Obama in the Middle East

The Chicago Sun-Time's has a great blog by Lynn Sweet who is following the senator as he travels through the Middle East and Europe on "O-Force-One."

IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN
This aspect of the trip seems to have gone extremely well especially because of events on the ground in Afghanistan, statements by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and the 3-point shot.

ISRAEL & PALESTINE
The imagery looked great. Again, I am dismayed by the lack of even handedness in dealing with the Palestinians. Why no press statements with Prime Minister Abbas? Why again this foray into discussing final settlement issues such as the status of Jerusalem? Or a visit to any Palestinian sites, perhaps one that gives insight into Palestinian daily life.

I am losing hope that Obama is going to deal fairly with the Palestinians, which is a great shame. I think he has as great an opportunity as any US President has had to move the peace process forward.

Open Season on Black Men?

It seems that conservatives around the world have taken Obama's comments on Black Fatherhood as the green light they needed to put the blame of social failures on black men. Check out British conservative David Cameron joining the party. I hope all these people will be just as quick to join calls to provide opportunities for black men in societies that have pushed them to the margin. For those familiar with colonial history, you will recognize this as the oldest trope in the game--white men saving brown women from brown men.

Out of Touch New Yorker

As most people know by now, the New Yorker's current issue, has what I think is a remarkably idiotic front cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as flag-burning, Osama-supporting terrorists jabbing fists in the Oval Office. The New Yorker has decided the best way to satirize the worst and most ignorant beliefs about the Obama's is condense them into one remarkably unsucessful satirical image.

This image fails as satire because it requires you to know the intent of the creator. Successful satire would make the foolishness of these beliefs self-evident if you harbored them beforehand. This image, on the other hand, can only tap into those fears if you had them already. Furthermore, cartoons are usually depicting something ridiculous about the subjects and not something that others are saying about them. If the target was those saying the ridiculous things then those people should have been the subject of the satire. Note to the New Yorker, you could do with some lessons from John Stewart and Colbert about how to be funny.

This is exactly like a very controversial exhibition a few years ago--I don't recall the exact details--that was meant to depict the history of racism. The only problem, it presented the racist representations with no commentary and no opposing voices. With the result that unless the viewer deduced the museum's intention, it seemed the institution was promoting racist ideals. Just as that curator did an awful curatorial job, so also has the New Yorker's editor done an awful job.

What would the New Yorker's editors have said if the Weekly Standard had put that same image up? Being a liberal institution doesn't give you some sort of right to publish this rubbish. BTW, there was a similar incident a few weeks ago when an image was published on the Daily Kos depicting Michelle Obama being strung up and branded by the KKK. That was their attempt to satirize the right's attack on Mrs. Obama. I hate to say it, but this is only something a bunch of people who are not the subject of these stereotypes or attacks can think is funny.

UPDATE: One thing that I've found missing from then national conversation is the history of racist imagery in cartoons and jokes. Somehow, people seem to think somehow humor is harmless. Few mediums have been used to spread racist stereotypes than funny images. BTW, the issue is not that you can't make fun of Obama but make fun of him not of lies about him by supposedly caricaturing the lies. I think I'm more pissed by the smug liberal commentary on this issue than the cartoon itself.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, I helped reward the New Yorker for this cover by buying my copy the day it came out. Went to lunch with it today, 7/15/08, and it was a serious conversation starter. The falafel guy wondered whether I should have rewarded the New Yorker by buying it while the white lady seating next to me wanted to know if I thought it was offensive. In that sense, if it gets us talking about this issue, then it's for the good.

My Favorite Shows

Ever get sick of Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman? Here are my favorite shows that deal with politics and current affairs.

Morning Joe
I am convinced this is currently the best political show on TV. Somehow the hosts and analysts manage to leave their ideology behind long enough to see each other's points. Every important political figure in this race makes sure to stop by. Hosted by Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist. Regular analysts include Mike Barnicle and Pat Buchanan. Chuck Todd a.k.a. Chuckie T, NBC's political analyst often stops by as did Tim Russert before his pasing. Amazingly, many of these same people are unwatchable later in the day.

Start the Week with Andrew Marr
This BBC Radio 4 host has four or so intersting guests usually with some new book or publication about history or current affairs. Seemingly unrelated topics but often able to be constructed into an illuminating discussion.

It's All Politics
NPR's Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving and Political Editor Ken Rudin. These two have a great conversational relationship. Manage to cover the week's political news with good humor.

Left, Right and Center
KCRW's weekly political show. Would love it to be 30 minutes longer. It's one of the highlights of my Fridays.

Update 1: I see I'm not the only one who thinks Morning Joe's great, New York magazine does as well.

Abortion

Today, it was revealed that a G.O.P. group is going to be targeting Senator Obama as the Abortion President. The move is clearly directed at stopping him from making inroads into the Evangelical community. I am convinced that, as a country, we need to address the abortion issue sans politics.

Last night, I saw Lake of Fire, a documentary about abortion. The film maker claims to be undecided on the issue. For anyone who is interested in this issue and whatever one's opinion, it is a must see. Keep in mind, it is not for the faint-hearted. The movie moves from the abstracted discussion of the issue to grim pictures of aborted fetuses, a woman who died from a botched abortion using a hangar and we are witness to a couple actual abortions. A couple of scenes will stay with you for the rest of your life if you watch this film. One reveiw here from the NYT and another one here. More reviews can be accessed from Metacritic.

I am convinced, after seeing this documentary, that we need to snatch the discussion from wackos on both sides (the movie is full of them) and political operatives (no Karl Rove tactics please). This is a much to serious to be left to the crazies (the movie involves some luminaries but their discussion seemed trivially abstract when confronted with the gritty abortions in the movie). There needs to be non-political forums convened of philosophers, ethicists, religious leaders, indigenous thinkers, doctors, women who've had abortions, women who decided against abortions, people whose parent(s) reconsidered aborting them and so on.

I am afraid there is no other way to put this and I refuse to tip toe around it: Abortions are a dreadful and tragic occurrence. Whatever, our disagreements and whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, to claim otherwise would be to trivialize and minimize what is happening to both the woman and the fetus. People of good will on both sides--pro-choice and pro-life--need to have this as a starting assumption and the prevention of abortions as a goal.

Some thoughts. Please be patient and read through the whole thing if a particular point offends you. This is a complex and messy issue that requires those who engage to get their hands dirty and not ride on the high horse of abstraction or ideology. I am also engaging this issue for the first time so there are many subtleties and facts of which I am sure I am unaware.

We all agree that if a woman gives birth to a full-term baby, she has no right to kill the baby, no matter how inconvenient the child is. The survivability of premature babies is also evidence that at some point in the womb, that fetus has become a baby. (Powerful blog here on couple with a 28-week preemie; for comparison, one abortion shown in Lake of Fire was at 20 weeks according to the NYT). So, we can all agree that whatever your beliefs about when life begins, at some point, INSIDE the womb a person, an individual exists. What we disagree about is when that point is. The reality is that no one can claim to know the point at which personhood begins and the location of that point is where much of our conflict is centered (which is not to say that you can't have a belief about when personhood begins; I, for instance, believe that point is closer to conception than further from it). Despite the absence of precision about when that point is, we are all very clear on one thing--a human life is being formed.

Having established that, it is clear that unwanted pregnancies will occur and have occurred as long as human beings have existed and if the choice is between women dying from unsafe abortions and having access to safe abortions, then women's safety should be ensured. We do however have to question what is meant by choice. Does choice mean having access to as many as five abortions as was the case for one woman in the movie? How do we deal with people who are not in enough control of their lives to make good decisions? On the other hand, how is criminalizing abortion a solution to actually reducing abortions? Has making drugs illegal stopped people from using drugs? How can you force a woman to use her body to carry a baby if she doesn't want to? Are we going to be hauling traumatized 16 year old girls off to prison? Is criminalization really about reducing abortions or making a moral point.

So I return to my initial statement--people on both sides of the argument have to agree that abortions are tragic and have to reduced. It means that people on both sides have to come off their high horses and get their hands dirty. It means that some pro-choice people are going to have to encourage women to consider adoption instead of abortion; some pro-life people are going to have to make contraception available to young women; some conservative Americans are going to have to accept that adoption by a gay couple is an alternative to abortion; some pro-choice people will have to accept that a woman on her fifth abortion, for instance, is not qualified to make that choice--abortion is not a form of contraception.

I know this are not particularly intelligent suggestions but all I'm trying to say is let's regain some sanity around this issue, stop trying to make moral or political points and start working to make abortions as rare as possible while safeguarding women's control of their bodies.

By the way, after watching Lake of Fire, I am more convinced than ever that what Obama said about how to engage people of different faith than you is true especially if they believe your real goal is to force your faith on them.

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

I don't that is too much to ask and would be much more effective. This is exactly what Nat Hentoff, an atheist who is against abortion does in the film and he is extremely convincing.

Courting the Christian Vote

Senator Obama is making a concerted appeal for the evangelical christian vote. Today, he made a proposal to expand George Bush's faith-based initiative! Trust me, the left blogosphere is not finding this initiative because of fears about separation of church and state.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, Obama will be going to Colorado Springs, the hometown of Dobson's Focus on the Family, to make a speech about National Service.

Lastly, Matthew 25 Network, a PAC unaffiliated but supportive of the Obama Campaign's Christian Outreach is running an ad in Colorado Springs touting the candidate's faith.

I think this is a very promising strategy that has a chance of winning some of the young and African-American Christians who might otherwise see the Republican party as their only choice. Think here of a Rick Warren or a T.D. Jakes. For anyone who was skeptical about his commitment to the role of faith in the public sphere as outlined in the Call to Renewal speech so viciously attacked by James Dobson, here is a policy action to back up the words. I am waiting for Tony Perkins, who wrote Personal Faith, Public Policy, to respond to this without attempting to reduce the debate to abortion.

If the argument, in courting Christians, is going to boil down to abortion and gay marriage, there's really no point, but if the discussion can be widened as Obama is trying to do, then there's a chance of winning moderate, non-conservative Christians. I sincerely believe there are many who want Obama to give them a reason to vote for him.

Listen to Matthew 25's ad below:


BTW, I noted with interest the recent re-emergence of a chain email that claimed that a movie was about to be released that potrayed Jesus and his disciples as homosexuals. It is interesting that a variation of this email also arrived in 2000. Hmmh, I wonder what else was going in 2000? A visit to snopes.com confirms that this email is a hoax.

Update I: Just saw Bishop Harry Jackson on Bill O'Reilly. I was quite disappointed that he could not find a single positive thing to say about this initiative. All he would say was that McCain needs to not ignore Evangelicals and then proceeded to reduce the discussion back to gay marriage. The CBN Report on this initiative also ended with a discussion of Obama's relationship to the gay community.

Update II: "There's a disconnect between his policy and his words." So said Tony Perkins on Anderson Cooper, even though Obama's just committed $500 million to faith-based initiatives. Ultimately for Perkins and company, the argument is back to abortion and gay marriage.