The Healthcare Follies Continue

Looks like passing Obamacare is really helping those poll numbers.

My predicitions for the next few months:

1.  President Obama will make speeches designed to sway the public to favor his policies.
2.  The speeches will fail to move the poll numbers.
3.  White House spin machine and mainstream media (sorry if that's repetitive) will proceed to say that the poll numbers are irrelevant, because the public is being misinformed by opponents of Obamacare.  Leftwing blogosphere will creatively analyze pollig data and claim the problem is that legislation is not progressive enough, which is why the poll numbers are underwater.
4.  White House, random Democrats, and left-wingers will accuse opponents of Obamacare of being racist.
5.  The President will insist that he doesn't care about the poll numbers, that he's just did the right thing.  He will continue to fail to articulate a rationale that convinces anyone that his point of view is correct.
6.  The President will claim the opposition is guilty of obstruction and not having any ideas of their own.
7.  The opposition will point out that they presented their ideas to the President, who will respond with some variation of "I won/the time for debate was over/we needd to act now".
8.  Repeat steps #1-7 as necessary.
9.  When they lose control of the House in November, the Democrats will claim the loss had nothing to do with Obamacare and will creatively analyze poll numbers to prove it.
10.  When no one believes the poll number analysis noted in #9, the Democrats will blame racism.

Of Tea and Race

A blogger at True Slant somehow tries to link the exceedingly weird Amy Bishop shooting incident to racism and the Tea Party movement. Bill Jacobson responds...

There is no actual link between Alabama-Hunstville shooter Amy Bishop and the Tea Party movement.

By all accounts, Bishop was extremely liberal and a huge Obama fan (to the point of being described by someone who knew her as being obsessed with Obama).

...It would be easy to dismiss the attempt to link Bishop and the Tea Party movement given the absurdity of the connection. After all, Bishop loves Obama, so how could the "anti-Obama" nature of the Tea Party movement have caused Bishop to do anything?

It's just that these things have a way of working their way into the mainstream media, regardless of how outlandish the supposed connection.

The link between Bishop and Tea Parties is absurd on its face -- it's a lot more easy to link her to Democrats than Tea Partiers (and in reality, linking her to either is stupid and insensitive to the victims of her awful crime). But the link to racism with the Tea Parties is almost equally absurd. The author at True Slant stated this regarding a NY Times article about the Tea Parties...

The New York Times didn’t address the issue of the Tea Party’s white makeup, but the article did describe the movement’s geographical connection, in Idaho, to the white supremacists Richard Girnt Butler and Randy Weaver.

That's actually not the extent of the connection in the article -- a civil rights activist quoted in the article saw questions about Obama's birth certificate as a proxy for racism and intolerance and "painfully familiar cultural and rhetorical overtones." And there is at least one reference to how most of the people at Tea Party meetings are white, contrary to what True Slant says.

But that's it -- they can't establish that any actual racism from Tea Party adherents, but the biggest link is geographical. By that linkage, I must be a huge supporter of President Obama, since I live within 15 miles of D.C.

Worse yet, the proxy for racism now seems to be whether there are enough minorities that are part of a movement. I know folks who are attending Tea Parties, and they're not racists. But it's absurd to claim that they need a minority like me ( or several such people) to show up to prove they're not racists. I guess I should expect this from Keith Olbermann, but I think it reflects a reality that is obsessed with race. Here's an excerpt from Olbermann's recent statement to the Tea Party folks...

And I know phrases like "Tea Klux Klan" are incendiary, and I know I use them in part because I am angry that at so late a date, we still have to back back that racial uneasiness which has to envelop us all. And I know if I could only listen to Lincoln on this of all days about the better angels of our nature, I’d know that what we’re seeing at the Tea Parties is, at its base, people who are afraid – terribly, painfully, cripplingly, blindingly afraid.

But let me ask all of you who attend these things: How many black faces do you see at these events? How many Hispanics, Asians, gays? Where are these people? Surely, there must be blacks who think they’re being bled by taxation. Surely there must be Hispanics who think the government should have let the auto industry fail. Surely there must be people of all colors and creeds who believe in cultural literacy tests and speaking English. Where are they? Where are they?

Do you suppose they agree with you that they’ve just chosen to attend their own separate meetings, that they’re not at your Tea Party because they have a Tea Party of their own to go to?

...Fear is a terrible thing – so is prejudice, so is racism. And progress towards the removal of any evil produces an inevitable backlash. The Civil War was not followed by desegregation, but by Jim Crow and the Klan. The Civil Rights legislation of the 60s was not followed by peace, but by George Wallace and anti-busing overt racism. Why should the election of a black President be without a backlash?

But recognize what this backlash is and maybe you can free yourself of this movement built of inherited fears and of echoes of 1963 or 1873. Look at who is leading you and why. And look past the blustery self-justifications and see the fear – this unspoken, inchoate, unnecessary fear of those who are different.

If you believe there is merit to your political argument, fine. But ask yourself, when you next go to a Tea Party rally, or watch one on television or listen to a politician or a commentator praise these things or merely treat them as if it was just a coincidence that they are virtually segregated. Ask yourself: Where are the black faces? Who am I marching with? What are we afraid of? And if it really is only a President’s policy and not his skin, ask yourself one final question: Why are you surrounded by the largest crowd you will ever again see in your life that consists of nothing but people who look exactly like you? Good night and good luck.

Now, I know that I'm looking at this from a different perspective than a liberal. They tend to look at the issue and believe, that when the vast majority of faces at a Tea Party gathering are white, that there is an underlying current of racism there, one that perhaps the Tea Party folks don't recognize but that exists. But Olbermann's expectation that there will be backlash to the election of a black president is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, one that basically makes it certain that we need to examine all criticism of this President from people of other races with a detailed analysis of whether the criticism is tinged with racist sentiment. That's insane on its face.

Leaving aside the fact that telling people they're closet racists probably isn't the best way to get them to change their opinion or consider your point of view, I don't understand why the lack of minority faces at a political meeting establishes some kind of racist thought. Olbermann analogizes the situtation to baseball prior to Jackie Robinson, when the game was segregated, and people like Olbermann's pre-teen father assumed that Satchel Paige just didn't want to play for the New York Yankees.

But Olbermann misses the point entirely -- baseball was rigidly segregated by the owners of the teams under an unwritten "Gentleman's Agreement". Yes, the rule was unwritten, but it was understood by everyone in the game, and rigidly enforced by Commissioner Landis during his tenure. This is one reason why Branch Rickey's decision to sign Jackie Robinson was such a big deal.

Last I checked, there's nothing stopping anyone of any color from attending a Tea Party meeting or rally. Considering the rather decentralized structure of the Tea Party movement, there's probably no way to have such an agreement, even if there was a desire to do so. And there's no proof of either.

Bottom line, it's silly to allege such stuff, because it can come back and bite you. More importantly, it demeans what racism really is, and eventually leaves people unable to discuss legitimate political disagreements with one another.

On Gilligan's Island, Professor Meant... Professor

It's quotes like the ones by Charles Ogletree that make me wonder about whether the value of my law school degree is declining...

Barack Obama has been called a lot of things since he hit the national stage: Celebrity, elitist and even one who “pals around with terrorists.” But as his poll numbers come back down to earth, and an emboldened conservative movement sharpens its attacks, the label that seems to be sticking to Obama as much as any lately is that of “professor.”

Speaking to Tea Party activists in Nashville last week, Sarah Palin did her part to keep the “professor” dig in circulation.

"They know we're at war, and to win that war we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern,” the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee told a frenzied crowd.

...Watching the “professor Obama” label bandied about again, one of the president’s longtime mentors says he doubts it will gain traction outside of Tea Party rallies. Taken to its logical conclusion, the message just doesn’t make sense, says Charles J. Ogletree, a Harvard professor who has known Obama since he was a law student there.

“I think anyone who examines it closely and carefully will see this type of criticism of Obama will ultimately be counterproductive,” Ogletree says. “Do you want to tell your children we don’t want smart people in government?”

Ogletree, founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, says he sees the “professor” label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama’s race. Calling Obama “the professor” walks dangerously close to labeling him “uppity,” a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said. Describing his divisive confirmation hearings as a “circus,” Justice Clarence Thomas called the proceedings “a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.…” It is perhaps ironic, then, that Ogletree, who represented Anita Hill when she made harassment allegations against Thomas in 1991, now sees a bit of the “uppity” label being placed on Obama.

“The idea is that he’s not one of us,” Ogletree says of the professor label. “He has these ideas that are left wing, that are socialist, that he’s palling around with terrorists -- those were buzzwords, but the reality was they were looking at this president as an African American who was out of place.”

A few points, if I may...

1. President Obama is/was a Con Law professor. I can't really say whether he was any good at it, but he was a professor. If it's racist to call him professor, even though that was his job, it might also be racist to refer to him as a former state legislator and Senator. To be fair, calling someone a "Senator" nowadays is pretty demeaning, since it means you belong to the same club as John Kerry.

2. When I think "professor", I think of Gilligan's Island and college, usually in that order. I don't think of people palling around with terrorists, nor do I think of professor as a buzzword for making me think of that. When people want to reference President Obama palling around with terrorists, they simply need to say the name William Ayers.

3. Actually, I want smart people in business more than government. But I want them in government as well. But smarts aren't just obtained working in academia -- real world practical experience would be helpful. One of the problems with president Obama and his coterie of advisors is that most of them have spent the vast majority of their careers working in government or the public sector. The lack of private sector experience means that they may not have the perspective to relate to problems being experienced by people in the private sector. That has little to do with book smarts. It also has nothing to do with race.

4. I have no idea how calling someone "professor" translates into calling them "uppity." I agree it can be a derogatory term, in that it translates to calling someone an "egghead." I've never seen anyone say "egghead" is a racist term, although I don't know what Professor Ogletree would say about it.

5. Full disclosure: I was once a student at HLS and interacted with Professor Ogletree. I like him a lot. I just think his ideas may be loopy. I hope saying that doesn't make me a racist.

Baseball Nostalgia

Satchel Paige versus Joe Dimaggio, back when Paige was at the height of his powers and Dimaggio was a minor league phenom. I'm wondering why this was never made into a movie...

Paige arrived for his first appearance in the Bay Area with a 17-game winning streak during which he outdueled major leaguers Dizzy Dean and Schoolboy Rowe in barnstorming matchups. He had faced the likes of Lou Gehrig, Charlie Gehringer, Hack Wilson and Pepper Martin, all future Hall of Famers.

Two days before the game, Paige told the Oakland Post-Enquirer this would be his toughest game. "Never before have I faced so many great hitters in one game," he said. "I've licked teams with three or four big-leaguers, but a whole club of them ... this ain't going to be easy. However, I expect to whip 'em."

About Gehrig, Paige told the Post-Enquirer: "Gehrig is a powerful hitter, but he can be fooled."

The so-called Satchel Paige All-Stars featured just one other player from the Negro Leagues, catcher Ebel Brooks of the New York Black Yankees. The rest of Paige's lineup consisted of young black players from the Oakland playgrounds, creating what should have been a mismatch.

At times, it must have felt like one to the big leaguers. Paige struck out 12, including Suhr and Johnny Vergez three times apiece. He allowed just five hits, only three through nine innings.

DiMaggio was hitless in three appearances until the 10th, when he beat the setting sun to slap a single up the middle and off the glove of Paige, driving home the winning run in a 2-1 victory for the major leaguers.

...DiMaggio later called Paige the greatest pitcher he ever faced.

(hat tip: Craig Calceterra) One wonders, of course, why baseball didn't erase the color line when even its best players knew that many black players were their equals, and some, like Paige, were among the best in the game. At the end of the day, events like this probably helped pave the way for Jackie Robinson, but it's pretty clear major league baseball and most of America missed out on a lot of special moments due to the evils of racism.