Roger Green: a librarian's life, deconstructed.
President Obama posted a copy of his “long form” birth certificate, hoping to finally end a long-simmering conspiracy theory among some conservatives that he was not born in the United States and was not a legitimate president.
From the New York Times:
President Obama posted a copy of his “long form” birth certificate, hoping to finally end a long-simmering conspiracy theory among some conservatives that he was not born in the United States and was not a legitimate president.
The birth certificate, which is posted online at the White House website [PDF], shows conclusively that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is signed by state officials and his mother.
Now may we PLEASE talk about something else?
A category of biracial, which has been recognized for less than two decades culturally just does not trump centuries of someone who looks like Barack Obama, with a black parent, being categorized as black.
Last month, I wrote this blogpost about the shooting of 20 people, six fatally, in Arizona. Got a lot of comments, some of which inevitably fell off the mark. In fact, a duologue developed between two commenters, and I pretty much stayed out of it until one wrote:
Also calling the President a “black” man would be wrong. He happens to be biracial.
This made me peevish. I responded:
It would NOT be wrong to call the President a black man. He identifies himself as a black man. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17958438
One of the interesting things that the OMB in 1997, in anticipation of the 2000 Census, did was to allow people to opt to identify themselves as of more than one race. Previously, someone like Barack Obama WOULD have been identified as black by Census.
There are plenty of Americans who identify as white [that are] of mixed heritage, just as there are mixed-race people (Halle Berry, whose mother is white, comes to mind) who identify as black. Their decision, not anyone else’s. I should have noted that Berry’s mother ENCOURAGED her to identify as black since that’s how the world would see her anyway.
To which he responded:
Mr. Green
You would be correct, at the end of the day, it is the person that wishes to be identified with a race or group. I just know my wife was a tad upset when he kept calling himself a black man. It kind of disavows half of you, I guess.
Then suddenly, I GOT it. Barack Obama identifying as a black man means, to some people, that he is rejecting part of himself. That WHITE part of himself. And in doing so, he must be, to their minds, kind of reverse racist.
That idiotic “365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy” I’ve referred to actually also addressed this: “Next time you hear a reference to ‘America’s first black president,’ counter by referring to Obama as ‘America’s 44th white president.’ Explain that you’re doing so on feminist grounds: ‘What? You’re trying to tell me that his Caucasian mom’s genetic input doesn’t count? But that’s so SEXIST!'”
A category of biracial, which has been recognized for less than two decades culturally just does not trump centuries of someone who looks like Barack Obama, with a black parent, being categorized as black. In the 1970 Census, the 1980 Census, the 1990 Census, he would be considered black (or Negro or African-American – whatever). When Barbara Walters asked him on The View why he didn’t consider himself biracial, I suspect that she already knew the answer from his autobiographies and from her understanding of history.
Not that he rejects his white mother, for whom he has expressed great love, and who was present when his father was not. Or even her race, as when the President-elect referred to himself as a mutt, which displeased some people, many of them black, who did not want to diminish in any way the significance of a President of African descent.
So race in America is still a bit of a landmine, even with a black – or biracial – President.
In Tucson, he showed up as the charismatic leader rather than the policy wonk which seemed to lead people to believe the message that he’s “not one of us,” however one means that.
It’s halfway through Barack Obama’s first term as President, and I’m filled with a lot of mixed feelings. On one hand, I think his rhetoric far outstrips his ability to govern. In other words, he promised much more than he could deliver. On the other hand, if Bill Clinton was hampered by a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” that was nothing compared with what Obama has been facing.
What initially struck me about the President-elect back in December 2008 is that he was already acting as though he were already in charge. The bad news about the economy was becoming more fully released, and he appeared fully involved in trying to fix it. My wife noted at the time that he seemed more visible than the 43rd President.
So his inaugural speech was less inspirational than I might have wanted; still, we were promised the audacity of hope. Thus, it seems that a lot of people saw Barack Obama the way they WANTED to see him. Surely, he’ll get rid of the onerous secret human rights violations that many were distressed about under his predecessor. That did not prove to be the case.
The American participation in the war in Iraq had greatly diminished, as he said would happen, but he was never allowed any credit for that in some circles because he had opposed the war in the first place, and moreover opposed the surge that most analysts suggested allowed for the withdrawal.
Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan has expanded, with the endpoint pushed back later (2011) and later (2014).
In his dealings over health care, it seemed that this man has never played poker. “Oh, here’s what I have in my hand. Let’s go.” So it is not, as some pundits claim, that the Left is upset that the health care bill didn’t provide the universal health care provisions it had hoped, and that then-senator Obama seemed to favor. It was that he folded on it, well before it was necessary. Thus, the bill that was finally passed was ultimately only a Democratic bill, even though it was twisted and altered to get Republican support that largely never came.
It did not help when Obama, and Vice-President Biden, for that matter, lectured the Left on how grateful they should feel and that they were the best hope they could expect. That is in stark contradiction with newly-elected President Obama requesting the Left to keep him honest, make noise.
Yet, it’s difficult for me not to have some sympathy for the President, who had to deal with the birthers, those who have him pegged as a socialist fascist.
Ah, a black President! Our racial problems are over! The President can help us in dialogue. What we end up with is a hastily arranged beer summit, and perhaps a realization that we are not as “post-racial” as previously thought. I don’t blame that on Obama but on our own self-congratulatory rhetoric. And I’ve discovered that there are certain folks who are genuinely offended that he refers to himself as a black man, rather than biracial because he seems to be denying part of himself; I received a comment saying as much just last week.
The President does have skills. Even FOX News was hard-pressed to criticize him for his speech in Tucson last week. Here he showed up as the charismatic leader rather than the policy wonk which seemed to lead people to believe the message that he’s “not one of us,” however one means that, who showed up explaining health care or the BP oil spill, though getting $20 billion from BP I thought was a masterful stroke that didn’t get enough credit. And, as I’ve said before, I believe his seeming aloof manner may be a studied attempt not to come across as an “angry black man.”
Frankly, I had him pegged as a one-term President for certain after his first 22 months in office, only to be surprised by his successes with the START treaty with Russia, the elimination of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and a food safety bill.
The narrative is now that he’s moved to the center, and this will save him. His willingness to compromise with Republicans over the tax cuts presumably shows his leadership. I never pegged him as a liberal, but rather a moderate. But the narrative has improved his job approval ratings.
In any case, who knows what the next several months will bring? It’s unlikely that the Democrats will challenge him in the primaries. As for his Republican opponent, who knows? Because the GOP changed its rules, a lot of the early winner-take-all primaries have been changed to a more proportional delegate distribution.
Who will I vote for in 2012? Well, it depends. Might be Barack Obama; depends on what the next two years bring.
Fundamentalism is just plain simpler.
Arthur, in his response to my post last week about Christian yoga, asked me to “look at how mainstream Christians can get attention (and differentiation) when overshadowed by the loud—and often flaky…fundamentalists.” I’d love to, but I can’t, and I’ll tell you why.
During one of the debates during the 2004 Presidential campaign, the candidates were each asked about their faith stance. George W. Bush gave his standard response about his personal relationship with Jesus Christ. John Kerry gave what I thought was a fine answer about how his Roman Catholic faith compelled him to respond to the social gospel, i.e., to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, et al. But after the debates, more than a few pundits suggested that Kerry had somehow evaded the question. And, according to that PBS series God in America, that I keep recommending, Kerry himself concluded that he had “blown it” on the religion issue.
So the junior senator from Illinois was out making speeches in 2005 and 2006, touting his religious conversation, from someone of not much faith, rather like his mother, to someone who had found Jesus. Then when he decided to run for President, you would think that this would have put him in good stead with that crowd. But the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy muddied the waters, and his absence from regular church attendance since he was elected President helped the “Muslim” thing stick.
Much of the media, particularly in the early part of this century, helped establish the narrative that the fundamentalists were the “values voters”, which truly infuriated me. I have values; I vote. How did the term get so co-opted?
Part of the problem with the liberal/progressive church is the problem with liberals in general. Some people have suggested that we condemn this one or that, but unless it’s a real outlier (Rev. Terry Jones, the would-be Koran burner), it is generally disinclined to criticize. “That’s not we believe, but you’re entitled to your views.”
And let’s face it: fundamentalism is just plain simpler. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God and every word is factually true vs. the Bible is not a history book, and that God gave us reason, intellect, tradition to discern what God is saying to us in these times. Now, what’s easier to explain, a black-and-white philosophy or nuance? And as this article suggests, the fundamentalists work harder because they have, historically, been outsiders.
But hey, maybe you folks out there have a better idea. How DOES the mainstream church better present its message of tolerance so that it isn’t drowned out by some yahoos who suggest, e.g., that the Haitian earthquake, or Katrina, or 9/11 is God’s punishment?
There was a truly horrific ruling by the US Ninth Circuit Court in August 2010 allowing warrantless GPS tracking by law enforcement.
Hey, kids, it’s Constitution Day again! And boy, have we learned about the application of the foundation of the United States in the past year or so, or what?
Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power
[8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The notion of “limited” gets longer every revisiting of the Copyright law, contrary, in my opinion, to the original intent of the Founders.
Article II [5] No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President
Yes, don’t hear as much about them lately, but the birthers, who claim President Obama is not eligible to be President, are still out there.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
This, of course, is at the heart of the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” debate; the usual line about this is that they have a RIGHT to build the Islamic center but that they OUGHT NOT TO.
There are some other interesting sidelights, such as some politicians suggesting that they should investigate the financing of the facility. This is right and proper as long as they likewise check out the funding of every new church, synagogue, and temple, and existing ones, while they are at it.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech
Interestingly, action has been defined as “speech”; e.g. flag burning. So the Koran-burning controversy falls here. Again, people used the RIGHT TO/OUGHT NOT to conversation.
Amendment II A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling a couple of years ago protecting personal gun ownership, not just the militia part, has meant that jurisdiction after jurisdiction with gun control laws are having them challenged, forcing them to more narrowly define the restrictions on gun ownership, such as insanity of the would-be owner.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There was a truly horrific ruling by the US Ninth Circuit Court in August 2010 allowing warrantless GPS tracking by law enforcement. Other courts have ruled otherwise, as this TIME magazine article notes. What’s REALLY irritating about the Ninth’s decision is this:
The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the “curtilage,” a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government’s intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan…
The conflicting rulings at the Circuit level make this almost a certain Supreme Court case in the future.
Amendment XIV – The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This WAS initially all about slavery. This IS, suddenly, about illegal immigrants coming to the United States and have their babies here, making the children U.S. citizens. How frequently this is happening is an open debate.
There have been other fun Constitutional issues, such as Arizona’s immigration law, in probable violation of Article I, Section 8, but this has gone on long enough. US citizens: go read your Constitution, while you still can.