't support gay marriage). I don't share his center-right views, but I I know he has already moved the country more left than I ever thought possible.

You want a purist like yourself? You got one, Dennis Kucinich. Be happy he's around -- as I am. It's just a pity he's as inspiring as a day-old pretzel.

Pepito:
You're obviously more of a pessimist than I am.

I think Obama is playing a much deeper game than you give him credit for. He's trying to make sure he's re-elected in 2012. I believe he will go for a more out-and-out progressive agenda only in his second term, when he has nothing to lose. To get that agenda through after 2012, he will spend his first term winning over enough nutjobs to help in the second term, or at least render them less obstreperous.

You watch my man Obama; he is lulling the conservatives as well as co-opting them. Even Cheney says his foreign policy team is "pretty good."

You'll see shit happening in Obama's second term that'll surprise you. Mark my words, y'all. You read it here first.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 26, 2008 12:27:30 AM

Carlos,

Well, I doubt that. And I agree with Dave that we, humanity collectively, are in a precarious if not perilous spot.

But the gratuituous space daddy refrain is tiresome. And as Dave continually threatens dire consequences if there is not a shift away from an infinite growth model of economics, he actually reminds me of the G-d of Genesis and his admonition to Adam and Eve: But the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Dave tells us that if we don't change our ways, give up what he believes is superstition and delusion, that we will die (all but the survivors). This is not a persuasive or convincing argument, especially when he offers little hope beyond a Dennett lecture announcement and/or the BELIEF that science will rescue us from the scarcity-catastrophe model that has largely been driven or made possible by applied science -- whatever techno fix may be brewing in the research lab.

Instead of trying to persuade us to take a more enlightened path, Dave likes to threaten us with doom, then offer a couple of wisecracks on superstition. The essence of every spiritual tradition is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Reverence for the sacred does not rest on a suppositional space daddy. As author-naturalist Chet Raymo writes, "When God Is Gone, Everything Is Holy."

Superstition? If it is, I prefer it to the punitive vengeance that passes for justice in our society. I also prefer it to Francis Bacon's "putting nature on the rack to torture the answers out of her." Today, that approach to science includes the torture that primates are subjected to in Harvard's lab in Southboro, Massachusetts, ad infinitum. Once enough monkeys have been turned into cocaine addicts or enough of Martin Seligman's dogs have become depressed, "helpless and hopeless," after being subjected to electric shocks repeatedly -- in repeated experiments after the results were in -- oh, then maybe humanity will set forth on a solid path of enlightenment, unencumbered by superstition and delusion. Yes, that's it, through science humans will learn compassion and will no longer turn ploughshares into swords with which to vanquish their enemies.

Science, science, science. I've been a noisy, haranguing lab rat, so I'll go back to my gerbil wheel now.

Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 26, 2008 12:37:10 AM

Picador:

Ease up on the gentle 3QDers who so desperately need the silver thread of uplifting narrative to wrap that bloody mountain of brutal facts: they are in pain!

"I think Obama is playing a much deeper game than you give him credit for."

Undoubtedly.

"You'll see shit happening in Obama's second term that'll surprise you."

I doubt I'll be very surprised.

Btw, what should one make of a Gallup poll finding that George W. Bush is the 2nd most admired man in Murrica today?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081226/pl_afp/uspoliticsobama

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 9:24:58 AM

CM-
I think you are over emphasizing my belief in science as a way out of this corner we have painted ourselves into. In fact, humanism is as bad as Christianity in it's delusion of separation and and human progress.
With the American populous always wanting a solution and positive thinking, is a trap in itself.
There may not be a solution. We may be in the same boat (earth) as the rest of the 99.9% of the species that are now extinct. It would be a grand exception if we weren't.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 26, 2008 11:58:07 AM

"Btw, what should one make of a Gallup poll finding that George W. Bush is the 2nd most admired man in Murrica today? "


That's what I was gonna say. Most people critical of the U.S. and their policies try very hard to draw a distinction between the Murkan people and their leaders. In truth, I've almost always found them indistinguishable. Hence my unrelenting 'pessimism'. Some shit I've been reading in the last few years from mainstream news sources could be lifted straight off the Onion.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 26, 2008 12:32:52 PM

Suddenly we 3QDers who are willing to suck up Obama's bad compromises for the good things he'll do are the gentle ones? And the venting snarling whining baby purists are macho babes facing the brutal facts? We're the ones in pain!?

Steven Augustine, have you checked your mirror lately?

Listen, just because I share most of your opinions but back Obama's good agenda and believe he'll follow through on green energy, spreading the wealth around, early childhood education, etc. etc. makes me neither gentle nor pained.

It actually makes me feel good, good enough to respectfully disagree with you, in warm comity, and with gentle irony. You're the guys wielding the blunt instruments of rage and pain and disappointment and bad faith and 100% Sarah Palin-like suspicion of a decent-enough fellow. To paraphrase the horrid Rumsfeld, you go to bat with the President you got, and we got a way better one than the troglodyte incompetent Yalie that Murrica voted for in 2004.

A little calm and civility, plus of course therapy, a fat joint and a good roll in the hay, are recommended by Doctor Evert to one and all for 2009. Apoplexy does not become you, my fellow leftists. Let us argue while we chew a mutual chill pill. Let us reserve our righteous rage for the nutters out there. A leftist house too divided will lean rather than stand. I'm running out of banalities here, but like Obama, I believe in my own good will. And I devoutly wish to believe in yours, no matter how hard you try to furnish evidence to the contrary. As a militant atheist, I reach out to you across our mezzo-chasm and say God bless you, Steven Augustine. All power to your elbow; I just wish it weren't quite so pointy, and your disposition a little less grumpy.

My glass is half-full; sometimes I wonder if you have any soothing water in your half-empty glass at all. But drink on, fellow travelers. Snarl away. Tie your knickers in a variety of knots. I promise you we'll get there -- or somewhere slightly better -- in the end.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 26, 2008 12:35:55 PM

Ooops, I seem to've struck a nerve. How did *that* happen? Wink.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 12:43:27 PM

Steven-
Why mess up a good wet dream with reality?

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 26, 2008 12:55:46 PM

PT Barnum was sooo right.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 26, 2008 1:21:09 PM

Dave, Pepito, CM, friends:


In the wake of Prop 8, a Gay activist was quoted as saying that the mistake the Gay community had made was in being too polite; not militant enough. PC's decorous post-Disney illusion (that "nice" words make things better and "bad" words make things worse) had rendered the movement an impotent shadow of its badass, post-Stonewall self.

In other words, the time to scream and shout and stamp your feet and be a pain-in-the-ass and a sociopolitical headache is *now*. Those who adopt a Smiley Faced wait-and-see policy are very poor students of history (though, to be fair, they probably gather new virtual "friends" on Facebook much easier).

Bitching long and loudly at Obama's "bad compromises" *now* is the only hope. Winkingly cheerleading his obvious behind-the-scenes deals with the Clintons, or his upcoming surge in Afghanistan, or his convenient sop to Christohomophobianism, and so forth, is not only foolish but may also, in fact, be, you know... wrong.

Oh, Evert: be assured I typed all of the above with a supremely unflusterable smile, dah-link. If you are *hearing things* while reading my comments, I suggest you see a shrink about it. Or hug your Obama bear and chill a wee.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 2:04:47 PM

Who's facing reality? Those of us who want to deal with what we've got, or you guys who want what we will never get -- Noam Chomsky for president?

In an ideal world, all penises would be chocolate-covered, but the ideal leftwing paradise has never existed, and neither has the ideal rightwing paradise. Your wet dream has absolutely nothing to do with reality: I suspect it has more to do with abandonment issues or some other lingering childhood traumas than with the reality as we face it today, which is that we have a half-assed left-wing President of the United States.

Deal with that reality, Dave and Pepito. Your inability to stray out of your box and stick to an excellent and high-minded discussion, says more about your personal issues and lack of fat joints in your life than the horrible tragedies of collateral damage that our half-assed leftwing President may try to solve but can't. Or won't. Either way, that's reality, not your wet dreams, or Milton Friedman's or Karl Marx's.

Dang it, if only you had half the suss of Marx or Keynes or Mandela or Heidegger or Sartre or Negri or Deleuze or even Naomi Klein, we could have ourselves a fruitful discussion here instead of playing ping-pong snark.

I've met you guys more than halfway; you're trapped in your fat-joint-less sniping. My rightwing inlaws at least have a sense of humor about their views. Still, no worries, good on you, mates, and I remain your friend, but jeez, lighten up, it's getting a wee bit tiresome. You're better than this.

(Apologies for my preachy tone, BTW. It speaks volumes about my own physical abuse childhood traumas.)

Posted by: evert cilliers | Dec 26, 2008 2:30:07 PM

Steven Augustine:

You're absolutely right. Now is the time to scream and shout and hold Obama's feet to a scorching fire.

What I'm against is utterly writing off Obama.

And that's what some screamers on this thread have been doing.

Glad to know you're smiling, lovey. That's the spirit. I will chill a wee and hug my Obama doll. Good advice. I needed that.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 26, 2008 2:38:17 PM

Evert-
Reality check--- In this whole thread, I'm the only one who has posted specifics, on actual policy in the Cabinet positions.
The rest of this discussion has dealt with speculation and ideas and emotions.
But, as humans we base reality on story and myth, critical thing is discouraged, and heuristic thinking is rewarded. The short term is rewarded over long term planning.
This human thing is a tough gig. I am still in the streets on a weekly basis.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 26, 2008 3:01:06 PM

Evert, for clarity's sake: did you, in utter seriousness, in an effort to actually *bolster* your "argument", write:

"Even Cheney says his foreign policy team is 'pretty good.'"?


Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 3:58:37 PM

Dave,
Wow. I'm feeling for you here, bro. Deep in child care, I haven't marched or organized or done anything remotely activist in many a moon. I wish there were millions of you all over these United States.

My specifics: I hate Obama's choice for Treasury Secretary,I'm ecstatic about his Labor Secretary. I would like to harass him about not backing gay marriage, and I hate his support of immunity for the phone companies who went along with the Bush administration on assailing our civil liberties. I'm scared he's not going to get the hell out of Iraq in 16 months. But I'm right behind him on his green energy Manhattan Project approach, as well as his half-assed healthcare plan, hoping it may open the door to a single-payer system (a forlorn hope, I know, but I'm still hoping we'll catch up to Europe on this). I feel he's going to duck the whole torture issue in terms of exposing and/or prosecuting the wrong-doers, and that makes me deeply sad. It's pretty much a mixed bag.

There's an interesting interview in Time Magazine, where he outlines what he wants Americans to hold him to in two years' time. It's typical No Drama Obama: very clear, very specific, and not too ambitious. It looks like he's thinking small steps, bit by bit, accruing over his four or eight years into fundamental changes.

What's a little eerie is his confidence. I wish I had an ounce of that. I am waiting to see, with all these semi-demi neo-liberals in his Cabinet, if his gonads will be able to get them to do what he wants, and if what he wants is more like what I want. I would of course want a Howard Zinn paradise -- Let the Imagination Rule! -- but I'll settle for getting a quarter way there.

The last eight years have almost made me lose my faith in humankind. Not that the years before had done much to lift my spirits. Our elite is worse than most, with the possible exception of the Russian and Nigerian elite. The last eight years felt like those schoolyard bullies and entitled jerks we all hated in high school had taken over.

I am going to exhale for at least a year after January 20th.

And I won't give up hoping.

"This human thing is a tough gig." Amen.

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Dec 26, 2008 4:05:45 PM

Idealists, Realists, Nihilists, Relativists Unite!


youtube

Evert, I was thinking of what you said about the CIA tipping off the apartheid security police on Mandela's whereabouts. I hope they're not still sneaking around doing things like that.

I'm at work and have to sign off before I get fired for unauthorized quarking. Wage slavery sucks eggs.

Dave, thanks for clarifying re: science.

Hi, Steven. I wish you'd start to be more diplomatic.

CMI

Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 26, 2008 4:07:39 PM

P.S.


cartalk

Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 26, 2008 4:53:43 PM

CM!


(with a sharpish salute) Just doing my part to dig up the *Cult of Personality* meme wheresoever it appeareth to take root in the odoriferous loam of needy credulity, Sir!

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 4:53:47 PM

(Evert, you must be so glad you came to us.)

I get it that now that Obama has been elected -- if not inaugurated -- he's different than back when he was a long shot. Suddenly, it's a bit less hip to have hopes of him. After all, he won, and good guys don't win; they simply and mightily rattle the cage of the status quo, making the worst bad guys real, real uncomfortable, retaining all the while their not-yet-unredeemably-Establishment glamor. Obama up and stepped outside the narrative, and now it's important to recast him as a loser of the shiniest moral victories that were in reach. So we are converting this moment to one of spectacle -- spectacle that has to play out a certain way to satisfy our preconceptions.

Instead, why not look at how we could alter the picture if we took some energy away from editorializing about it to work in a systematic way for the changes we feel so sure Obama -- as a victor -- will fail to bring about? You can bet your first-born nothing much that's any good will get done in the next four years in the absence of political will and wide-scale activism. That's not even cynicism -- it's adding two and two to make four.

Everyone who gave time and money for Obama to be victorious has to keep on giving time and probably money too, for the causes they care about to prevail. This is a good moment to ask whether you have two hours a week to volunteer labor to securing civil rights for gays, just for instance. That's a very precise measure of how much you'd like to see the worst stuff Rick Warren stands for set back. If you don't have those two hours to work, but have 20 minutes here and there to rant -- well? Then Obama is not the one to blame for how you deployed your outrage that week, is he?

I am not saying that cynics, skeptics and critics are necessarily short on volunteer time and long on scorn and wrath. But, if you are working hard to bring about a political result, you tend to be less critical of others who are risking something -- even only disappointment -- to effect change themselves. You don't wanna give Obama a break anymore? Fine. As long as you work reliably to give more heft to the progressive agenda where you sense his efforts are going to fall short. And don't let the fact that he'd like you to do that stop you.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 26, 2008 5:17:29 PM

*No* human with that much power should get a "break" (a break from what? Scrutiny? Standards? Promise-keeping?) and Americans should learn to stop "hoping" and learn to start *paying attention*. That is to say: they must now finally Grow Up.

1. Let's judge Mr. Obama not by his (or your) rhetoric but by his actions.

2. He has already presented us with actions to judge and some of us have judged them... let's keep doing that and let's be *vociferous* in our condemnation of his missteps while he still cares what "we" think. Hoping and gambling that *all will be revealed* (and the dream suddenly made real) during his second term is the most asinine, irresponsible and politically impotent "tactic" one can imagine.

The miracle of this era is that a million critical thinkers can cry "foul" on the Internet (don't even need yer bloody paid-for Congressman's ear nowadays) and the noise will actually be *noticed*. The Internet helped get him elected and we can use it to tug his trouser leg. No, there won't be any Revolution (the System is not designed to unravel itself, my self-medicating dreamers), but maybe we can bargain back a few Civil Rights and some *genuine* Eco-reform and a civil smidgen of governmental accountability in the next few years?

But only by being hard-headed, tough-to-bamboozle BITCHES. If enough of us articulate our vivid displeasure (often enough) on high-profile blogs like 3QD, his operatives *will* notice. This is not the 1960s. Use this tool while we have it.

"If you don't have those two hours to work, but have 20 minutes here and there to rant -- well? Then Obama is not the one to blame for how you deployed your outrage that week, is he?"

Sorry: this is flat out lunacy. I didn't bloody appoint Rick Warren to *anything*, Barack Obama did: complain, therefore, to...uh... Barack Obama. Disarm your painfully-polite, rollover reflexes; knock it off with the hagiography and hero-worship and miracle-seeking and spare us the pretzel-logic sanctimony.

Obama has already backslid on a BUNCH of cardinal promises. You call that "pragmatism"; I call it "lying" and a "dangerous trend". Or, as Confucius once put it, so very sagely: a man who farts on the first date is telling you something.

Cry foul, you cute little, sleepy-eyed well-wishers. This is your chance to augment your first vote (on Obama's historicity; his personality; his rhetoric) with myriad subsequent informed votes on his *actions*. Let's not be fooled (and fools) again, kiddies. Okay?

(Cue: the first "black" President...Bill Clinton... and his feel-good, catchy, ultimately meaningless campaign song and all that tragic-in-retrospect blather about, erm...what was it? Oh yeah: "hope".)

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 6:17:43 PM

His cabinet is complete, and (judging by action, not speculation or emotion), I am horrified.
While not expecting great change, I was at least looking for some choices that maybe could represent a few baby steps into the future.
Not one appointment (other than Steven Chu, who may actually know what thermodynamics is, but will want nuclear energy) out of the bureaucratic center-right of the american ruling class.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 26, 2008 6:33:17 PM

Before I catch any opportunistic, off-topic flames: the Rick Warren sentence was edited down from a much longer one about evil *appointees*...

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 6:40:43 PM

Dave, no -- it isn't perfect. The Obama Cabinet is what you might have expected, not hoped -- pretty mainstream picks who are also intelligent people. They are not the most impressive people from the part of the spectrum I would have liked to have seen represented. They are also not a bunch of ill old white men, sitting on their prostates, card-carrying members of the petrocracy every last one. In my book, that's a baby step right there. We've just spent 8 years with a baby who couldn't get up, and I'm happy to exchange it for a healthy toddler.

Steven, being a Grown Up, as you put it, is being politically active. While being a vociferously outraged member of the commentariat is not the same thing as being a whiny kid, the power of the Internet is there for the massively organized, not for the lone wolf. As has just been beautifully demonstrated.

I'm sure you saw that during election season, when there was a pertinent editorial here, the editor who posted it came out for Obama; that's the quasi-official position of the blog, sorta. What we say on the comment threads is a different matter. We are expressing points of view for our own entertainment and that of any reader who is moved to read or reply. I believe in political activism, but, if I want to say so here, it's not a call to arms, whether the blog is read by 30,000 people a day or 30. Throughout the Obama campaign, when I really differed with something they did, I wrote to them. That way, they didn't have to search the blogosphere to find out what I thought of their performance.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 26, 2008 7:13:37 PM

Elatia-
Sacred cows are the new hamburger.
As a existentialist, I will do what I consider right and mindful, and not get attached to the results.
Results can cripple the psyche, if one makes them solid.
The Plague is a book of the present.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Dec 26, 2008 7:36:47 PM

I dream a bit like Pepito, Dave, Steven and Picador. But I hope like Evert, ghostman and Elatia. I haven't seen the dreams from my father realized. I doubt I will see mine.

To be honest though, did Obama ever promise us any of the things we want to see happen? He promised us better health care, a civil foreign policy and an agreeable domestic discourse. Beyond that, not very much else that we can hang our hats on...yet. So lesser of evils is what it must be for the time being. Even Chomsky seems to think so. 2012 is a mere four years away.

CM1, I too miss Molly Ivins. But I now find solace with the smart, ebullient and amazing Rachel Maddow.

Posted by: Ruchira | Dec 26, 2008 7:43:26 PM

"Steven, being a Grown Up, as you put it, is being politically active. While being a vociferously outraged member of the commentariat is not the same thing as being a whiny kid, the power of the Internet is there for the massively organized, not for the lone wolf. As has just been beautifully demonstrated."

Elatia, I can only assume that it's your genteel, yet profound, narcissism that leads you to believe that neither thinking nor doing as *you* think or do makes me a "lone wolf". I'd also point out that a consistently (and lucidly) expressed opinion in a public forum is no more or less effective than a single vote; I'm hoping you aren't arguing that my single vote was a futile gesture.

"I'm sure you saw that during election season, when there was a pertinent editorial here, the editor who posted it came out for Obama; that's the quasi-official position of the blog, sorta. What we say on the comment threads is a different matter."

Clearly, because *you* say so. Well, I dismiss your totemic approach as backwards (and sweetly authoritarian) and say that between now and the *next* election, a few hundred thousand "lone wolves" can make enough of a noise to make a man who counts votes by the hundred just a little nervous. That, plus our one futile vote each, of course.

You may not be aware of the fact that quite a few high-profile, politically skeptical blogs present material not far from the tenor of my (and Dave's and Pepito's and Picador's)commentary: they don't buy the bullshit either. Neither do their many, many readers.

And Evert may have attempted to foreclose any access to Mr. Chomsky's formidable skepticism with a jape or two early in the thread, but the Dr. has quite a few interesting, unflattering points to make on Obama, and they're rather less homey and fuzzy than yours or Evert's.

Now, how about engaging with (or simply considering) the point that your sentiment about giving the President a "break" (in the context of critical remarks in this forum) is both naive and self-contradicting, given the low value you appear to assign to the "editorializing" we're (ahem) *both* indulging in?

So. You can go back to baking those Freedom Cookies and singing hymns on the Capitol steps... but make sure you explain to your Gay friends that while Obama's open insult would have been unthinkable had it been towards *Blacks* or *Jews*(picture David Duke or David Irving speaking at the inauguration), it's okay in this case because... well... because.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 8:07:53 PM

And: obviously, Obama was the lesser of several evils (not hard to be so) and I advocated voting for him; that has *nothing* to do with giving him a "break" now. He didn't win by asking for "breaks"; he won by making promises (Ruchira, look up Obama's history re: FISA), quite a few of which he has already managed to break. We are fools not to *try* to hold him to the promises that remain to be broken due to some bizarre bedazzlement or spineless sense of decorum.

Public opinion is the most direct device for providing such feedback. Cry foul.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 8:21:37 PM

If we're quoting Chomsky:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/24/noam_chomsky_what_next_the_elections

"So, let’s go back to the evidence that we have, rhetoric and actions. Rhetoric, we know. Now, what are the actions? Well, so far, the major actions are a selection of—in fact, the only actions are a selection of personnel to implement Brand Obama. The first choice was the Vice President, Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the Senate, a longtime Washington insider, you know, rarely deviates from the party vote. And the cases where he does deviate are not very uplifting. So he did break from the party in voting for a Senate resolution that prevented people from getting rid of their debts by—individuals, that is—from getting rid of their debts by going into bankruptcy. That’s a blow against poor people who are caught in this immense debt that’s a large part of the basis for the economy these days. But usually, he’s a kind of straight party-liner, votes with the Democrats on the sort of ultra-nationalist side. The choice of Biden was a—must have been a conscious attempt to show contempt for the base of people who were voting for Obama and were organizing for him as an antiwar candidate.

"Well, the first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment, determines a large part of the President’s agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq in the House. In fact, he was the only member of the Illinois delegation who voted for Bush’s effective declaration of war, and again, a longtime Washington insider, also one of the leading recipients in Congress of funding from the financial institutions and hedge funds and so on. He himself was an investment banker. That’s his background. So, that’s the Chief of Staff.

"The next group of appointments were the maiden problem that the—the issue, the primary issue that the government’s going to have to face is what to do about the financial crisis. Obama’s choices to more or less run this were Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, from the Clinton—secretaries of Treasury under Clinton. They are among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. Actually, one leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting what’s happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama bin Laden to run the war on terror."

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 26, 2008 8:30:27 PM

Steven, being called a narcissist by you is like....oh, never mind. We are supposed to refrain from name-calling here.

Your vote is not the equivalent of your opinion, and it doesn't take me to tell you that, even in my very loving Dame Edna kind of way. If it were, then attending parties and frequenting forums would be as "lucid and consistent" as any of us needed to be, AND those activities would be protected under Civil Rights legislation. I'm delighted you vote, I'm giving you my attention today as you make your point outside the polling place, I am encouraging you not to name-call -- thereby joining with others who have openly suggested you go in for a little Diplomacy 101 -- and I am making a distinction between political activism and both voting and the free exchange of ideas, in an Internet-facilitated context or elsewhere. I am aware of people with influential blogs whose views are rather close to yours. I never said they were marginal views, only that the Obama Campaign was probably not reading comment threads on this blog to truffle them out and respond to them. Sorry you have some problem with any or all of that, but must you make fun of peace demonstrators to illustrate how benighted, and how authoritarian, you think I am? Sometimes sarcasm is so vast as to be meaningless and rudderless -- those are times to rein it in, I believe.

I think you can give Obama the benefit of the doubt -- he's earned it. My major point was that, if you disagree with him, if you believe he has made a compass error, so that his course from now on out must be -- can only be -- exponentially wrong, then you might consider putting in a little volunteer time on behalf of an organization that could mobilize you. Volunteers who wanted to see Obama elected did that, with the results you observe. Volunteers who want to see him corrected might reasonably follow suit. It beats making fun of peace activists.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 26, 2008 9:01:49 PM

"Even Cheney says his foreign policy team is 'pretty good.'"


Ha!
And I guess that's why the left should get on the bandwagon and support Obama.

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 26, 2008 10:25:35 PM

"Not one appointment (other than Steven Chu, who may actually know what thermodynamics is, but will want nuclear energy) out of the bureaucratic center-right of the american ruling class."


And I guess that's all the "change we can believe in". Isn't it an amazing demonstration of persuasive powers, though? An articulated and sly politician spewing platitudes accomplished a not so easy feat: turned a group of supposedly erudite, intellectually mature 'center-leftists' into bunch of naive, blabbering children. Do you think it might also be something in the water?

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 26, 2008 10:38:17 PM

Hilda Solis for labor seems okay. But it is mostly slim pickings so far. Why is Howard Dean not a cabinet pick?

And it is not just Rick Warren for the convocation. Pat Robertson is feeling Obama love surging in his heart. I feel a bit nauseous.

Yes Steven, I am very disappointed with the FISA backpedaling. No wonder both Bush and Cheney said that the next president was going to thank them.

Posted by: Ruchira | Dec 26, 2008 11:23:33 PM

Ruchira, I'm not deeply thrilled either. I'd like a president who steered pretty clear of communities of faith and their leaders. I don't like woo in government, and Warren & Co. are a lot of low-toned woo. But the president-elect's instincts lead him to keep these loons friendly and in the loop. And he is a deep one. So I'm going to assume this is part of the game plan, and not a bad sign pure and simple. About FISA, I have less faith.

Like you, I want to stay on top of developments I regard as dangerous portents, and not reflexively cry foul. So far, Obama hasn't done anything I can't explain as an example of his being more of a centrist and an incrementalist than I would like -- but I saw that coming a long time ago. He is also more personally conservative and more of a social conservative than I would like, so that his not going out on a limb for absolute equality for gays -- for instance -- is sad but unsurprising. If Andrew Sullivan can take it, I can take it. Barbara Jordan remains my fantasy president, but I am not comparing Obama to her. I'm comparing him to Hillary Clinton and McCain/Palin -- our real alternatives.

Pepito, it's a fine line to walk -- being moved by a politician's rhetoric and keeping one's eyes on his hands at all times. But reasonably educated, intelligent Americans are capable of it, especially if they continue working for political results they believe in, rather than expecting a new president whom they -- cautiously -- find promising to wave a wand and grant those results.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 27, 2008 12:52:32 AM

"Your vote is not the equivalent of your opinion, and it doesn't take me to tell you that, even in my very loving Dame Edna kind of way."

Edna, I put it to you that there's either a gap in your knowledge or one in your reasoning. My vote and my lucidly-expressed public opinion are closely related; I'm sure you're aware of the fact that people can "vote" with their money, too (eg, the efficacy of certain boycotts): the "proper" way is not the only way. If I present a consistent public argument that causes at least one other voter to see things differently, I'm having a political effect. And I know it's possible to have such a knock-on effect because *my* outlook on any number of things has been changed (sometimes fundamentally)because of points of view and/or information, unavailable anywhere else, I've been exposed to online.

Evert's essay is a political act; our argument with it is a political act. *No* living politician needs flattering; we've got to learn to de-romanticize the office. Evert's piece displays a willful shutting-down of critical thinking; the *need* to believe is a dangerous tendency. Eg: Evert writes,

"He chose to be a Christian. Sheer self-invention. He did it because he wanted to be a better organizer, and because he wanted to belong to the community. There was no miracle on the road to Damascus."

The simple and glaring fact is that no American with political ambitions headier than the neighborhood level can even *think* about running without belonging to a church (and being married). Obama's miracle on the road to Damascus was His epiphany that He wanted to run. In that light, we can see Obama The Product as an artifact of amazing discipline, yes, but there's nothing *intrinsically* positive about that. If this comment of mine can cause *one* reader of Evert's piece to re-read his piece more critically, I've had my one-vote-like effect.

Edna, I know it's hard to shift your consciousness from the era you're rooted in, but, again: this is not the 1960s. The political power of newspapers is evaporating. The medium in which we are having this argument is the closest thing to a Revolution I have seen in my lifetime (the End of Apartheid/Fall of the Wall/Election of Obama were symbolically wonderful; the jury is still out on Real Results), and if Obama can use this Revolution to help get himself elected, we can use this Revolution to help get ourselves heard.

Example: The Rick Warren invitation was a matter of good old fashioned political calculus; Obama had to decide whether the people he'd thrill with the maneuver would outnumber the people he'd alienate by a wide enough margin to make the move useful. The conclusion he came to was obvious. The goal now should be to make this look like a serious miscalculation. On top of editorials from marginal Gay press, a consistent din from blogs (and on Obama's websites, wherever comment threads are activated) will inform his next related maneuver: you can count on this. If the din isn't broad or loud enough to have an effect, that's a political reality we'll have to face (ditto with manning the phones or pamphleteering), because it's *all* a numbers game.

Professional politics may be a Byzantine, hermetically-sealed process (The Process, as La Didion put it) that Das Volk only have cyclical access to via the vote, but politics, in the larger and daily sense, is *about* Das Volk, and how their complexes of wants, needs, beliefs and opinions coalesace or diverge. Any medium that can connect *millions* of people is not just nominally political but profoundly political; any such medium that isn't harshly filtered according to controlling interests is not just profoundly political but potentially liberatory, too.

A personal hierarchy fetish may be preventing you from seeing the obvious. No one's discounting your "two hours a week" of doing whatever (I love how you come up with these precise-yet-arbitrary prescriptions). But there are many, many ways to have a positive effect... not just the ones that *you* sanction and which speak to *your* upbringing and personality type and talents. World's a big and multifarious place and it is *changing*. And not just Obama's catch-phrase "change", either.

Deal with it.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 27, 2008 4:50:35 AM

Steven, you're speculating so much about me, my psychology, my era and my upbringing that it's almost as if you believed you could bolster your point of view -- which exists quite apart from whoever I might be -- with this Ouija board method of personal attack. I don't think it's interesting to force this kind of fantasy on others, so I'm gonna leave the seance table. See you some other time, okay? Happy New Year!

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Dec 27, 2008 11:51:21 AM

At ease, Augustine!

I've never been in the military, Steven. I'd like to go back to the old way of addressing one another. OK?

I'd also like to add that I think it's good to be critical and express things lucidly. But IMHO, it detracts from your position if you send excessive little venom darts with the message. IOW, how are you going to "present a consistent public argument that causes at least one other voter to see things differently. . ." if you send out "bouquets of poison ivy," as Gilbert Highet might say?

I've been quite disappointed in Obama's cabinet picks and so forth, but then I remind myself of how awful it would have been if McCain-Palin had been elected. Obama hasn't even taken office, so I'm trying my level best to cut him some slack.

Go ahead, insult me now. I'm glad I went out to dinner Friday (Legal Seafood, yum yum) and missed the last of this contentious discussion.

CMI

Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 28, 2008 9:54:00 PM

CM:

1. It would take five minutes, tops, to unearth a trove of "insults" you've flung at various Rightwing, or stridently anti-religious, or otherwise vociferously not-of-your-tribe commenters here; are they not "insults" if you are their author, or if the target isn't a chum of yours? Is it "insulting" if I suggest that most thin-skinned complaints about "insult" in threads like these are hypocritical?


2. Pinpoint the "insults" and we'll discuss. Until you do (or can), I'll continue to think that you aren't expressing a worthy grievance so much as defending a virtual chum, and being *highly* selective in those you accuse of being "insulting".

So: list the Ad Hominems (I hope you can find one stronger than my implication that Elatia may be into "hierarchy", or that she's "behind the times"), and show how they differ from the other Ad Hominems employed by nearly every commenter in this thread (including Elatia's first jab at Picador), and I'll think you're doing something better boiler plate online wagon-circling. Also: how these hypothetical "insults" can *detract* from the reason or factuality of any point I've made will need to be shown. Eg, the point of most of the contentious comments here has been that Obama should be judged by his actions and not his PR; please demonstrate how implying that Elatia may be behind the times, or into hierarchy, or a bit random in her prescriptions (see her "two hour" rule of public service) detracts from the argument that Obama should be judged by his actions.

If your *real* problem is with my "insulting" the Murrican People (and doing it too often and too well), I have to say that after the cited Gallup poll that GW Bush is the "2nd Most Admired man in the country", I think They (the Murricans less than the Americans) deserve it.

So... ?


Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 29, 2008 7:56:19 AM

Here are three examples of the *appropriate* sort of insult on a 3QD thread:


1. Elatia insults the intelligence of Picador's first comment:

Picador, you've selected a good user name for your function here, if my memories of the bull ring serve. Sometime, though, I hope you'll do a thing other than stick sharp pointy projectiles into the shoulders of the bull, the better to lower its head and get it angry. I'd like to see another kind of contribution, actually.

2. Elatia insults the intelligence of Picador’s comment again (note the "perennial" dig and the swipe at dissent in general and the crafty quasi-compliment built into the condescension in order to give the insult a "positive" sheen at the end):

Yes, Carlos -- the guy with the pointy sticks is a perennial that needs disagreeing with on principle. It's so easy to criticize, so hard to have anything positive to offer. But our particular picador is smart, and could do better.

3. Evert (the article's author) insults Picador:


My dear, dear, dear Picador:

Listen, twinkletoes, there are two things you have to think about for the rest of your life:

1. You are a fundamentalist. A purist. Hard left. Not the kind of guy whose revolution dances. The longer you remain a fundamentalist, the longer you'll be unhappy with whomever rules. You'd be unhappy with President Noam Chomsky.

2. You are grumpy. The cure for that is:

a) therapy
b) a fat joint
c) a good roll in the hay.
Try any of those three cures for a week or two. Then return to this thread and see how much you feel like whining.

Now, I took exception to this; not so much because of the rhetorical juvenilia on display, but because it there isn't a speck of refutation to be found in it, and that very last word is exactly the kind of pejorative anti-dissent tactic that Rumsfeldt ("get over it") and Cheney ("so what?") used to control the conversation.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 29, 2008 8:20:29 AM

In the meantime, while some commenters are arguing about the appropriateness of personal attacks in the thread, Obama is showing his enormously progressive credentials by justifying the slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza. From the NY Times:

“The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if — I don’t even care if I was a politician. If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

He's not above using his own daughters by means of a totally inaccurate comparison in order to pander to pro-Israeli interests. Where is Muntadhar al-Zaidi when you need him?

Posted by: Pepito | Dec 29, 2008 8:46:41 AM

You're my only chum here, Steven. I'm guilty as charged, assuming that I may be slightly abrasive and that you are insulting. Even worse, I didn't read the whole thread. I thought from glancing at the comments that you called Elatia a narcissist, and I didn't see how you could in fairness say that about her. I mean, you could determine that from the realm of virtuality?

I don't have a tribe, not here or anywhere. I'm not even a Unitarian. But I'll try to be less abrasive. It's the click and post thing. One doesn't always realize, even with Preview, how one sounds in virtual conversation until after the fact.

Posted by: CriticalMassI | Dec 29, 2008 10:11:55 AM

CM, my chum:

I prefer you abrasive/cantankerous/lively/blunt/direct/sincere; I can take it. I think we've entered a period in history where we're free to learn, again, to be rather more worried about killing (or being a party to killing) "Third Worlders" than offending other Americans, fragile as they have become after a few generations of being at the safer end of all that power.

Posted by: Steven Augustine | Dec 29, 2008 1:16:42 PM

Evert, Thanks for this fascinating thread; I didn't know about the CIA and Mandella, but it looks like he is having the last laugh. Too bad he had to put up with 30+ years in prison to get there.

Posted by: CVille Dem | Dec 30, 2008 2:45:27 PM

At the end of the day, people are the difference makers. There is so much written about how to change and be successful yet only few are able to pull it off like Obama. Does it have to be in our DNA, are we just stubborn and incapable of doing what is so common sense? In Obama’s case he is like so many other people yet he was able to take all his experiences and continue to reinvent himself. I think for most people, one time is enough as you get comfortable and yet the one time will not last a lifetime. People like businesses have to continue to evolve to live.

Posted by: fred | Jan 3, 2009 1:13:06 PM

As readable as your piece was the conclusions and motivations are wrong. Sorry to say that when a man invents himself thusly you will never know which one of him your talking/viewing.
He comes across to much as an actor playing to a mirror(s), which we all are viewing but from different angles. Which face is really his?. He cannot be all things to all people for in the process he's lying to someone or maybe everyone..... Remember power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by: Vorant1 | Jan 21, 2009 2:09:33 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

G on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Erich on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on Race Is Not Biology

Raza Husain on Race Is Not Biology

Raza Husain on Race Is Not Biology

Josef Stern on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Colette on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Dana on A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Dredd on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on Race Is Not Biology

prasad on Race Is Not Biology

JF on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

Sundar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

omar on REFLECTIONS ON WOOLWICH

musafir on Loneliness, isolation and desperate yearning

carlos on The Gut-Wrenching Science Behind the World’s Hottest Peppers

Dredd on A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

Dredd on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

JonJ on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

JonJ on Race Is Not Biology

omar on Race Is Not Biology

omar on Race Is Not Biology

Dredd on Race Is Not Biology

Dredd on Race Is Not Biology

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed