printObama’s prose is flowery and facile. But I am told that this is what appeals to a vast number of Americans. “Healing,” having “national conversations,” hoping and dreaming, reaching for the sky and for the best of America: such meaningless meandering turns this writer’s stomach—at least as much as George Bush’s word salads did.
(By the way, Obama’s remarks in Tucson I read thanks to the New York Times’ civilized habit of providing transcripts. Not even the White House website offers text. So much for encouraging literacy. News sites are becoming a nightmare for those of us who still value the written word over the darting image. “Watch the President’s address” is what you get at Fox News’ website, where print is fast being phased out.)
In any event, the president went light on his base. He did not specifically berate the “blood libel” (a good and appropriate usage by Sarah Palin) perpetrated by the Left against the Right after the Tucson tragedy. I will, however, give him a Brownie point for citing my favorite book among the 39 Books of the Hebrew Bible: Job.
As I wrote in “Job: Jewish Individualist”: “The book of Job is still the quintessential theodicy, precisely because it entertains and reconciles the possibility of a fallible God. Then again, Jews have a tradition of arguing with God. Jacob wrestled physically with the angel of God. And Abraham haggled for the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah because he disapproved of the verdict God pronounced upon them. Job, in a manner, also argued with God and prevailed, a very unorthodox concept, considering the times.”
Obama invoked the righteous Job thus: “Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, ‘when I looked for light, then came darkness.’ Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.”
Palin pointed out that “acts like the shootings in Arizona begin and end with the criminals who commit them.” Unlike Palin, however, whose address earlier today rightly and precisely located the source of evil in the individual perpetrator, Obama here refuses to leave it at that, for this is a man who believes in the role of an interventionist central authority to shape society in politically pleasing ways. If you do not believe in free will, and fail to recognize evil in individuals—then you will be more likely to see a role for the State in the transformation of individuals before the fact:
OBAMA: “We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.”
Look out.
Last night, the showboater-in-chief managed to turn what should have been a respectful event in memory of innocent dead into a campaign event. His smirking, grinning demeanor was as shocking as it was in appropropriate.
His speech was filled with platitudes–but many carried a dangerous edge. We do not need to have a “national conversation about gun safety.” We do not need to act with more “civility.” The entire narrative being constructed by the usual suspects is blatantly false.
The problem is not a lack of civility. It is that the Socialists are attempting to impose their agenda on the people who want to be left alone–and the people are objecting.
It’s that simple.
Is there a ‘copyright stamp’ on your copy of his speech? His speeches are always a beautifully well written and preformed exercise. I envy the writer’s skill, now that he has apparently learned to stay on the mark and not ad-lib,we can expect to see many more of the same. The future is not anymore the brighter for it either.
Job is one of my favorite books too…but B.O. citing it disgusts me: it’s analogous to Mussolini quoting “Thou shalt not kill”.
OBAMA: “We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.” – Yeah, challenge the old assumption that governments can loot and murder without consequences. He would do well to read another book of the Scripture: read about Rehoboam…when the people asked him to lighten their burdens a little, he threatened to increase them greatly: the result was the nation splitting into two, and decades of war thereafter.
Look out indeed.
“We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy.”
Having come to terms with pleasure and vice, the censorious spirit of American Puritanism turns to the scientific method to fight ‘evil’. Through no clairvoyant power I predict science will find the devil in ‘hate’ speech.
Prior to “national conversations”, FDR held “fireside chats”. Nothing like der Furher telling the people how “WE” should feel.
I agree with you about the Times providing actual source material. Too much news reporting is shoddy snippets based upon shoddy snippets involving editing whose main functionality is to invert or pervert the intent of the speaker. Much of what passes for “reporting” consists of prejudiced hack-pieces.
I’m no fan of his, but I thought he did very well in his speech.
God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is not fallible; God reproached Job for challenging Him and reminded him of His might. He gave Job relief because Job nevertheless passed the test and He had no wish to make him suffer. If God lightens a person’s punishment, it’s because the person changes, not God. He knew from the beginning all of our actions.
Obama’s socialist assumptions, however, are troubling. Evil is often beyond our understanding, but the fact that the wicked operate out of free will and their own choice should not be.
Today, any time I see a president speaking on television I turn the channel as though I am watching pornography (well, maybe I don’t always turn quite as fast with pornography unless there are children in the room).
Doesn’t even matter what he is saying I know he is completely full of …. and not worth listening to.
It’s hard to figure when this actually started for me but I know it was nearing full bloom sometime during the Clinton years and then it became completely ripe during Bush II, long about the “they hate us because of our freedoms” speech.
Why it didn’t happen sooner with LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, I don’t know but I can now see it was developing subconsciously all the time.
(What a cast of characters of presidents in my lifetime – starting with Harry S. Truman when I was born).