A practical difference between George Bush and Barack Obama

President Obama was (rightly) criticized in the first two years of his term for a dictatorial tone, for example claiming to phone BP and tell them what to do instead of letting that be handled through normal legal processes.

But in at least one respect he is less dictatorial than his predecessor. When George Bush came to Tucson for a 2008 fundraiser for Tim Bee, police--working overtime on the taxpayer dime--closed the entire length of Swan for at least four hours, from Davis Monthan AFB all the way to Sunrise. Without warning Tucson was split into two halves; people had to take detours of 15 miles or more to get from the west side to the east side, just to give George Bush a grand entrance. Hundreds were late to work or to get home to their children. Private driveways and business road cuts were also blocked along the entire route.

It's unclear to this day which of Bee or Bush was responsible for such waste and such gross inconveniencing of the common man. No President before or since has, to my knowledge, engaged in such a practice; clearing a path and restricting the movement of the plebs is better suited to a banana-republic caudillo. However banana-republican he has been at times, Barack Obama didn't have any roads shut down today yesterday. [BSK: post rescheduled.]

And Bee never did reimburse the public treasury or the many he inconvenience. He did, however, end up the victim of some great real-life trolling.

President Obama rose above his party tonight.

Barack Obama is now on the same list as Steve Stoltz and Rodney Glassman: those whose responses to Saturday's spree shooting epitomizes republican civility.

"What we cannot do is use this tragedy as another occasion to turn on each other...[as we discuss this] let each of us do so with a good dose of humility."

And now a direct rejection of the thesis that rhetoric caused the spree shooting, without subsequently backhandedly insinuating that it did: a civil case for civility.

Addendum (BSK re: Obama): If we want our "democracy" to live up to childrens' expectations, then consensual governance is in order. Governing with the consent of the governed. Not "scoring touchdowns" with extreme and ill-wrought bills of large scope, not "elections have consequences", not democracy, not majoritarianism, and certainly not the blood-and-soil nationalism we have seen in Arizona.

Addendum 2 (BSK re: the UA choir): There is no more American song than the Shaker Hymn. When I hear just the melody in Appalachian Spring it makes the hair on my neck stand up and sometimes brings a tear to my eye. A most appropriate choice for today for a number of reasons.

A half-mile queue for President Obama's speech

At 3:50 PM the queue to see President Obama's 6 PM address (honoring those wounded or killed in Saturday's spree shooting) in the McCale Center at the University of Arizona extended past the Physics and Gould-Simpson buildings, nearly half a mile away.

The McCale Center is said to hold 14,000; overflow will be directed to Arizona Stadium where the speech will be played on the giant scoreboard televisions. (Do they still call them JumboTrons?) UA News says that all attendees will go through "airport-like" security. If that includes taking off shoes or copping a feel, they won't even fill McCale between 4 PM and the start of the address.

As for me, I'll either watch the address on Arizona Public Media's live feed or read a transcript afterwards. Many reports claim that President Obama will avoid politics tonight and some claim that he will speak about tolerance. Given the extent to which David Fitzsimmons, the Huffington Post, Clarence Dupnik, and numerous others have poisoned the discourse it will be difficult to talk about tolerance tonight without being political and without appearing that he is joining in or approves of the slanderous fantasies we heard too much of on Saturday and Sunday. The question would almost ask itself: If rhetoric or "vitriol" or whatever you want to call it did not motivate the spree shooting, then why are you bringing it up?

David Harsanyi notes the chilling implications of a dialogue about 'civility', especially one in which it is claimed that "anti-government" classical-liberal rhetoric is dangerous. That should hit home with many of the readers of this 'blog.

And on an only tangentially-related note, if you're at the speech and looking for a bite to eat either before or after the event, most of the places I recommended for lunch should be open. Mr. Antojo's makes some of the best carne asade tacos in town, as long as you have them hold the guacamole. Among places not on that list, try Wilko or Vila Thai (all near Park and University) for slightly upscale dining, Zachary's (6th and Fremont) for reliable if not great deep-dish pizzas, Rosati's (6th and Campbell) for a Chicago-style square-cut thin crust pizza as good as any from Chicago, and 1702 (1702 E. Speedway, about a block and a half west of Campbell and Speedway) for high-quality out-sized thin slices and one of the best beer selections west of the Mississippi.

Of the import of article titles in newspapers

I live and work in Phoenix, Arizona. I follow news and commentary from Tucson. One complaint that I hear is that the Arizona Daily Star has an employee that chooses article titles that are biased against Barack Obama. That intrigued me enough to research the title assigned to a national column in my local newspaper.

Today's Charles Krauthammer's column in the Arizona Republic has the title "Common sense will win in U.S. - despite liberals". The title provided on TownHall.com of "The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010" doesn't seem appreciably different to me.

I found the article to be a very useful analysis of the folks currently called Liberals in the news and by 90% of the population.

Campaigning long before they're 18: Schoolchildren, permission slips, and Obama's speech.

UPDATE: The White House has greatly changed--and improved--the lesson plans, although the "how will he inspire us" line is still in the 7-12 plan. A copy of the original preK-6 plan, "Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?" and all, has been located.

David Safier of 'Blog for Arizona seems a bit perplexed by parental backlash against the showing of a speech from President Obama in schools. Either he missed the note from Tom Horne (Superintendent of Public Instruction) or he's willfully ignoring the rational basis for the actions of people with whom he disagrees.

I'm not going to say that there aren't parents who simply do not want their children to hear an Obama speech. But the Department of Education, in a misstep rivaling the flag@whitehouse.gov proposal, has released suggestions for classroom activities which verge on enlisting teachers (perhaps without their realizing it) as propagandists and Obama mythmakers. (Backup copies of the K-6 and 7-12 suggestions are available on the Arizona Department of Education website.

Horne is correct: neither writing "notable quotes" from past Obama speeches on the board in big letters and having kids reflect on the meaning nor--especially!--having the kids reflect on how President Obama will "inspire" them are appropriate.

Watching Obama's speech certainly has its place in schools as part of a larger civics lesson emphasizing critical reflection on the statements of politicians and perhaps also considering the rôle of the President in American culture. The reverent attitude promoted by Arne Duncan's Department of Education, and the Obama-only focus, is inappropriate in largely mandatory schools in a free society. Parents would not be unreasonable in thinking that at least some teachers have received the Education Department's suggested lesson plans nor in thinking that some teachers, either due to left-wing personal prejudices or lack of criticality, will implement them.

Neither I nor (I suspect) many of my readers may like it, but the transition away from government-run schooling will be a very slow one; the obsolescent relics known as "public schools" will be with us for at least the near future. Until the education market develops to the point where school choice is the norm--we're not at that tipping point, yet--we need some ground rules for the sake of social peace.

It's the most cynical political slogan I can think of since the days of (Pat) Buchananite crypto-racism in the early '90s: "Elections should mean something", the lament of American soi disant "progressives" that the consent of the governed precludes a hard left turn towards social democracy. But even these left-wing ideologues should be able to agree:

Elections should not mean that the winners get to indoctrinate and propagandize the schoolkids.