Scott Richert’s offered an excellent cutting through of the Obama-Word-Fog onslaught delivered earlier today at the Notre Dame University commencement ceremony, where the teleprompters were working in extraordinary fine-tuning:
President Obama at Notre Dame: Substituting “Fair-Mindedness” for Truth
Sunday May 17, 2009
A half an hour before the 2009 Commencement Ceremony began at the University of Notre Dame, the Huffington Post broke the press embargo and published the prepared text of President Obama’s commencement address. And, as I predicted, the President was unable to resist the temptation to discuss abortion.
What I didn’t expect was that he would address the topic so bluntly. After the joking introduction that is standard in such speeches, the President wasted little time in transitioning into a discussion of “diversity,” which he described as “ever-growing.” This “diversity of thought, of culture, and of belief,” he argued, needs to be reconciled with “our ever-shrinking world” so that we can “find a way to live together as one human family.”
Set aside the fact that the family is, by its very nature, the least diverse of both natural and social institutions in which we find ourselves. President Obama simply takes for granted the idea that increasing diversity is a good thing. The diversity he is talking about is not the diversity of races and ethnicities and cultures, but a diversity of beliefs on fundamental principles, such as the sanctity of human life.
The examples that the President uses makes it clear where he is headed:
The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son’s or daughter’s hardships can be relieved.
The problem is that the “gay activist” and the evangelical pastor are not simply divided by culture but by fundamental principles. And fundamental principles lie at the root of the debate over embryonic stem-cell research.
But rather than address these moral questions at the level of fundamental principles, President Obama suggests that everything can be solved by presuming “good faith” on the part of others. Yet we do not need to presume bad faith in order to believe that those who think that an unborn child is merely a lump of cells, and that ending his life is not tantamount to murder, are fundamentally in error.
President Obama unintentionally illustrates the problem in the example he uses in his speech:
A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that’s not what was preventing him from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website – an entry that said I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, “I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”
How did Obama respond?
After I read the doctor’s letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn’t change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website [emphasis mine]. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that – when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do – that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
But how exactly did candidate Obama open his heart and mind to the Christian doctor? Not by reconsidering his position on abortion—he tells us that right up front. Rather, the extent of his opening of heart and mind was a change in rhetoric. If referring to “right-wing ideologues” loses votes, then dropping the language is the smart political move.
The only dialogue that the President is willing to have on the question of abortion will take place at this level. As he sums up his vision of this dialogue:
Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.
To say that the decision to have an abortion is “heart-wrenching” does not address whether it is right—in fact, quite the opposite. No one disagrees that we need to change the circumstances that lead women to consider abortion an option, but if we cannot first agree that abortion should not be an option, then we’ll never agree on what it means to ensure that “our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
As Richter identifies, these subtle but persistent foggy-bottomed and topped Word-Bogs by Barack Obama require careful analysis to catch the absurdities. Big, elaborate noisy or flashy (or both) things require more thought to properly analyse, otherwise, you just go with some emotional overflow at looking at or hearing grandiose, sensory affronts. And sensory affronts — not sense — is what Obama uses (as does his wife) to agitate others.
My overall evaluation of Barack Obama, given the particular crowds who applaud him and the abundant insights, otherwise, that see through his Word-Fog methods, is that Barack Obama appeals to juvenile, highly impressionable minds, despite whatever their age may be.
He offers a false front that is only identified when you analyze his words and actions and, secondly, when the two are coordinated with expectation of any sense involved.
There isn’t much sense involved if you do so, except the sense of “Barack Obama Personality” or self-promotions using whatever desperately disparate, even nonsensical, phrases and terms he can arrange on teleprompter.
He talks grandly to prevent analysis of what he’s actually saying, in other words, which produces the same effect on certain people as turning up the base on musical tracks does: some of us get ear aches, headaches over time if exposed to such and the effect is received as irritating noise while some others aren’t even aware that there is more to “music” than a blasting base that overruns everything else. Lyrics? What? Wow, the base, bump, bump, bump, bump, bumpty-bump, my life for youuu…
Obama’s speeches are like that: he inspires certain gullible persons because they’re, well, they’re just so eager to dig the bumpity bump without regard for the lyrics. If the lyrics are nonsensical, so much the better for some: it’s like “Jazz Obama, Barack-excise!”
Even jazz makes sense but if one is unfamiliar with the sense it makes, it’s just beaten noise: bumpty-bump-de-bump-bump, let’s read Neitzche, this is nothingness!”
Obama makes little to no sense despite his grandiose vocabulary: it’s not strung together toward a logical conclusion EXCEPT into an overall, general effect of self-promotion. People faint because he’s self-promoting and the emotional effects are intense like a big nothing is dark. Bump-de-bump-de-bump, my life for you…
The Notre Dame travesty, however, is something far worse: the university has exposed it’s underseams of Leftwing academia that, at first blush, has nothing to do with Catholicism (not any longer, not at Notre Dame after today’s expose) but, on finer examination, has exposed itself as being not at all related to Catholicism but an organization that encourages counter-Christianity: one can’t lie on basic things and still be reliable on profound things, and after hearing several members of the faculty speaking out today on news broadcasts in rationalizing their lauds for Barack Obama from their perches within the context of Notre Dame, they’ve revealed themselves to be Leftwing first, instructors second, academics hardly at all and about as distant from understanding Catholic moral and theological positions as anyone could be (so why the pretense of being “Catholic”).
There was not one sensible string declared among the entire lot today, including Notre Dame President Fr. Jenkins, who — remind me again why this guy is a priest — opined in support of Obama on largely fictional, highgly imagined terms. That means, Jenkins is out of touch with reality, or, he’s referring to some figure who he perceives or hopes Barack Obama is that is defied by who Barack Obama is.
Who they’re producing, then, is going to be those applauding Barack Obama’s Word-Fog speech of today because they’re impressed with the effects they perceive, not what’s being said. Bumpty-bump-de-bump, my life for you…
Update: Just heard
President of Spokesperson for Pepperdine University ([*] SEE FOOTNOTE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION) declaring that the Obama speech was “profound and noteworthy” and set some exemplary standard for Notre Dame. He’s not a Catholic, he has no academic or moral coordination with Catholic theology and he’s presuming to interpret Obama’s speech today as indicating that Obama “wants to reduce abortions” — which is a preposterous distortion of reality.
The man’s remarks and his assumptions as to what Obama ‘was saying’ are exceptionally, sadly malformed.
Particularly since Obama avoids repeatedly ever defining what his position is, lapsing into that Word-Fog of his that suggests “wouldn’t it be nice if” and yet works so persistently to increase funding for abortions.
I can’t say why so many in academia are quite so out of touch with reality but they are, and this statement by this fellow from Pepperdine along with the several from the Leftwing faculty members at Notre Dame continues to prove that they perceive information through some otherwordly veil that is not mysteriously woven, but corrupted.
(*) FOOTNOTE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION regarding PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY “SPOKESPERSON” as referred to above:
I received an email from “Derloshon, Jerry” from “pepperdine.edu” as follows:
Hi, Suzy . . .just want to correct something regarding Pepperdine’s President Andy Benton:
he has made no statements about President Obama visit to Notre Dame . . .if he had, he would accept responsibility for that. He has not been quoted in the media nor made public statements on the subject. Please correct your entry if that’s at all possible.
Here is my response to “Jerry Derloshon” at pepperdine.edu (after striking the words, “President of” in my above post as requested and replacing them with “Spokesperson for” [Pepperdine University]):
Thanks for your email, but the fellow’s name from or representing Pepperdine — who was on Fox News lauding Obama and the “special degree” awarded to him by Notre Dame, I have confused with the “president” of Pepperdine.
A “spokesperson” “From Pepperdine University” appeared on FOX Sunday making those claims. He was excessively supportive of Obama, minized Obama’s pro-abortion political and personal views in lieu of praising Obama’s politics and moreorless embarrassed Pepperdine U. as any credible Christian university in principle.
I’ll try to get his name and position but surely Pepperdine U. knows who they sent to represent P.U. on FOX.
I’ll remove the adjective, “President” from my blog but it’d be even better if Pepperdine would issue a broadcast retraction to your representative’s remarks if, in fact, those remarks by that spokesperson don’t represent P.U.’s position.
(*) FOOTNOTE-2: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: an additional emailed update from “Derloshon, Jerry” from pepperdine.edu says this:
…(he) was a faculty member who was expressing his personal opinion. Doug Kmiec by name.
I responded that Mr. Kmiec’s appearance on Fox was entirely misleading (by Kmiec) because the overall impression of his remarks was that they represent Pepperdine University. Which is unfortunate for Pepperdine University — a point I make because Pepperdine is identified as a Christian-based (Protestant) or otherwise Christian-theology oriented University. There was nothing — nothing at all — respectful of Christian theology in Mr. Kmiec’s remarks on FOX, and, in fact, he was quite prideful in promoting Barack Obama’s “great speech” from Notre Dame and the context in which it was delivered, which is utterly contrary when one applies any serious attention to Barack Obama’s history on and ongoing positions held (and promoted) as to abortion (read “BARACK OBAMA’S PRO-ABORTION RECORD“).
Additionally, the Obama speech from Notre Dame was certainly not “great” — it was generalized hyperbole to such an extent that it said little but encouraged great audience surrender to Obama’s murky positions of accepting abortion (among other things) with ease, deeming that, if so, to be “surrender(ing) to love”. In other words, Barack Obama’s “great” achievement was and continues to be to encourage likely, non-protesting victims.
In the context of Christian theology, then — Notre Dame University and Pepperdine University are allegedly oriented or at some time in the past founded upon Christian theology as institutions), this is, as I’ve already written on my site, selling a lie as truth (read “THE ‘NOTRE DAME SITUATION’ AND HOW BARACK OBAMA IS USING IT FOR EVIL“). Which is the essence of evil.