He Just Doesn’t Get It
Politicians long ago mastered the art of the non-apology apology: “I’m sincerely sorry to all those who were offended by my statement . . . ” (sotto voce: all three or four of you, you hypersensitive twits, and you know you’re just pretending to be outraged, so shut up already).
They also have mastered the art of non-humble humility: “That’s an excellent question, Anderson. What do I think are my weaknesses? Well, I certainly have my share, as my wife would be the first to tell you. For one, as she rightly complains, I too often burn the midnight oil looking after my constituents. The problem is, I care too damn much. I also lose my temper too easily, especially when I see the little guy taking it on the chin. And I get too impatient with the lobbyists who come seeking favors. Just the other day I physically ejected from my office a banker looking for a bailout. A better man than I would have asked him politely to take his leave. Those are just a few of my shortcomings, Anderson. . . . ”
The special genius of Barack Obama is to combine the spirit of the non-apology apology with non-humble humility and an extra helping of learning a “lesson” that flatters himself, rather than the lesson the voters actually sent.
Here is how an AP report on Friday after the election summarizes his reaction to the voters’ historic rebuke, “Obama Acknowledges His Message Didn’t Get Through.”
“Leadership is not just legislation,” Obama told an interviewer for 60 Minutes. “It’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand. . . . We haven’t always been successful at that. . . . And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine closely as I go forward.”
So he sounds rueful but is actually unrepentant. He seems to think his legislation was great, and a tribute to his leadership. But the voters just didn’t understand. Well, he’s going to “examine” that going forward. Not that he’ll necessarily change any of his policies, though he may have to start using more single-syllable words to get the message through to all the thick-headed Americans who didn’t understand his arguments. Yes, that’s the ticket.
But what about the voters’ message to him? Seems like that bounced off the presidential thinking cap. So we’ll summarize it for him, using his favorite metaphor. It went like this: “Mr. President, you took a wrong turn. You were supposed to go straight down Prosperity Avenue, but mistakenly hung a hard left into the Health Care cul-de-sac. You should have stopped at that point and backed out. But you stomped on the accelerator instead of the brake. We’ll generously call it a case of unintended acceleration. In any event, we’re stuck in the Slough of -Despond. So we’ve decided to make John Boehner the designated driver.” ♦
[img nocaption float="center" width="640" height="607" render="<%photoRenderType%>"]2154[/img]
Did He ReallySay That?
What exactly did President Obama mean when he told a group of supporters prior to the midterm elections that he wanted to “export jobs”? As a friend of The Scrapbook helpfully pointed out, at a DNC Moving America Forward rally in Bridgeport, Conn., the president urged voters “to set the direction not just for this state but for this country for years to come.” Then, later in the speech, when his devotees were too drunk on rhetoric to notice, Obama said, “We see an America where we invest in homegrown innovation and ingenuity so we can export jobs, not just import goods. We want to make it easier to start a business or patent an invention.”
What was that about exporting jobs? Apparently not a misprint: The line is repeated in a network transcript and on the White House website. Maybe Obama was just thrown off by the heckling AIDS activists. Perhaps the commander in chief meant to say “import jobs, not just import goods.” Or maybe he -really wants to export jobs. He certainly just did a good job outsourcing the work of the House of Representatives to a new set of workers. ♦
Great Moments in Academese
An abstract from the latest issue of the journal Sport in Society:
Dressed for success? The NBA’s dress code, the workings of whiteness and corporate culture: This paper explores the constitutive power relations and representational politics produced through the advent of a dress-code policy instituted by the National Basketball Association (NBA) in 2005. Using the methodology of contextual cultural studies this analysis suggests that far from a simple policy that requires a particular style of dress, narratives and practices surrounding the policy are embedded in an economic rationale frequently embraced in corporate cultures that also reproduce whiteness. In recontextualizing the dress code this paper maps out and makes visible the complex processes which both venerate and demonize the athleticism and entertainment value of the league’s black masculine bodies, and simultaneously deny the salience of political, social and economic processes that produce discourses of a commercialized white normativity. The ultimate aim of this analysis is to generate broader public pedagogical interest in these contexts in order to promote new understandings of the dress code in the quest for social justice.
The Scrapbook’s translation? Charles Barkley put this more succinctly in 2005, as reported in the Los Angeles Times:
Young black kids dress like NBA players. . . . Unfortunately, they don’t get paid like NBA players. So when they go out in the real world, what they wear is held against them. See, these players make $10 million to $15 million a year, so nobody cares how they dress. But regular black kids go out into the real world and how they dress is held against them. If a well-dressed white kid and a black kid wearing a do-rag and throwback jersey came to me in a job interview, I’d hire the white kid. That’s reality. That’s the No. 1 reason I support the dress code.
The Scrapbook, for its part, dresses as it does precisely in order to deemphasize the athleticism and entertainment value of its white masculine body—and you must admit, if you chance to meet us, that we do a pretty good job of it. ♦
The Nanny State Lives
The Scrapbook extends its sympathy to the children of northern California. Not only is their economic future less than bright but now government officials are rifling through their Happy Meal bags.
On Election Day, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a law restricting restaurants’ freedom to give away toys with kids’ meals. The law is another effort to fight childhood obesity, and lawmakers hope to motivate children and their parents to make healthier eating choices by withholding free toys. Want a free action figure from the latest Disney animated feature? First, say no to high calories and eat your apple slices (without the complimentary caramel sauce, thank you very much).
The meals will be required to meet certain nutritional standards before a toy may be included. Only meals containing fewer than 600 calories and providing an adequate serving of fruit and vegetables will be permitted to reward children with a free toy. The law could take effect by December 2011 (just in time to spread holiday cheer) and is targeted at McDonald’s, whose Happy Meals are made “happier” not just by their golden fries but by the free toy found inside.
The good news: The law is not being well-received. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has promised to veto the measure, although the board likely has enough votes to overturn. The California Restaurant Association has also spoken out in opposition. Spokesman Daniel Conway placed the law in context of the Giants’ recent World Series victory by saying, “One day you’re world champions, and the next day, no toys for you.”
In happier news, the legendary McRib sandwich is back at McDonald’s locations in San Francisco and across the country. ♦
Sentences We Didn’t Finish
"Even though it was predicted, it was still a shock to see voters humiliate a brilliant and spellbinding young president, who’d had such a Kennedy-like beginning, while electing a lot of conservative nuts and . . . " (Maureen Dowd, New York Times, November 3). ♦
[img nocaption float="center" width="640" height="607" render="<%photoRenderType%>"]2155[/img]