New Yorker Obama Cartoon Controversy (by Becky Garrison)
While Ben Franklin penned the first American political cartoon in 1776, Thomas Nast ushered in the gilded age of the modern political cartoon when he toppled Boss Tweed. Since then, no political party or scandal has been deemed off limits, as evidenced by the cartoon coverage given to the misadventures of George W. Bush, Grover Cleveland, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, John F. Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt, to name a few of the powerful who have been stung by the power of the poisoned pen. (For an interesting international take on the history of political cartooning, check out The Political Cartoon Society).
When one places the July 2008 issue of The New Yorker cover into its historical context, one sees that the magazine has a long history of running covers that can be deemed controversial and at times crass, depending on one's political perspective. As a writer, I tend to side with those who wish to exert their first amendment rights, as long as they are not committing slander, plagiarism, or other illegal offenses. Such are the benefits of living in a democracy. (Let us not forget that no one has called for the execution of anyone associated with this drawing.)
But when editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt began defending as "satire" the depiction of the Obamas as a radical Muslim and Black Panther intent on invading the White House, sorry, but I beg to differ. If this particular piece was intended to parody the racist thoughts that people harbor toward Obama, it fell well short of its mark. For starters, if you have to explain repeatedly that "it was just a joke," then you need to refine your material.
While I am sure The New Yorker would never intentionally pen a piece that would benefit McCain, I can see how select groups can use this piece for non-humorous purposes to perpetuate this Muslim myth. After all, according to a Newsweek poll, 12 percent of respondents still believe Obama is a Muslim, despite the fact that he is a practicing Christian. Also, this cartoon could be seen as depicting the anger still felt by some Democrats that Obama is their nominee.
When describing the role of the political cartoonist, Daryl Cagle observes:
Cartoons can be outrageous in their exaggeration; we draw things that never happened, and never could happen -- but we have a contract with the readers who understand that we're drawing crazy things that convey our own views. The New Yorker's Obama cover fails to keep that contract with readers. Cartoonists don't exaggerate anything just because we have the freedom to do so; we exaggerate to communicate in a way that our readers understand.
Here Cagle offers his solution for how this cartoon could be fixed:
I would have Obama think in a thought balloon, "I must be in the nightmare of some conservative." With that, the scene is shown to be in the mind of someone the cartoonist disagrees with and we have defined the target of the cartoon as crazy conservatives with their crazy dreams.
The controversy over this cartoon does serve to remind us that race and religion continue to be used as roadblocks to prevent any sane and reasoned discussion of the issues that face our country today. We clearly need satirists to deflate the hot air and hooey that permeate the air during every election season. As much as I love The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and The Onion, my heart yearns for the wisecracking wisdom of George Carlin right about now.
Becky Garrison is senior contributing writer for The Wittenburg Door, the country's largest, oldest, and only religious satire magazine.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Becky:
I have not yet been able to find a copy of this current New Yorker issue and so have not had the opportunity to read the accompanying articles. My understanding, however, is that the articles are quite serious and that they deal with exposing and denouncing the slanderous rumors that have continued circulating about Obama despite the fact that they have been demonstrably proven false.
I understand that the New Yorker's purpose for putting that cover on this issue was visually to demonstrate just how obscene these rumors really are. In my view, the cover succeeds admirably in doing just that.
Just my thoughts.
D
Posted by: Don Hussein | July 16, 2008 3:14 PM
As satire, the parody achieves nothing. It isn't funny, and makes a rather banal (and not entirely accurate) point. Team Obama has to love it, though, since it gives their candidate the opportunity to appear magnanimous in the face of ignorance.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 16, 2008 3:25 PM
i have found lots of reasons not to vote for obama, knowing now that he cannot take a joke only adds to it. roger
Posted by: roger | July 16, 2008 3:32 PM
Satire has always been a dangerous course. That's not to say it isn't funny, but most of our prejudices are fed by them. When writing (or drawing) satire you not only risk offending the masses, but you also risk how many will get the joke vs. how many will take it seriously. That's the deal with the art form.
Political cartoons are rarely meant to compliment someone. Since I rolled my eyes when Michelle Obama fist bumped the ladies on The View, I had to smile at the cartoon.
Clearly, a writer for the Wittenburg Door complaining about a political cartoon makes me smile all the more.
Posted by: frankie | July 16, 2008 3:35 PM
my feelings are that We need a progressive candidate so lets not do anything that jeopardizes a democrats chance... the neoCons wrecked everything, oh, except the bottom line for the war Profiteers - Becky, write me on myspace some time,,,dixie Deer
Posted by: Jon Forrest Little | July 16, 2008 4:31 PM
I was interested to read this morning the views of Steve Bell, the Guardian's main cartoonist for the last 25 years or so, on this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/16/pressandpublishing.barackobama
For Bell, even after acknowledging that it will be misunderstood by "idiots and psychopaths", the cartoon "works". That is a personal reaction. For me it doesn't really "work". That is also a personal reaction. It's not that I don't get the satire, it's that I find it rather unfunny. If I'd been the editor responsible, I would have refused the cartoon on the basis of the quality of the humour rather than the acceptability of the image. That too is a personal reaction.
But surely those who would take this image as a literal depiction of the Obamas need to be educated more than they need to be ridiculed?
meurig
Posted by: meurig | July 16, 2008 5:00 PM
This might have worked if someone outside the edges of the frame was drawing the garb, the rifle, the flag in the fireplace and that person was in KKK gear or bore a resemblance to certain right wing fear mongers... Then it would have been about other people painting lies on the Obamas.
Posted by: Kathleen K | July 16, 2008 5:07 PM
I would suggest the idea of Bob Kincaid host on Head On Radio (who I beleive has interviewed Rev. Wallis at least once) that cover should have in a thought bubble of two ollyphant style bubbas. That gets to the point pretty accurately.
Posted by: Tosh | July 16, 2008 5:20 PM
How about "fixing" the cartoon by superimposing the internationally recognized red circle with a diagonal line through it? Then it would be clear that the satire was aimed at the absurdity of the misbeliefs, rather than adding any misinformation to the plethora that is circulating on the Internet.
Posted by: Kay Maxey | July 16, 2008 5:23 PM
"Team Obama has to love it, though, since it gives their candidate the opportunity to appear magnanimous in the face of ignorance."
The comment imputes insincerity and bad motives to Obama and rightfully so. You display such deep, meaningful knowledge of the motives of others. Thank you for this penetrating insight and thank you for sharing.
Posted by: JamesM | July 16, 2008 5:30 PM
"Team Obama has to love it, though, since it gives their candidate the opportunity to appear magnanimous in the face of ignorance"
I am not sure it was welcomed by the Obama camp . Correcting the stories would surely have been if the cartoon was left out .
Obama has been protected from many aspects of being made fun of by the late night talk shows and such . This cartoon was quite the shocker .
Posted by: Matt | July 16, 2008 5:42 PM
In response to Roger, do you have ANY idea how long and hard Senator Obama and his supporters have worked to clarify the rumors about his religion and patriotism? Please put yourself in this situation and ask yourself if you would find a national lampooning of your most sensitive issues funny. I'm voting for Obama because he believes in the golden rule.
Marty
Posted by: Marty Barker | July 16, 2008 5:49 PM
Equal time for the New Yorker's Obama satirical "cartoon" would be McCain hooked up to life support with the Grim Reaper standing by in recognition of McCain's advanced age.
Posted by: Karilou | July 16, 2008 5:51 PM
And the bubbas could be holding a list that says:
"Things to Hunt Today: Geese, Moose, Elk, Liberals, Queers, Blacks, Jews"
But with geese, moose, elk and liberals crossed out. Get it? As thought they have already been hunted down and slaughtered. Plus it would have lots of commas, so the editors would approve it.
Oh, and you could have a klan hood hanging out of one of their pockets. They should also have a t-shirt that reads:
"Gunlovers for NASCAR Society of West Virginia."
And then add the caption at the bottom of the page:
"These people are really bad, so don't be like them because they are ignorant and it's bad to be ignorant."
Then none of the New Yorker's southern readership will be confused.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 16, 2008 5:55 PM
You can go to the New Yorker website to read the article about Obama. Website is www.newyorker.com.
Fair portrayal of Obama, which relates that he's been "meticulous about constructing his own political identity and coalition."
Posted by: judithod | July 16, 2008 6:02 PM
As an African American female Christian minister
and an attorney who has lived in this country
for 62, i find it distrubing that no one wants
to address the racism that continues to color
the thoughts and conduct in this nation. Just
because people are educated and can articulate
their rational for racist behavior does not change
the bottom line. I came to know Christ through
liberation theology and still most of you do not
get it. It is not southern, northern regional
or anything else . It is not literary style it
is simply racism. I am particulary distressed
about the attack on Michelle Obama as well.
As Malcolm x said, What do you call a Black man
(woman) with a PhD from Harvard " nothing has
changed and will not change until the results
of all the wickness of this nation is visited
upon it,
Posted by: june | July 16, 2008 6:14 PM
Why are eyes rolling over the hand bump? Did they roll over the high five? How about chest bumps? Well, yes eyes roll over that. I'm so glad Michelle Obama and her husband didn't do that in public.
Posted by: Cleovi | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM
Well, Kevin, I was about to say that I found the cartoon to be tasteless and counter-productive. Then I spied your pitiful attempt at "satirical" (or is it just cynical?) humor. Congratulations, young man. You have managed to "top" the New Yorker by sinking to a new low.
Posted by: Hermes | July 16, 2008 7:25 PM
"The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king". Confronting prejudice head on fuels antagonism. Ridiculing by imitation, in this case, highlights absurdities.
Posted by: Gordon Mullen | July 16, 2008 8:03 PM
"Then I spied your pitiful attempt at "satirical" (or is it just cynical?) humor. Congratulations, young man. You have managed to "top" the New Yorker by sinking to a new low."
It was intentionally pitiful. That was the point. Are you just that Lloyd Crump guy under a different name?
Posted by: kevin s. | July 16, 2008 8:26 PM
The purpose is to demonstrate the meer stupidity that the American people believe Obama's a Muslim conspiracy.
If people can't understand that, then that's their issue, not the New Yorker
Posted by: Drew | July 16, 2008 10:24 PM
This is a very emotional piece of discussion to June first understand your thought but i dont understand how your liberation theology connects to "and will not change until the results
of all the wickness of this nation is visited
upon it" your view of G-d and idea of forgiveness, redemption is twisted. Maybe your angry? The bigger picture is that the New Yorker does not represent America this is two men of 304 million. Of course racism exists but dont focus your energy on this while there are bigger issues than a cartoon , this is why people hate politics...its not the issue this election is about.
Posted by: t | July 16, 2008 10:39 PM
When almost 98% of the Black vote is for Obama, that tells me that Race is alive and well in America, but it's not all coming from only one side.
As long as the Black community is so biased along the lines of skin color, how can they complain when other 'communities' within America also decide to vote on similar skin color to their own? Is it only racism when it is Whites voting for Whites, but not racism when it is Blacks voting for Blacks?
Posted by: Kate | July 16, 2008 11:33 PM
"As long as the Black community is so biased along the lines of skin color, how can they complain when other 'communities' within America also decide to vote on similar skin color to their own? Is it only racism when it is Whites voting for Whites, but not racism when it is Blacks voting for Blacks?"
No one's motives are always pure; neither good nor bad resides completely in any race.
But your question deals with two sides of the coin. There hasn't, to this point, ever been realistic racial equality.
African-Americans vote for Obama, at least in part, because he represents their hope that US citizens are finally willing to consider members of minorities deserving of trust and authority.
Whites who vote only for whites often do so out of fear, conscious or otherwise, that their historic position as the race with the most of the control and the right to determine societal mores. It's terrifying to think that, by losing the authority of the presidency, they'll have to cede some of that power to a new picture of American society. The uncertainty creates sort of a collective anxiety. And we sure don't like to be anxious.
Posted by: openeyes | July 17, 2008 12:13 AM
Hmm, when black-skinned people opposed the KKK, did that make them racist?
The consequences of a whole bunch of sin, rooted in greed, are about to fall upon all our heads. Racism at its heart is all about greed, too.
The poor and soon-to-be-poor middle class is going to suffer grievously not just for their own sins but for the excess love of lucre by Wall Street's obscenely paid greedsters.
Catching on, how could anyone vote for a party wholly in the pocket of these greedsters, as they are bailed out and their billions made whole by
the Greedy Old Party which cares little for the plight they have created for average Americans?
That's not reverse racism, it's good sense.
And these "con"-men talk about "moral hazard" in helping out some hapless father or mother, or unwed mother, when they prostitute the currency to curry the favor of those who reward them so well when they leave office.
Posted by: Whitey Sheetz | July 17, 2008 12:30 AM
"I came to know Christ through
liberation theology and still most of you do not
get it. "
Strange that is what I was thinking about you .
Obama gets it , I guess perhaps you have potential .
Posted by: Matt | July 17, 2008 2:13 AM
Ah, another political season and again the heady scent of “tribalism” wafts through the air. That wonderful gift of our forefathers and foremothers … tribalism. Once upon a time a long long time ago, we all lived in communities of no more than 150 people. We knew everybody in the tribe. Everyone else was “other” and suspicious. Others were people to be made fun of, ridiculed, hated, reviled, and warred against. Deep down in the dark and dusty reaches of our minds, our inner primitive is still yearning for this simple world. So, today, conservatives and liberals snarl at each other, moderates snarl at both, every ethnic group snarls at each other, bloggers snarl at everyone, and political cartoonists sometimes produce bad satire that goads the snarling along. The movie 2001 got it right. Remember the beginning? A primitive tribe gains knowledge. After they use their new found smarts to fill their bellies they run off and kill a neighboring tribe. Ah, tribalism. Anybody think we’ll every outgrow it? I have hope. God still loves us and encourages us to take the high road, the other road, the different and holy road. This political season, act on God’s love. Take the high road and suppress your tribalism. Who knows what we can accomplish if we leave it behind?
Peace!
Posted by: J.S. Brooks | July 17, 2008 7:12 AM
Posted by: kevin s. | July 16, 2008 8:26 PM
"It was intentionally pitiful. That was the point. Are you just that Lloyd Crump guy under a different name?"
Sorry, Kev: guess again.
Meanwhile, why don't you check your heart and see if it still aches to see Christ. Your posts leave one with the impression that you will not be satisfied with any sort of reconciliation between Liberal and Conservative Christians; just submission to your narrow agenda of "God helps those that help themselves". Unfortunately, the politicians that most personify that sort of theology are helping themselves to anything and everything they can get their hands on. Both Liberal and Conservative politicians play that game, and thus are equally guilty of hypocrisy when touting their concern for the underclass. Most Progressives try to find some middle ground politically while seeking to remain true to their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior of all that acknowledge His Divinity and affinity for Abundant Life over certain death.
What has concerned me about your attitude is the continual attacks upon those that have tried to move beyond the polarization of the Body of Christ to bring people to the realization that we are all in this together. Divide and conquer is a tried and true tactic of Satan and his minions. We do a great disservice to the Word of God and the Gospel of Christ when we point fingers at each other and mock each others motives in advocating policy positions and pragmatic provisions for positive vs. negative change in past practice.
The New Yorker is not a religious publication. Why sink to their level of questionable humor?
Posted by: Hermes | July 17, 2008 7:48 AM
A question for those who have been around SOJO awhile. Did SOJO raise a fuss when Oliphant drew very racist cartoons depicting Condi Rice? Just wondering.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 17, 2008 10:19 AM
My impression of the cartoon was that it pointed out just how ridiculous the anti-Obama campaign had become. Face it, folks, the rumor mill came up with
allegations and insinuations that were so bizarre
that anyone who actually believed them would probably lack the intelligence to know how to register to vote. I've been waiting for the headlines declaring that Obama is the "love child"
of an Iraqi and a space alien!
Posted by: DHFabian | July 17, 2008 10:31 AM
First off, the cartoon is not making fun of Obama. The cartoon a barb at those who see him and his wife as depicted. (As Don says in the first post).
I agreed with Kevin S. when he said that the Obama folks are pleased. If their not , they should be.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 17, 2008 11:04 AM
Cleovi --
Yes, my eyes roll over any high five that doesn't come naturally -- when you have to call for it as a greeting instead of instinctively do it. (You can call for it after an achievement, but not as a greeting.) They'd roll the same way if John McCain walked into Larry King and called him his Homey. Being cool is not something you can force. That's not to say I don't think Michelle is cool -- it's just that that isn't the way to prove it. At least not to me.
Everyone else--
yes, we need to take the high road here, but we didn't do the cartoon. All we can do is react to it appropriately. This certainly isn't any worse than the Hillary nutcracker -- which exploited all the good things about a strong woman.
I would be very curious to know how Black Republicans feel about this election -- the kind of pressures they feel to vote for someone who does not support their values. It is a history-making election after all.
Posted by: frankie | July 17, 2008 11:19 AM
Yes, I roll my eyes at high-fives that don't come off naturally. Or when Barbara Walters says, "Hey girlfriend" and it comes off forced instead of something absolutely normal.
Cool is something one is -- and can hardly be proven in a scripted situation. I'm sure Michelle is cool enough -- she just failed to prove it by doing that.
Posted by: frankie | July 17, 2008 11:39 AM
In general, I think it's good satire. Anytime you can send up people who believe every internet rumor that crosses their inbox, and do so in a funny way, is good. The fact that some people think the cartoon is inappropriate because some other people might not get the joke would make most satire inappropriate.
I think two aspects of this issue haven't been addressed yet.
1) I think a lot of hubbub over the cartoon is because it was published by a magazine with a left-of-center perspective. If the Weekly Standard had done this, it would have been a minor controversy. But this has become one of those "friendly fire" debates where people on the left feel offended because one of their own has supposedly done harm to their cause of getting their guy into the oval office.
2) A lot of the hubbub over the cartoon is for no good reason. The vast majority of people do "get it". They understand the joke. There was a great op-ed yesterday (don’t remember where) about a guy in Montana who gets it and says most of his friends do too, regardless of whether they like Obama or not. I think it's snobbish that so many people who are critical of the cartoon assume that the rubes who don't read the New Yorker would never get this satire. It’s not like it’s that sophisticated.
Anyway, are there really that many people out there in America who would have seen the cover and thought to themselves "see! I told you so, they're really Muslim anti-Americans!"? Yes, there's a small portion of the population who actually believes this, but the vast majority of people, who actually see the cover, will get it.
Calm down.
Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2008 1:30 PM
"Meanwhile, why don't you check your heart and see if it still aches to see Christ."
I've checked, and it does.
"Your posts leave one with the impression that you will not be satisfied with any sort of reconciliation between Liberal and Conservative Christians;"
How so?
"God helps those that help themselves"."
You have this in quotes, but I did not say it. Please do not misrepresent me.
"Both Liberal and Conservative politicians play that game, and thus are equally guilty of hypocrisy when touting their concern for the underclass."
I completely agree.
"Most Progressives try to find some middle ground politically"
I completely disagree.
"What has concerned me about your attitude is the continual attacks upon those that have tried to move beyond the polarization of the Body of Christ"
I have not attacked Becky at all. That said, she is just about the only Sojo contributor who has not publicly cast her lot with Barack Obama. It is ridiculous to pretend you are moving beyond partisan politics while simultaneously endorsing one party over the other.
"Divide and conquer is a tried and true tactic of Satan and his minions."
So how do you defend the stark criticisms of conservatives on this blog? If your defense is that you agree with the criticisms, then your claim to the high ground is unwarranted.
"The New Yorker is not a religious publication. Why sink to their level of questionable humor?"
I was reacting to the posts here that suggested red circles with diagonal crossmarks and the like. I was making a point about how satire cannot operate if we are terrified of misinterpretation.
Was that not clear?
Posted by: kevin s. | July 17, 2008 4:46 PM
to those persons who responded to my statement
i would like to add I am angry because of the continual denial on the part of psuedo intellectuals and pundits of what i believe is
the reality of the conditions which exist in this
country. Many of you do not want to face the truth of historical facts, that is your choice.
Please do not tell me that I should not express
anger or I should not express my theological
assesment of the outcome of wickedness.
Of course Obama gets it and so do I. Do you ?
Until you have lived as an "other" in a situation
please do not tell me that when Black people vote
for a Black candidate it smacks of racism.
I can be angry and sin not. Jesus always confronted the powers of His day with truth and
action. The cover is not a cartoon it is a disgrace. I am not familiar with Condi Rice's
cartoon but if it was inappropriate i would be
opposed to it as well.
Jesus is not the topic nor is the New
Yorker a religious publication, i was providing
a background about myself, although i did not
have to; " i do get it" .
Who is my mother and my father, those that do
the Will of God, I get it do you ?
I also received an email today from Conde Nast inviting me to subscribe to Vanity Fair and The New Yorker at a combined reduced rate ; the politics of profit are still at work ,regardless of who it may hurt. peace to you as well
Posted by: june | July 17, 2008 5:58 PM
i think the real honest assessment is that while most people that write on sojo have a view of the world and are active in their thinking, the reality of the matter is that all people must come together outside of a devoid technological world. Why does june sit and eat and talk with frank who talks with hermes... as its been said if we all claim to be Christian how to do we present ourselves as one community?, or are we different tribes that made an religious alliance? people! discussion is needed anger is good! but if it is only to break the community is it profitable? Each peoples that writes has a different history and perspective which they write and must be respected if you are poor white or poor black its not to compare status...and more it seems that this argument is really about deeper issues in our common faith that should be taken seriously.
Posted by: t | July 17, 2008 7:43 PM
Did no one open the issue to the contents page where it says that the title of the painting on the cover is "The Politics of Fear"? It seems obvious that it is not meant as a joke but a serious comment on the political perceptions of too many people.
Posted by: David Glen | July 17, 2008 10:41 PM
It is true that if The New Yorker had to explain the joke, then they fell short, but I don't think anyone who is ignorant enough to believe the lies & ugly rumors circulating about the Obamas will ever give one glance to a magazine like The New Yorker.
The fact that many people still believe Senator Obama is a Muslim is not the fault of The New Yorker. Bill Maher aptly calls Obama the Jackie Robinson candidate, & the Senator will have to work much harder than Senator McCain to earn votes because he doesn't look like every other man who was his party's nominee for President, & his name is Barack Hussein Obama. The man steps up with 2 strikes already against him.
Considering all this, Obama has his head together enough that he's leading in most polls & will continue to be competitive.
Posted by: Tony | July 17, 2008 11:44 PM
Hi, Y'all!
I'm feeling left out, since my 7.45pm post hadn't appeared by 11.48...
I'll look tomorrow.
Good luck in your job search, Moderatelad. My offer of assistance is still good.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 17, 2008 11:45 PM
Hi Don Hussein, Others,
If it is true that there are a substantial enough number of Americans who will continue believing what is patently untrue the cartoon will have contributed very little to their 'militant ignorance'.
The New Yorker's attempt at humour this time may have failed, but, at least, they have Americans debating all the false things that keep being written about extensively in the media - especially on the internet - about Obama and Michelle.
Is this not a beneficial thing? If I were Obama I wouldn't take offense. The New Yorker is media. What Jesse Jackson said is more painful, coming, as it did, from 'family'.
By the way, Don, have you seen the cartoon now?
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | July 18, 2008 12:21 AM
Hermes, you mean it WASN'T our Lord who was quoted as saying: "Knowest thou not that thou must pickest thineself up by thine bootstraps before thou attendest the narrow way?"
Posted by: canucklehead | July 18, 2008 12:24 AM
This New Yorker cover is deserving of a Pulitzer prize, for succinctly delivering the spectrum of smear attempts in one highly visible location. Yes, there is an elephant in the room!
Longtime [and sometimes long-suffering] New Yorker subscribers get the joke. Others may have their knee-jerk reflexes tweaked - which could be a good thing too. Those who have been doing the "whispering" are now outed.
When will the rest of our "free press" come out of their persistent vegetative state?
Posted by: Chris Black | July 18, 2008 12:57 AM
I've received several of those ridiculous emails portraying Sen. Obama as both a Muslim and the anti-Christ. Then the cartoon thing came up, and I've been reading all the comments here. I wonder how some of my Muslim friends must be feeling about now, as they are being implicitly demeaned in all of this. As if all Muslims are terrorists and bent on destroying us. My friends certainly don't fit that description. They are among the kindest, most compassionate folks I know.
When it comes to racism, or alleged racism, I think it helps to think about the situation from at least two perspectives. I am accustomed to seeing people with light skin running for office and getting elected. I vote in every election, because it's the minimum I can do to influence the direction of my country's public policy. I have had many opportunities to vote for people with lighter skin and few chances to vote for people with darker skin.
Now if I were light-skinned myself, how would I feel about voting for a person with light skin? How about voting for someone with dark skin?
On the other hand, if my skin were dark, how would I feel about voting for a person with light skin? How about voting for someone with dark skin?
Sometimes it's hard to look at things from someone else's point of view. When I make myself do it, sometimes I'm shocked at what I find in myself. But I believe that honesty with myself, before God, is essential. The good news is that God is always there to help me dump the inappropriate baggage.
Jesus himself, according to the Gospel stories, was hospitable to everyone.
Posted by: churchlady | July 18, 2008 2:13 AM
Here is an edited repeat of my 7/17 post.
In my small circle of conservative friends, regarding the cartoon, all of us 'get it', and all of us thought it was funny. (We also thought it was odd. The existence of the cartoon was funnier than the cartoon itself.) And none of us thinks that the four points of the satire are true. So all you Obama supporters can relax, the cartoon did nothing to reinforce negative ideas we have about the good Senator from Illinois.
The cartoon touched on four points, all of which only work as satire, because there is a hint of truth to them.
1. Flag in the fireplace. Sen. Obama has openly shown some mixed feelings about our nation's flag. On at least one occasion he did not perform the civilian salute (hand over heart) during the Pledge of Allegiance. He stopped wearing a flag lapel pin, and made it clear it was a thought-out, intentional decision.
2. The portrait of Bin Laden. Recall that Sen. Obama has made statements and had associations that have indicated more than a passing interest in the success of some terror organizations.
3. Michelle's Marxist revolutionary outfit. That may be more of a stretch, but she has been outspoken in her criticism of the US. On more than one occasion she emphasized never having been proud of her country before her husband's popular campaign. There may be more, but I don't follow her too closely. If she ever praised Che Guevara, or another such character, then the satire is perfect. (The image might have fit Sen. Clinton better, given some of her youthful involvements.)
4. Sen. Obama's head-covering and garment. If I'm not mistaken, that was almost a copy of what he was pictured wearing on one occasion. A lot of nonsense was published about that photo, by the way, by people who were trying to tarnish his image.
Now, having laid this out, let me assure you, I believe Sen. Obama is loyal to his vision for the US, and in that sense is entirely patriotic. He looks forward to making changes that will make him proud of our flag. (Before you pounce on me, how proud of it are you? Will you be prouder if he is elected and makes some changes?)
I don't believe for an instant that Sen. Obama wants to see Bin Laden achieve his dream of bringing down the US, but I'm not so sure he doesn't sometimes consider that the "insurgents" in Iraq, and the organizations of Hamas and Hizbollah might be 'freedom fighters'. (Some of you do, too, don't you?)
Both Michelle and Sen. Obama want to see socialist reforms instituted in the US. We have a method of doing that through the ballot box, so there's no need of armed revolution, but the revolutionary spirit is there. (And I've read those same aspirations in these blogs, from some of you.)
Lastly, the togs the Sen. is wearing in the cartoon--I think that's the visual equivalent of a throw-away line. As a man, Sen. Obama has chosen Christianity for himself over Islam, regardless of what training he may have had as a child. I've read enough of what Sen. Obama has said about his Christian faith to recognize that he's pretty far from evangelical circles, with his "many ways to God" beliefs. But should I care? He’s not running for Pastor-in-chief, or even Sunday School teacher.
The only advantage I see in electing a person of faith (whatever faith) to any office, is the notion that the individual recognizes his/her responsibility to answer to a Power or Ethic outside of him/herself. This encourages me to think the person will be dedicated to doing a conscientious job of the tasks requisite to the office. And this Sen. Obama fulfills.
Now, speaking personally, the reasons I will not vote for Sen. Obama have nothing to do with his race, faith, or elements of the cartoon. I will not vote for him because of the planks in his platform. I don't agree with the proposition that what he promises to do as President is good for the country. It's really that simple.
Blessings to you all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 18, 2008 6:57 AM
By the way, Don, have you seen the cartoon now?
Hi, Alu.
Yes, I saw the cartoon when it was published. I haven't read the articles, though.
To those who spoke about their "Christian" friends who are circulating the false rumors about Obama (and for the rest of us as well), I have this to say: any of us can choose not to vote for Obama for a variety of reasons, of course--that includes personal reasons as well as political ones. And all of us under our political system (except federal employees covered under the Hatch Act), have every right to campaign for his opponent, if we so choose. And any of us can personally speak out against his candidacy and in favor of his opponent's. There's nothing wrong with opposing Obama's candidacy on the basis of disagreeing with his political agenda, as "david of fox lake" tells us he does. That's part of the political process, after all. In fact, a true, healthy debate centered on policies, proposals, and ideas rather than personalities would be a blessing to our democratic system--it seems so long since we've had a real, idea-centered debate.
However, we cross a line when we begin spreading the false rumors--a line drawn by God Himself. That line, of course, is the Eighth (or Ninth, depending on how one counts them) Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." To spread information that demonstrably has been falsified clearly violates this Commandment. So if any of our "Christian" friends approach any of us bearing any of these false rumors, I believe we should confront them severely and speak to them of God's Commandment. I believe we should be willing to confront the false rumors whether we think we are going to support Obama's candidacy or not.
I believe all of us should do our part to prevent these malicious lies and distortions from continuing to be part of the political process.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 18, 2008 7:57 AM
As a post script to what I just wrote above:
I hate to have to add this comment, but we need somehow to address the antichrist rumors as well. This is more a theological problem than a "bearing false witness" problem, though. In my view, rumors that Obama (or any other specific individual) is antichrist are based on a distorted theology. Of course, convincing someone who is convinced Obama is antichrist that their theology is distorted is not easy.
Maybe someone else has some ideas here for how we can deal with this problem.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 18, 2008 8:03 AM
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 18, 2008 6:57 AM
"On at least one occasion he did not perform the civilian salute (hand over heart) during the Pledge of Allegiance."
For the record, that widely-circulated photograph was taken during (just before? just after?) the National Anthem, not the Pledge of Allegiance.
Jane
Posted by: Jane | July 18, 2008 8:50 AM
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 18, 2008 6:57 AM
"If she [Michelle Obama] ever praised Che Guevara, or another such character, then the satire is perfect. (The image might have fit Sen. Clinton better, given some of her youthful involvements.)"
Wasn't Senator Clinton a Goldwater Girl?
Jane
Posted by: Jane | July 18, 2008 9:02 AM
Don,
I agree that we need to confront those who spread lies or bear false witness. The problem with doing this with the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is the Antichrist" is they believe they are telling the truth and are hard set to believe otherwise. I have a close family member who firmly believes Obama is a Muslim. This family member isn't a computer guy votes for Dems as often if not more than Rep. and most of his associates are Dems (old union steel mill town). I've tried to convince him of his folly, but he is convinced that Obama is a Muslim. BTW, he lives in Illinois so you would think he would be ahead of the curve on Obama. This family member is also the only person that I've heard this from.
As far as the antichrist stuff. I hope that this is such a small group that it does not merit attention and we are better off if we don't give them exposure by publically addressing them.
As a pastor I try to encourage anti-christ obsessed people to focus more on knowing who Jesus is.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 18, 2008 9:45 AM
...they believe they are telling the truth and are hard set to believe otherwise.
Jeff:
Yes, and the followers of the Swift Boat Veterans were equally convinced that they were telling the truth. In the Swift Boat case, though, one problem was that there was no independent source of information that falsified the Swift Boat Veterans' claims--it was essentially one person's word against another's. In this case, there is objective evidence.
It's true that some people are unlikely to be convinced by objective evidence demonstrating that the rumor is false, but in my view we need to stand our ground. To someone like that, I would say something like this: "These rumors are demonstrably false, there's solid evidence proving them to be false, you are bearing false witness by repeating them, and I do not want to hear you speaking these rumors in my presence. I also don't want to hear any of my family and friends telling me that they heard these rumors from you."
My guess is that if we all took such a stand, it might make folks think twice before repeating the rumors.
I hope you are right regarding the antichrist rumors (i.e., that it's a very small group). One problem is, though, that even a very small group can make a lot of media noise and garner a lot of attention to their "cause" through the electronic outlets available.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 18, 2008 10:18 AM
Thanks to all for your charity.
-Thanks for the correction about the hand-over-heart picture. (I never considered it worth a second look--that's my excuse for being had.)
-Sen. Clinton was, indeed, a Goldwater Girl, but by the time she graduated college, she had become a disciple of the left--pretty far left, at that.
Can there be anything more damaging to the Church than superstitious Christians? Those who think they've identified the anti-Christ, or who believe--obviously contrary to the words of Christ--that they know when the 'End of the World' will be give non-Believers cause to question: 'Just what is going on with you people over there, eh?'
Pastor Jeff's advice is right on.
Blessings to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 18, 2008 10:52 AM
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain
A cartoon of the McCain?
How bout him sitting on a tractor in the rose garden of the White House, holding a cup, "Will be President for Food and Beer." Along side is his current wife, beer can in hand, wearing a burka. Stiched accros the front, "I'm with Stupid."
He wears a T shirt with a map of Iran, captioned, "Coming to your neighborhood soon!"
Posted by: Al | July 18, 2008 11:19 AM
Posted by: Jeff | July 18, 2008 9:45 AM
'I agree that we need to confront those who spread lies or bear false witness. The problem with doing this with the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is the Antichrist" is they believe they are telling the truth and are hard set to believe otherwise.'
____
Unfortunately, there seems to be a big crowd of folks spreading the anti-Christ thing down here in Texas. The emails I get refer to the "book of Revelations"(sic)and say that it describes a person of Muslim descent". . . etc. So I just reply, "I've read the Revelation of John several times, and I can't recall ever running into the word "Muslim" in there. Where is that?"
Posted by: churchlady | July 18, 2008 12:23 PM
Personally, I found the Obama cartoon hilarious! I agree with Roger -- he has NO sense of humor! But of course that's because the man is totally full of himself. Whether or not he's a true Christian, we can agree that he does NOT have the Christian virtue of Humility!
In an article today, "The Audacity of Vanity", respected jouralist Charles Krauthammer writes:
"Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself."
He ends the article with: "As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when 'our planet began to heal.' As I recall Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas."
>> Well spoken!!
Posted by: AlN | July 18, 2008 2:36 PM
Nice go at it, Al.
I think the key to selecting elements for satire is to pick out those sayings, pictures, bits of history, etc., that make the supporters wince.
I'll limit my remarks to Sen. McCain, who has done and said a lot of things that make me wince.
-He voted against the Bush tax cuts.
-He considered switching parties. (Some of us wish he had.)
-We could say there are two Democrats competing for the Presidency.
-He admitted to not understanding economics all that well.
-He undermined the Republican leadership in the Senate, helping the minority party control things.
-Instead of making a case for conservatism, and pulling the populace to his position, he's "moving to the center", making himself even less distinguishable from his opponent.
I could probably list more things, but I try not to pay too close attention, since wincing is not a pleasant experience for me. ;-)
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 18, 2008 2:39 PM
churchlady,
Thanks for the heads up on the anti-christ story being more wide spread in Texas. I'll do some google searches on Obama, anti-christ. The only place I've heard this was on this sight.
I believe (hope) these rumors only discredit those who spread them which I believe is the point of the cartoon and article.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 18, 2008 3:05 PM
nstead of making a case for conservatism, and pulling the populace to his position, he's "moving to the center", making himself even less distinguishable from his opponent.
Well if this is true, there's still some hope for McCain's candidacy!
More seriously, the fact that McCain has never towed the right-wing party line is one of the strong points of his candidacy, IMO.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 18, 2008 3:09 PM
I don't know about 'right-wing', not really sure what that consists of.
My concern is with the conservative perspective, that is conservative of the principles embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and which were expounded upon by the Founding Fathers, together, of course, with their subsequent development, as expressed in the remaining Amendments.
Some bullet points for illustration:
-Small, non-intrusive government. (Ha! Like we'll ever see that again.)
-National government focused on foreign policy and defending our national borders and sovereignty.
-Lower taxes: small government doesn't need much.
-Minimal, but adequate, regulation
-Farewell to the Nannie State
I'm no scholar on this stuff, these are just the most important items that come to mind.
To indicate how far we've wandered away, I recall in 2000, as I listened to Gore and Bush during the campain, even Bush was to the left of John Kennedy.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who are relieved that the choice this year is between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain, because whichever wins, the legislative agenda will be about the same. You've no doubt noticed that no one is particularly excited about McCain's candidacy.
I hope he wins the vote, but I confess I can't bring myself to open my check-book for him.
On the bright side, I remember the gifts the Clinton presidency gave the country that no Republican could have, among them being a Republican Congress. ;-)
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 18, 2008 4:19 PM
I've seen this cartoon before. It's a Ziggy.
Posted by: Kevin S. | July 18, 2008 4:55 PM
"Whether or not he's a true Christian, we can agree that he does NOT have the Christian virtue of Humility!"
Al N,
How humble of you to expect people to agree to pass such jugdgment? Clearly Obama does not have long experience. BUT, that did not stop him clinching the presidential nomination, did it? Did Americans actually vote for him because of his vanity, despite it, or in spite of it?
All the vanity in the world would not keep him in the race without the support of American voters, would it?
I thought Obama's article/speech/words on race relations some of the most profound anything I have read this year. And I have not even been to America.
If 'respected journalist' Charles Krauthammer does not think Obama's two books and his speech on race, not to mention his speech to Call to Renewal two years ago do not fit his (C.K's) criteria of "a single memorable article", that is his problem. Some are thrilled by Nancy Pelosi's high praise of Obama in Harper's Bazaar. To quote her - on Obama:
"My first impression came before I ever met him, from the enthusiasm of my friends in Illinois for him. I was visiting there in February 2004, and they had these Obama buttons. I said, “What’s that?” And they said, “Wait until you meet him. He’s the brightest star on the horizon.” So I was eager to meet this phenomenon, who, by the way, most of us did not think had a chance to [be elected] senator because the race was so competitive. But he showed a new way."
So, whether he wins or not Obama has already changed American politics.
A new man, bringing a new way, cannot always have much by the way of 'experience/precedent' to fall back on, can they?
Out of whose experience is Barack expected to do the memorable writing of an autobiography, anyway?
If you had a similarly interesting life you possibly would have told us about it. C.K too, I imagine.
Well, to each his own.
- Alu
Dar es Salaam
Posted by: Robert Alu | July 19, 2008 5:39 AM
I don't know about 'right-wing', not really sure what that consists of...
-Farewell to the Nannie State
I think it's spelled "nanny." Nevertheless, I'm likewise not sure what that consists of, either.
But if by "nanny state", you mean corporate welfare such as subsidies to the oil companies and cozy deals with big campaign contributors, I think I agree with you.
As [Obama] said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when 'our planet began to heal.' As I recall Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick.
Jesus also said that those who are sick are the ones in need of the physician. The planet wasn't in such dire straits in Jesus' day, but it certainly is today. So yes, we need world leaders who are willing talk about healing the earth.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 19, 2008 9:22 AM
Thanks for correcting my spelling, Nanny State, it is--and that's what I'm all for ending. However, my aim is to get everyone's hand out of the till, especially to end socialist programs that ultimately redistribute income: what I would call 'Robin Hood' programs. (That's usually a 'hot button' on these blogs, I know.)
The term 'Corporate Welfare' is a pretty slick term, immediately conjuring the image of injustice and greed. A number of people have tossed it around to make political hay, or to rouse the rabble.
I checked out the term today, and found that it's basically what used to be referred to as 'depletion allowance'. It was actually started for mining of coal, iron ore, and other minerals. It was applied to oil beginning in 1926 (Zepezauer and Naiman, 1996).
The idea is that a mine, or an oil lease, has a certain market value, based on the estimated quantity of mineral or oil it contains. As the mined commodity is removed, its value goes down. Logically, allowing the owner of the mine or lease to deduct, from income, some amount for the reduction in value is a good thing.
The principle is this: the purchase of the mine or lease was made with dollars on which taxes had been paid. If the lease depreciates in value while it is being used, but there is no allowance made for deducting that depreciation, the lease owner could be thought of as paying taxes twice.
Just how to work out the appropriate amount is a business economics question that is beyond my expertise.
In other businesses, where income is generated by making a capital investment, scheduled depreciation is used to keep the financial condition of the business stable.
It works like this: Suppose I spend $100k to buy a piece of equipment, that I expect to use 10 years. For simplicity, assume it's something that will lose $10k in value each year, so at the end of 10 years its value is noting. Under US tax law, I can deduct that $10k annual reduction in value from the business's income, before figuring taxes.
The idea is that my business's value remains more or less constant. The equipment costs me $10k (in lost value) to use each year, and if I chose to, I could sell it for its remaining value, and so have my $100k back. Taxes are paid on the net income I was able to generate, using the equipment.
I don't want to belabor the point, but I found this concept of depreciation difficult when I first used it, so here's an outline with a sample scenario.
Year 1: Pay $100k for equipment, deduct $10k off of income before figuring taxes.
Year 2: Deduct $10k...
Year 3: Ditto.
Year 4: Deduct $10k, as before, sell equipment for $60k (in a perfect world), so I have my $100k back. I have paid taxes on whatever I earned, over and above the investment expense.
It's easier to apply the concept, and to write the laws, when the investment is equipment, than it is when it's a mineral deposit, but the principle is the same.
When all the shouting is over, and all the speeches have been made, it's what the politicians do that counts. We had a Democrat Congress for 40 years. During that time we had Democrat presidents for 12 years. If the depreciation allowance for oil companies was truly 'Corporate Welfare', as has been charged, they could have stopped it. But they didn't.
These verbal assaults have a long history. I remember them from the 1950s, when the depreciation allowance was called by its rightful name.
If the Democrats win Congress and the White House this fall, I urge you to watch for headlines that they repeal the depreciation allowances for oil companies--but don't hold your breath. I'm inclined to think that it will simply disappear as an issue, just as the press coverage of the "homeless problem in US cities" was a campaign issue in 1992 and in 2000, but nowhere to be found during the Clinton presidency.
It's enough to make one wonder. ;-)
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 19, 2008 2:42 PM
In an article today, "The Audacity of Vanity", respected jouralist Charles Krauthammer writes:...
Charles Krauthammer's column appeared in our local paper this morning. So I read it all the way through. Krauthammer's main point is that Obama's ego is bigger than his experience.
In other words, Krauthammer gives us an extended argumentum ad hominem; that is, an attack on Obama's character. So Obama has a big ego. Big deal. Can anyone name a presidential candidate, or a serious presidential wannabe for that matter, who doesn't have a big ego? It's sort of a prerequisist, a job requirement, isn't it?
Krautahmmer makes fun of Obama for his desire to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. "What Obama did not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn." As if Krauthammer himself had the authority to decide who had "earned" the right to speak there.
Krauthammer almost waxes poetic when criticizing Obama's comment that Americans take more interest in learning foreign languages (a claim I fully agree with, BTW):
"He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, 'you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.'
"Obama does not speak Spanish.
"He further admonishes us on how 'embarrassing' it is that Europeans are multilingual but 'we go over to Europe, and all we can say is, merci beaucoup.'
"Obama does not speak French."
What a way to make your point, Charles! Just poke some fun at Obama himself; and since you made this little jab at his caracter, you certainly have no need to comment on or critique the wisdom of his recommendation, or even delve into the reasons why he's making it. It gets you off the hook, doesn't it--now you don't have to do any real research!
In the entire column, Krauthammer doesn't give us one single analysis of any single one of Obama's policy statements, not one single critique of a campaign pledge he made, or not one single criticism of an idea Obama has floated in the campaign. Although is't obvious Krauthammer doesn't like Obama and doesn't want him elected president, he hasn't given us one solid reason why we shouldn't vote for him. All he's done is attack Obama's personal character. He apparently thinks that is more than enough to make us all realize we shouldn't elect him.
Well, sorry Mr. Krauthammer, I'm not convinced by this junior-high-level character attack.
Unless Krauthammer can give us concrete discussions of Obama's ideas, policies, and proposals, he hasn't given us anything at all. Krauthammer, and other like-minded pundits who focus on attcking personal character need to begin doing their jobs and start giving us some serious, research-based anlyasis of the candidates' policies and proposals. In that way, he and others can actually help us make up our minds.
Peace,
Posted by: Don Hussein | July 21, 2008 8:17 AM
Don, and Moderatelad, I agree with the points both of you made about political pundits.
Here's my shot at sticking with an issue.
Putting Sen. Obama in context, he is on the record as opposing congressional action that would make English the official language of the US. He voted against it in the Senate, and he has spoken against it publicly, in the speech cited by Krauthammer, at least.
In the speech, he went further, sharing his rationale for not making English mandatory--paraphrasing, "quit trying to make it an issue, immigrants will learn English"--and proceding to admonish Americans to make sure their kids learn Spanish.
So here's what we have from the Senator, himself.
1. A policy position: no official language.
2. A factual assertion: immigrants will learn English.
3. An opinion: Americans should be bi-lingual. (He said Spanish, but in his further remarks, it seems he would welcome any second language, so I'm not going to hold him to the literal text.)
1. Policy. I oppose Sen. Obama's policy position.
I am in favor of having an official language, and of it's being English. The purpose of that is that all business with any government entity will be conducted in English, and taxpayers have no obligation to provide translations. School classes will be conducted in English, with a best-demonstrated-practices approach to bringing non-native speakers up to speed in English. Businesses would have no obligation to provide alternate languages.
2. Fact. The Senator does not, in fact, have his facts straight. The assertion is false.
Perhaps most immigrants do learn English, but many do not. This has always been true: Chinese (China Town, San Francisco), Polish (Chicago), Italian (Rochester, NY), are examples of ethnic groups and cities where I have first-hand knowledge of immigrants not learning English. In the past, it was up to the immigrants to figure out how they were going to go on with life here, not knowing English. In the case of the Italian community in Rochester, in the 1920s, the immigrant parents were "all over" their children to learn English and to do well in school. My dad was a witness.
3. Opinion. The Senator encourages Americans to become multi-lingual. That's a good idea.
Foreign language instruction in the public schools of Europe may not be so thorough-going as we have been led to believe. However, anyone who attends the university system in Europe will have to demonstrate a level of proficiency in at least one foreign language.
I attended a pretty high-falutin' college in the US, that had a foreign language requirement. Sparing you the details, I saw that there was sufficient material presented that a student who wished to become proficient could do so--I knew ONE. I also saw that the overwhelming majority of students did not subscribe to the idea that this was good for them, did the minimum to meet the requirement, and had no practical knowledge of any foreign language, as a result.
To summarize, Policy: nix, Fact: false, Opinion: I agree, but what does it matter?
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 21, 2008 11:23 AM
David:
My point, indeed Krauthammer's point, wasn't language learning itself; my point was the fact that Krauthammer spouts off about what a lousy candidate Obama is but hasn't done the research to demonstrate why his ideas are bad, so he relies on the old personal attack. So his column says essentially nothing, totally contrary to what Al N wrote: "Well spoken!!"
I don't know that Senator Obama believes that all immigrants will learn English. A fairer and truer statement would be that all want to learn English. If that's what he said, he's right.
I fully support Obama's position on an official language for the USA. Were I in Congress, I would oppose it, too; in fact, I have written letters to my state legislators opposing "English only" legislation. We haven't had an official language for 232 years; why do we need one now? The rest of the world is learning English even as we Americans aren't learning their languages. "English only" laws are discriminatory and arbitrary. Making English official could, for example, prevent local fire departments from providing language training to firefighters to so they can give safety instructions in a language other than English during a threatening situation.
If we want immigrants to learn English, a far better approach would be to provide them with more opportunities to learn. Do you know that there's more demand for English instruction than there is classroom space available? Why not spend effort in training ESL (English as a second language) teachers and opening up more classroom space? That seems to me a far better approach than the negative "English only" rhetoric provides.
And some immigrants may never be able to learn English, especially older immigrants. That has also always been true.
By the way, private businesses have no obligation to provide services in languages other than English; to my knowledge there's no such law forcing them to do so. But many have learned that it's good for their business to do it. What's wrong with that?
Our policy of not teaching foreign languages until people are in high school or college is the problem re. proficiency. If we want students to become proficient, we should start instruction in kindergarten, if not earlier, when a child's language learning abilities are still active (that's when we all learned our native language, after all). That's what the Europeans and others do, and that's what our Education department here in Ohio is proposing.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 21, 2008 12:17 PM
Your point about Krauthammer is, and was, well-taken. Too many political pundits simply shoot their mouths off. When what they say reinforces what we already believe, we're inclined to say, "Right on!" When we do so, of course, we willingly overlook the fact that the writer hasn't researched the topic, or that the writer is making an ad hominem (italics, if I knew how) attack.
I've endured over eight years of ad hominem attacks on our sitting President, and I had to give up being infuriated by it about seven years ago.
We've both said our piece about an official language, so I'm not going to add anything there, only point out that the foundation for my position is to provide clear expectations and to limit the raids on the public treasury for providing multi-lingual government services.
The Ohio program of starting early with foreign language instruction may prove beneficial. It is certainly true that small children pick up a second language more readily than do older children. It's also true that their vocabulary is smaller, and that the expectations for their mastering the grammar is less.
In 1962, my family moved to Germany from Oklahoma. My sister and I had finished 4th and 7th grade, respectively. We spent six weeks with a private tutor, then started school when other students returned from summer vacation. We attended school there for two years. Linguistically, in academics, I fared better than my sister.
At that time, English was started in 5th grade, and French was started in 7th, in the school we attended. The system was hierarchical, with the top 5% of students attending the Gymnasium, the bulk of students attending the Realschule (practical school--where we were), and the rest attending the Volkschule (people's school), which provided an education through 8th grade, only. There was at most minimal foreign language instruction in the Volkschule.
One outstanding aspect of the language program there was that teachers had to have spent a full academic year studying the language they were teaching, in a country where it was the primary language. My French teacher had spent a year at Strassbourg, and my English teacher had spent a year at Oxford. The latter had a better command of the English language than most of the faculty I knew, at least through high school, back here in the States.
Peace to all.
Posted by: david of fox lake | July 21, 2008 1:25 PM
Don, etc:
The reason Krauthammer's article is so GOOD is because he made is SO clear that there is a huge, huge difference between how great Obama thinks he is, and how little this man has actually done! As he points out, the most significant accomplishment of Barack H Obama is a book "about his favorite subject, himself".
It's very much like the Holiday Inn Express commercials, where some totally-unqualified person is shockingly trying to do some dangerous task, and his only claim of expertise is because he made a "wise" hotel choice last night. Another example: Often when some rookie baseball player hits a home run in his first game, some over anxious analyst will call him a "future Hall of Famer".
Look at what an BHO-fan, Alu, considers Obama's main accomplishments to be: his 2 books (about himself) and his silly speeches! He includes that Philly race speech where he threw his own grandmother under the bus, and where he said he could "no more reject Reverend Wright than reject the black community". How long did THAT last?
Posted by: Al N | July 22, 2008 11:43 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?