High fashion and cosmetics can't hide the hypocracy of the adviceMrs Obama had for us, writes Fazila Farouk
When I first heard that America's first lady, Michelle Obama was coming to South Africa, I thought to myself, "There goes the news - column inches upon column inches are going to be wasted on the color of her lipstick." The fact that she's America's "fashion ambassador" already made the news in the run up to her visit.
Obama's transformation from understated and perfectly well groomed woman to glorified clotheshorse has been disappointing to observe. Nobody begrudges her the opportunity she's been given to transform her appearance, but in all fairness, she did take to the glamour rather more enthusiastically than one expected - openly relishing it and making fashion the hallmark of her role as America's first lady. One expected a little more substance from a woman of her standing.
The official reason given for Obama's visit to South Africa is that she's in the country to talk to our youth about leadership and that she's particularly interested in young women. This, I have gathered from media reports as well as questions that I personally had to field in a telephonic interview with a reporter from the Washington Post.
Well, that's the official reason for Obama's visit, but I'd hazard a guess that the unofficial reason may have more to do with America's domestic politics than it has to do with the country's international relations.
It is well known that 2012 is a presidential election year in America when Barack Obama will be running for re-election. The dynamic duo, Mr. and Mrs. Obama appear to have divvied up the globe in pursuit of the ethnic American vote.
Some weeks back, President Obama was in Ireland re-connecting with the Irish heritage on his late mother's side of the family so he could build support for the Irish-American vote back home. Just last week he was in Puerto Rico courting the Latino vote. His wife's visit to South Africa (and Botswana) seems a natural next step in their international campaign to bolster domestic support for his re-election next year, in this case, targeting the African-American vote.
The Obama's are very good at marketing themselves. President Obama's 2008 election campaign has even won a prestigious international advertising award for "best marketing campaign in history." When it comes down to the brass tacks of his re-election, the Obama's know what it will take to keep him in office.
This time the Obama's need to rally the support of the international community, as they've made such a mess of things back home. The so-called grassroots constituency that brought Obama to power is likely to stay away in droves next year, as the bold "change you can believe in" Barack Obama turned his back on them from his first day in office as America's president.
It all started with him appointing Wall Street insiders to his team. Then he went a step further by making good on Bush era prescriptions to bail out the banks that caused the 2008 financial crisis in the first place. His grassroots constituency was left out to dry.
While the Obama's moved into the most sought after address on the planet - the White House - thousands of African-Americans lost their homes as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis caused by the banks that President Obama has been so cautious not to confront. His electoral support base, of course, thanked him for his lack of gratitude by staying away in droves from America's 2010 midterm elections, which resulted in the Democrats losing the US Congress to the Republicans.
If Obama's grassroots constituency does vote for him again, "Brand Obama" won't be duping them so easily the second time round. This time they'll be voting for the lesser of two evils in the Democratic Party's battle against Republican rule. They're well aware of this fact too.
In September last year during a televised public meeting, Velma Hart, an African-American mother representing the bedrock of his middle class support base, openly challenged President Obama to his face. She said, "Quite frankly I'm exhausted. I'm exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now." His mealy mouthed response is not worth elaborating on, suffice to say that it was hopelessly inadequate.
So what message is Michelle Obama going to share with ordinary, middle class and poor South Africans after her husband's administration so clearly let down people of a similar class in America?
What exactly is her message to the youth of South Africa going to be? "Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps?" As someone who epitomizes the story of success built on sheer determination and hard work, it's clear she that she would be partial to individual Endeavour.
But the America that she grew up in is not the America of today. Nor does either America come close to the fledgling democracy that is South Africa today.
Any young working class woman in Soweto comes up against a wall of challenges that Obama in her entire early life would never have encountered.
So how then does a young person contribute to our society when the conditions are far from what can be described as 'enabling', not only because of the shortcomings of the South African government, but quite significantly, also due to the foreign policy decisions of the Obama administration?
What has Obama got to say to the HIV positive youth in the ghettos of South Africa whose lives and future livelihood depend on our country being able to make access to anti-retro viral drugs universally available?
What is her response to the fact that the PEPFAR fund, a multi million-dollar AIDS fund initiated by George W. Bush, had its funding reduced for the first time in its seven year history under the Obama administration last year? The consequences of this decision are so dire for combating the HIV/AIDS pandemic in South Africa that the Treatment Action Campaign went as far as writing a letter to President Obama condemning it.
The saga continues today still. Just last week at the opening of the 18th International Aids Conference in Vienna, which drew participants from around the world, high-level aids activists were reportedly "raging at the Obama administration, while pining for the Bush administration."
President Bush was a much better friend to the HIV infected youth of South Africa than the Obama's can ever claim to be.
And what about the masses of unemployed youth in South Africa? The most crippling crisis facing the youth of South Africa today is the challenge of unemployment. What exactly is the Obama administration doing to ensure their access to productive, secure and decent work?
Well, in this regard, the Obama administration has once again failed the youth of South Africa (and the rest of developing world too).
The Obama administration can take credit for taking "the development" out of the "development round" of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), commonly referred to as the Doha round of talks.
America, in particular, has been singled out for making unreasonable demands on emerging economies, which includes South Africa, to open up their markets to US products. To simplify a somewhat complex set of negotiations where the US is demanding tariff reductions from the developing world, which would allow American goods to flood these countries' markets -- what this boils down to in the end, is that job creating sectors in South Africa are under threat from cheap and not infrequently subsidized American goods.
Of concern is the hypocrisy of the image presented by the first lady of America.
While Michelle Obama has busied herself establishing an organic vegetable patch in the gardens of the White House, promoting home-based food production, the food crisis has ravaged many developing countries that have lost their ability to grow their own food, as imports have flooded in under current international trade rules. Subsidized American agribusiness with a propensity for flogging genetically modified products onto unsuspecting developing nations is one of the main culprits distorting agricultural trade between first and third world countries.
One of the defining features of our interconnected global economy is that decisions taken in New York and London reach deep into the lives, dreams and aspirations of ordinary folk in townships like Soweto. What's new since the financial crisis of 2008 is that young people in the developing world who have always been exploited and abused by the overlords of the global economy are now being joined by an army of youth in Europe from countries such as Greece and Spain where unemployment has crept up to unprecedented levels, resulting in street protests and riots - not unlike our very own service delivery protests.
However, unlike South Africa, the youth of Spain and Greece come from middle class families. They're educated and have skills, but are unable to find jobs - and the reason they can't find jobs is through no fault of their own. The problem is the growing financialization of the global economy that has undermined investments in job-creating sectors.
Together with his benefactors, President Obama, whose campaign was generously funded by Wall Street's Goldman Sachs, has played an important role strengthening the financialization of the global economy. Thus, what is sometimes referred to as "Casino Capitalism" has become the basis of the global economy.
This is what led to the financial crisis, the subsequent economic meltdown and a global decrease in jobs. Some 30 million jobs have been lost worldwide since the 2008 crisis (according to a co-authored International Labor Organization report released in the latter half of 2010).
The jobs will continue to bleed until we address the fundamental issues that drive this unjust situation. The youth of the world, including our own in South Africa, will continue to face an uncertain future until the world is put on a different trajectory that respects the right of every human being to a decent life that offers a secure and decent livelihood. The struggle for employment does not have to result in a scramble for dirty, dangerous and demeaning work - the three D's commonly associated with the work poor people are most easily able to secure, and which is largely the outcome of liberalization policies promoted by the Obama administration.
In light of the above, it does seem somewhat fraudulent for America's first lady to be prancing around the world telling young people to get involved in actively contributing to their societies. What pearls of wisdom is she carrying around in her purse to share with the downtrodden youth of South Africa and the world, while the policies of her husband's administration ensure that these young people remain trapped in a life of destitution and servitude?
From
What Pearls of Wisdom Does Michelle Obama Have to Share With Youth?
By
Fazila Farouk
Executive director of the South African Civil Society Information Service.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
podunkmarte
TheBadScot
Frank Apisa
ordinaryjoe
Jan Sand
Drewonimo
Salon.com
Comments
The following I wrote about Obama a day after his victory speech -- Crashing Hopes: Obama’s Achiles Heel . It now appears as if his The Audacity of Hope, had become his Achilles heal, his financial policy having been one that could only have worked if all went right, but instead, all appears to have gone wrong. Indeed, as someone once said, hope is not a plan.
Lady O is on the case, though.
"...exerting her influence over nutrition policy.
Her team has worked with beverage makers to design soda cans with calorie counts and is deeply involved in a major remake of the government’s most recognizable tool for delivering its healthy-eating message: the food pyramid" (NYTimes)
It's funny that we also worry about our poor little tykes getting bullied.
Funny ironic, I mean. As your article shows, Uncle Sam
ought to be brought before the Principal
and given a severe warning:
zero tolerance for bullying.
I got zero tolerance for politics.
Thanks for the perspective.
Go plant a f----ing garden and shut up.ha
After reading Fazila's comments...and your first comment addition...I am confused as to your goal in putting it here.
In any case, here in America we have enough so-called liberals trashing Obama...and we have more than our fair share of conservatives trashing him also. We don't really need any help in trashing him from anyone else. And frankly, I do not see it as an "alternative perspective."
My perspective is that Obama is getting as much as he can out of the cards he's been dealt. And he has been dealt a really lousy hand.
But the liberals want much more...the conservatives want much less...and just about everyone seems to be bitching.
My guess is he will be a one-term president...and that the Republican who replaces him will continue the American conservative agenda to make our country into a fifth world country as quickly as possible.
Just imagine...an economic midget with a huge arsenal of hydrogen bombs. We are gonna be a beauty to live with!!!!
The more things change, the more they say the same.
This guy has NEVER been able to deal with realities, nor respond to FACTS with anything other than ill-thought out criticisms of the messengers, while ignoring the message.
There are some cogent FACTS in this article. They concern HIV and economic policies of the administration. Did you miss them, or is it, simply, the case, that the same broken record has nothing, but empty-headed sloganeering to offer?
I'll repeat the comments I made to Your monomaniacal rant of yesterday:
"When obama entered office, it is generally agreed that we were engaged in two wars. Now, it seems we are engaged in six (depending on how one parses covert ops).
There has never been a clearly defined exit strategy for these new obama initiated wars.
The promise to close Guantanamo has gone by the wayside and Bagram now, serves a far greater purpose than ever before.
The obama cabinet is stocked with corporatists, heavily skewed with ex-Goldman Sachs lackeys.
Economists on both sides of the spectrum admit that the administrations economic policies lack coherence.
So, we have here a situation where neither his foreign policy, nor his economic policy seems to be well-thought out.
The latest polls, taken Friday seem to indicate that the bulk of the american people are becoming aware of this.
"Friday, June 24, 2011
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -16."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Nevertheless, one person, deigns to assume the position that he, and he, alone is capable of discerning the big picture, despite all evidence to the contrary.
After two and one half years, this arrogant pig-headed attitude has become more and more and stale with each passing day."
Do you have anything substantive to say about issues raised, or only continual vapid and vacuous rambling?
It's taken some time for me to discern what the "P"in your opening bio statement means: "On a political continuum with Extreme Liberal at 1 and Extreme Conservative at 10, I can be found at position “P.”
My best guesses are pernicious, psychotic, or putrescent.
How are you Newton? How have you been? I dohope you and your family and children are all doing fine and you would continue to write here once in a while.
Love and hugs.
I kinda felt that you didn't write it,
but I am very grateful you shared it.
It gave me a much needed political wake up call.
I have been under the thrall
of having a president whom
i actually respect for once
in my adult life.
I let him get away with too much.
I will be watching him more closely now.
Saw a picture of his lovely wife
smartly dressed
kneeling in someone's garden.
And Jimbo, congrats on your 44th (if my memory serves correctly).
That leads to the similarities. Genuine discussion has this certain quality to it that this lacks. This is as though it comes from the same person wearing different masks, all of which are made in the same small factory. It is the same pitch, at the same velocity. It has a remarkable consistency. If you ask 1000 people about a president, you will get nearly 900 reasonable responses. Favor and disfavor will likely be fairly evenly split when the chief exec is current. Maybe one tenth of those responses will take an unreasonable stance which entirely deny the political requirement of the politician. Those few will spit out the term "politician" as if some form of invective. This is sort of like criticizing ducks for hanging near ponds. Then some small percentage of those will criticize a politicians spouse as a means of demonstrating disfavor for the politician. This takes unreason to a level of cynicism which goes from serving nothing to complete absurdity for the attention of just drawing attention to itself.
And therein lies the chief similarity. This has all been done before. The names change. The identities change. The places on the planet change. They all seek unimpeachable identities with respect to their special story/complaint. They all have the same complaint though. It is imaginative, but it smells like fiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ldg1Dm1gGw&feature=related
Here's what I wrote on the 6 November 2008, two days after his election, and that's why I am of the view (and always had been) that his marketing had been his Achilles heel.
_____________________________________________
On the 4th of November 2008, Americans in unprecedented numbers elected Barrack Obama as the 44th American President. What is abundantly apparent is that this is a watershed moment in world history. Not only because Obama is the first African American President, a very significant occurrence considering America’s racist past, but that it truly is representative of a new world order that celebrates the notion of the full brotherhood of all humankind.
What is apparent is that Obama drew support from all Americans across previous race, religious, regional, but also political, divides. As such Americans have truly risen above the petty limitations of their past, and to truly embrace a path of change, not only for America alone, but the world at large.
More than anyone else, Obama’s message is one of hope for the future. Though it is ironic that in his first public speech, a reflective Obama also made it clear that incredibly challenging times are yet to lie ahead in having to repair the bitter devastation of Bush’s excesses. In particular, to resolve the War in Iraq, the financial crisis, and America’s tattered international image.
As in The Pathology of Hope, Obama’s words emphasizing the importance that hope is not a hollow empty wish, but that one build’s an inner resolve to face the direness of one’s circumstance squarely, with clear conscious intent, and yet with an unwavering resolve that what we have consciously set out to achieve, will become so.
As the title of his memoir, The Audacity of Hope, suggests, that hope is about having a positive vision for an idealized better future notwithstanding the gravity of any circumstance—too dare to hope often in the face of utter despair. Though not merely to have hope for hope’s sake, that the world will somehow magically conform to our idle wishes and desires as The Secret in particular suggests.
Interestingly the biggest challenge Obama now faces in having been elected with such expectation and hope, is that many Americans also now believe he will magically fix the severity of their current predicament. That is in merely having elected him. But soon, I’m certain, the sober reality of the challenges ahead will set in, and the gravity of the objective circumstances will again become crushingly apparent—this may very well lead to bitter disillusionment and disappointment in the human limitations of a single, albeit very competent, individual.
Despite the unrealistic wish that one man will save Americans from the consequences of their self inflicted calamity, what is abundantly apparent is that a new more humble, more responsible, America, and with it, the prospect for a truly positive new world order for all humanity, is already in the making.
Furthermore, did you view the link that I provided concerning Velma Hart? Your characterization is proved false by the video. I'd like to say that in softer terms, but that would be gilding the lily. You quoted her, then said, "mealy mouthed" referring to something that she found appropriate.
Your disagreement is with him, and you attacked his wife. Your disagreement is with him, and you spun a quote by someone who explicitly stated that she does not agree with her quote being spun, and explicitly stated that she will vote for him again. You mischaracterized it in a way that made your assertion false.
And "Newton", thank you for the eloquence comment. But eloquence cannot be used in such a way as to convey nothing, as you stated. The definition of eloquence includes persuasion. You have contradicted yourself. And I will repeat myself so as to be perfectly clear. Velma Hart's actual statement, and the statement about her statement, contradict you too.
"he's made some terrible mistakes, and particularly with the economy, though he's doing the best he can given the circumstances he inherited.
Here's what I wrote on the 6 November 2008, two days after his election, and that's why I am of the view (and always had been) that his marketing had been his Achilles heel. "
On the one hand, you say that he has made terrible mistakes with regard to the economy. I'd love to engage you on this one. I think you are about as wrong as one can be about that. You dont list any specifics to your charge though. Without specifics it cant really be debated. It is groundless. I'll give you a gift here. I will state unequivocally that he has not made mistakes regarding the economy. Far from making "terrible mistakes." The economy is in far better shape now than it would have been without this administration's actions. That will narrow your focus. Debate me there. I promise to use facts, and not baseless assertions.
Furthermore, with regard to your quote at the top, you said that "his marketing has been his achilles heel." What does that have to do with economic policy? That assertion seems scattershot when it is linked to the criticism of economics.
Politics is the art of the possible. The position is gained by means of political action. Within the office, they apply policy. Policy that is done in a manner which is too heavily ideological makes politics impossible. When politics is done too heavily, good policy is not possible. Criticizing a politician for using politics is an absurd criticism. We dont always agree with what has to be done to form a political constituency. I certainly dont. But I am not in denial that it needs to be done. It does need to be done. I watched Jimmy Carter whip Ronald Reagan in the League of Women Voters debate in Cleveland in 1980. Carter crushed him. Reagan was made famous by means of a silly line which was all style and no substance. If President Obama is right on all the points, and expects Americans to come along as though they are motivated by reason, he will be a one term President. Politics is the art of the possible. Name for me all of the legislative initiatives that President Ralph Nader managed to accomplish. I'll wait.
And no I will not engage you on the economy as I can see it will take up too much of my time, and from what I can glean from on your response, quibble about semantics. You’re certainly more than welcome to read my manuscript in which I in part did an analysis of the economy before August 2008.
I however will say this, Obama took a gamble on the economy which may well have paid off (bar extraneous events such as earthquakes, fuel hikes, and sovereign debt crises), and it temporarily did relieve some of the pain and avoided an all out collapse of the American economic system at the time which the world surely was not prepared for, but as a consequence greatly aggravated America’s debt burden, nor did it alleviate the housing or employment problem.
As I argue in my book, the real problem is not with Obama per se, but the American mentality in general (at least as it appears to me from afar), and their apparent avoidance of the real issues at play, and the unwillingness to feel the pain of truly fixing the systemic problems within the country.
I’ve posted an extract discussing this.
You make a specious claim, namely that the President made mistakes regarding the economy. Then you refuse to state specifically what you mean by that, and dodge the request for clarity.
You say you wont engage and you take another swipe, well several swipes, saying that he took a gamble that may pay off barring some unforeseen disaster. Still no specifics. And you claim I "quibble over semantics." Dude, I am not quibbling and these are not semantics.
First, the Trouble Assets Relief Program was initiated by the Bush admin. It was continued by the Obama admin. It was not a risk. It was a stabilizing tactic. Next, the Obama admin initiated a moderate stimulus. Also not a risk. I can see why you wont discuss these things or provide specifics to accompany your claims. They are baseless. Regrettably, you also attack the man's wife. That is just inappropriate. It does not take "Obama worship" to see that. Take care.
"America at the moment is too bankrupt to help us solve our aids crisis anyway—that is given that the debt ceiling is to be reached in a matter of weeks, and that South Africa is doing far better in this regard. I merely posted it for discussion."
The Obama administration's actions had no bearing on the debt ceiling being reached. This statement demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what the debt ceiling is. The debt ceiling is merely a procedural action by our government regarding money already spent. It has zero to do with the cost of legislative initiatives. Anything the Obama admin did or did not do did not cause the debt ceiling to be reached sooner or later. You are talking completely out of your hat there. This is a misperception which is spread by the GOP, and through the press, but it is absolutely false as it applies to the cost of the legislation. This comment further outed your specious claim.
Firstly because you clearly are emotive on the Obama’s, and secondly, because you are accusatory, claiming that I do not like Obama or his wife, hence my views. Once again, it is not my article and you will see from my first comment, I posted it as I found the views interesting, particularly from someone who appears to have leftwing leanings.
You’re assuming that because I am criticizing Obama, I therefore generally do not like him. That to me is very narrow minded and irrational, and clearly shows that you do not have perspective on this matter, and that in your mind Obama can do no wrong.
As far as whether Obama took a gamble? Yes he did in my opinion. Did he have any alternative? Perhaps not, all other fiscal and monetary tools were recklessly abused by his predecessor? What did he hope to achieve? Stimulate the economy using whichever mechanism he still had left in order to bring liquidity back into the market? Did it work? Initially yes, but many other factors came to play, such as the Greek sovereign debt crisis, the Tsunami in Japan, the war in Lybia, natural disasters in the US and elsewhere, which significantly curtailed the growth outlook.
For this reason I say his gamble. And yes, his policy in all likelihood would have been adopted by the Republicans as they certainly would’ve been eager to bail out bankers and big business before truly addressing the needs of lower and middle America.
And yes, all of the above led to the current crisis with regards to the debt ceiling, and it certainly is the biggest issue Americans have to contend with at this time as it literally can bring the tenuous house of cards tumbling down.
As far as my actual views on Obama, here’s an extract from my manuscript (it’s a recent footnote as the book was written in 2007/2008):
_______________________
The important consideration here is that the Obama administration had sought to address the financial crisis through financial means, and also by working through global channels in this regard. Unfortunately, because of the extent of the crisis, this has had limited effect, albeit that many of the measures such as quantitative easing (basically the excessive printing of money to devalue the currency) will have negative long-term inflationary consequences, and has already sparked a global currency war (incidentally which China started years ago). Regarding quantitative easing (referred to as QE1 and 2), however, Obama had no other choice given his inherited position, and that all his other tools – such as interest rates and the deficit – had been overspent by his predecessor.
Another factor of alarm is that Standard & Poor’s (a rating agency monitoring the ability of state and other entities to pay their debt) have also warned that America is likely to default by 2012 on paying its debts; that is unless they act decisively to formulate a plan to do so. Given current bipartisanship and the bitter infighting to approve a mere less than one percent cut in the deficit (and this almost resulting in the US government shutting down), that tax increases for the wealthy are being fought against, as well as many other obstacles not least of which being the upcoming election, it clearly does not appear an easy road ahead in this regard or that anything will be done in this regard until after the elections.
However, given his international standing, and that he has been more successful in negotiating with the Chinese and other stakeholders than his predecessors, would Obama be the best candidate to eventually steer the country out of the crisis. That is, given the time a second term would afford him to get it all right as the world is not even close to getting the economic system back to health. On the other hand possible future right wing incumbents may well choose to solve the problem by other more coercive or generally less diplomatic means.
The problem with the current status quo is that this slow pace of what essentially is jobless recovery has reversed much of the support that he had had, and that it is looking increasingly likely that he would not serve a second term in office. The problem with this scenario is that the political status quo is increasingly becoming desperate, to the extent that it is opening the door for wayward radicals. An example is the emergence of Donald Trump (a self-styled radical, but more than likely a mere opportunist) as a possible Tea Party candidate—ironically while some of his companies are floundering—indicating that paranoid politics do tend to flourish during such times of uncertainty.
…
Times of great turmoil, as the current economic crisis, is therefore the fertile ground in which radicals like Hitler are able to exploit those with vulnerable religious points of view, and the greater fuel is the mentality that these forms of mindless ideologies create. Sarah Palin, other than her appeal amongst the right, and other than her radical point of view, clearly has no real apparent competence to run a country, but might very well become the next American president.
…
Finally note that I’m not a US citizen, and am merely attempting to view the situation objectively. I’m also of the opinion that the Liberal/Conservative dialectic (as is the case in the United Kingdom) is crucial for democracy and societal health as a whole, which can respectively be viewed as society’s metaphorical accelerator/breaks of sorts. The American dialectic, unfortunately, appears to be more about protecting vested economic interest versus societal interest as a whole.
None of it had anything to do with the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling was set by a previous congress. The debt ceiling will always be reached unless and until the government starts raising revenue faster than it spends. The nature of the spending does not determine whether or when the debt ceiling will be reached. The debt ceiling being reached is a certainty. When this one is raised, it will be reached also. The reason is that the government will only agree to spend so much at any given point in time. The debt ceiling is 100% about money already spent. It has nothing to do with future spending.
"Another factor of alarm is that Standard & Poor’s (a rating agency monitoring the ability of state and other entities to pay their debt) have also warned that America is likely to default by 2012 on paying its debts; that is unless they act decisively to formulate a plan to do so."
This quote above from you mention S&P. This "defaulting" refers to the House of Representatives threatening to not raise the debt limit. This is how the bills are paid. The bill exist because of previous spending, not current or future legislation. This is a tactic employed by the GOP which conflates past with future spending. This tactic is not about the inability to pay, but rather the unwillingness to pay due to political ideology.
Your understanding of the debt ceiling is wrong. Your understanding of the S&P warning is wrong. And none of it has remotely anything to do with Michelle Obama's appearance. You made wildly inaccurate statements, and you dont want to be held accountable for them. Be clear, you did assail Mrs. Obama for fashion. To say that that relates to economics in the way that you try here is absurd.
As far as Michelle Obama's fashion, I thought that reference was ridiculous as well, that's her prerogative, but that's what the caption in the paper read and I placed it in verbatim. In fact I cannot fault her in the least.
now that we got the important stuff out of the way...
this post raises several interesting ideas. i am not in complete agreement with all of them, because even in the case of W., whom i loathe, i cannot completely blame the whole financial crisis on him. that's what many on the left do here in America. despite my progressive leanings, i prefer to analyze a situation and not just blindly adhere to group thought. i refuse to blame W. for everything now wrong with the world. Obama or Clinton, either, though i think they all play a part in it. however, decades led to now.
(interestingly enough, W. 's cabinet proved to be the most versatile of any President. i never really thought of him as a racist because i believe he is super close to Rice and has many friends of various backgrounds. all of them have a hell of a lot of money, which makes them racially integrated classists.)
anyway, i voted for Obama, even though his campaign drove me bonkers---dear God, those music videos made me long for Kenny G., something i never thought possible. my vote had nothing to do with party allegiance, either, as i hold no party membership. also, i believe it takes more than four years to develop significant change in a country with all the loopholes and paperwork people stupidly require. and finally, i am not a fan of revolutions, as they basically just revolve right back to another asshole.
Sarah Palin provides me with a good excuse, I suppose; the thought of her dressed in a red airline stewardess ballgown, rolling up to the inauguration on a four-wheeler, is enough to make anyone vote the opposite way.
i need to think more about your post and how i feel about what one person can do for a world in four years--- not do to, but for. i will say that i find myself both defending and slamming Obama, but at this point, i think he will be reelected.
thanks for the thought-provoking post.
And yes, Obama needs more time to get things right, and I think it will be the worst possible thing for the US at this time if a more right leaning candidate such as Bachmann assumes power. The reason is twofold, usually a major focus of first term incumbents is re-election, so they usually do not address real economic issues as this more often than not would mean making unpopular decisions (in America's case tax hikes and cutbacks are needed as they currently are the worst debtor nation in history), Obama opted for stimulus while the orthodox approach would argue fro cutbacks when one is as indebted as the US is. But more importantly, the Republicans may have a more insular nationalistic approach to dealing with the issues around the economy which would be a disaster given the geopolitical sea-change that happened over the past decade or so.
Anyways, in short, as you indicated, despite some shortcomings, the world will be far worse off without Obama, but alas, the knee-jerk mentality on both sides may yet be his undoing.
Interestingly, the choice for Obama was austerity or stimulus. What is ironic about this is that the stimulus choice left the greater world far better off than it otherwise would have been in that it avoided an all out depression, but with America being the ultimate victim being loaded with what can only be seen as a near insurmountable burden of debt. The consequences, unfortunately, is the Pathology of Hope.