Web Commonerpolitics, social commentary, and ramblings on pop culture

That’s right, folks. It would appear that our president is human after all … not a superman, not a robot, and not a deity. Just a complex, interdependent, and structured mass of flesh and bone. In a moment of bold and sincere honesty, he let his guard down and revealed himself in a manner that might seem shocking to some Americans:

“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, No. 3, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

This response came from Barack Obama after a reporter asked, in a nationally televised press conference focusing on the president’s healthcare proposals, about the recent arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge and what it says about race relations in America. Gates is a literary critic, educator, scholar, writer, and editor with a number of notable achievements under his belt, including honorary degrees and awards. He sits on the boards of various arts, cultural, and research institutions, serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University, directs the W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research and, finally, he is a personal friend to the Obama family.

It took only seconds after hearing that word, “stupidly,” before I realized the political firestorm it would muster. I could hear the media blitzkrieg that would follow as radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity took to the airwaves the next day. They would tear the president to shreds on their syndicated “talk” shows, fulfilling assumed roles as civilian officers and arresting Obama for his criticism of the nation’s good men and women of law enforcement. They would brand him a crony for favoring an esteemed intellectual who they likely consider, at least under their breath, to be just another “affirmative action baby” and, as loudly and surely as they accused Sonia Sotomayor, they would label the president a racist. It would come swift, it would come hard and, most importantly for them and their party, it would stir their base into a feeding frenzy, serving up the perfect storm of criticism that would toss a looming cloud over the president’s entire agenda.

Regardless of what the pundits might say, the harshest criticism actually came in the form of a rebuttal from Gates’ arresting officer. In multiple radio and TV interviews, Sgt. James Crowley told the local press that he supports the president “110 percent,” but believed that the president should not have waded into a local issue without knowing the facts. Those “facts,” available on the filed police report, which quickly surfaced on the Internet, indicate that the officer arrested Gates outside his home after he exhibited “loud and tumultuous” behavior. The report states that Gates, seemingly understanding his rights, refused to step outside his home when first prompted by Crowley, who identified himself and indicated that he was investigating a reported break-in. What followed was a back and forth exchange between the two men inside the home, with Gates accusing Crowley of being a racist before finally approaching the officer outside and subsequently being arrested for disorderly conduct.

Admittedly, not knowing the facts of the case and, apparently, not having personally read the police report, Obama would have been smart to steer clear of dispatching judgment so quickly concerning the arrest, but he is our first African American president. I don’t blame him for doing it. More than any presidential candidate or president in recent history, Barack Obama has addressed the subject of race, racism, and the racial divide head-on in speeches to any number of varied populations, from massive, diverse crowds of constituents to middle easterners, Europeans, and Africans to African Americans. Where other presidents, since the years following the civil rights movement, fell short of addressing racial tensions in proper historical context, this president confronts and acknowledges it with the same attention afforded an actual elephant in the room. Hypotheticals flooded the mind as I pondered his and Gates’ current situation. Would circumstances be different if Gates was a white man? What if Obama was white? Would the reporter still ask him about the incident?

The reality of this matter is that, in the eyes of many Americans, Barack Obama is an African American first and a president second. Since race remains a divisive issue in the United States, Obama is forced to address it in manners that other presidents could easily avoid. Still, some pretend to ignore this reality, expecting the president to act as if wearing some sort of impenetrable force field that serves to repel discussions of race and inequality. It’s not fair and, as long as racial discrimination flourishes, we should not expect Barack Obama to ignore it. Minorities are too often driven to the brink of paranoia by their daily experiences in America, constantly being surveyed and seen as different. Evidence of undue racism rears its ugly head on a personal level constantly, and the country experiences it in bulk all too often. It may be watching the American judicial system acquit four LAPD officers after brutally beating a man in broad daylight, or television coverage of thousands neglected in New Orleans after Katrina makes landfall. It might be watching white mothers who kidnap or kill their children only to pass the buck on to the usual scapegoat and stereotypical violent, black male, or seeing nooses strung over tree branches in the wake of racial injustice in Jena. Finally, it might be listening to Republican party supporters fulfilling their personal want or need to holler racial epithets aimed at a presidential candidate in political campaign rallies across the country.

Racism against minorities thrives in America, even in 2009. It’s still here, still real, and still dangerous. The same is true with racial profiling and, for these reasons, I am not surprised to hear our first minority president impulsively jump to conclusions and express relative concern for a friend and fellow African American, whose experiences in this country are uniquely bound and shared to the point of understanding an all-too-often ignored oppressive force that comes at them from every angle. Nobody knows for sure how much race actually played a role in Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.’s arrest last week but, I’m personally sure about one thing … what Gates said to Mr. Crowley and his Cambridge neighbors as officers led him away in handcuffs is correct. This is what happens to black men in America and, if I walked in his shoes, I might think twice about an officer’s motives as he passed through that threshold between his world and mine. Until the country reaches a point where all Americans can walk its streets without being stopped by an officer or gawked at with little more reason than the color of their skin, I will continue to sympathize with Gates’ and Obama’s concern or, more appropriately, their frustration.

I was only four years old when Walter Cronkite relinquished his post as anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” and it would be many years into his retirement before I would understand and appreciate the true value of his character, or the full weight of his worth in terms of contributions that he made to the world of journalism and the respect he received from a nation of millions. My memories of Cronkite’s most popular moments are not unique, just recorded glimpses of the man’s stern yet warm delivery of the news as captured in time for the history books to later relay. Many in the baby boomer generation held him in such high regard that he earned the nickname, “Uncle Walter,” a testament to his ability to invade their living rooms each night with the sense of a beloved family member. They welcomed him with open arms, sometimes to receive some of the most disheartening news to hit the nation in the last half-century.

In Cronkite’s time, television was different. People peered into CRT monitors spilling duotone images of black and white into their living rooms. Sound came from a single channel, and “rabbit ear” antennas topped TV sets to receive the only signals available to viewers at the time, broadcasts from three major networks captured over the air. Of course, three networks meant three channels, which broadcast news programming for little more than 30 minutes each night. There was no means for recording what you missed, which meant that information-savvy citizens always knew exactly where they would be and what they would be doing once Walter hit the airwaves to deliver the daily news. At the evening’s end, the sound of a single tone and a screen-saver-like image indicated the end of a network’s daily programming, as if acting as an alarm to alert sleepy Americans that they overstayed their visit to TV land.

This nightly ritual between Cronkite, his network, and his constituency continued for nearly twenty years, through the civil rights and women’s liberation movements, the first lunar landing, Vietnam, Watergate, the Nixon impeachment, and the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy Jr., Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He endured sweeping change within the business of broadcast news, including the introduction of new competing networks, finally relieving himself of his duty not long before federal action brought cable technology to people’s homes in droves, along with a multitude of new channels. Cronkite seemed to disappear from public life temporarily, but a new generation of news hounds were fortunate enough to rediscover the man after he broke silence to deliver opinion-oriented editorial pieces in publications and on the radio throughout the last decade, which focused on everything from politics to the media.

It was in these moments, on the quiet drive home from work, that I welcomed Walter Cronkite, now a seasoned veteran, into my world. I listened intently as his signature voice, confident and adept, brought me into those old living rooms to relive crucial turning points in our country’s sorted history. His radio essays drew heavily on decades of professional experience, reflecting the challenges that he and his colleagues faced as reporters tasked to cover emotionally charged and politically sensitive events with objective eyes and ears. As I look back at Mr. Cronkite’s career, it would appear to me that his legacy is not really about how he delivered the news to millions each night. Instead, it’s about how he delivered information to people that was pure and unfiltered. Walter leaves this world at a point in our history when an evolving news landscape seeks to, once again, change how we organize and deliver new information. His legacy will serve as a sort of signpost, steering us clear from selfishly seeking out information that we want to know and instead pointing us in a direction towards getting the information that we need to know.

Thanks Uncle Walter. We will remember you always.

New evidence of Michael Jackson’s influence is popping up throughout the Internet in the form of tributes to the deceased entertainer. Friends and fans alike are passing along links to websites like Eternal Moonwalk, where a continuous loop of home videos shows people performing Jackson’s signature move. Other homages highlight his artistic genius, and one particular YouTube user is publishing video mash-ups that combine Jackson’s music with old footage of song-and-dance icons perceived to be his artistic inspirations from entertainment’s past. Check out the following series of clips that chronicle evidence of a historical evolution behind what eventually came to be Michael Jackson’s “Moonwalk.”

Other videos on the page carefully combine edited clips of “West Side Story” with Jackson’s “Beat It” and “Bad,” or clips of Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing to Jackson’s “Smooth Criminal,” all skillfully crafted to demonstrate the entertainer’s obvious affinity towards show tunes, and their influence on his music, dance and videos. The significant difference between those historical gems and Jackson’s own art are the media that presented them, the silver screen versus MTV and the boob tube, which invariably led me to ponder how artistic influence gets recycled over time and through different mediums. As technology evolves and cultures change, valued art from the past gets passed on to succeeding generations, and shared influence continues to turn the wheels of inspiration, progress, and innovation.

Recently, Coldplay’s smash hit, “Viva La Vida,” sparked controversy over whether or not the British band lifted their song’s signature tune from an earlier recording of Joe Satriani’s “If I Could Fly.” The Internet and, more specifically, YouTube, became a sort of advanced interactive medium for fans to compare the music, discuss its transference, and indirectly share its inspiration and influence. To make matters more interesting, convincing compositions by other musicians including Enanitos Verdes and Cat Stevens got thrown into the mix, spanning almost twenty years of artistic works that seemingly influenced other works. Much of the matter’s discussion seems reminiscent of conversations that took place at the turn of the century when advances in production technologies brought Hip-Hop culture from block parties to the recording studio as artists began sampling old recordings to create entirely new music compositions.

In a society that sets high standards on the use of copy-written material, technology is once again testing the limits of artistic progress, and rekindling conversations that take place over the influence of past works. In the United States, arguments over copyright material are historically settled within the confines of America’s courtrooms, but new ideas fostering the free sharing of information via the Internet threatens to blow the hinges off the system’s doors. In the not-so-distant past, peer-to-peer sharing showed signs of destroying the business of record companies, which held a monopoly on music distribution, and lawsuits only gained them enough time to restructure their business models. Today, social networking sites like YouTube are excellent examples of mediums that allow for gross sharing of artistic property and ideas. Meanwhile, a new generation of entrepreneurs is setting aside outdated practices of intellectual protectionism by embracing a culture of sharing, most notably in open-source software development.

Regardless of which way the wind blows on future copyright law, shared influence among artistic works remains a powerful force that inspires human progress and innovation through time, a sort of transference of such subtle references to the past that they can quickly and easily be forgotten. Throughout human history, the past is what shapes our future and, since the day we learned to stand upright and speak, that yearning to share what we know and how we came to know it lingers within, like the blood flowing through our veins. It’s generally accepted that you cannot get something from nothing, especially within the spectacular realm of the shared human experience. So, without Copernicus, there would be no Galileo. Without Greek philosophy, no Roman democracy. Without Chuck Berry, no Beatles and, of course, without Fred Astaire, no Michael Jackson.

Side-stepping the urge to fulfill my role as a member of the “chattering class,” I thought it might be more constructive to provide Sarah Palin with an annotated analysis of her writing, which specifically focuses on the op-ed piece she wrote for the The Washington Post yesterday.

Edits, notes, and suggestions to Mrs. Palin are visible in red or bold typeface …

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End
By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to provide examples]. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than over 25 years, and it is expected to continue climbing [Who expects this ... economists, you, your accountant?]. Worries are widespread [Again ... Tell us exactly who's worried ... Americans, Alaskans, garbage workers?] that the recovery won’t bring create jobs, even when the economy finally rebounds. Our nation’s The national debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather prefer to focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges [What challenges?]. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind, and where my focus will be remains:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy [Now would be a good opportunity to dedicate a sentence or two explaining the president's cap-and-trade energy plan in further detail to your readers]. It The plan would undermine our the economy’s recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy [Historical examples would be a good addition here]. Particularly in In Alaska, we understand the inherent links between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge large, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax [Is it a plan or a tax? You should be more clear about what it is and why] would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how].

There is no denying that, as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources [According to who, and why?]. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive [Please elaborate. My understanding is that renewable energy sources are just that ... sources]! Those who understand the issue [It would probably be a good idea to provide further insight into who 'those' people are ... Republicans, conservatives, fifth graders?] know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy [I'm hoping that you will soon explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan will destroy the economy].

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax [I'm getting confused ... now it's a "cap-and-tax" plan?] plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years [This sentence is wordy. Try saying this instead ... "The president's cap-and-trade plan ensures job losses by including provisions that accommodate newly unemployed workers from its dried-up energy sector, costing $4.2 billion over eight years." Even after re-wording your sentence, I still don't know what it means]. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising increased cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax president’s plan. For example, it will increase the cost of farming will certainly increase, by driving down farm incomes down while and driving up grocery prices up [Now would be a good opportunity to provide an example that explains how]. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase [Again ... explain how].

What is tThe ironic beauty inherent in this the president’s plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics [You may want to consider explaining "supply-side economics" to your readers (liberal and conservative) and insert relevance to your primary point here].

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket. [Insert quote source and context here]” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year [Please explain your point further in the context of cap-and-trade ... using statistics or numbers would probably make sense].

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent [Redundant ... try another word. Consult thesaurus if necessary] Obama supporter, admitted that, under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity. [Insert quote source and context here]”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil [Is your inserting God into this sentence relevant to the argument?]. Just as Equally important, we Americans have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation that currently imports our from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America the United States. We Alaskans can could also safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal resources, whose and new technology is continuously making transforming it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally [I think you mean figuratively] sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how the president's cap-and-trade energy plan would outsource energy to other countries].

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment [Now would be a good opportunity to explain how drilling for oil, building new gas pipelines and nuclear power plants, and burning more coal protects the environment], therefore revive reviving our economy and secure securing our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, Sarah Palin, is a Republican, is and governor of Alaska.