Bloodthirsty Liberal

I don’t know which paradigm I like least. The one in which the wives of American presidents are active participants in their administrations, shaping policy and philosophy (think Hillary and Eleanor); or the one in which First Ladies are glamour dolls, draped and decorated as figureheads on the ship of state (think Jackie—and now, evidently, Michelle). I’m sure I reveal all sorts of psychological quirks and disturbances (as when do I not?) when I confess a certain admiration for the modest but indispensable helpmeets like Laura and Barbara, who neither scold nor sashay, but quietly go about doing a job of work.

First lady Michelle Obama chose to wear a gleaming silver-sequined, flesh-colored gown Tuesday night to the first state dinner held by her husband’s administration. She was tending to her hostess duties in a strapless silhouette with the beads forming an abstract floral pattern that was custom-made by Naeem Khan.

She wore a matching wrap, a stack of bangle bracelets on her wrist and dangling earrings.

Stop the presses…

Who cares about 17.5% real unemployment or how we’re going to get in and get out of Afghanistan? I want to know more about those dangling earrings.

My, they sure do dangle! That might explain her expression—unless that derives from whatever the National Symphony is playing at this moment. Some of the more turgid tone poems of Richard Strauss have a tendency to do that. (There are less turgid tone poems of Richard Strauss?)

Anyhow, back to that gown:

Earlier today for a preview of the event, Mrs. Obama wore a skirt by Rachel Roy, also an Indian-American. “That gave us a preview that she was going to use clothes to convey a meaning,” said Mary Tomer, author of the new book “Mrs. O: The Face of Fashion Democracy.”

“They were really thoughtful choices,” she said.

“The nice thing about it is the Jackie Kennedy sort of appropriateness. Most people wouldn’t know one way or another about Naeem’s background, but if one sentence gets mentioned to the prime minister, then her subtleness would pay off,” added Hal Rubenstein, fashion director for InStyle magazine.

There’s not really a book called “Mrs. O: The Face of Fashion Democracy” is there?

Oh God, there is, and it’s not alone:

Michelle Obama is a woman of some accomplishments herself—even if her biggest job lasted just as long as her husband’s tenure in the US Senate. (Let’s hope she was “present” at least as often as he was!)

After Barack Obama became an Illinois state legislator, his wife moved up as well, scoring a job as ‘vice president of community relations’ at the University Of Chicago Hospital for a very generous salary of $121,910. When Obama became a senator in 2005, her ’salary’ leapfrogged to $$316,962 for the same job…and one of Senator Obama’s first acts in office was to see to it that the hospital received over a million dollars of your tax dollars as an earmark.

Well, Michelle has moved on,and guess what…that vital job of hers,worth a salary of over $300 K has been quietly eliminated.

Anyway, I think she’s got more to offer the country than just linebacker shoulders and toxic gardening. I’m not sure I want what she’s got to offer—in fact, I’m quite sure I don’t—but I can’t deny that she’s got it.

Chicago is out—out

In a stunning development, Chicago was the first city eliminated on Friday in IOC voting to be host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics.

Chicago, Tokyo, Rio de Janeiro and Madrid made final pitches to the International Olympic Committee to be selected later Friday as host of the 2016 Olympics, with President Barack Obama and Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pitting their star power against each other in emotional pushes for their cities.

Mrs. Obama’s “sacrifice” was in vain, but her valor, her selflessness will not soon be forgotten by those who knew her. We shall not see her like again.

No, not Black Sabbath or Twisted Sister.

Michelle Obama’s gardeners:

The White House says its high-profile garden on the South Lawn has tested positive for lead although it is not at dangerous levels.

White House spokeswoman Katie McCormick-Lelyveld said Thursday that tests on the soil in the White House garden detected lead levels of 93 parts per million. Soil is considered unsafe for growing vegetables when it reaches more than 500 parts per million.

Not so fast, AP. May I borrow from Paul Harvey? What’s the rest of the story?

How about kids?

However, it is advised for young children to be tested for exposure to lead if they play in areas where lead concentrations exceed 100 parts per million. The Environmental Protection Agency puts the threshold for dangerous lead levels at 300 parts per million.

But even though lead levels in the first garden are far below that danger zone, the disclosure is awkward for a White House which has made prominent use of the vegetable garden to define Michelle Obama’s role as First Lady,and to encourage sensible eating habits in children.

Children are expecially vulnerable to exposure to lead, which can cause neurological and kidney damage, and stunt their growth.

Michelle Obama: child abuser.

Michelle Obama invited dozens of 10- and 11-year olds from a state elementary school in a transitional neighbourhood of Washington to the White House last March to help her dig up a 1,100 square foot plot of land near her daughters’ swing set. Photographers were let in to take pictures of her kneeling in the dirt and wielding garden tools.

The first thing I did when I started my vegetable garden was send a soil sample to the state lab. Now these kids are going to have to be tested for lead levels in their blood.

Did you catch President Obama’s commencement speech at Arizona State University the other day?

Me neither, and I don’t blame you: watching his head bob back and forth between teleprompters (which shake and smolder from overuse) is an activity that gets old faster than raw fish (and is about as malodorous).

But if you listen to the advice the President and First Lady give to the youth of America, you will learn that they’re through with America as it has been. His ascension marks a Year Zero, after which the country (which he inherited!) is “remade” (how often does he use that word?).

First, the President:

Now, some graduating classes have marched into this stadium in easy times - times of peace and stability when we call on our graduates to simply keep things going, and not screw it up. Other classes have received their diplomas in times of trial and upheaval, when the very foundations of our lives have been shaken, the old ideas and institutions have crumbled, and a new generation is called on to remake the world.

“Remake the world”—what did I tell you! The messianic complex is yours, B-HO; don’t project it on everyone else.

Anyway, it’s easy to see where this is going:

It should be clear by now the category into which all of you fall. For we gather here tonight in times of extraordinary difficulty, for the nation and the world. The economy remains in the midst of a historic recession, the result, in part, of greed and irresponsibility that rippled out from Wall Street and Washington, as we spent beyond our means and failed to make hard choices.

…

For many of you, these challenges are felt in more personal terms. Perhaps you’re still looking for a job - or struggling to figure out what career path makes sense in this economy. Maybe you’ve got student loans, or credit card debts, and are wondering how you’ll ever pay them off. Maybe you’ve got a family to raise, and are wondering how you’ll ensure that your kids have the same opportunities you’ve had to get an education and pursue their dreams.

In the face of these challenges, it may be tempting to fall back on the formulas for success that have dominated these recent years. Many of you have been taught to chase after the usual brass rings: being on this “who’s who” list or that top 100 list; how much money you make and how big your corner office is; whether you have a fancy enough title or a nice enough car.

Well, a job would be nice. These kids have invested four years (and tens of thousands of dollars) to learn a trade, or in some way to prepare themselves to join the world (not “remake” it) of workers, doers, creators—and he’s making them feel like Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.

I think I know what he’s trying to say, but the “formulas for success” he disparages have been remarkably successful. The current recession included, isn’t the American economy a success story beyond imagining and belief?

Guess not:

I want to highlight two main problems with that old approach. First, it distracts you from what is truly important, and may lead you to compromise your values, principles and commitments. Think about it. It’s in chasing titles and status - in worrying about the next election rather than the national interest and the interests of those they represent - that politicians so often lose their way in Washington. It was in pursuit of gaudy short-term profits, and the bonuses that come with them, that so many folks lost their way on Wall Street.

The leaders we revere, the businesses that last - they are not the result of narrow pursuit of popularity or personal advancement, but of devotion to some bigger purpose - the preservation of the Union or the determination to lift a country out of depression; the creation of a quality product or a commitment to your customers, your workers, your shareholders and your community.

Oh yeah, that describes Nancy Pelosi and Bill Gates to a T.

What is Obama talking about?

Let me repeat my belief: capitalism is an engine, an enormously powerful engine that has no equal in HP, torque, compression, etc. But it has no steering wheel, no ability to choose direction. The role of government is to guide, as lightly and as effortlessly as possible, that engine in the direction that most benefits its people. But it is as foolish to sit in your car with the engine off, wondering why it doesn’t go when you turn the wheel, as it is to expect the government to be able to fuel and run the economy. Or to expect it (the car or the economy) to have a moral sense.

But here’s Obama trying to make the sale, close the deal:

With a degree from this university, you have everything you need to get started. Did you study business? Why not help our struggling non-profits find better, more effective ways to serve folks in need. Nursing? Understaffed clinics and hospitals across this country are desperate for your help. Education? Teach in a high-need school; give a chance to kids we can’t afford to give up on - prepare them to compete for any job anywhere in the world. Engineering? Help us lead a green revolution, developing new sources of clean energy that will power our economy and preserve our planet.

Or you can make your mark in smaller, more individual ways. That’s what so many of you have already done during your time here at ASU - tutoring children; registering voters; doing your own small part to fight hunger and homelessness, AIDS and cancer. I think one student said it best when she spoke about her senior engineering project building medical devices for people with disabilities in a village in Africa. Her professor showed a video of the folks they’d be helping, and she said, “When we saw the people on the videos, we began to feel a connection to them. It made us want to be successful for them.”

Which is more than you have done, Mr. President.

I have no quarrel with any of his suggestions: who could? But what if it is your bliss to become the best heart surgeon there is, widening the aortas of the rich and famous? Is that so bad? Or becoming a lawyer to defend Dow Chemical in a class action suit? Isn’t that how our system works? If everyone taught in a “high-need” school (as he seems to suggest), who would teach the spoiled little snots in the fancy private schools?

The contributions of everyone should be celebrated: business baron and community organizer. Where the hell do you think the money is going to come from if everyone works with disabled Africans (as Obama himself has never done)?

I have been a liberal, and I have been a conservative, and I was no more generous as an enlightened lefty than I am as a neanderthal. Statistics repeatedly prove the opposite is more generally true. Certainly, our own president’s personal history does.

But he’s made his point.

Now, what about his old lady?

First lady Michelle Obama praised graduating students at California’s smallest, youngest public university for their determination to succeed, urging them to give back to their communities with the same fervor they showed to bring her to campus.
…

“Many of you may be considering leaving town with your diploma in hand, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable,” Mrs. Obama said before a crowd of 12,000 wilting in the blazing afternoon sun. “By using what you’ve learned here you can shorten the path perhaps for kids who may not see a path at all. I was once one of those kids.”

…

“You will face tough times. You will certainly have doubts, and let me tell you because I know I did when I was your age,” she said. “Remember that you are blessed. Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future.”

Now, that’s not bad. At least she doesn’t shame them for wanting to succeed.

(One more line from her husband: “The trappings of success may be a by-product of this larger mission, but they can’t be the central thing. Just ask Bernie Madoff.” Honest to God, Barack, give it a rest.)

But is that all it was to these graduates—just show up and receive their “blessings”? Did no one do any work? (This is a California state school, so maybe not.)

I am going to make a statement as broad and generalized as anything quoted above: some of these graduates worked a hell of a lot harder, and brought themselves a hell of a lot further, than did either Barack or Michelle Obama. And they did so to make something of themselves, not to make something of someone else (as if they even could).

Why are liberals so closed-minded about ways to “give back”? I was. Now, I think Steve Jobs, or Donald Trump, or even Bernie Madoff does more to bring along the disadvantaged than any ACORN activist or homeless advocate (well, maybe not Bernie).

To the graduates of Bloodthirstan Technical School, Class or 2009, I say this: the world somehow survived this long without you. It’s not perfect, but then it never was—its thermostat is shot to hell, alternately freezing up solid and melting into a puddle; it’s misshapen, not a perfect sphere, but wider at the equator; periodically, life here gets wiped out by cataclysmic impacts with comets and asteroids. You are welcome to join us. There is no bouncer, no dress code—no open bar—no ticket required. You can dance with the one that brung you, or you can go home with the hot blond (male, female, or both). Just find a spot on the dance floor and shake what your mama gave you. It’ll have to do.

You know what’s coming.

Another blunder, faux pas, misstep, screw-up, SNAFU from the People Who Are Smarter Than You Are:

In the world of international diplomacy, small missteps can cause big problems. When George W. Bush gave German Chancellor Angela Merkel a quick shoulder rub—in what he thought was a friendly gesture—he was mercilessly pilloried for weeks. Hillary Clinton’s embrace of Suha Arafat dogged her for years. One of the most important tests of a globe-trotting president: picking out just the right gift for your foreign counterpart. Barack Obama is learning this the hard way.

Only a few weeks on the job, Obama created a minor diplo-mess when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to the U.S. for a visit. Obama’s historic Oval Office desk, a gift from Queen Victoria to Rutherford Hayes, is made from the timbers of the HMS Resolute. Brown proudly presented Obama with a pencil holder carved from its antislavery sister ship, the HMS Gannet. Classy! Obama lamely reciprocated with a DVD set of Hollywood movies, including “Psycho.” When Brown got back home, he discovered they didn’t work in his European player. “At a minimum you don’t want to give offense,” says a former White House official who helped orchestrate foreign visits for a previous president. “That was really phoning it in.” (The official, like others quoted here, asked not to be named disparaging a sitting president.) Apparently it was a rookie mistake. According to a person close to the situation, Obama hasn’t yet appointed a chief of protocol and his staffers, still unpacking, didn’t realize that the State Department has an entire office dedicated to foreign visits.

But things are getting better, right?

Ever the quick study, Obama did a little better last week when he welcomed Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with a rare original copy of the sheet music for “The Star Spangled Banner.” Classy! (Brown, clutching his worthless DVDs, must have been like, “What the …?”) But before Obama starts raiding the National Archives whenever a world leader doorsteps the White House, he might take a hint from a few of his predecessors, who had a knack for picking out a little something for the man who has everything.

Why not have Michelle put a finely-toned, rippling-muscled arm around the world leader?

Oops:

When Michelle Obama put her arm round the Queen at Buckingham Palace, some of the more excitable elements of the media - particularly the Americans - suggested she may have been guilty of a breach of protocol.

They missed the real story, however. What was far more interesting was that the Queen put her arm round the First Lady.

It is less than 20 years ago that the Australian Prime Minister was branded “the Lizard of Oz” for committing the supposedly heinous crime of putting his hand on the Queen’s back during an official tour of Australia.

Nice of Lizzie to reciprocate. Helped to avoid an international incident.

I might have wondered if this was a calculated move by the Obamas—but given their willful ignorance of protocol, as evidenced by the story above, I think they just got lucky.

Wow, huh?

You wonder how long the bodies had been dead for the rigor mortis to have set in like that.

But no, their rictuses were from stiffness, not from being stiffs. What brought these two hated rivals together? Why [cue Helen Reddy], They Are Woman, of course:

First of all, good afternoon to everyone, and let me thank Secretary Clinton — I love saying that — (laughter) — for that kind introduction.

I have said this before, but the woman who is running this department, this big huge effort, has always been such a committed person, friend, supporter, to me. We are honored and thrilled to have her serving in this role. She set the bar high in her last post. (Laughter.) And I’m confident that she’s going to keep setting the bar high in this post. And I just want to give her a round of applause. (Applause.) Thank you, Secretary Clinton.

Careful that she doesn’t take that bar and give you a Gilooly with it right on the kneecaps, honey. Don’t think she won’t.

Secretary Clinton has also made this issue of particular importance right here at the State Department by creating a new position and nominating Melanne Verveer as Ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, and I again want to give her a round of applause. (Applause.) We are grateful for her participation. We thank her for her service in advance. She is going to do a phenomenal job.

Why not? Every hack needs his hackette. Why shouldn’t women get their slice of pork? A position that’s never before existed—hell, if they’re going to give it away, get yours, I always say.

I am so proud to be a woman today and every single day. (Laughter.)

As well you should; it’s quite an accomplishment. And you make it look so easy.

You know what the title of that cover is? “Michelle O.” Glamorous First Lady, gowns—you getting the picture?

Now that you’re proud to be an American for the first time in your adult life, you just keep being proud. Proud to be a woman, a mom, black, tall, right-handed—you name it.

You make us proud, Michelle. Our love is unconditional.

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

We don’t want to. We want to be like you and Hillary. We want to be women. I want to be a woman. A proud, independent woman with great triceps and deltoids. A caring, nurturing woman who poses in soup kitchens for hobos with cell phones.

A woman who’s proud to be a woman.

Because what I am now is a blogger, and I can’t say I’m proud to be one every single day. It’s just not that sort of gig.

It makes perfect sense to me that a person who enjoys a good mushroom risotto would also own a multi-function cell phone.

What makes less sense is that you would be able to pay for the one, while having to line up to receive the other as charity:

First Lady Michelle Obama showed up Thursday as a surprise and welcome volunteer at Miriam’s Kitchen, a soup kitchen for homeless poor people not far from the White House.

She brought with her some food donated by White House staff.

The first lady served up mushroom risotto and brocolli [sic] to a long line of homeless men and women during part of her lunch hour and in these photos poses for a picture by one homeless diner obviously excited to be in the first lady’s presence.

It doesn’t detract from the first lady’s generous gesture or the real needs she seeks to highlight to ask two bothersome journalistic questions about these news photos:

If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cellphone?

And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?

Americans want to help what Reagan called the “truly needy”. I think they might have a problem with the merely needy (in the pejorative sense).

Maybe he uses the mobile to stay in touch with prospective employers and placement agencies. Yeah, that’s it.

Remeber how appalled the media was when Sarah Palin wore clothing purchased by the RNC and returned after the election?

I never got why that was such a no-no, but in the spirit of even-handedness, I must point out that Michelle Obama is doing the same thing:

For years, the press excoriated Nancy Reagan for borrowing clothes and jewelry from designers. Yet Michelle Obama has been doing the same thing — without any outcry from the media.

Accountants say that the first lady’s practice of borrowing both clothes and jewelry raises major tax and disclosure issues, not to mention ethical questions.

“The transactions are clearly taxable,” says Richard Rampell, a Palm Beach, Fla., accountant whose clients include several of the island’s billionaires. “The designers are indirectly paying Michelle Obama to go and display their wares. And they get a huge economic value for it, just as if they were paying a model to do this. If they are paying her in this indirect way by lending her their clothes, then she is actually performing a service for the designer, and she should have to recognize as income whatever the value is of the clothes that she got.”

Aside from the tax implications, Obama is obligated to report the value of the clothes she has received free of charge on government forms mandated by the Ethics in Government Act.

The items Obama has either borrowed or received free have included a $17,313 pair of Loree Rodkin diamond earrings and clothes and gowns worth $1,000 to $6,000. In some cases, Michelle Obama’s representatives have said she will donate the items to the Smithsonian.

That makes no difference, Rampell says.

“If somebody gives her a dress and it’s worth $6,000, and she’s not expected to return it, then she has $6,000 worth of income, or she’s received a $6,000 gift,” he says. “I’m sure that the company is deducting the cost of that dress — the cost of manufacturing, the design, the materials and all that other stuff. And then when she gives it away to the charity, then she gets a charitable contribution for it.”

What was it Tim Geithner said: It was an honest mistake? Maybe Michelle is just making an honest mistake. We established earlier today that her hubby is an idiot, so maybe she is too? BTL and I want to help her out before she gets audited. Michelle, honey, that’s stealing from the American public. Pay your taxes.

Uh oh. Maybe she’s doing it on purpose?

Unlike Nancy Reagan, Michelle Obama has been funneling her acquisition of clothes through an intermediary, Ikram Goldberg, who has been mum on her role and on whether she receives anything of value for her services.

Oh dear. This can’t be true. Her husband is the most ethical politician ever. What will he say if he finds out? Hurry, Michelle, pay the taxes and I won’t say another word about it!

- Aggie

Well, no wonder he’d appease Ahmadinejad. Have you ever seen caviar withdrawal?

It’s not pretty.

THOUGH he’s battling GOP accusations that he’s an Ivy League elitist, Barack Obama has a lifestyle of the rich and famous, like TV show host Robin Leach, who always signed off, “Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!” While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d’oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six.

To be fair, Papa Gino’s doesn’t deliver to the Waldorf.

I realize all you get in Illinois is a few scrawny crawdads, but, dang girl, leave some crustaceans for the rest of us.

At least she’s proud of our oceans.

I can’t stay long because I’ve got Michelle Obama on the other line—and she’s got a few more pieces of her mind to unload.

But just in case you hadn’t heard:

Some conservative blogs are all atwitter about a bizarre interview allegedly with Michelle Obama on a Web site called “African Press International.”

“My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his stepfather — does that make him unpatriotic,” she supposedly said “on a direct telephone to API” the “interview” hypes. It goes on from there.

…

Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs says the interview is a complete and utter fabrication. “It’s bogus, she didn’t call, it’s all a lie,” he says.

And I have to say — I find their pushback quite believable. The Obama campaign does not tend to directly engage fringe Web sites making wild charges, and if they were to do so, they certainly wouldn’t have Michelle Obama make the call.

Maybe the folks at API were taken in by an imposter. Maybe they made it up, I don’t know.

…

A word to the wise, my friends. I don’t know if you know this, but not everything that appears on the Internet is true.

I was going to leave it there, unreported, but API isn’t going away without a fight:

API has recordings of the conversation between API and Mrs Obama (Shocking development: Mrs Obama decides enough is enough: “My husband was born in Hawaii and adopted by his step father, does that make him unpatriotic; she asks”, on a direct telephone to API., and we confirm that the audio will be released to the public.

…

Many have question why Mrs Obama would choose a little known online media group instead of the American media. API was chosen because of a Nairobi contact that did not like the way API was covering Barack Obama using information collected from American media outlets. The Nairobi contact prevailed upon Mrs Obama to talk to API.

The only thing API may have done wrong is not informing Mrs Obama that the conversation was being recorded. This is why it is taking time to release the recording while consulting a legal team because API wants to be legally safe from any Obama camp law suit.

You can find the transcript of the “interview” on your own if you want to. I must say I found the scenario improbable—although… although what “Mrs. O” was said to have said was plausible, given her previous remarks on her pride in her country.

So, it’s a story, even if it’s not yet a proven one.