Persons of interest
Monday, 14 June 2010
Fazal M. Kamal
It has been said eons back that if you take credit for the sunshine you've to accept the blame for the rainfall as well. That's precisely what Barack Obama has been discovering all over now, provided particular emphasis and urgency by BP's catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the ongoing primaries for the upcoming midterm elections in November, not to mention the agony of continued high unemployment, the difficulties businesses are suffering and the budget deficits that cities and states are confronted with all across the country.
Certainly, this isn't a happy time to be president even of the most powerful nation on earth. Barack Obama came to the White House at a time when eight years of the Bush era had left behind a whole raft of unresolved and unpleasant issues. From the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called war on terror to the meltdown on Wall Street, the unbridled and unregulated avarice in the financial sector to the collapse of the housing market he was faced with shambles on all sides. And to add to his woes there were the opposition Republicans who haven't missed any opportunity to castigate him while building a bulwark of negativism.
But of course everyone and his uncle want quick fixes. That's the nature of politics around the world. But realities have other dimensions not necessarily susceptible to fast solutions. That's the nature of reality. But the impatience of the populace as well as of the political pundits and the demands of the 24-hour news cycle are anathema to the dynamics of a political dispensation that moves at its own pace. The other issue that has also been viewed as unacceptable in these trying times is the style of the Obama presidency.
Barack Obama has the personality of a calm, cool, collected person. That is who he is. But people and pundits all want him to emote. Given his persona he is averse to be emotive, and more so in public. His intellectual approach -- and he probably has a higher IQ than most -- and mental processes, apparently, see emotional outbursts as a demeaning trait. As Jonathan Alter wrote recently in Newsweek, "He forgets that being a great professor isn't the same as being a great communicator. The inspirational figure of the campaign is under the delusion that he will be cheapening himself and the office if he uses memorable soundbites in the theater of the presidency." They also want him to be more combative.
Meantime, he has been called "un-American," a "racist," a "socialist" and worse. But of course he is none of those, though it's not at all likely that the extreme rightwingers---radio and television talking heads, bloggers of all types and neophyte politicians included---will ease back on this theme. Instead, as Joe Conason writes in Salon, "Listening to rightwing propaganda against Obama over the past year or so, such as the 'birther' meme, it is clear that there is a certain kind of Republican that still thinks any Democratic president lacks legitimacy by definition, and that those Republicans will entertain any scheme to eject a Democrat from the Oval Office."
Against this backdrop the polls aren't bringing in any better news. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward their elected officials rising and anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high, says a report in that newspaper. The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that chamber after 40 years in the majority. And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, the story adds, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing them. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress, though about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the nation's main problems.
Helen Thomas
In a most unfortunate turn of events a Washington living legend had to abruptly retire from covering the White House after almost half a century because of certain comments she made about Israel and Israelis. To be fair, some parts of Helen Thomas's observations possibly crossed a line that most would want to stay clear of especially in the US of A. But to be fairer, similar observations have been made and continue to be made about others including the Palestinians whose land is being taken away forcibly and who are being continually expelled from their homes. But no one has had to resign her/his post for declaring those sentiments. And it must be noted that Ms. Thomas did profusely apologise for her remarks.
The point of bringing it up here is that---and credit must be given where it's deserved---the nexus between the rightwingers and the Israeli lobby is an extremely robust one and no one, but no one, can get away with making critical statements about Israel's government and its policies. All such expressed sentiments are instantly overwhelmed by scathing attacks on the source of the statement and, sadly, often criticism of Israeli administrations and their myopic policies are colored as being anti-Semitic which they always are definitely not. But on such occasions the statements are utilized to clobber those who oppose that country's policies. Here's an instance as enunciated by Gabriel Winant:
"Sarah Palin, for example, was quick to jump all over Thomas' comment. On Twitter, Palin wrote, 'Helen Thomas press pals condone racist rant? Heaven forbid 'esteemed' press corps represent society's enlightened elite; Rest of us choose truth.' (I've added some spaces in there to make it readable.) I'm not entirely sure what Palin means there, except that she's calling Thomas racist. Palin herself, however, has called for Israel to continue expanding settlement in Palestinian territory. This is, de facto, a call for Israel to deny the Palestinians a state, and eventually to expel them. Then there's Mike Huckabee, who explicitly called for Israel to deport the Palestinians from the West Bank, so Israel could complete settling it. That's ethnic cleansing, folks. Scarcely a peep was to be heard from the right while major political figures like Huckabee and Palin---not 89-year-old cranky columnists---were calling for it."
Naturally, there were many detractors of Helen Thomas over the years. During the reign of George W. Bush Jack Shafer writing in Slate complained, "She often raises serious questions that are on lots of people's minds---questions that other critical journalists in the press corps might want to pose. But when spoken by Thomas' lecturing lips first, the questions sound absurd. She ends up taking the air out of the room for intelligent criticism of the president and helps make the press corps look like a Saturday Night Live skit. You can almost hear [White House Press Secretary Ari] Fleischer squealing behind closed doors after the briefings: Thank God for Helen Thomas!" But that's criminally ignoring the enlightened role she played as a journalist, first for UPI and subsequently for the Hearst News Service, as she rarely shied away from asking the high and mighty tough questions that others may have been considering but were reluctant to put into words.
And though the rightwing leaders and commentators as well as the powerful Israeli lobby will continue to repudiate the truth, there are many others who, for the sake of honesty, will also persist with putting out the facts in the public domain. Last week, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade of Gaza as an exercise of the right of economic warfare, said the McClatchy newspapers. "A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.
The report further said, "McClatchy obtained the [Israeli] government's written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year. Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights."
And so the eternal struggle between truth and lies, fact and factoid, reality and fantasy continues.
E-mail : fmk222@gmail.com
It has been said eons back that if you take credit for the sunshine you've to accept the blame for the rainfall as well. That's precisely what Barack Obama has been discovering all over now, provided particular emphasis and urgency by BP's catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the ongoing primaries for the upcoming midterm elections in November, not to mention the agony of continued high unemployment, the difficulties businesses are suffering and the budget deficits that cities and states are confronted with all across the country.
Certainly, this isn't a happy time to be president even of the most powerful nation on earth. Barack Obama came to the White House at a time when eight years of the Bush era had left behind a whole raft of unresolved and unpleasant issues. From the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called war on terror to the meltdown on Wall Street, the unbridled and unregulated avarice in the financial sector to the collapse of the housing market he was faced with shambles on all sides. And to add to his woes there were the opposition Republicans who haven't missed any opportunity to castigate him while building a bulwark of negativism.
But of course everyone and his uncle want quick fixes. That's the nature of politics around the world. But realities have other dimensions not necessarily susceptible to fast solutions. That's the nature of reality. But the impatience of the populace as well as of the political pundits and the demands of the 24-hour news cycle are anathema to the dynamics of a political dispensation that moves at its own pace. The other issue that has also been viewed as unacceptable in these trying times is the style of the Obama presidency.
Barack Obama has the personality of a calm, cool, collected person. That is who he is. But people and pundits all want him to emote. Given his persona he is averse to be emotive, and more so in public. His intellectual approach -- and he probably has a higher IQ than most -- and mental processes, apparently, see emotional outbursts as a demeaning trait. As Jonathan Alter wrote recently in Newsweek, "He forgets that being a great professor isn't the same as being a great communicator. The inspirational figure of the campaign is under the delusion that he will be cheapening himself and the office if he uses memorable soundbites in the theater of the presidency." They also want him to be more combative.
Meantime, he has been called "un-American," a "racist," a "socialist" and worse. But of course he is none of those, though it's not at all likely that the extreme rightwingers---radio and television talking heads, bloggers of all types and neophyte politicians included---will ease back on this theme. Instead, as Joe Conason writes in Salon, "Listening to rightwing propaganda against Obama over the past year or so, such as the 'birther' meme, it is clear that there is a certain kind of Republican that still thinks any Democratic president lacks legitimacy by definition, and that those Republicans will entertain any scheme to eject a Democrat from the Oval Office."
Against this backdrop the polls aren't bringing in any better news. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds antipathy toward their elected officials rising and anti-incumbent sentiment at an all-time high, says a report in that newspaper. The national survey shows that 29 percent of Americans now say they are inclined to support their House representative in November, even lower than in 1994, when voters swept the Democrats out of power in the that chamber after 40 years in the majority. And at a time when Republicans anticipate significant gains in House and Senate elections, the story adds, there is also fresh evidence of the challenges facing them. Six in 10 poll respondents say they have a negative view of the policies put forward by the Republican minority in Congress, though about a third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the nation's main problems.
Helen Thomas
In a most unfortunate turn of events a Washington living legend had to abruptly retire from covering the White House after almost half a century because of certain comments she made about Israel and Israelis. To be fair, some parts of Helen Thomas's observations possibly crossed a line that most would want to stay clear of especially in the US of A. But to be fairer, similar observations have been made and continue to be made about others including the Palestinians whose land is being taken away forcibly and who are being continually expelled from their homes. But no one has had to resign her/his post for declaring those sentiments. And it must be noted that Ms. Thomas did profusely apologise for her remarks.
The point of bringing it up here is that---and credit must be given where it's deserved---the nexus between the rightwingers and the Israeli lobby is an extremely robust one and no one, but no one, can get away with making critical statements about Israel's government and its policies. All such expressed sentiments are instantly overwhelmed by scathing attacks on the source of the statement and, sadly, often criticism of Israeli administrations and their myopic policies are colored as being anti-Semitic which they always are definitely not. But on such occasions the statements are utilized to clobber those who oppose that country's policies. Here's an instance as enunciated by Gabriel Winant:
"Sarah Palin, for example, was quick to jump all over Thomas' comment. On Twitter, Palin wrote, 'Helen Thomas press pals condone racist rant? Heaven forbid 'esteemed' press corps represent society's enlightened elite; Rest of us choose truth.' (I've added some spaces in there to make it readable.) I'm not entirely sure what Palin means there, except that she's calling Thomas racist. Palin herself, however, has called for Israel to continue expanding settlement in Palestinian territory. This is, de facto, a call for Israel to deny the Palestinians a state, and eventually to expel them. Then there's Mike Huckabee, who explicitly called for Israel to deport the Palestinians from the West Bank, so Israel could complete settling it. That's ethnic cleansing, folks. Scarcely a peep was to be heard from the right while major political figures like Huckabee and Palin---not 89-year-old cranky columnists---were calling for it."
Naturally, there were many detractors of Helen Thomas over the years. During the reign of George W. Bush Jack Shafer writing in Slate complained, "She often raises serious questions that are on lots of people's minds---questions that other critical journalists in the press corps might want to pose. But when spoken by Thomas' lecturing lips first, the questions sound absurd. She ends up taking the air out of the room for intelligent criticism of the president and helps make the press corps look like a Saturday Night Live skit. You can almost hear [White House Press Secretary Ari] Fleischer squealing behind closed doors after the briefings: Thank God for Helen Thomas!" But that's criminally ignoring the enlightened role she played as a journalist, first for UPI and subsequently for the Hearst News Service, as she rarely shied away from asking the high and mighty tough questions that others may have been considering but were reluctant to put into words.
And though the rightwing leaders and commentators as well as the powerful Israeli lobby will continue to repudiate the truth, there are many others who, for the sake of honesty, will also persist with putting out the facts in the public domain. Last week, in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade of Gaza as an exercise of the right of economic warfare, said the McClatchy newspapers. "A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the government said.
The report further said, "McClatchy obtained the [Israeli] government's written statement from Gisha, the Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, which sued the government for information about the blockade. The Israeli high court upheld the suit, and the government delivered its statement earlier this year. Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, said the documents prove that Israel isn't imposing its blockade for its stated reasons, but rather as collective punishment for the Palestinian population of Gaza. Gisha focuses on Palestinian rights."
And so the eternal struggle between truth and lies, fact and factoid, reality and fantasy continues.
E-mail : fmk222@gmail.com