White house correspondents dinner - A critical analysis

May 2, 2016

There have been hundreds of articles about the recent 2016 event, in a way Barack Obama's initial farewell speech to the world. The articles about his words and those of his selected comedian Larry Willmore, were evaluated on the laughs and that most important element for media success, edginess.  Before embarking on this essay, I did a search for other "critical theoretical" evaluations of this event. There was this one by Frank Rich of the N.Y. Times of the 2007 dinner, mostly focusing on how it breached the distance required between Press and Government needed to do incisive probing reporting.   And this broader criticism from The Christian Science Monitor of the same year.

This is a difficult essay to write, as we all are awash in a sea of entertainment. Since the panorama of emergent events is so complex, so multi-determinant, so out of the control of individuals -- we may as well turn the march of events into laughter, and show that we are all good sports who can enjoy a joke.  Mass movements are the products less of individuals reaching their own conclusions than of contagion.  This is the nature of panicked crowds being suffocated or lynch mobs doing their deeds with boisterous abandon.  It is why political pundits talk about a campaigns momentum, people wanting to be part of a crowd, even when it's invisible.

Obama's legacy should not be that "he killed" metaphorically with his jokes, since part of the responsibilities of the Commander-in-Chief, is real killing.  Larry Willmore, alluded to this:

"But I have to say, it’s great, it looks like you’re really enjoying your last year of the presidency.Saw you hanging out with NBA players like Steph Curry, Golden State Warriors. That was cool. That was cool, yeah. You know it kinda makes sense, too, because both of you like raining down bombs on people from long distances, right? What? Am I wrong?" 

The President smiled, displaying a hint of an impulse to respond, but the image that remained was the broad smile.  He was trapped in the spirit of the evening; this man who has been given the awesome authority to reign down death, something he sees as a responsibility in the face of a lethal enemy. He could not break the mood of the elite having a grand old time, and nothing like considering the reality of the business end of this sanitized method of killing was going to be allowed to break the mood. 

A friend I was discussing this with pointed out that there is a more outrageous example of the excesses of this annual event.  This one was President George W. Bush being the main character in a mordant parody of perhaps the worse "error" of judgement in recent history, the claim of certainty of existence of WMD in Iraq.

It was a 30 second video riff shown in his 2004 speech pretending he is searching the oval office, saying for each area he looked, "no it's not under here" as the audience laughed hysterically.  This video intersperses his mock search with  brief segments of the atrocities that we committed in Abu Ghraib, shown here to illustrate how easily his "comic" routine would be used to foment hatred against this country, generalization to be against the entire non-Muslim world. We all are still paying dearly for this riff  that spread around the world

A President of the United States may be blessed with a natural sense of humor, but never should be put into a position where comedic sensibilities override the awesome responsibility of the office.  If a President is to play to an audience, it is to the people of the United States as the leader of this country and the entire world.

What did get some serious press wasn't Obama's smile at being reminded of his use of lethal drones, but these final words of Larry Willmore:

Thank you for being a good sport, Mr. President, but all jokes aside, let me just say how much it means for me to be here tonight. I’ve always joked that I voted for the president because he’s black. And people say, “Well, do you agree with his policies?” And I always said, “I agree with the policy that he’s black.” I said, “As long as he keeps being black, I’m good.” They’d say, “What about Iraq?” “Is he still black?” But behind that joke is a humble appreciation for the historical implications for what your presidency means.

When I was a kid, I lived in a country where people couldn’t accept a black quarterback. Now think about that. A black man was thought by his mere color not good enough to lead a football team — and now, to live in your time, Mr. President, when a black man can lead the entire free world. Words alone do me no justice. So, Mr. President, if i’m going to keep it 100:

Yo, Barry, you did it, my nigga,  You did it.

This video describes a question to the Presidential press secretary about Wilmore's use of this word, and how the President felt about it, which was fine.  It's telling that the subject of making a joke of his use of lethal drones didn't raise an eyebrow, just as Bush's riff on the non-existent WMD that triggered violent death and destruction with no end in sight. .  What got the country's attention was, as described in the press, "the use of the N-word" (see addendum)  Mass slaughter of innocents is no big deal if it's presented in good fun, but use of an epithet for a race is a genuine sin, complete with proscription against reproducing the actual word, just as Muslims feel about a depiction of their prophet.  

The word is so satanic that it overshadowed what Willmore was really expressing, which was a very personal statement, that I understand as this:  "When we were children, being black meant we couldn't even head a football team, and you have demolished all of this.  Those days the echo of "nigger" was heard by the mob of hooded bigots about to slaughter one of us.  Now a hateful word for us is forbidden, yet I say it boldly in the new meaning that you have made possible, as a sign of  great affection and appreciation for what you have done for our people.  And for me, this transcends anything else.  So I express  it in a way that has a different meaning, ......."My nigger, my friend, you did it."


Other elements, such as Obama's ridicule of "The Donald" went unquestioned, as if it were the same as his previous taunts at earlier dinners of this man challenging his natural born citizenship.  His cartoon image of him flashing on the big screen ignored that he is now the presumptive candidate for one of our two parties that define our national democracy.  While the elite crowd in attendance of both parties generally revile him, to ignore that an overwhelming majority of primary voters, and potentially a majority of citizens may want him to be president, at the very least, makes his being fodder for juvenile jokes less than appropriate.  Obama is still the President, and as such must defend the process, which includes anyone running to gain the presidency by the will of the people.

Before recording of the White House were ended after Watergate, we can sometimes listen to a President with his pals talking freely, joking about them cheap Jews and dumb colored people and bombing the shit out of the bad guys -- all over a glass or two of whisky.  It was a release from every word that they said being evaluated by interests all over the world, with one wrong phrase costing political capital, and maybe a career.

At a certain level of prominence, there are things that are only to be said in private, since anything that is said by a President becomes public news all over the word in minutes.  When the talent to entertain prevails over actual governance, and the somberness of the office, we trivialize such decisions.  Yet they affect real people, men women and children whose existence will be shaped by this person who is now being an entertainer, who is in the limelight, ironically, because of this authority and the trust that the electorate bestows upon him, whether deserved or not. 

We revere Abraham Lincoln because we believe he agonized over the decisions that he made.  When the decision was thrust upon him of war or dissolution of the States, he chose a brutal war based on a vision of a better future, bringing widespread suffering that is beyond our imagination.  How different would his place in history be if he had a dinner, a celebrity roast, to attend rather than a play at Fords Theater.  Would he have laughed at the owners of the Plantations running for their lives, or the liberated slaves who never were going to get their promised forty acres and a mule.  Would that have gotten laughs and garnered praise for his being edgy?  As the writers of our Constitution knew, A President in many ways, as both head of government and head of state, has some elements of a monarch for his term of office.  When even for a single night once a year, the respect for the office is subordinated to garnering laughs, something vital is jeopardized.

It's just not worth it.
-------------------------
Addendum:
 Here's Larry Willmore's talking about this last line on his T.V. Program.  He sort of conveyed the sentiment that I concluded above, but since he did not bleep the N word, as every other video had, he pointed out that the word he used was not nigger, which is an insult, but nigga, which is a different "conjugation." and a sign of affection.  If interesting in this subject in more depth, read this essay,

------------------------
Additions After Donald Trump took office,  From N.Y.Times article

In 2011, Mr. Trump, then a civilian and a guest at the dinner, sat stone-faced as he was mocked relentlessly by President Obama and Seth Meyers for having promoted the false theory that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States.

Mr. Obama said of Mr. Trump at the time: “Now he can get to focusing on the issues that matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?”

Mr. Trump lashed out the next morning, in an interview with The Times, saying Mr. Meyers had “no talent” and acknowledging his discomfort — “I am not looking to laugh along with my enemies” — while also speaking at length about possibly running for the presidency.

         




     

Fuel for conspiritory Jew haters in Merrik Garland as Justice

This was a letter sent to two eminent historians 

I'm in the middle of reading "The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives and Antisemitism" and appreciate your telling a story of events in the rare mode of historiography, since consciousness -- from elites to the masses ---is focused on the present, the current elections, values and social stresses that underlie them.  In the Western world, and this country in particular, antisemitism seems an artifact of past times, and the mere raising of the subject outside of academic circles is suspect.  

This is expressed in this article in N.Y. Jewish Week,

“It is a remarkable testament to America that a fourth Jew can be nominated to the court and that his religion is not an impediment,” said Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee.

If confirmed, Garland would fill the seat held by Antonin Scalia, who died last month.

Stern said he believes it unlikely that Garland’s religion will “generate substantial opposition from those who would say there are too many Jews on the court. Nobody is threatening violence against the Jews, as happened in Europe when they thought the Jews were too powerful. … It’s unprecedented in the long history of the diaspora that you have an institution as powerful as the Supreme Court and that there could be four members who are Jewish when Jews constitute less than 2 percent of the population.”

This articles is saying, "We have arrived, and this disproportionate representation on the high court is cause for celebration.

Let's jump forward an unknown period, and assume that there has been a series of Supreme Court decisions that, from the conservative perspective, has fostered the murder of millions of unborn babies and impeded the teaching of Gods holy message.  And, it can be pointed out that these cultural changes have been made by a cabal of five un-elected Justices, of whom 80% are, ethnically at the least, of the Jewish religion.

Those, such as the writer of the above article, choose not to visualize that Jew hatred, something that has existed in various forms for millennia, could surface again.  There are hundreds of jurists with credentials comparable to Merrick Garland who could be nominated for this position with similar juresprudential and partisan values.  Many with a Protestant background, a majority of American citizens with not a single Justice on the Supreme Court, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in the Obergefell decision 

While I do not believe that President Obama gave this much thought, and just worked the political calculus of this nomination, it behooves others to look at the possible adverse consequences.  When someone attempts to discern the reality of "Judeo-Bolshevism" whether it be more accurately a canard or a phenomenon, the first pass is the proportion of Jews in the revolutionary leadership.  For those who want to revive Jew hatred, they need go no further.   That revolution evolved from complex evolving historical causes, while the Supreme Court is structured, lending itself to citing of anomalies of religious-ethnic representation and influence.

I am sending this to two scholars who have explored this area in great depth. I see this as a time-bomb, that while unlikely ever to explode, there being no valid reason for it to ever exist.  While it is unlikely that Mr. Garland will be confirmed by the Senate,  it would be preferable if his withdrawal were made without any reference to the issue that I raise.  There are more anodyne explanations that would suffice.

I do not have the ability to do more than share this with you two individuals, with your status in the intellectual and Jewish community providing a path to ultimate access to Mr. Garland.  Historians, by exploring the past have a unique insight into what can be the shape of the future.  And few adverse outcomes are so easy to prevent as this nomination.

Regards

AR

Since writing this Sonia Sottomeyer answered a question after a speech including this: "I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,"

Same Sex Marriage- An Atheist's Analysis

March 2013

Introduction

This article was first written about the Supreme Court overrule of DOMA, Defense of Marriage Act, that advanced a broad movement,  Gay Rights or The Gay Agenda, This was voided by the Supreme Court in 2013, succeeded two years later in the Obergefell decision that deemed limits on same sex marriage as unconstitutional.  The thrust of this now expanded essay, is to step back from the fray, to look at the dynamics of achieving this in an explanatory context  that transcends the zeitgeist, which by definition is impossible - well usually so.  Zeitgeist means those truisms of any society that are so ingrained as to be beyond discussion, either consigned to extreme partisanship or to ideologies that have become "verboten."  As an example,  a brief half century ago, distribution of a graphic description of a sex act was a felony, now it is the criticism of such an act that could be a hate crime. 

My analysis is that of "Non Overlapping Magisteria" The late biologist Stephen J. Gould's essay that attempted to separate the warring parties of the culture war, Religion and Science.  His conceptualization is valuable, as it provides the spirit of this essay, looking at how broad, social-value systems may not provide for resolution but only, at best, a truce with a neutral zone of separation. I am presenting the consequences of how this truce can be broken, and the consequences thereof to a society-  be it a country or a civilization.  

 "An Atheist's Analysis" is central to this essay as I will demonstrate, during the long war, those opposed to the ultimate ends of the Gay rights movement were able to define all opposition as emanating from a different magistra

This is written on the eve of oral argument on two cases that will affect the acceptance of same sex marriage in the United States.   The term that describes the issue, unlike others, does have the neutral term "same sex marriage."  Yet this may not be the most meaningful element of what is being decided in the next few months at the Supreme Court.  The more important issue may be this decision's effect on, as it has been affected by, societies view of--and here the terms have been politicized--Homosexual or Gay.

For purposes of this essay use of current popular terms of gay or straight falls short.  These words are laden with values, the speaker's group identity and implications that may or may not reflect reality. Gay as a common term for male and female homosexuality ignores how sexes differ, technically same sex dyadic interaction,  among all species. Yes, we humans are like our primate cousins in this aspect. The biological inequalities of the sexes can not be legislated away by legalizing "marriage equality."

Before I get into the substance of this essay, a word should be said about the depth of this politicization, that while tracking the left- right divide of the U.S. is considerably more than that.  We underestimate the need for affiliation-in all its guises- as the most powerful force in human affairs, as we focus on rationality, legality or implied cost-benefit analyses. History refutes this as the dominant force in human events, as this issue is a classic manifestation of this mass mentality effect.  This is known by many names such as, "bandwagon" or "social contagion" which expresses our need for belonging, and the other side of the same coin, our primal fear of ostracism leading to isolation.

Assuming the preceding paragraph's validity, this essay has an infinitesimally small potential readership, as it would be worse than useless for those who have a strong opinion on this controversy. My goal is to cast an objective light on those communal beliefs that are the glue of this needed affiliation.  And to make it worse, if I am successful, it will demonstrate that those who revile fundamentalist religious groups for their opposition to homosexual marriage, are equally culpable of the same irrationality.  And to add icing to the cake, I will argue that it is the liberals who have become more mean spirited in their advocacy than those on the other side.

While we look for those who have delved into relevant areas of scholarship or professions such as psychologists or psychiatrists for understanding of variations of behavior this is not available on this subject.  The word "political correctness" has been trivialized, meaning that the actual harm to explication of social events done by such soft censorship of views that the words represent has spread to these groups.  I have explored this in depth in the area of memory loss of aging and its redefinition into a disease, along with the reluctance of members of the UCSD faculty to deal with certain issues at a conference I attended.  (links to be provided)

If there's a political mob, my own affiliation group would be called,  "atheists of America."  The softer term for this is "agnostic" or better yet the now archaic word, "freethinker."   I'll use the term "we" for this loose association since there a dozen national groups around this central concept that usually is defined by fighting religion, the dominant one in this country being Christianity, from infringing on government affairs.  There are specific targets that keep all of us busy, such as preventing Christian symbols on public space or the intrusion of God stuff in affairs of state.  My own narrow specialty is returning to the constitutionally mandated  secular Presidential Oath of Office, that is targeted enough to get universal support from all atheist activists.

Several months ago, the umbrella group of all of these national atheist groups selected a new controversial  Executive Director, Edwina Rogers.  What made her choice interesting is her background as a Republican lobbyist, which flew in the face of the general overlap between liberalism and atheism in this country.  This was from an interview where she responded to this question:

Now, the others, which, I think is much, you know it’s easier. On the gender issues, with regard to marriage, if you take religion out, I haven’t, personally, run across anyone who happens to be a nontheist who has some kind of valid argument against ah, homosexuals getting married, for example. But, I’m going to save that, because it might be possible. I just haven’t seen it myself, personally.

This itself is interesting, as she had supported a party in her previous career that was strongly opposed to same sex marriage, yet said she never considered the basis for this support of her erstwhile colleagues to be valid. (This, and the foregoing is not a personal criticism, but an example of a universal dynamic of subordination of individual views to the group's) 

I had several conversations with her by email and phone, and when this came up she seemed eager to find out if I had such an non-religious argument, which I did provide to her.  She certainly could have rejected it, concluded that my presentation does not prevail over other arguments, but she can no longer claim that the elements of my thesis are "invalid."  In fact, when I brought this up to her, her response was that The Secular Coalition, as an umbrella group, follows the wishes of its constituent organizations which unanimously supported same sex marriage.

The current justification of this organization is not as Rogers had stated that there is "no" non religious argument against this change, but something different that is actually antithetical to the atheist ethos.  Atheism is not rejection of religion as such, but is denial of a unified belief that is not based on verifiable reality.  Support for same sex marriage has now adopted the mass influence techniques that characterizes the most oppressive religions,  including the distortion and demonization of the opposition-those outside of the fold.

This was included in an email from the group today in anticipation of the Supreme Court Case: The main motivating factor behind denying this basic human right is religion. that went on to reference this Gallup poll (pp3) that I tracked down with the following results:

ADULTS WHO OPPOSE SAME SEX MARRIAGE; ± 6 PCT PTS
2012 Nov 26-29
Religion/Bible says it is wrong  47%
The remaining six reasons for opposition, with rounding errors, totaling 59% were not based on religion at all.

This illustrates the mechanism of the bandwagon effect where exaggeration builds momentum, the message being if you don't join in the crowd you will be ostracized --with varying degrees of explicitness in the tacit accusation of hateful gay bashing that is "the only reason for having this position."  I have gathered the arguments on individual and cultural issues of homosexuality in other places, and will not attempt to include them in this essay. The hostility of the so called humanists who seem not to have much human compassion for those who don't share their views on this same sex marriage is rather stunning.

This culmination of the gay rights movement is an amazing phenomenon, one that arose from oppression to what is a variation of human behavior that certainly needed to be radically eliminated.  In doing so perhaps it was necessary to use all the tools of mass influence that were available and to simplify the issue into one between good and evil to provide a clear break from those days of shame and oppression of homosexuals-even if it meant damaging the very language that we use to explore and understand our world.  But in doing so, I see great collateral damage to the ongoing enlightenment project.

The study of cultural anthropology and of history is founded on the exploration of causation, and of what was gained by a given action or social custom. This kind of in depth understanding has been the province of higher education that was fought for by those who defied their zeitgeist and often paid a dear price.  It is based on the free expression of knowledge, irrespective of current social movements.

Edwina Rogers' never hearing about any non-theist argument against same sex marriage is understood by the distortion by the very organization that she now has authority over.  When she was a conservative a few years ago she was against gay marriage, but now she is part of a different affiliation group, and as such she oversees the false depiction of those who do not share her new cultural values. As this principle is adopted by both sides, there is only a rare voice that is not affected by these pressure.

While adoption of same sex marriage may be "the arc of history bending towards justice" it is a social dynamic that has no inherent direction.  The same type of mass enthusiasm that is growing for this movement was evident during the run up to our Civil War, but by both those who wanted to end slavery and those who wanted to preserve it.  Mass movements have no conscience, and certainly no idea of justice.

The rational argument against same sex marriage does exist, and it is not a manifestation of animus towards gays. As a matter of fact it can be based on a concern for those with characteristics that have in previous times resulted in the isolation of being different. This is a complex argument that can only be made to those with an open mind who are not benighted by a movement based on certainty of ones own belief with protective anger against those who challenge it.  In this respect, the mindset of fundamentalist religions is shared by the "marriage equality movement,  that this atheist most certainly and vocally opposes.
------------------------

AlRodbell.com for more on this and other subjects.

A comedic riff that gets to the deeper unexamined issue of same sex marriage.

Notes:  subjects to be included

George Weinberg Psychologist on political use of the word "phobia"
Robert Spitizer psychiatrist -  Homosexual can on occasion be reversed - and his apology
Include "Marriage Equality Among Primates
Article on Law firms shying away from SS marriage case in N.Y. Times