The Obamas’ Fried Chicken Dinner

I keep hearing on conservative talk-show radio that Barack Obama is evil or, at least, a habitual liar. I think this is wrong. He is neither. Conservative commentators are missing what seems obvious to me: He is abysmally ignorant. By the way, that may be the simple explanation to a fact that has been perplexing me for a while: Why his undergraduates grade are still under seal, thirty years latter. I always argue that whatever you did at 20 is automatically forgiven. But the aged bad student may not be able to forgive himself if he is still operating with a chip on his shoulder about his lack of understanding of the world.

If he was such a bad student, you ask, how could he attend first-rate universities? You guess. He was a good-looking young man with a neat appearance, and a black face but no trace of Negro dialect. (Not my words, those of the Democrat leader of the Senate.)

You can tell a lot about a long-married man from what his wife is entitled to do. Successful men don’t stay married forever to women who embarrass them by their actions. In the long run, and even in the middle-run, husbands and wives tend to deserve each other, including intellectually. Here is what Michele Obama has ordered for lunch (or dinner) for the visit of President Calderón of Mexico and of his wife: pollo (or pavo) en mole.

There are two kinds of mole. The mole I am referring to here is a quintessentially Mexican preparation centering on cocoa. No one else in the world does this; perhaps no one else had the nerve. What the First Lady is doing is like serving boeuf bourguignon to a visiting French President, or a Peking duck to a Chinese dignitary. It betrays extraordinary parochialism.

It’s unnecessarily risky in terms of the simple rules of hospitality: The chance that an American chef will prepare a mediocre mole is high. (I am sensitive to this aspect of things because I used to be French. Peruse excerpts from my memoirs of the same title on this blog.)

It’s also an unconsciously condescending act, like much that comes out of the White House. It treats an upper-class Mexican couple as children who could not cope with unfamiliar food away from home. Think of the reaction if anyone give the presidential couple of dinner of fried chicken and grits, with water-melon for dessert, just to make sure they don’t feel ill-at-ease.

Mrs Obama: Nearly every foreign visitor to this country, except a few pious Hindus, expects that same treat: A thick slice of medium-rare excellent American beef.

Don’t go out of your way to appear sensitive. You are falling on your face and undermining your husband’s much damaged credibility.

PS Dear President Calderon: You are right to dislike the new Arizona law. It’s not good for your citizens’ dignity. Just police your border better and the problem will disappear.

About jacquesdelacroix

I am a sociologist, a short-story writer, and a blogger (Facts Matter and Notes On Liberty) in Santa Cruz, California.
This entry was posted in Current Events and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Obamas’ Fried Chicken Dinner

  1. Sam says:

    Here’s what I take to be your argument here:

    P1. In a long-standing marriage between intelligent people what the wife does is something the husband would have done as well.

    P2. Michelle Obama chose to serve mole to a Mexican.

    C1: Obama would have served mole to a Mexican.

    P3: An American serving mole to a Mexican proves a lack of some trait in the American that is necessary (or helpful) for a president.

    C2: Obama lacks some trait that is necessary (or helpful) for a president.

    If this is not your argument please correct me. However, if it is, do any of these premises sound reasonable to you? Maybe P2 but my guess is that the white house kitchen shows menus to some diplomatic office who approves or doesn’t and then the Obamas glance at it.

    The other 2, however, are just patently false. P1 because people do not marry based on potential spouses’ similarity of personality, and most spouses agree about hardly anything. It is both theoretically (ask any marriage counselor) and empirically false. P3 I don’t even know what to say about except that it is just ridiculous.

    On a separate issue, the abysmally ignorant don’t graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School while being the president of the Harvard Law Review no matter how clean and articulate they are. I’m not sure if you think the fact that Harry Reid commented on these features in Obama makes your claim less offensive or more persuasive.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      First part: Yes, that’s what I am saying.
      I don’t have proof and you don’t and nobody needs proof. Let History judge the plausibility of what I am suggesting. They are parochial people. They are deeply ignorant. The President pronounces words as if he did not understand their meaning. I heard him repeatedly say( Navy) “corpsman” as if the word had to do with corpses. Even Bush, not a towering intellectual, ever do anything like that.
      Second part: The editorship of the law review is elective. Could affirmative action have played a role, a major role, been the whole consideration? Yes. Why does he have zero publication in any law review, including his own if he was such a light unto others? Zero means not one. You can’t go lower.
      If the President’s grades were not sealed, my supposition might lose force or it might be invalidated altogether. Why are they sealed. Give me one good reason.

  2. You ask why Barry Obama’s records are sealed, and I find it a good question.
    One doesn’t have to be paranoid to wonder.
    I mean, when the records of private citizens are now so public, when any and every government agency and bureaucrat has access to every aspect of that individual’s life, why should a mere politician be able to keep so much secret?
    Some records, such as birth certificates or voter registrations, are considered public. Yet certain politicians are allowed to bury theirs.
    Formerly we operated under the premise that the law applied equally to all: Neither the rich man nor the poor man is allowed to sleep under the bridge.
    Today, though, some PIGs are more equal than others. Oh, and PIGs means Persons In Government.

    • jacquesdelacroix says:

      You would be surprised! Recently, I tried to verify the claim to a PhD of the Mayor of Santa Cruz, California. I found that the University of California would not let me. Of course, you would expect a university to be a little protective of the reputation of the diplomas it awards. You would be wrong. Apparently, it’s more protective of something else. It has higher values or it’s afraid to be sued by those who claim to have a given diploma and are found to be lying about it.

      The mayor of Santa Cruz did promise by email to send me proof himself after I ranted on my radio show. Will keep everyone informed.

  3. jacquesdelacroix says:

    Update: The then-Mayor of Santa Cruz did have a legitimate PhD. (In underwater basket-weaving, in my subjective opinion, but a legitimate degree.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s