# What's Up With Obama?



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It was a bad decision, I think, for Obama to have skipped the 150th anniversary of Gettysburg. Now, he is going to Selma, which he should.

But why this and not Gettysburg? Apologies in advance if this discussion degenerates, but thought that I would try.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

That does seem a bit strange to me, but given the poll driven nature of things these days, I am sure that they ran a gazillion scenarios to get the best optics.

I also guessing that the short memory span of Americans has something to do with it.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Not to be argumentative, but on what basis would you recommend the POTUS to attend, or not, the 150th anniversary of a pivotal Civil War battle? Should he have visited Antietam on Sept. 17, 2012? How about Vicksburg? Or Atlanta in September 2014? (I suppose the latter two could be controversial, which I suppose Gettysburg would not have been.)


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Not to be argumentative, but on what basis would you recommend the POTUS to attend, or not, the 150th anniversary of a pivotal Civil War battle? Should he have visited Antietam on Sept. 17, 2012? How about Vicksburg? Or Atlanta in September 2014? (I suppose the latter two could be controversial, which I suppose Gettysburg would not have been.)


Gettysburg is, or was, different in that it was the apex. More casualties than in any other battle. It was also the tipping point of the war.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> That does seem a bit strange to me, but given the poll driven nature of things these days, I am sure that they ran a gazillion scenarios to get the best optics.
> 
> I also guessing that the short memory span of Americans has something to do with it.


I'm sure they always consider optics, which is why it seems so strange. I see a lot of down side in him skipping the event but no up side. He should have been there.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Not to digress, but it would have been good if Boehner and others had been in Selma today. It's almost as if the leaders of our country cannot call a time-out unless something catastrophic on the scale of 9/11 happens, and even then it is only for a day or two.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Gettysburg is, or was, different in that it was the apex. More casualties than in any other battle. It was also the tipping point of the war.


And it's also the single most commented on and remembered battle of that war. It lives in the consciousness of America. Immortalized in an equally immortalized presidential speech.

Gettysburg is a microcosm of the Civil War. To commemorate Gettysburg is to remember the Civil War and it's meaning and role in the development of our nation.


----------



## Winny94 (Feb 19, 2015)

32rollandrock said:


> Not to digress, but it would have been good if Boehner and others had been in Selma today. It's almost as if the leaders of our country cannot call a time-out unless something catastrophic on the scale of 9/11 happens, and even then it is only for a day or two.


Well former President Bush was there and the media refused to acknowledge it. So, it would've most likely been a futile effort.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Indeed, 
it seems the media almost wants to paint a picture of racial tension and keep the plot growing...it makes for a more intense, more widely watched newscast! Positive, constructive actions on the part of "members of the other race" don't serve to ramp up our social angst concerning race relations in the US and further the myth the lame stream media has created known as Obama-mania!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Winny94 said:


> Well former President Bush was there and the media refused to acknowledge it. So, it would've most likely been a futile effort.


How did you know Bush was there? Perhaps because the media reported it. That's how I knew. Ahem.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Indeed,
> it seems the media almost wants to paint a picture of racial tension and keep the plot growing...it makes for a more intense, more widely watched newscast! Positive, constructive actions on the part of "members of the other race" don't serve to ramp up our social angst concerning race relations in the US and further the myth the lame stream media has created known as Obama-mania!


But there is racial tension. Refusing to acknowledge it only guarantees to perpetuate it. How far have we come since the OJ verdict? Not far at all, I would argue.

I don't think you can blame the media for racial strife. Should the media simply pretend that it does not exist?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I absolutely agree with you that there is far too much racial tension for any of us to consider it healthy and am not suggesting that the media should ignore it. I just wish they would fairly report the incidence of good news along with the bad. Things are not all good, but they certainly are not all bad and I think they are improving...albeit altogether too slowly!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> But there is racial tension. Refusing to acknowledge it only guarantees to perpetuate it. How far have we come since the OJ verdict? Not far at all, I would argue.
> 
> I don't think you can blame the media for racial strife. Should the media simply pretend that it does not exist?


Not to blame the press as they are doing what they always do; a combination of reporting the news and trolling.

Taking as an example what's going on in Ferguson, if you're a person who is outraged by racism, or perceived racism, you can't let your outrage be outdone by the press.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Not to digress, but it would have been good if Boehner and others had been in Selma today. It's almost as if the leaders of our country cannot call a time-out unless something catastrophic on the scale of 9/11 happens, and even then it is only for a day or two.


I think that it is an absolute disgrace that no Republican leaders chose to be at Selma.

I mean, who the hell are you going to offend by saying that what happened on that march was a bad thing for America?

Even if you don't agree with that statement above, politically you would just have to go no matter what.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Winny94 said:


> Well former President Bush was there and the media refused to acknowledge it. So, it would've most likely been a futile effort.


Call me crazy, but my determining factor of doing the right thing isn't whether I will receive favorable press coverage or not....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Not to blame the press as they are doing what they always do; a combination of reporting the news and trolling.
> 
> Taking as an example what's going on in Ferguson, if you're a person who is outraged by racism, or perceived racism, you can't let your outrage be outdone by the press.


Due respect, but you have no standing on which to say anything about Ferguson, having refused to read the report. Everything you say or opine about Ferguson is filtered through some sort of media. There are better options: Read the report.

And if you don't like the media, consider having no media at all. Would you prefer that?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I think that it is an absolute disgrace that no Republican leaders chose to be at Selma.
> 
> I mean, who the hell are you going to offend by saying that what happened on that march was a bad thing for America?
> 
> Even if you don't agree with that statement above, politically you would just have to go no matter what.


Exactly. Regardless of stances on individual situations, it is very clear that we don't have our act together when it comes to racial issues in this nation. On Saturday Night Live last night--it was a re-run--members of the featured musical act (don't recall or care about the name) wore t-shirts saying "I Can't Breathe" and "Black Lives Matter." That in and of itself says that there is an issue--television gets weird about allowing political messages, and that got the green light. Republicans should have been in Selma. More Democrats should have been there. Heck, Supreme Court members and a lot of other people should have been there. It really does matter, and absences speak volumes.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I agree. It has gotten better, but only in some respects. It seems to me that we've stalled, and we've been stalled for a fairly long time, when it comes to progress on racial issues. I think that the media could do a better job of reporting the good along with the bad, but it is difficult, sometimes, to do that because you are, often, facing the task of reporting "Look, things are the way they should be," which doesn't fit the criteria of news. And racial issues are very difficult to address no matter what. I've long believed that it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion of race in this country. That said, I'm encouraged by the way we've been able to discuss it here without going too far off the rails. There was this in the NYT today--I'll believe it when I see it, but maybe Ferguson might be starting to get its act together:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/...on&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0



eagle2250 said:


> I absolutely agree with you that there is far too much racial tension for any of us to consider it healthy and am not suggesting that the media should ignore it. I just wish they would fairly report the incidence of good news along with the bad. Things are not all good, but they certainly are not all bad and I think they are improving...albeit altogether too slowly!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, but you have no standing on which to say anything about Ferguson, having refused to read the report. Everything you say or opine about Ferguson is filtered through some sort of media. There are better options: Read the report.
> 
> And if you don't like the media, consider having no media at all. Would you prefer that?


That's a straw man argument and you know it. The media are certainly necessary but some of the coverage has been completely over the top.

As for the report, I really could care less about what it says. I'm not refuting or agreeing with the report or it's conclusions.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> That's a straw man argument and you know it. The media are certainly necessary but some of the coverage has been completely over the top.
> 
> As for the report, I really could care less about what it says. I'm not refuting or agreeing with the report or it's conclusions.


It is not a straw man argument. And you cannot refute or agree with the report or its conclusions because you do not know what it says, because you haven't read it. Anyone who hasn't read it but still puts forth opinions about what happened in Ferguson or why really isn't helping the situation at all, in my opinion.

I am presuming that you had to read stuff in medical school and that stuff was instrumental in building knowledge so that you could make diagnoses as to medical conditions. This, really, is no different.

Really, do yourself a favor. Read the report. It doesn't take very long and you might actually learn something.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> It is not a straw man argument. And you cannot refute or agree with the report or its conclusions because you do not know what it says, because you haven't read it. Anyone who hasn't read it but still puts forth opinions about what happened in Ferguson or why really isn't helping the situation at all, in my opinion.
> 
> I am presuming that you had to read stuff in medical school and that stuff was instrumental in building knowledge so that you could make diagnoses as to medical conditions. This, really, is no different.
> 
> Really, do yourself a favor. Read the report. It doesn't take very long and you might actually learn something.


I'm not agreeing with or refuting anything in the report because......I haven't read the report!

I'm putting forth an opinion, and honestly it's more than an opinion now as your precious report has confirmed it, that the original premise of "hand up, don't shoot" was false. That's it, end of story. As for not reading the report, I'll be honest and tell you again that I really don't care. Whatever is going on in Ferguson is a shared responsibility between the government and the governed.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Exactly. Regardless of stances on individual situations, it is very clear that we don't have our act together when it comes to racial issues in this nation. On Saturday Night Live last night--it was a re-run--members of the featured musical act (don't recall or care about the name) wore t-shirts saying "I Can't Breathe" and "Black Lives Matter." That in and of itself says that there is an issue--television gets weird about allowing political messages, and that got the green light. Republicans should have been in Selma. More Democrats should have been there. Heck, Supreme Court members and a lot of other people should have been there. It really does matter, and absences speak volumes.


Vehemently disagree about the USSC being there. They should - at all costs - be above the political fray.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I'm not agreeing with or refuting anything in the report because......I haven't read the report!
> 
> I'm putting forth an opinion, and honestly it's more than an opinion now as your precious report has confirmed it, that the original premise of "hand up, don't shoot" was false. That's it, end of story. As for not reading the report, I'll be honest and tell you again that I really don't care. *Whatever is going on in Ferguson is a shared responsibility between the government and the governed.*


Hate to sound like a broken record, but you can't say that with any certainty because...you haven't read the report. And there are splashes of Ferguson throughout this nation, including in your own backyard:

I will be the last to say that this is a parallel of Ferguson and, having read the report and lived in the area, I think I can speak with some authority. While it is something of a tangent, there is some common ground, which is to say, all too often folks establish bright lines and say, well, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime--some folks said that constantly when I lived in St. Louis. Fair enough, but only to a point. Ferguson and environs need a smarter criminal justice system. So does Chicago.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Vehemently disagree about the USSC being there. They should - at all costs - be above the political fray.


I think, actually, we agree entirely. My point, and yours (I think) is the commemoration of Selma should not have been a political event. And yet, it got tangled up in politics. Members of the Supreme Court should have been there--no one can seriously argue that the Supreme Court should be in the business of allowing racial discrimination and inequality, which is what Selma was all about. I don't see a difference between commemorations of Selma, 9/11, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor--the list goes on and on. When there's a significant anniversary of a really big thing that had fundamentally shaped this nation, we should put politics aside and remember. Yet, we cannot seem to do that, which I think is a shame.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> ... no one can seriously argue that the Supreme Court should be in the business of allowing racial discrimination and inequality ...


OK, I'll bite.

It's not necessarily the business of the Supreme Court to "disallow" racial discrimination or inequality ... unless the Constitution provides a basis for their action to prevent these terrible effects of society's shortcomings.

I'm extremely conflicted about Thurgood Marshall for this very reason. He was a great American; of that there can be little doubt. But at the same time, the tactics he used to address racial discrimination through the judiciary ushered in an age of legislating from the bench, which IMO is a very dangerous thing. So I admire him at the same time I am dubious about the ultimate effects of his tenure.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I guess we'll have to disagree. I do think that it is the Supreme Court's business to disallow racial discrimination. Part of that all men being created equal thingy.

I don't think it's debatable: Fifty years on, Selma was a watershed moment in U.S. history as it pertains to the struggle for an end to racial discrimination. Unless you're on the side of the club-wielding cops with their dogs, I submit that members of congress, the executive branch and the judiciary should have been there. i don't think that it's even a close call. Should the judiciary avoid commemorations of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II?



MaxBuck said:


> OK, I'll bite.
> 
> It's not necessarily the business of the Supreme Court to "disallow" racial discrimination or inequality ... unless the Constitution provides a basis for their action to prevent these terrible effects of society's shortcomings.
> 
> I'm extremely conflicted about Thurgood Marshall for this very reason. He was a great American; of that there can be little doubt. But at the same time, the tactics he used to address racial discrimination through the judiciary ushered in an age of legislating from the bench, which IMO is a very dangerous thing. So I admire him at the same time I am dubious about the ultimate effects of his tenure.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> I think, actually, we agree entirely. My point, and yours (I think) is the commemoration of Selma should not have been a political event. And yet, it got tangled up in politics. Members of the Supreme Court should have been there--no one can seriously argue that the Supreme Court should be in the business of allowing racial discrimination and inequality, which is what Selma was all about. I don't see a difference between commemorations of Selma, 9/11, Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor--the list goes on and on. When there's a significant anniversary of a really big thing that had fundamentally shaped this nation, we should put politics aside and remember. Yet, we cannot seem to do that, which I think is a shame.


I think that the USSC should stay away from things like Selma because they are still in the process of deciding cases about similar things. People were already making hay that the USSC wants to roll back desegregation because of some of its recent decisions. Their presence there would have just been a diversion for people looking to make headlines.

But I don't think that the USSC should attend the State Of The Union address either, so I freely admit that I am on the extreme as it relates to The Court.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I think that the USSC should stay away from things like Selma because* they are still in the process of deciding cases about similar things*. People were already making hay that the USSC wants to roll back desegregation because of some of its recent decisions. Their presence there would have just been a diversion for people looking to make headlines.
> 
> But I don't think that the USSC should attend the State Of The Union address either, so I freely admit that I am on the extreme as it relates to The Court.


I think that's a stretch. Yes, they might be asked to decide whether voters should be required to present ID before casting ballots, which has been debated along racial lines, but that's fundamentally different, I think, than separate-but-equal/Jim Crow--that sort of thing. Regardless, it's a good thing, I think, for justices to get out once in awhile. Those ivory towers can get stuffy...


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> Gettysburg is, or was, different in that it was the apex. More casualties than in any other battle. It was also the tipping point of the war.


Well, the actual tipping point of the Civil War - and probably it's most unrealized "most important battle" - was the Battle of Port Royal in November, 1861, which opened the way for the Federal blockade of Confederate trade... which crashed the Confederate economy, making them unable to finance their war effort.

Loss of a war in almost always an economic issue!

(The Confederacy tried to finance their war effort by issuing cotton bonds, but unable to secure the bonds by shipping cotton, the bonds collapsed and sent the confederate economy spinning into out of control inflation. They did have nicer, cotton uniforms, at least!)

DH


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> Well, the actual tipping point of the Civil War - and probably it's most unrealized "most important battle" - was the Battle of Port Royal in November, 1861, which opened the way for the Federal blockade of Confederate trade... which crashed the Confederate economy, making them unable to finance their war effort.
> 
> Loss of a war in almost always an economic issue!
> 
> ...


You are right, but I'll go one further. The tipping point was the shelling of Fort Sumter. The South was doomed from the get-go. As Shelby Foote once put it, it was almost as if the North fought with one arm tied behind its back, the economic disparity being what it was.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> I guess we'll have to disagree. I do think that it is the Supreme Court's business to disallow racial discrimination. *Part of that all men being created equal thingy.*


Show me where that phrase appears in the Constitution.

Bottom line is that you're wrong; the job of the Supreme Court is to rule on the Constitutionality of issues brought before it. But then, one of the unfortunate aspects of all three branches of government in the US system is that each branch behaves more like a vapor than like a solid: that is, its volume depends upon the vessel enclosing it, and once the vessel no longer constrains it it will expand in unlimited fashion. So it is that the Executive branch and Judicial branch now both assert the ability to legislate, to the exasperation of the Legislature.

With all this being said, I agree that *somebody* needed to address racial discrimination through legislation; unfortunately, the Legislature was loath to act, and it took extrajudicial action by the Supreme Court to do so. A necessary result, but an unfortunate means of achieving it IMO.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Dhaller said:


> (The Confederacy tried to finance their war effort by issuing cotton bonds, but unable to secure the bonds by shipping cotton, the bonds collapsed and sent the confederate economy spinning into out of control inflation. *They did have nicer, cotton uniforms, at least!*)


So often we see situations in which having the "nicer uniforms" is the last salve to the feelings of the vanquished.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Show me where that phrase appears in the Constitution.
> 
> Bottom line is that you're wrong; the job of the Supreme Court is to rule on the Constitutionality of issues brought before it. But then, one of the unfortunate aspects of all three branches of government in the US system is that each branch behaves more like a vapor than like a solid: that is, its volume depends upon the vessel enclosing it, and once the vessel no longer constrains it it will expand in unlimited fashion. So it is that the Executive branch and Judicial branch now both assert the ability to legislate, to the exasperation of the Legislature.
> 
> With all this being said, I agree that *somebody* needed to address racial discrimination through legislation; unfortunately, the Legislature was loath to act, and it took extrajudicial action by the Supreme Court to do so. A necessary result, but an unfortunate means of achieving it IMO.


Come now. You are splitting hairs. OK, you've got me--that phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. But the equal protection clause does. Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court somehow overstepped its bounds in, say, Brown vs. Board of Education? I certainly hope not.


----------

