The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    The man with the rag-on tattoo

    Since it was discovered that Barack Obama had "rag-on" tattooed on his back below the neckline, the punditry have been at odds about what the tattoo means, how it got there, whether Presidents should have tattoos, and whether he fumbled the ball by allowing Maureen Dowd to see the tattoo in an exclusive swim-along in the White House gym. I'm going to throw a lifeline to Obama and try to explain the tattoo. The President's style is so lack luster he'll be late in addressing the tattoo so someone should do it for him.

    As to what the "rag on" tattoo means in short---for example, "rag on someone", or even "quit ragging on me", let's get something straight. The vulgar interpretations will not be tolerated on this blog. Hopefully that disclaimer will get Dowd off my back and she won't become hysterical.  But couldn't Obama have anticipated the possible backlash in showing Dowd the tattoo---given the possible misogynistic interpretations of the term. I mean, what was he thinking

    The "rag" phrase is sometimes used in relation to composing "Ragtime" music---that is, "ragging" and because ragtime originated with black bands in the 1890's the tattoo could be a nod to black Americans, the underpinning of Obama's base supporters. Why then wouldn't Obama, as is his penchant for trial balloons,  have revealed the tattoo to one of his major black apologists in the media, instead of to Dowd---erstwhile and reliable white lady regulator of everyone else's behavior. Was showing the tattoo to the wrong pundit a misstep on Obama's part?

    We could appropriately question the President's judgment here, as well as his weak assessment of the media.

    Apparently Sri Lanka is the leading venue for the practice of "ragging"---meaning the bullying and intimidation of new students, common also in India, as well as in the U.S., where the practice of terrorizing other students is more frequently referred to as "hazing." Well, if it had been Obama's intent to cater to college students, the other component of his base, why didn't the tattoo say "nohaze"---why create confusion, especially as no one in this country gives a hoot about what happens in Sri Lanka. If the President was trying to blatantly woo college students with a cryptic tattoo, I give him low marks on picking this particular option.

    Don't you think Obama brings upon himself much of the criticism he gets? So maybe the tattoo is a weak attempt to remind himself, by looking backward into a mirror each morning, not to invite the very criticism which has seemed to bog him down lately. If so, he has used the wrong medium, as ink under thin skin is perhaps a lazy man's approach to penning creative reminders.

    Or maybe Obama lost the thread completely, learning that another definition of ragging is that of creative painting with a rag---like trying to simulate an expensive mahogany wood finish with maroon paint on an old piece of common pine. ...O.K., take your best shot. And while you're at it, be sure to toss in some lassitude and even a sprinkle of lackadaisical.

    When I read Dowd's opinion piece today, "Losing the Room", I had a hard time at first not simply agreeing with her---yeah, he's lost the room. Can't get it right. Then she lobbed in the clincher---about Obama carrying on his planned agenda and giving short shrift to the tragedy at the Naval Yard. That sounded unfair---which is a great way for an opinion writer to lose an audience

    Maybe I am an Obamabot who can't see the truth about this guy. But I ask simply, if he had canceled his plans and spent more time addressing the events surrounding the shooting---much of which was rank speculation at the time, wouldn't he have been accused of grandstanding for the gun control lobby---or been accused by Dowd of ignoring the pending government shutdown?---she not skipping a beat with lazy buzzwords like "lassitude" and "muddled".  

    I admit that a large part of the time I cannot tell what the hell the President is up to. It seems as if his cool demeanor just invites people to rag on him---much as if someone had pinned the sign, "kick me" on the back of his jacket. Dowd didn't need to see the tattoo, she's already on the case. And the President, well, he was just "leading from behind"---as he always does.

     

    Comments

    I was in absolute agreement with you about the media pile-on. It reminds me of the scandal-storm that was supposed to wreck Obama's presidency: Benghazi, IRS, and another "gate" I can't remember. Yeah, whatever.

    But then I read Politico's What's Wrong with President Obama? and the counterpoint, And What's Right With Obama? Actually, I didn't read "What's Wrong..." b/c I've already read a few hundred variations of that article. But I did read "What's Right..."

    It's terrible. Politico obviously invited the authors to write the counterpoint so they could do the twin headlines, and they had trouble with it. Inspired, it was not. This what they came up with:

    • He has a nice personality
    • He's not crazy
    • His opponents are crazy
    • The Democratic Party is doing OK
    • He's lucky

    Seriously. It's perhaps the dumbest article on Obama strengths that I've ever read.

    But then I thought about it a little and contemplated what I might write if I were asked. I couldn't come up with much. I mean, better than these dumbasses, but the truth is, Obama's greatest strength is that he's not a disaster. The economy hasn't tanked, he hasn't mired us in any new wars, there have been no horrific "gates", he was reelected, and his poll ratings aren't terrible. But he hasn't done anything that in any way sets him apart, no brilliant tactics, no impressive victories. Even his triumphs, like the ACA, were slightly depressing. I can't think of any president in the 20th century who has been so consistently unexceptional. And that, in my opinion, is What's Wrong with Obama.


    Harding?  


    Harding was a disaster. So was Taft. Obama is not a disaster. He's just an exceptionally mediocre president.


    I don't disagree.  How much credence do you give to the notion that a president can't properly be judged until he or she has gone back home to an Independence, Mo. 

    So lets say, for example that the ACA works enough in cooperating blue and purple states such that other states join on with vigor?  Or what if Kerry makes progress in the IP negotiations?   Or Iran and the US are able to come together?

    I understand that lots of this stuff is random, but if one of these things happen, big if I know, but of course that's history, and if one thing happens he's still the same plain vanilla risk averse guy.   But then doesn't he get judged as other presidents have been similarly assessed, by results?

     


    As an aside I was surprised that the local Fox station in Dallas did a piece about how small business people and their employees were making decisions about ACA and in reality it was a pretty fair and not depressing story. There are at least two insurance companies advertising locally, stressing the advantages of the many new health care options. Could ACA be a sleeper?


    Well it could be a sleeper Oxy but there are hurdles still.  Texas, for example, is one of those states that has refused to expand its Medicaid program which is a central part of the program. 

    http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/Resources/Primers/Medicaid-expansion

    Won't be an easy ride. 


    Enjoyed the blog btw.  Thanks. 


    On Politico, damning with mediocre praise I guess.

    I do think that trying to resolve Iran's nuclear ambitions is the elephant in the room, and we have three years to go on that front.

    But as of now, it's hard to disagree with your consistently unexceptional theme.


    Rambling thoughts.

    Dowd didn't say anything I haven't thought. (She specializes in making naughty thoughts public.)

    What none of the armchair psychologists (or psychobabblers, if you like--it's just naughty fun sometimes) ever talk about, though, is something that always mystified me (having never seen anything beyond vague manipulative babble about hope and dreams in all those campaign speeches that turned so many on.) And still mystifies me to this day:

    Why did he want to be President so bad?

    He never even held an executive position before (except Harvard Review?), had never tried it out to see if he'd like it.

    Wazzit? Dreams from his father?

    Which takes me back to what Dowd said. The only thing I can think of as an answer is that he thought he could inspire people, i.e., hold a room. And seems like he waaay long ago seems to have given up on that.

    And why did he run again? To finish what? Was it like "for the good of the country" so not to have a risk of GOP taking over again? Even though the job was becoming tortuous for him to execute?

    Another thing. See lotsa Congressional Dems complaining that things have gotten much worse on the interaction front since Rahm Emmanuel left. Why didn't he get another Rahm Emmanuel type if he doesn't like dealing with Congress himself? What was that decision all about, to just say "fuck it I'm just gonna do what I can all by my lonesome"?


    Do you think there is a general malaise and a universal feeling that no one is making a lot of progress (outside the 1%). I started feeling that way in August, like running in sand---except for the week I was on steroids. Anyway, in our constant media info world, a slow time is simply filled with depressing chatter. By the way, there has not been a lot of criticism of Republicans shutting off food stamps for the poor and shutting down the government before the dead from the Navy Yard shooting are even memorialized and interred.


    Seems to me starting way before August this year, and slowly and steadily getting worse. And I'm not talking about me, but about "the American people."

    Maybe a lecture by Jimmy Carter would help? cheeky


    Yikes, do you think Obama has the right sweater?


    Oxy,

    I was going to do a separate blog but I think this fits here as it relates to various assessments of Obama's performance to date.  Some of the regulars here might remember me as one of the last supporters of a futile HRC campaign back in '08, but I guess I'm not surprised that I've become one of the president's more regular defenders--in a very relative kind of way.

    Don't get me wrong, because I have quite a bit to be disappointed about.  I knew, as most of us the union field knew or should have known that his promise to pursue necessary labor law reforms back in '08 was a pipe dream--and that is because given the presence of Democratic senators in Red States there was no way he as a political matter was going to waste "capital" on an issue when he was pursuing healthcare.  And, I'm not an economist--and full disclosure I do represent building trades unions--but I just don't understand how the marriage of job creation and a crumbling nationwide infrastructure has not been a national priority.  It's absurd I think--like eating the seed corn.

    On the ACA, which you refer to above, I have to be careful because I understand very well why many American unions are unhappy--I've been at the table more times than I can tell you in situations where working folks have given up pay increases to hold on to affordable and quality medical care.  There's a real disconnect between long-standing American labor policy that favors the voluntary resolution of labor disputes and the application of the ACA to collectively bargained plans.  I've read at times from folks on the left that unions are being selfish in this area--I respectfully disagree.  On the other hand, I never bought into this notion that the president could have achieved the type of Canadian or Western European systems many of us favor--that, I believe, just reflects a wishful disregard of Washington politics.

    On foreign policy, I'm not sure if anyone noticed something Acanuck posted the other day about the dismal display of diplomacy in connection with our southern neighbors in Brazil.  It's embarrassing to say the least, and our brother from up north is right to call us on this. 

    But. . .betcha knew this was coming! :)

    But focusing on foreign policy, Obama goofed quite a bit in his first term.  On the other hand, who can fault him for authorizing his secretary of state to spend so much time trying to bring Palestinians and Israelis together?  What if it works?   And who can fault him on his fundamental understanding that we need to  listen better to folks in the Middle East and Asia?   I have serious doubts about the current Iranian overtures, but hell at least it looks like the president is going to do the right thing and take Rouhani at his word and give diplomacy a chance.  And, for those who might not pay so much attention to Israel, one might not have noticed that Kerry just went there and from what I know of Israeli politics and Bibi and those to his right, it will be a diplomatic success if Bibi et al, to the extent that they can, just keep their collective mouths closed on this one.  So I see that as positive.

    And, here's the kicker, because really the most recent issue is the whole chemical weapons debate we've been participating in.  Like David Ignatius in the column I link to and quote fully below, I submit that style and $2.50 get you on the IRT.  

    And I think that this is the way history works--I'm sure Michael W. can tell us how awkwardly the U.S. entered WWI, after he ran in 1916 on a platform of "He Kept us Out of the War."  And, when we went in, folks like my great uncle were placed in trenches with wholly inadequate training, and at first it was disaster.  Funny anecdote, my grandfather of blessed memory, followed his older brothers to Europe, but he didn't get there until April 1919, and he used to claim -- and I believed him -- that once he got there the other side knew it was time to surrender!! :)

    Ignatius makes some really good points in this column, I think, so anyway here it is:

    Obama is criticized for right result on Syria

    By , Published: September 18

    How did it happen that, less than a year after Barack Obama convincingly won reelection, his every move as president now draws hoots and catcalls from nearly every point on the political spectrum?

    Perhaps his Syria policy really is a story of “epic incompetence,” as Charles Krauthammer opined last week. Maybe he has an “unbelievably small” presidency, as Marc Thiessen commented, or that no one is afraid of him, as Ruth Marcus argued. And that’s just a sampling of opinion from my colleagues at The Post.

    What’s puzzling about this latest bout of Obama-phobia is that recent developments in Syria have generally been positive from the standpoint of U.S. interests.

    Obama has accomplished goals that most Americans endorse, given the unpalatable menu of choices. Polls suggest that the public overwhelmingly backs the course Obama has chosen. APost-ABC News surveyasked Americans if they endorsed the U.S.-Russian plan to dismantle Syrian chemical weapons as an alternative to missile strikes; 79 percent were supportive.

    Yet the opinion of elites is sharply negative.

    Here’s what I see when I deconstruct the Syria story:

    Russia has been drawn into a process of collecting and destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal. This has been a goal of U.S. policy for two years. It finally worked, thanks in part to Obama’s pledge to use military force to punish Syria if the Russians didn’t step up. In this messy world, there is considerable value in agreement by Moscow and Washington on the “soonest and safest” destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, with a timetable for implementation.

    The United Nations has taken new steps to affirm the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The 41-page report delivered this week to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is not a joke, as some predicted; it’s a surprisingly thorough, careful documentation of the horrific attack on Aug. 21. The report doesn’t directly accuse Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of using the weapons; assessing blame, unfortunately, wasn’t part of the U.N. mandate. But the evidence demolishes the absurd Russian-Syrian claim that the weapons were used by the rebels.

    If you’re frustrated by a feckless and unreliable United Nations, you should be encouraged by a line in the opening paragraph of the report: “The international community has a moral responsibility to hold accountable those responsible and for ensuring that chemical weapons can never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.”

    The United States and Russia have restarted their push for negotiations in Geneva toward a cease-fire and a political transition in Syria. Yes, it’s unfortunate that Assad is still in power, but is his hold really stronger now that he has been forced to admit he has chemical weapons and agreed to destroy them? I’m not so sure. The United States and Russia have agreed to meet in New York in late September with U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to continue this political process. The Russians know that Assad must go eventually; they’ve now moved a little closer to a framework for beginning the transition. Suggestion: Assad’s official “term of office” expires next year.

    Amid all this diplomacy, Obama has pressed ahead with a covert program of training and assistance for the moderate Syrian rebel forces headed by Gen. Salim Idriss. My Syrian sources say that these CIA-trained commandos make a difference as they take the field: They begin to tip the balance away from the jihadist fighters associated with al-Qaeda, who (as the Russians correctly warn) are a dangerously potent factor in the opposition.

    The showdown ahead between moderates and extremists was signaled this week when the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams announced a military campaign, emphatically code-named “Expunging Filth,” against two of Idriss’s brigades in Aleppo. This second Syrian war is coming, and even the Russians may end up relieved that the CIA is training fighters who can counter the jihadists.

    The mystery is why this outcome in Syria is derided by so many analysts in Washington. Partly, it must be the John McCain factor. The Arizona senator is in danger of becoming a kind of Republican version of Jesse Jackson, who shows up at every international crisis with his own plan for a solution, sometimes through personal mediation (as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), other times demanding military intervention (as in Syria). Because McCain is a distinguished figure, he commands respect even when his proposals have no political support at home.

    Not so Obama. He can propose what the country wants, succeed at it and still get hammered as a failure.


    Bruce, thanks very much. As I've probably said before, one of the reasons I enjoy your writing is your personal touch and I love the anecdote.

    And the piece by Ignatius is a welcome counter-balance to the constant "hammering".

    I'm really not informed about the ramifications of ACA for Unions and would like to hear more on the subject. But as a small company owner I'm happy that I can provide financial assistance at the level I can afford and that my crew can then make their own choices. 


    Thanks for adding this, Bruce.  I was going to write a blog about it myself, but don't know if I'll have time today.  (A word of caution, however:  Reposting an entire copyrighted article without permission is a big no-no.  Better to grab a few pertinents with a corresponding link.  That'll make WaPo--and their lawyers--much happier.)

    This constant Obama-bashing, no matter what he does, is becoming the norm on both sides and can only be ultimately harmful to us, come 2014 and 2016.  I'm certainly not thrilled with everything he does--I have a real problem with his choice of cabinet members, his war policies, his cavalier approach to infrastructure, and I, too, go crazy over his reluctance to bully for more help for workers--but to say he has never done anything good is as ridiculous as saying he does everything good.

    The flak over the Ignatius article is already over the top, and it's still morning.  I'm sure that won't come as any surprise to Ignatius, and I applaud his efforts to bring some sanity to the arguments.

     

     


    Thanks Ramona, are you saying that my one link to the article is inadequate?  Geez the last thing I wanna do is cause problems here.  


    Ha!  I don't think it would be dagblog in trouble, I think it would be the one who used it. 

    It's fair to use some material from an article without permission--and even that's murky in some instances--but it's not fair use to use it all:

    Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook

    Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.

    Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be

    The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.

    Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.


    Thanks for the legal advice!!!!! 


    becoming the norm on both sides and can only be ultimately harmful to us, come 2014 and 2016.

    I really don't agree that the "throw the bums out" thing applies to the presidential race, not at all. It does apply to Congress, but not to the presidency.The presidential race is always about the appeal of the individual presidential candidate, not the candidate's party and not the previous president of the same party.

    Lots of people forget this, but W got enough votes to get a Supreme Court win over Gore by being a kinder, gentler, humbler candidate than Gore. And, despite plenty of Bush bashing, Bush won a second term.

    Also: who is "us"? I'm an Independent, and so are a huge chunk of voters, usually a decisive chunk. I really don't like the whole "we have to support our guy, right or wrong" thinking, that's one of the major reasons I switched to Independent way back in 1980. If you're unhappy with a president, I see absolutely no good reason to be quiet about it. I don't agree that doing so tars the next presidential candidates of  the same party, unless they chose to run as a clone of their predecessor.


    "Us" is the country.  That's the way I meant it, because I can't imagine any good coming from a Republican win, either in 2014 or 2016.  I don't agree that Obama-bashing won't affect the presidential election in 2016.  If the Republicans get a foothold in 2014, it'll swing the country to the right and I don't see how the Democrats will be able to recover by 2016.  (Of course, it could be that an Independent may surface by then, but right now that looks highly unlikely)

    There's a difference between disagreeing with some or even most of Obama's methods and policies and the kind of constant and unrelenting attacks on everything and anything he does by both the right and the left. 

    If the bad stuff can't ever be tempered by anything laudable, then he really is a devil with no redeeming qualities.  Keep that thought going and it can't help but rub off on Democrats caught in the crossfire.  They'll lose, and to my mind, that's a loss for us all.


    Hey Bruce,

    I'm just going to comment on one little aspect of your comment, Unions and ACA. So look, I know the issue, I know that these big unions self-insure and are worried they won't be able to continue this practice, and they feel it is a downgrading of their benefits.

    I want to ask you a serious question. Do you honestly believe my health insurance (FEHB)  is lessor than those received by union members?  

    The greater the participation in the new system by everyone, which means complying with the regulatory scheme, forces costs down, (i.e. see California, NY, Washington State, etc) making it easier to subsidize those people who have never had access to any kind of adequate preventive health care. I cannot side with the unions on this, it's an all in scheme, it can't become it's most efficient with out the participation of everyone, including Unions. America's working poor deserve access.


    Tmac, I totally understand where you're coming from, and I'm certainly not comparing the quality of any union's plan (or multi-employer plan) versus your FEHB plan.  Hardly, and I recognize the importance of an expanded pool and I think I've even written about that here.

    My only point was trying to simply point out the policy basis for the objections by many unions, i.e. we, consistent with federal policy, gave up wages, etc. to keep our insurance, and now we can't keep what we bargained for.  That's all I'm saying.  

    I hear you (as a former federal employee way back when and as a current beneficiary of the spouse's NYC plan, by whom she's employed).

     


    I know. 


    Not much time today, but I would say that there is a LOT of good to say about the Obama presidency.

    From a progressive standpoint, even if the ONLY thing he had ever done was get the ACA passed, even a flawed ACA with lots of opposition to it, he would have gone down in history as a great president.

    Just to make a quick comparison with Clinton, whose main achievements were...

    • Welfare reform (or gutting, depending on your point of view)

    • Balanced budget (austerity anyone?)

    • Doma (for all you LGBT folks out there)

    • DADT (for all you LGBT folks out there dying for your country)

    • Losing Congress for the first time in 40 years

    • Monica Lewinsky (welfare for The Enquirer)

    • Travelgate

    • Vince Foster-gate

    And he had a GREAT economy to work with.

    And yes, some very good achievements in SCHIP, the Balkans and winning the presidency for a Democrat for the first time, really, since LBJ (assuming Carter was kind of an aberration or an unforced error on the GOP's part).

    This is NOT to bash Clinton, whom I supported, in any way. But just to give some perspective. But here, in the other column, we have a guy who...

    • Passed a signal step toward a 100-year-old dream of progressives that is already having a major impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives.

    • Was handed a world economy on the verge of collapse and turned it upward

    • The New New Deal stimulus

    • The new financial protection agency and other elements of Dodd-Frank

    • Saved an iconic company and major employer

    • Ended a major war

    • Saved unemployment benefits for millions when the opposition was set on stopping them.

    • Has had to battle every day against a nihilistic, take no prisoners, never compromise opposing party

    • Had killed Public Enemy Number One.

    • Syria (perhaps--see above)

    • Getting $20 billion for the Gulf

    • Working through the EPA to regulate emissions

    The reason Obama wanted the job is easy to see: He thought it was a good way to help people and help his country. And it's not as if he had no history of trying to do that, so the hypothesis isn't completely crazy.

    Not trying to excuse his failings, but a bunch of the disappointment is a product of where he started and what he inherited and the rabid opposition which, in fact, was really a reaction to disappointment with Bush on the right.

    (Is it being too harsh to blame US for not turning out in 2010 or understanding how big a role the state houses were going to play in gerrymandering districts?)

    I agree with Ramona: Keep this up and we'll have Rafael Cruz to knock around in 2016. Or Rubio. And we'll probably find a way to blame Obama for that, too. Such a shame he didn't turn out to be The Magic Negro we all thought he'd be.

    I mostly don't like political discussions that become some version of who was better Mantle or Maris...but if politics is a long game, then you have to keep some balance along the way or you'll die sprinting up the third big hill. That's something else Obama gets that many folks, like Dowd, don't.

     


    This.


    Thanks, Peter.

    I'm glad you mentioned the "transference" nature of the rabid Republican opposition---from their own party to Obama. In this rabid opposition is a wild card few could have anticipated, and as we are seeing now, it is as much a phenomenon caused by the split in the Republican party as it is anti-O---making folks like O'Connell, who in another era might have been more reasonable, run to the fringe areas.

    I'm sure there are those who did anticipate such a wild card and can point to data that such wild cards are the norm and are therefore no excuse for a lack luster style and poor choices.     


    I don't care what kind of tattoo he has on his back.  He is a good president for this time. The country is still transitioning out of the conservative area into a new direction.  It looks like it will take all eight years for the country to make it's leap.  I can tell you that the leap is not going to be in the direction of the far right.  That train has already derailed and is a mass of wreckage.  

    The sad part is, that there is a built in inertia to our government.  Parlimentary systems respond much faster to needs then the system we have.  History will be good to the current presidency.  The GOP isn't going to make much inroads in 2014.  They have angered many different groups of voters, moreover they haven't stopped ragging on these groups. Besides we are into 5 years of a depression and that is thinning out the conservative rank and file.  I see it in Florida.  

    Frankly, I blame Congress for the slow results.  That is where  the bad guys are. 


    Obama's tattoo says "DAG-on," and Dowd got it wrong because she was swimming without her prescription goggles.

    (Don't even ask me how I know this.)