One of the criticisms surrounding Barack Obama is whether or not the man is actually eligible to be president. The US Constitution states:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Obama’s biological father was Kenyan. His mother was born in Kansas and has always been an American citizen. All very well.
‘So what’s the problem?’ you might well ask. That’s pretty much what I want to know.
But there are a number of people, apparently enough of them to form a named group (“Birthers”), who claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. The primary claim, as far as I can tell, is that he was born in Kenya. This, despite the fact that the man has a birth certificate from Hawaii (which is where he was actually born) and that the certificate’s authenticity has been verified numerous times by multiple parties.
Birthers claim the Hawaii certificate is forged. Okay, then where is his Kenyan one? Assuming, of course, that there is even any evidence that the Hawaiian one is a forgery.
Here’s the best part: it doesn’t matter if it is. Obama’s mother, being an American citizen at the time of his birth, makes him a natural-born citizen no matter where in the world he is born. That’s the way American law works. No one disputes Ann Dunham’s citizenship (as far as I’m aware). His father’s country of citizenship doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t even matter if Obama had been born in Kenya. He’d still be a natural-born citizen.
But Birthers are pretty adamant about this:
These people are crazier than squirrels with their heads stuck in a dog food can.
But it got me to wondering. In the face of such obvious evidence, to persist in their vitriol suggests that the real motive for their anger is not Obama’s country of birth. It must be something else. In this video, the touchstones are “my ancestors fought in wars for this country” and the Pledge of Allegiance (the meaning of which obviously escapes these people).
Are we seeing nothing more than pure racism? “I don’t want a nigger for President”? But they know they can’t say that out loud. Or, more precisely, they’re afraid to admit to themselves what really motivates them. Is this apparent insanity the logical manifestation of a culture where it is believed that changing how people talk will change how they think? Outlawing the word “nigger” doesn’t make people stop being racist. It just sends that racism underground, to seethe and foment and seek other avenues of expression that are more acceptable.
I don’t know a great deal about Delaware’s social customs or cultural origins, but I wouldn’t generally call them Southerners (despite the accent of the shrill woman in the video). The Southerners I’ve encountered over the years are pretty blunt about their racism (if they are racist, which most of them are not) and are not afraid to use the words that go with it.
Birthers are, then, a possible window into the consequences of a culture where speech is regulated (and don’t kid yourself about that). They may also be an example of jingoistic craziness, which is also still alive and well in this country.
A Canadian astronaut on a six-month stay aboard the international space station said on Sunday it looks like Earth’s ice caps have melted a bit since he was last in orbit 12 years ago.
Bob Thirsk said that there is a “very thin veil of atmosphere around the Earth that keeps us alive … Most of the time when I look out the window I’m in awe. But there are some effects of the human destruction of the Earth as well,” Reuters quoted him as saying.
“This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time,” Thrisk was quoted as saying. “That saddens me a little bit.”
It’s “probably just a perception” and he “has a feeling”, eh? Oh that’s solid scientific evidence right there. He actually used instruments from space to somehow measure the amount of ice on the surface of the earth? No? Yeah that’s what I thought.
Why is this bullshit even reported? Why is an astronaut, supposedly a highly trained, intelligent, scientifically-minded individual, offering a totally subjective opinion about something that he is in no position (figuratively or literally) to have information about? His education is in mechanical engineering and medicine (he’s an MD). What the hell does he know about polar ice?
Naturally, we can expect the viros to latch onto this throwaway opinion as “evidence” of global warming or some shit.
Interestingly, we don’t really need that evidence. It is true that the data show a general warming trend over the past 100 years or so. It is also true that polar ice volumes are changing, apparently getting smaller, and that glaciers are moving and losing volume.
What is NOT clear, however, is the cause. The link between global CO2 levels and global temperatures is actually reversed from what is commonly believed. That is, the temperature went up, and THEN the CO2 levels increased. CO2 increase is not causal. And yes, I am aware of the so-called refutations of this conclusion:
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
So basically, this guy is saying that a warming cycle takes 5000 years to complete, and yet we have somehow concluded that the earth is warming up because of human activity just within the past 100 years? That makes no sense. Also, the assertion that warming “could” have been caused by CO2, is dishonest, because it is speculation with no data to support it. I’m not a geoscientist, but the article in question seems intentionally circuitous and misleading. If anyone cares to explain more clearly the position being advocated, I’m interested.
Then there’s the famous “hockey stick graph” that supposedly shows a dramatic increase in global temperatures over the past thousand years. It is highly flawed, one might even conclude intentionally so, and is no longer considered valid.
So what exactly is my point here? My point is, the data we have indicate that we are in the early stages of a trend that is normal for this planet over many past millennia. Whether or not human activity is contributing is something we are not able to discern. Astronaut Thirsk is showing an unscientific and unsupportable bias in his statements that serves no purpose other than to be inflammatory and perpetuate an irrational belief about human civilization and the planet we live on. It is beneath him as a scientist and a human being to speak this way, given his highly public occupation.
You folks may be aware of an incident that happened in Cambridge, Massachusetts recently. A Harvard scholar named Louis Gates, Jr. was observed by a neighbor shoulder-forcing the door of his own home at night after returning from a trip and being unable to find his keys. Crucial of note here is the fact that the neighbor didn’t know that it was Gates himself, and that Gates is black (and apparently famous even though I never heard of the guy). The cops show up, responding to a possible break in at a residence. Gates refuses to show identification (according to the police report) and becomes belligerent. He calls the cop a racist, pulls out the “do you know who I am” card, and finally gets arrested for disorderly conduct.
There are a number of interesting details about this story. One is that Gates is supposedly some famous Harvard “black scholar”, whatever that exactly means. Another is that the cop refuses to apologize for how he conducted the situation:
Crowley, however, has refused to apologize, and he told the radio station he did nothing wrong. He added he was surprised that a man as educated as Gates would start yelling epithets about Crowley’s mom, part of the incident that never made it into the police report.
“That apology will never come. It won’t come from me as Jim Crowley. It won’t come from me as a sergeant in the police department,” Crowley told WEEI.
“I know what I did was right. I have nothing to apologize for,” he added.
This is 100% pure awesome. This is exactly how the cop should respond to this situation. Indeed, he did nothing wrong and acted properly. I mean come on. Somebody reports a guy busting into a house, the cop knows a lot of things could await him at the scene. A burglar might be there. The homeowner might be in trouble. It’s entirely possible that people could still be in the house without the homeowner’s knowledge after the cop arrives.
The officer has to make sure he knows who he’s talking to. That requires ID. He’s checking to see if the person he’s dealing with is, in fact, the resident of the home. Then he has to check the house to make sure nobody unauthorized is there. Officer Crowley was alone when he first responded, so he had Gates come outside onto the porch, for his safety and for Gates’ safety, and waited for backup.
But the only thing on Gates’ mind is that some white cop is hassling him for being a black man, and he won’t shut the fuck up about it:
“I can’t believe that an individual policeman on the Cambridge police force would treat any African-American male this way, and I am astonished that this happened to me; and more importantly I’m astonished that it could happen to any citizen of the United States, no matter what their race,” Gates wrote.
“I would sooner have believed the sky was going to fall from the heavens than I would have believed this could happen to me. It shouldn’t have happened to me, and it shouldn’t happen to anyone,” Gates continued.
You would think, from the level of whaargarbl in this response, that the cop had randomly stopped him while he was walking down the street and proceeded to arrest him for being a negro in the wrong part of town. The officer responded to a disturbance, acted in the best interest of everyone there, and this is the thanks he gets? What if it hadn’t been Gates, and the officer had ignored the call and the house had been robbed? What if Gates was being held hostage by armed thugs in his house? He could be dead, or worse.
The whole thing got worse when Obama decided to offer his totally unnecessary and uninformed opinion on the matter:
Asked about the incident, Obama, who is friends with the professor and documentary filmmaker, told reporters at a Wednesday night press conference that he didn’t know all the facts. But he said, “the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”
Later, a press secretary tried to spin it to be a little less insulting:
“Cooler heads should have prevailed. That’s what the president denoted,” he said. “He was not calling the officer stupid. The situation got out of hand.”
No, I’m pretty sure that this comes perilously close to Obama simply calling the cop a racist without actually saying it in those words. As for Crowley being surprised that Gates would insult his mother, call him a racist, and say “You don’t know who you’re messing with”, he shouldn’t be. Gates is just one of that class of elitist, leftist oligarchs in our society who thinks that everyone should recognize him and accord him some kind of deference based on that.
The fact that Gates has a PhD in English Lit and a BA in History (neither is from Harvard, he just teaches there) is no guarantee that he has manners, or, ironically, class. It’s not even a guarantee that he has any common sense, wisdom, or sense of fucking perspective.
So, Officer Crowley, you go right on ahead telling people to shut the hell up, including the President of the United States. You acted correctly and Gates is being a whiny bitch whose shit suddenly got real.
Kyle tends to give good advice. Following my message to the White House conveying my displeasure regarding Obama’s support of Zelaya, Kyle suggested that I balance that out by letting the Honduran Embassy in DC know that I support their decision to remove Zelaya from power. So I sent the following message:
As an American, I want to let you know that not all Americans support President Obama in his attempts to return Manuel Zelaya to power. We know that Zelaya is a criminal, that he was trying to circumvent the Honduran Constitution, and that he is no friend of freedom or the rule of law.
I am angry that Obama supports Zelaya, but not surprised. I have sent a message to the White House expressing my disapproval. Hopefully my countrymen will do the same.
Hondurans, take comfort in knowing that not everyone is against you. Many of us support your decision to remove Zelaya. You are doing the right thing, and his removal is just. He should not be allowed to return. Ignore the rest of the world; they are fools who believe in dictators. Stand strong and do not give in.
I do not know if the sentiment will be appreciated, but I feel better for sending it. Balancing the negative with the positive — it’s good for me as well as for them.
I just sent this letter to the White House through their comment form at whitehouse.gov. I am thoroughly disgusted with the United States’ support of that socialist thug.
I am angry and disappointed that your administration supports Manuel Zelaya in returning to power in Honduras. It is clear that Zelaya violated Honduran law in his failure to enact properly passed legislation in Congress, and it is also clear that as a friend of Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro, he is an enemy of freedom and democracy. He sought a referendum that would have removed term limits in the Honduran Constitution, thus cementing his power as dictator of that nation. How can America support this? Further, why are we interfering in what was clearly a legal and proper removal of a criminal from government? They even managed it without anyone getting hurt. Zelaya tried to return, and they blocked his plane from landing. They could have simply shot it out of the sky, and would have been fully justified in doing so, yet they did not.
You say that we should be impartial regarding other nations’ form of government. I disagree. We can and must be vocal defenders of liberty, and we should take every opportunity to denounce socialism and leftist thuggery no matter where it is found.
Mr. Obama, we should not be attempting to return Zelaya to power. We should be supporting the just rule of law in Honduras, and congratulating them on their successful defense of democracy in removing Zelaya.
I feel a sense of despair in being just one voice in this nation. I debate the merit in even sending such comments. Kyle points out that positions are counted, and the government does tally such things. I presume this is true. I have to, otherwise I succumb to apathy and disinterest like so many of my countrymen.