[above: Where the fu¢k is Obama in this picture?! He's going to miss the domino show and Tokio Hotel— is that guy a man or a woman?!]I first learned about this controversy over at One Free Korea. Apparently some people in America are upset that President Barack Hussein Obama did not go to Berlin to participate in the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in Europe and the Cold War (well, not everywhere).
They are saddened and/or angry that Obama did not witness for America the knocking down of wall piece mock-ups that were to be knocked down like dominos. Hmm... dominos... communism... I'm vaguely recalling something about the domino theory of communism... ooh, the irony.
And apparently it's an ominous sign of Obama's shortcomings, or worse. OFK commenter JCS wrote:
The fact that the US head of state is not trumpeting the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago is a disturbing sign of the inroads that European paganism has made into our own country’s social fabric. Is he not glad that communism failed? Can we meaningfully condemn the DPRK’s human rights abuses if we can’t even celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall?I was shocked — shocked! — that BHO would so blatantly tip his hand and reveal his love of Marxism and his sadness at its demise (well, not everywhere). I immediately went to the Time archives to read up on whether past presidents Bill Clinton and Bush43 had visited Germany during the anniversary celebrations of 1994, 1999, and 2004. I couldn't find anything in the archives, so I'm assuming that Bill and George did go, and that is why their trip and speech and all that was not reported: it was a non-event. Of course they would go.
Obama needs to save his presidency, and fixing this problem is a way to solve this. But first, we need to lay some ground rules. If Obama had gone this year, would he be off the hook for the golden anniversary celebration in 2014 (assuming he's still president then)?
Please, professional Obama bashers (Obashers?), help me understand which anniversaries of milestone events are important. Is the 30th important? That's a nice, round number, so I'm guessing it is. But then how about the 35th or the 45th?
Obama did make it to France for the 65th anniversary of the D-Day landing, so is the 65th especially important, but then what about all those other ending-in-five anniversaries that aren't 25th and 75th? Man, this is confusing. You'd think that a detail-oriented man like Obama would have been on top of this.
I guess I'm just as naïve as the President. When I first heard on my iPod during my daily jog that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had gone to represent the United States on the china anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I thought to myself that that would make sense since. After all, in addition to Hillary being a well-known and popular figure over in Europe, as well as a high-ranking member of the US government, Obama himself was going to the actual China.
I guess I'm just as naïve as the President. When I first heard on my iPod during my daily jog that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had gone to represent the United States on the china anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I thought to myself that that would make sense since. After all, in addition to Hillary being a well-known and popular figure over in Europe, as well as a high-ranking member of the US government, Obama himself was going to the actual China.
I mean, maybe he was too busy working on real-world stuff, like funerals in Fort Hood and preparing to travel to summits with East Asian leaders, to watch the dominoes of anti-communism fall and then tell the people of Berlin that he's a jam-filled pastry.
Oh, sh¡t! I just realized something. Maybe this is, like, one of those distractions of the public generated by the privileged elite that are meant to draw attention away from actually important issues of the day, like major health-care legislation, the POTUS talking free trade and security with East Asian leaders, or... other stuff.
Fu¢k me! I've been duped twice today.
is it just that the media has saturated our lives completely, or is bho the most shit-on president in history?
ReplyDeleteI think BHO's a pretty shit-on president, but still not as shit-on as Bill Clinton. That guy knew his stuff... except how to do battle with a special interest machine that knew exactly how to deceive the general public into feverishly opposing a health care system that was in their best interest.
ReplyDeleteThe destruction of the Berlin Wall was upon request of the (Republican version) great, powerful, awe inspiring, fabulous President Reagan.
ReplyDeleteBut it happened on Bush41's watch. :) Still a Republican, but not the most shit-on Republican ever. :)
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of when I had pointed out a few years ago that one reason why Koreans generally were angry and/or scared shitless by Bush43 was that his Axis of Evil comment seemed to (wrongly) suggest Bagdad, Teheran, and Pyongyang were all in cahoots together, and (it seemed) Iran and North Korea were next on his list.
One of the right-wing Korea-bashers responded that this was irrational, and that the "Axis of Evil" comment was not to be taken literally (as if words are supposed to mean something), just like when Reagan said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall" and there was no real wall.
"What the hell are you talking about?" I told the much-older-than-I right winger, he was standing at Brandenburg Gate and speaking of the Berlin Wall right behind them. It was most definitely a literal wall, and, though he may also have been speaking figuratively about keeping people of the Communist bloc locked up, he was most definitely talking about tearing down that specific wall.
Anyway, I think it's foolish to give all the credit to Reagan for the fall of communism. Were it not for people like Truman who stood up early to the Soviets (and the Chinese) when he went to bat for Korea in 1950, the world would look very, very different.
FDR was attacked like no other, but back then the media consisted of only the radio, newspapers, and 10 minute news reels at the Rialto. However, the president attacked the most would have to be the one that led to the country divided by civil war (A.L.). Obama hasn't come close to taking the heat that those two took.
ReplyDeleteOh, dear. I think my Compton roots have shown through.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading John from Taejŏn's comment, I realized I took Shinbone's meaning of "shit-on" to be something entirely different.
You see, where I come from, "shit-on" is sort of like "spot-on." I took Shinbone's comment to mean that Obama is a spot-on good leader, someone who really knows his shit.
I shit you not; that's exactly what I was thinking, hence my comment that followed (which, upon second reading, could have gone in a completely different direction with that other meaning).
Back in the 'hood, gentlemen, the meaning Shinbone had intended would be conveyed not by shit-on, but shat-upon.
And yes, I would agree with John's assessment that Obama is by no means that most shat-upon president in our history (but then again, we're just getting started). I think few other presidents have been depicted with a bone in their nose.