One Way or the Other...

.
The Fox TV network has ruffled some feathers by turning down President Obama's request to show his prime-time news conference tonight, which marks his 100th day in office. (All other major networks will bump their primetime shows for the presser.)

Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me" at 8PM EST.

I trust you all fully appreciate how tempting it would be to say that, at that same hour, ABC, CBS and NBC will be airing a different program by the same name. (Or would it be "Lie to Us"?)
.
But I will resist that temptation, because it would be disrespectful and perhaps inaccurate, since so far Obama has done pretty much what he told "Joe the Plumber" he intended to do. [See this post from last November.] With Obama, it's not so much a question of lying--it's a question of smooth-tongued fast-talk to a nation in search of Big government cure-alls. Fox TV is simply saying that it doesn't want to be the fourth wheel on Obama's snake-oil wagon.
.
Like this L.A. Times blogger says, the choice makes perfect sense for Fox since their Fox News channel will take the market share of cable viewers. One way or the other, I think a lot of people will be watching "Lie to Me" tonight.

Update: Having now watched the press conference, I must change the "smooth-tongued fast talk" line. There is nothing fast about his talk when he is off the telelprompter. His answers stumble and stammer out with endless "uhs" between the words in such a way so as to seem "deep" and less like "snake oil" than molasses. The changes Obama has brought to this nation in 100 days have made our heads spin, but his talking about it tonight nearly lulled me to sleep.

Two things did jump out at me: This morning I said, "Obama has done pretty much what he told Joe the Plumber he intended to do." Tonight he said, "“The priorities that we’ve acted on are the things we said we would do during the campaign. It’s not like anybody should be surprised.” The other obvious observation from the presser is that Obama certainly still has the press "enchanted." I suppose things could be worse, and I fear that in the months ahead, we will see that group asking far more urgent questions. We'll see how the stumbling "ums" play out when the conference is not staged.
4462

Hype You Can't Believe In

This short post is an add-on to last night's post below:

Just when I resurrect an old post about the meaningless question "Is the country headed in the right direction?" I see this article about that question the next day.

Talk about hype you can't believe in! The headline screams:

"AP Poll: Americans high on Obama, direction of US"

It then opens with the completely meaningless line: "For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future."

Now after reading that headline and opening sentance, would you not think that the vast majority of America is confident in our direction and giving Obama credit for it all? Think again. Based on the actual facts of the article the headline should have been:

"80 % of American Concerned about Obama's Reckless Spending and Debt"

or

Fewer than Half of Americans Think Country Headed in Right Direction"

or

"Obama's 'Wrong Direction' Fail to Break 50% in first 100 Days"

As I have always said, the "Wrong Direction" question is a useless assessment of anything because it does not define terms or what to change, but if the A.P. is going to use it to write a headline, it should at least reflect the fact that 3 to 4% of the 51% who voted for Obama do not think he is going in the right direction; less than half of the country is "high on Obama."; less than half think we're going in the right direction. Here's what the article with the false headline actually said.

"_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.

_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.

And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track."

The Power and Hazard Of Undefined Terms

Back in September of "08, I was writing a post from the floor of a McCain/Palin town hall meeting and said the following [in brown text]:

"Before I close... there is another question we hear during political races that is completely meaningless because its terms are undefined. You’ve heard it in countless polls that for some reason get reported as if it's shocking news. It is the answer to this survey question that has much of “the media,” pollsters, and spin doctors perplexed. Here’s the poll question:

“Is the country headed in the wrong direction?”

In any given week, we may hear that 80% of those asked feel America's headed in the wrong direction. If that is true, some people conclude, then there should be no way for a Republican presidential candidate to win an election in 2008. But the question is meaningless because the word direction is not defined. Are we talking economic direction? Military direction? Moral direction? The question never tells us. Because of that, Pamela Anderson would answer the question “Yes, it’s going in the wrong direction” for reasons shared by her Hollywood peers and the 50% of America that cares what "stars" think. Meanwhile the other 50% of America may also answer “Yes” because they shudder at the thought that the opinions of Pamela Anderson reflect the collective conscience of so many people.

So you see, the answer to the “wrong direction” question is meaningless in that the “yes” responses are often interpreted as a unified assessment while actually masking opposing concerns and conflicting solutions.

The epitome of meaninglessness of that "wrong direction" question was crystallized in Obama's campaign slogan "Change You Can Believe In." Question: What did that really mean? Answer: Whatever Obama and his teleprompter controllers want it to mean.

But now that the first "100 days" of "Change you can believe in" is open to evaluation, and our president is glad-handing on both continents with known enemies of the United States, lets look at what one of those enemies says to confirm what I meant when I said meaningless "undefined" terms like "wrong direction" and "change" are clever ways to get in office but dangerous ways to govern:

Here are the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"I should give you, the new US administration, this advice. Mr Obama came to power with the slogan of 'change', meaning the American people like the rest of the world want a change in the colonialism policy," Ahmdinejad told crowds in a speech broadcast live from Varamin, a city south of Tehran.

"Therefore it would have been imperative for him to take part in the world's most important conference of racism and denounce racism, (confirming) that the US is pursuing a changed policy in confronting racism," he added.

"But to sit at his place and condemn my remarks is not helpful in solving the issues," he added, amid the habitual slogans of "death to America and death to Israel."

Ahmadinejad is an enemy that Obama, thus far, has given wide birth, but even the enemies Obama is trying to be chummy with seem unimpressed.

How soon the fine veneer flakes off the pulpy wood.

There is both power and hazard in being vague enough fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but make no mistake that kind of power is short-lived and the hazards lead not to "change" but to irreparable damage.
.

I Only Have One Question...

.
On April 15th, President Obama spoke at Georgetown University in Gaston Hall. After setting the stage it was noted that IHS (a traditional Catholic symbol for the name of Jesus) was in the architecture behind the president. No problem, right? After all Georgetown is a Catholic university not unlike Notre Dame where he will be delivering the commencement address in a few weeks. Wrong. Big problem evidently. After all, we can't have a symbol of Christ in the background of the president's speech... not the week after his big speech in Turkey where he praised Islam for shaping the world and the U.S. for the better. (Still waiting for Barak or Michelle to give a speech about how proud they are of the shaping of our country by Christianity.)

So the president's "advance team" asked the university to cover over Christ's name with a painted piece of plywood (seen at right) that was still up after the speech. There... problem averted. Now we don't have to worry about offending the Muslims or Jews or anyone else who may take offense at the name of Christ.

I only have one question: When the president makes a speech from one of the many Islamic masques springing up across this country, will he ask them to cover any symbols of Islam or Mohammed behind him before he speaks there? Something tells me that he would do the exact opposite. Something tells me that in a non-Christian religious setting, he would be more likely to flaunt his presence there and to model sensitivities to their sacred symbols.

I am not saying this "cover up" was an ANTI-Christ statement (ANTI as in "opposed to"), I'm just saying that it was a "camera angle" consideration that trampled on the sensitivities of the host school, Georgetown, and something tells me that Obama (or those responsible for the order) would only have the audacity to cover a Christian symbol--with symbols of non-Christian religions, I think their political correctness would prompt quite opposite actions.

.

Watch the pro-Islam speech in Turkey at this link. Like me, you'll probably find no fault in the "olive branch" Obama holds out to Muslims, but again I only have one question: when Obama speaks in a Muslim venue, and that will surely happen, will he rudely cover up the symbols of their faith? I would hope not. So why not show the same respect and caution for the name of Christ?

.

Read more about it here. Click on photos to enlarge.

231

The Post Below is Playing Out with The Pirates...

In the previous post, I said of the 1967 film, To Sir, With Love:

"Having been a teacher and/or school administrator for 30 years, I must admit I've always been a sucker for those "teacher-befriends-hoodlum-students" movies. It seems Hollywood cranks out that familiar plot at least once or twice a decade. If there is any place where optimism and ideals should have a fighting chance... it's in a school.

Today I revised that post slightly to include the pirates as an example:

"But in the real world, there are hundreds of stories never told about teachers who cared and tried just as hard as Poitier did as "Sir," but they end up being run over by the hoodums, who almost always take all that chumminess as an opportunity to start yet another spit-ball war. In other words... in the real world, it's hard to get real pirates to change their ways and try-out for the school play--even if the play is The Pirates of Penzance. In the real world, "pirate ships [do not] lower their flags when Puff roars out his name."

Even supposed Euro-allies take flattery and chumminess as signs of weakness. Obama has been cozying up to Sarkozy for months, and look how easily the French president slapped him down yesterday.

Perhaps now that the president has been in the shoes of his predecessor for 3-and-a-half months, he'll begin to understand that other world leaders will soon tire of his "rock star" glow. Perhaps before matters get much worse in Somalia and other hotspots, he'll begin understanding that it takes credible Mr. Tibbs-type action to get the attention of nations that harbor terrorists and pirates.

Which Poitier Role Will It Be?

After weeks of watching our president's soft reaction to those most likely to remain our enemies (or self-serving allies), Obama seems rather like a first-year school teacher who is trying to "make nice" with the worst students in each class... actually thinking that if he's "cool" with them it will all turn out like Sidney Poitier in "To Sir, With Love," where the very thugs that hated the teacher eventually sing songs of adoration to him.



Having been a teacher and/or school administrator for 30 years, I must admit I've always been a sucker for those "teacher-befriends-hoodlum-students" movies. It seems Hollywood cranks out that familiar plot at least once or twice a decade. If there is any place where optimism and ideals should have a fighting chance... it's in a school.

"But in the real world, there are hundreds of stories never told about teachers who cared and tried just as hard as Poitier did as "Sir," but they end up being run over by the hoodums, who almost always take all that chumminess as an opportunity to start yet another spit-ball war. In other words... in the real world, it's hard to get real pirates to change their ways and try-out for the school play--even if the play is The Pirates of Penzance. In the real world, "pirate ships [do not] lower their flags when Puff roars out his name."
.
That being said, I don't mind this "let's be friends approach" as long as the president is also ready to take on a different Sidney Poitier role that shows the strength of Detective Virgil Tibbs from "In the Heat of the Night."



Perhaps now that the president has been in the shoes of his predecessor for 3-and-a-half months, he'll begin understanding that it takes Mr. Tibbs-type action to get the attention of nations that harbor terrorists and pirates. It's the latter role I suspect he will need to master by the end of his first semester, but if I'm wrong, and if we begin to witness one big global "Kumbaya" hug with one man at the center... beware... things are not always as the seem.
.
4174

In the comments of the previous post, I see that someone asked about Obama's bow to the Saudi King. I must admit I am a few days behind the news cycle, but with a brief window to the internet, I got caught up on this and other matters buzzing like gnats around the POTUS's head. In case you missed it, here is a Ben Smith article that puts it in a nutshell.

Since I don't have time to fully comment, I'll simply say that either this was a huge faux pas (none of the the other world leaders did it, and no previous POTUS has shown such obeisance) or it was a not-s-subtle hint of Obama's willingness to do whatever it takes to show his desire to please and appease Muslims. One thing is for sure, it was not an attempt to equalize his height for better eye contact (as Obama's aid lamely suggests below).

"The White House is denying that the president bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London, a scene that drew criticism on the right and praise from some Arab outlets.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity..."
.


.
4170

No Fooling. This is a Good Read

On a day set aside for unexpected tomfoolery, it might be good to read an article about "common sense."

"I don't hate the president. I rather like him, on a personal level. What's not to like? He's personable. He's charming. He's intelligent.

What I hate is what he's attempting to do to this country. He sincerely believes that the government can spend its way out of debt. As I've said, that's akin to believing one can drink his way to sobriety. It defies logic but logic is not the currency of liberalism; emotion is.

"Liberals look at our current economic situation and scream and cry that our government should do something. Anything! That's an emotional response to a problem that requires logic and common sense to solve. It's easy to throw money at a problem in a fit of misguided compassion, but throwing money around is exactly how we got here. So those of us who criticize the policies of this administration are systematically targeted for destruction.

"What's so disturbing about this trend is the damage it does to our fundamental right to freedom of speech, to freedom of the press, to the free exchange of ideas. It is not I who hate; rather, it is those who disagree with me who hate me for holding an opinion contrary to their own.

"These supposedly open-minded liberals seem to be all about diversity except when it comes to diversity of thought."

Phil Valentine is an author and syndicated radio talk show host with Westwood One, heard locally on SuperTalk 99.7WTN weekdays from 4-8 p.m. His column appears on Sundays. For more of his commentary and articles, visit PhilValentine.com.