Obama wants to take on "sacred cows" and "keep our sacred trust with our seniors."

We thought it was funny, at the press conference today, that Obama, in prepared remarks, used the word "sacred" in the sarcastic way right before using "sacred" in the serious way:

And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors...

He needs a better editor! That use of sacred cows primes the listener to disbelieve his seriousness about keeping the trust with seniors. We're prompted to think of "sacred" things as things that people are wrongly leaving untouched!

By the way, the word "sacrifice" also appears in that sentence, and "sacrifice" has the same root as "sacred."

sacrifice (n.)
mid-13c., from O.Fr. sacrifise (12c.), from L. sacrificium, from sacrificus "performing priestly functions or sacrifices," from sacra "sacred rites" (prop. neut. pl. of sacer "sacred," see sacred) + root of facere "to do, perform" (see factitious). L. sacrificium is glossed in O.E. by ansegdniss. Sense of "something given up for the sake of another" is first recorded 1590s. Baseball sense first attested 1880.

sacred
c.1300, from pp. of obsolete verb sacren "to make holy" (early 13c.), from O.Fr. sacrer (12c.), from L. sacrare "to make sacred, consecrate," from sacer (gen. sacri) "sacred, dedicated, holy, accursed," from O.L. saceres, which Tucker connects to base *saq- "bind, restrict, enclose, protect," explaining that "words for both 'oath' & 'curse' are regularly words of 'binding.' " But Buck merely groups it with Oscan sakrim, Umbrian sacra and calls it "a distinctive Italic group, without any clear outside connections." Nasalized form is sancire "make sacred, confirm, ratify, ordain." Sacred cow "object of Hindu veneration," is from 1891; figurative sense of "one who must not be criticized" is first recorded 1910, reflecting Western views of Hinduism.

Perhaps, out of respect for Hinduism, we should refrain from using the term "sacred cow." Perhaps respect for religion should lead us away from using the words "sacred" and "sacrifice" casually. But surely, if you want to demonstrate your somber, serious dedication by festooning your rhetoric with the words "sacred" and "sacrifice," you should nix the expression "sacred cow" — which is all about saying people are silly to regard something as holy.

How President Obama explained away a poll showing only 24% of Americans supported raising the debt ceiling "to avoid an economic catastrophe."

At the press conference today:

Q: You said that everybody in the room is willing to do what they have to do, wants to get something done by August 2nd. But isn’t the problem the people who aren’t in the room, and in particular Republican presidential candidates and Republican Tea Partiers on the Hill, and the American public? The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe. There are still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit. So isn’t the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They're worrying about their family; they're worrying about their jobs; they're worrying about their neighborhood. They've got a lot of other things on their plate. We're paid to worry about it. I think, depending on how you phrase the question, if you said to the American people, is it a good idea for the United States not to pay its bills and potentially create another recession that could throw millions of more people out of work, I feel pretty confident I can get a majority on my side on that one.

So... the the American people are misinformed if not incapable of absorbing matters beyond the narrow, personal sphere. It's the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" answer. You don't know what is good for you. If you knew, you'd agree with me. It's also what David Plouffe was talking about the other day when he said: "people won’t vote based on the unemployment rate. They’re gonna vote based on, 'How do I feel about my own situation? Do I believe the president makes decisions based on me and my family?'"

And notice that Obama said: "They've got a lot of other things on their plate." I hope they have room for peas!''

ADDED: "Plate of Peas," the Super 8 movie:

NYT: "Obama Takes Questions From His Tweeps."

Yikes. Yeeps. The NYT deploys a slang word that — at this moment — has fewer than 100 total votes at Urban Dictionary.

1. Tweeps

A user-created conjunction from Twitter and Peeps usually referring to the followers of the person using the word. Part of the various lingo resulting from www.twitter.com

"Oprah: Thanks tweeps for your good thoughts…" - Real quote from Twitter.com

2. tweeps

the words 'tweet' and 'peeps' combined. only used to describe the folks that have a twitter account...

3. Tweeps

Tweeps are tweens or teens that hang out with adults 25 years or older on a regular basis. For the adult, this should be a little creepy, since most people their age would like to hang out and party with real adults. Tweeps usually result in tweeping and the adult usually becomes a tweeper.

Definition #3 is not doing well in the thumbs-up/thumbs-down game. I don't think Obama has that kind of tweeps.

In other Urban Dictionary news, the word of the day today is "fuck." I'm not sure why. You'd think they'd have already gotten around to the famous word. It's no upstart like "tweeps." Maybe the President of the United States tweeting with his tweeps makes you think: fuck.

But I like seeing Obama constrained to 140 letters. He's often verbose and I'm all tr;dl.

"I’m Barack Obama, from the Moneygall Obamas."

"And I’ve come home to find the apostrophe that we lost somewhere along the way."

"Do you remember how the news media warned Bush how they would go after him if he even dared to mention 9/11 in any of his campaign speeches or ads?"

"Do you remember those admonitions? Do you hear any similar admonitions against President Obama as he runs around and practically campaigns with the corpse?"



It's Rush Limbaugh on his show today:

... ladies and gentlemen, our brave young president has added his heroic killing of Bin Laden to his campaign stump speech, which means he's practically dredged up the body of Bin Laden so he can campaign with it.  "Obama and Bin Laden Appear in El Paso," is an appropriate headline.  It's kind of like, do you remember the movie Weekend with Bernie, did you see that?  Well, I'm starting to think that the way Obama is talking, everywhere he goes he's gonna be taking Osama with him, gonna be reminding everybody how heroic he was and how uniquely intelligent he was.  How all of these people tried to get Osama but only he, Obama, pulled it off, an event that we have memorialized in our Club Gitmo merchandise line at the EIB Store. (interruption) Whoa, whoa, whoa -- don't tell me that. 

My friends, a staffer just said to me that the way I'm recounting this, comparing this to 'Weekend at Bernie's' and so forth, that this is distasteful. No, look, what I am doing is no more tasteless than what Obama himself is doing on the campaign. 

So... what do you think?

Make a taste judgment.
	Obama and Rush are both within a decent realm of political speech.
	Obama has stooped below the presidential level, but Rush is doing fine for talk-radio purposes.
	Obama is speaking appropriately, and Rush has fallen below a decent taste level for talk radio.
	Both men need to raise their taste level.
pollcode.com free polls

"There are times when we’re were among family, we’re among Democrats where we want to talk about being Democrats," said Obama in Florida.

"But today I want to talk to you a little about being an American, I want to talk about those things that bring us together as opposed to the things that drive us apart."

He went on to say that he had just visited a high school with [former Florida Governor Jeb] Bush. The crowd booed and hissed. 

Booed and hissed? In Obama's face? Just as he's talking about the things that drive us together as opposed to the things that drive us apart?!

Did Obama's own supporters ever take his Tucson speech seriously? And yet his opponents were supposed to moderate their politics at his behest.

Obama: "Over the first two years of my presidency, we had a complete disaster. Right?"

Right.

Obama sounds "corporate and airy."

"I found last night's speech very dull, and I turned it off less than an hour into it."

From Jaltcoh, who's been a big Obama supporter for years.

The idea that we're supposed to be alarmed that other countries are making too much progress relative to us, and that this is going to be our motivation to make economic and technological progress, leaves me cold.

Is it possible to declare a "Sputnik moment"?

The President tried last night:

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment.

But how do you have Sputnik without Sputnik? The Soviets launching their satellite shocked Americans into a period of intense activity and achievement. It's nice to want to do that again, but there's not an equivalent incentivizing advance by an imposing and feared foreign competitor.

This is our generation's Sputnik moment. What is? Are we playing let's pretend? Nothing is scaring us and lighting a fire under us. In fact, it's hard for us now, with our long perspective, even to understand why Sputnik was such a huge motivation. Ask some under-50 Americans today: Why was it so important to beat the Soviets in sending men to the moon? Ask them when/if the Soviets got a man to the moon. I'll bet they can't even give plausible answers. I'll bet even the over-50s are hit-or-miss when it comes to answering the question whether the Soviets got a man to the moon.

So what on earth — or on the moon — does Obama think he will get out of the mere verbal tag "Sputnik"? If you remember how Sputnik felt — and I do — you'll probably say, but there is  no equivalent of Sputnik. There are just a lot of countries, full of human beings, trying to get ahead economically, like us — not against us. There's no race with dramatic consequences for the winners and losers, and there's no impressive physical object that signifies that bad guys are winning the race. If you don't remember Sputnik, you're like: Sputnik?

***

Bonus Bob Dylan lyric:

Well, I don’t know, but I’ve been told
The streets in heaven are lined with gold
I ask you how things could get much worse
If the Russians happen to get up there first
Wowee! pretty scary!

Now, I’m liberal, but to a degree
I want ev’rybody to be free
But if you think that I’ll let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door and marry my daughter
You must think I’m crazy!
I wouldn’t let him do it for all the farms in Cuba

The morning after the State of the Union.

I hope you're feeling okay. Hope you didn't smoke too much salmon last night. Here's the video of the whole thing, in case you missed it... or forgot it... or just want to relive every scintillating moment of it...

ADDED, THE EVENING AFTER... I embedded last year's SOTU. So... quite a morning after for me. LOL. Delete.

Man! Getting Nancy back. That's quite an aftereffect!

The text of the State of the Union Address from a Democratic insider who has violated the White House embargo.

Via the National Journal.

UPDATE 1:

With their votes, [the people] determined that governing will now be a shared responsibility between parties. New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all – for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics.

But the challenges were "bigger than party, and bigger than politics" before, when you "move[d] forward" on your own, with only your party. Now, you're into togetherness, and it's togetherness with the party that isn't into "moving forward."

At stake right now is not who wins the next election – after all, we just had an election. 

Ha. What a lie! The next election is completely at stake. As for the last election, some of us think it was really important. But you're saying: Eh, it's over. Let's turn away from electoral politics. But we know damned well you're working on 2012, and you opponents want some attention paid to what just happened last November.

UPDATE 2:

Many people watching tonight can probably remember a time when finding a good job meant showing up at a nearby factory or a business downtown. You didn’t always need a degree, and your competition was pretty much limited to your neighbors. If you worked hard, chances are you’d have a job for life, with a decent paycheck, good benefits, and the occasional promotion....

When was that true? Who is he talking about? I'm 60 and I don't remember that ever being true.

That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful. I’ve seen it in the shuttered windows of once booming factories, and the vacant storefronts of once busy Main Streets. I’ve heard it in the frustrations of Americans who’ve seen their paychecks dwindle or their jobs disappear – proud men and women who feel like the rules have been changed in the middle of the game....

Proud... and bitter, clinging to their guns and religion. 

What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook....

Edison? Can I have my incandescent light bulbs back?

UPDATE 3: I'm skipping a ton of stuff to get to health care:

Now, I’ve heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

What I’m not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

He'll work together with Republicans, but only if they offer little tweaks to the big overhaul he rammed through, with no consideration for their opinion, when they didn't hold the seats in Congress.

UPDATE 4: Hey! I'm just noticing that Obama never says "The state of the union is [?]."

And now, what will I do when the actual speech comes on television? I don't know, but I feel so liberated! I'll just give you some chit-chat about whatever strikes me. The visuals. The screw-ups. The intonations. The hints of gray...

UPDATE 5: I've put up a new post for all the real-time style-over-substance chit-chat.

"Ann, any drinking words proposed for the SOTU?"

Asked Fred4Pres.

Florida said, 2 are enough: "investment" and "competitive."

Scott M suggested: "Let me be clear" and "together."

"Together." That's my favorite. But help add to the list. And plan to join me for some hot live-blogging tonight.

ADDED: You know what I would like to hear? (And if this is a drinking game, I will stand up, give a toast, and down my glass.) I would like to hear a few words of respect and admiration for George W. Bush.

"It is clear that the moment we now face demands a vision for how we as a people will win the future."

Says Obama in an email titled "Winning the future." It came with this video previewing the State of the Union address (he's "still workin' on it"):



ADDED: No sooner had I watched that than I got an email from an anti-Obama group with this picture:



What a crappy graphic! I don't know what primal emotions that was supposed to stir up or what it stirs up in other people, but it makes me feel: These people are mean-spirited and unfair.

"Last week, all humanity thrilled to the footage caught on a mall security camera of a walking-and-texting woman falling into a fountain."

"This week, the once-anonymous woman is doing an airing-of-grievances media blitz, complete with threats of legal action against those who made her hilarious klutziness an internet sensation."

Is there a cause of action for the invasion of privacy that takes place these days when someone catches something stupid that you do — in public — and puts it on YouTube? Hey, don't be stupid! The consequences are much higher today with the internet and viral video. It's a big deterrent. If the legal system turns that deterrent into a monetary gain, it will be incentivizing stupidity.

We need to learn how to live in the world as it is. When we're in public, we have a new dimension of visibility because of digital cameras and the internet. I've been thinking about the effect this is having on politics. Politicians have to watch every single thing they say. That's difficult.

Remember how one word uttered by George Allen destroyed him, because he foolishly thought he was speaking only to a small group and did not foresee how it would play on YouTube. Politicians will have to speak clearly, with a consistent message, and not something tailored to the particular group that they are speaking to at the moment. Obama was able to overcome his "bitter clingers" remark, which was specially designed to reach the hearts of wealthy San Franciscans. But it wasn't easy, and it still dogs him.

Heads up, everybody. Don't stare at the one thing that's right in front of your nose — whether it's your Blackberry or your biggest, wealthiest fans. Pay attention. There's a low wall just ahead, you're about to tumble into the fountain, and the internet is waiting to make you the next sensation.

"Who are the top 10 greatest classical composers?"

"That question has prompted over a thousand commenters in the New York Times to give their opinions..."

Jaltcoh has his response, with argument and YouTube clips to justify his choices. (He's beginning a countdown, so the linked post only has #10 and #9.)

Debussy started the ignition of the 20th century, but Stravinsky drove down most of its roads.

And then what happened to this metaphorical 20th century music-car?  Who drove it into the ditch? Who's standing by the side of the road drinking on a Slurpee or something? (Sorry... I'm more of a connoisseur of metaphor than music.)

"Before We are Democrats or Republicans, We are Americans," said Obama in his weekly address this morning.

And what's the first thing you notice — the difference between today and the speech he gave at the memorial? Right. Different color hair. Gray for the memorial, signifying the wise elder, the father figure. Back to dark hair to signify the vigorous young man, ready to forge ahead, solving problems, and restoring his party's electoral fortunes.

Restoring his party's electoral fortunes?!! Are you aghast that I would say such a thing when the literal message is "Before We are Democrats or Republicans, We are Americans"? But it's clear to me that the GOP is on the political upswing, and it's in the Democratic Party's interest to proclaim a period of low-key nonpartisanship and take away its opponents' momentum.

What Obama said — after the Tucson massacre — about "human understanding" and the "old assumptions" we ought to challenge.

Following the advice in the Shaker hymn that followed the President's speech last night, I kept it simple. I highlighted the passage in the speech about how we should take "a good dose of humility" and not "use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another." But I'm not a Shaker, and I'm a little wary when the most powerful man in the world advises the masses to be humble and come together as one. So I want to look at what he said just before that:

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "when I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.

But "there is evil in the world" is a simple explanation!

For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. 

How about: Jared Loughner is a lunatic? Okay, Obama said "exactly." Yes, I agree with his very minor point that we cannot know the precise content and etiology of Loughner's madness. But as we try to understand the political landscape of the real world where non-insane people live, those details don't matter. We have a simple explanation and it's a damned good one. Yet the President tells me I ought to "guard against" thinking in such simple terms. Why? Sometimes it is simple! Jared Loughner is a lone crazy guy. There is evil in the world and it burst forth last Saturday. It's not like labeling al Qaeda "evil" and moving on, because Loughner wasn't part of a web of activity. I think what we need to "guard against" is using Loughner as an example of some larger problem that we need to solve.

Obama continued:

None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind.

True. We can't know with certainty what his mental processes were, but we are justified in taking it as our working theory that the man was crazy in a way that doesn't relate to the real-world political issues that are worth putting our energy into trying to figure out — other than the real-world issue of identifying and restraining dangerously psychotic persons.

So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.

That's what Obama said just before the passage I highlighted in last night. He goes on to push back those who've used the massacre as an occasion to make partisan political arguments — something he's strongly correct about. All right, then. What are we supposed to examine? We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future. Does he mean old assumptions about the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill? Does he mean gun control? Does he mean limits on free speech? Now, there are some details we need to hear about and debate. If freedom of speech is the "old assumption" we should be "willing to challenge," I'm going to fight.

Obama in Tucson: "What we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another."

"As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together."

This theme of humility was reinforced with the musical selection that followed: The choir sang the old Shaker hymn "Simple Gifts"...

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,
'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,
And when we find ourselves in the place just right,
'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.
When true simplicity is gain'd,
To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd....

"Obama Recasts Asia Trip as Jobs Mission."

The NYT headlines:

“The primary purpose is to take a bunch of U.S. companies and open up markets so that we can sell in Asia, in some of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and we can create jobs here in the United States of America,” Mr. Obama told his cabinet Thursday, with the cameras rolling.

“My hope is, is that we’ve got some specific announcements that show the connection between what we’re doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job growth and economic growth,” he said....

“On the trip that I’m about to take, I’m going to be talking about opening up additional markets in places like India, so that American businesses can sell more products abroad in order to create more jobs here at home,” Mr. Obama said.

If that's recasting the point of the trip, what was it previously supposed to be about? And whatever the original purpose, why didn't Obama figure out that this would be a good thing to say before the elections?