Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Stuck on Stupid

by Valerie Elverton Dixon 07-28-2009 | 1:10pm
Print
30 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Here we go again.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

The hyper-media -- the 24/7 cable television added to the blogosphere added to the mainstream media, with time to fill during the summer doldrums -- has misread a sentence and used it to pump up the volume on an emotional issue. At the end of a press conference dedicated to health care, President Obama answered a question about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates.

He made several points, including the following: "I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that's just a fact."

Hermeneutics 101. Understanding and meaning happen at the intersection of purportive and importive intentionalities. Every text has at least two dimensions of meaning: what the author/speaker intends as his/her purpose and what the reader/listener deems as important. More often than not the two do not intersect. Very often, that they do not intersect causes no harm; the various interpretations of a text adds texture, richness, and layers of meaning. Multiple meanings can lead to new understandings that help us ask better questions and find better answers. However, sometimes the misreading is pernicious.

In this case, the hyper-media got stuck on the word "stupid." Was this an insult to all law enforcement? Let us look at that clause of the sentence in its entirety and think how the subject changes when we understand that the president's purpose was to say something about a man being arrested in his own home when he was not committing any crime. If this was the president's intent, then the discourse surrounding his comments has not begun to help us to know what are our rights and responsibilities when the police come to our door. What are the parameters of our freedoms in this regard?

Further, as participants in the public discourse, we need to be wise and responsible regarding our own participation. The gospel according to the rap group Public Enemy: "Don't believe the hype." We ought to always ask: "What else does the text say?"

Had the president used another word, we would not be having this conversation. It is a valuable conversation if it allows us to think critically about police/community relations, about the real, seorius, and ongoing problem of racial profiling, and if we learn more about our rights as citizens. It is a useless conversation if we stay stuck on stupid and the conversation generates more heat than light, where it becomes a divisive distraction from the fact that we all have to interact with the police and that we all need a better health-care system.

Dr. Valerie Elverton Dixon is an independent scholar who publishes lectures and essays at JustPeaceTheory.com. She received her Ph.D. in religion and society from Temple University and taught Christian ethics at United Theological Seminary and Andover Newton Theological School.

30 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: TedVothJr

07-30-2009 @ 2:46am

Mom brought me up to respect policemen. Then we moved to Mississippi to teach at Tougaloo College from 58 to 62, and I got to observe a virtual fascist police state. We all remember Bull Connor's police dogs. Then I came up to the University of Wisconsin just in time to participate in the antiwar movement; I was living o a farm when the bloody Dow police riot took place. I've faced overwhelming forces of anonymously armored police twice, where there didn't need to be any police, once when the city commandeered the Student Union for a National Mayors' meeting.

Unfortunately too many police are the sort of people who like to carry guns, wear uniforms, and push people around. The attitude of various of the policemen interviewed for the NY Times was the attitude that 'We've got to put fear into the hearts of the public.' This is scarcely the way Jesus won friends and influenced people. Whether the police like it or not, they are the dogs of the state, in in a democracy they're paid by and working for the people of the democracy. Any respect or deference due in the relationship between a citizen and a police officer is owed by the officer to the citizen. Period. The policeman was way out of line; his career should be in the gravest jeopardy, on the line. He owes Dr Gates and all the rest of us an abject apology, and that might not be enough.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 12:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 2:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: brgulker

07-28-2009 @ 12:35pm

Even though I agree that it was in fact stupid to arrest a man who proved he was in his own home (that's the account of the story that makes sense), I think it's stupid for the President to call any member of law enforcement stupid. You can denounce the act using a better word. Injecting the word stupid with all of its negative connotations into an already charge conversation about race and privilege is probably a stupid thing for the President to do.

So, even though I think you're right about hermeneutics, and you're right about the media, it could have all been avoided with a better choice of words. The President could have expressed his feelings honestly, denounced the act, and not created the whirlwind by choosing an apt synonym, no?

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 1:15pm

On the one hand, I don't really care if Obama used the wrong word, offensive as it may have been. He's human. He makes mistakes. And at the moment, if that's what he thought of them, then so be it. Why should he be apologizing?

On the other hand, why are we defending a president who has made poor word choices (and has apologized for each of them)?

And had John McCain claimed that black police officers acted "stupidly," does anybody doubt some in the media (if not most of them) would be calling the statement a racist comment?

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 1:48pm

First of all, the intent of holding a late night press conference is to dominate the news cycle. Obama was attempting to harvest that 24/7 news media to his advantage, as he has done numerous times in the past. Second, nobody claimed he was calling all of law enforcement stupid.

A confluence of factors have contributed to the explosion of this story. The first was his listless approach to the healthcare issue. The press conference was unremarkable, short on specifics, and some rather shabby talking points. Then, Obama got to the Gates issue.

At that point, Obama decided to opine on a local police enforcement issue. This is where his lack of big stage experience showed. Community organizers and state legislators troll through the weeds all the time on these issues, but it is nearly unprecedented for a sitting president to do so.

With or without using the word "stupidly", he had already set the news cycle into motion. It was his choice to do so. And, yes, when you use such an emphatic term, especially when you have a reputation for calibrating your words, that's going to be your sound bite.

Given that Congress almost immediately retreated on healthcare, there wasn't much news on that front. Congress passing legislation is news. Congress hoping to address an issue at some point down the road is not.

by: WaveTossed

07-28-2009 @ 3:12pm

Obama didn't call the police "stupid." He said, they "acted stupidly." And I agree with him. Why should someone be arrested in their own home after they have proved that it is their home?

As for what Professor Gates said (or didn't say) to the police: There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives exception for police officers. I'm not saying that smarting off to a cop is a very smart thing to do because it's not. However, it's not illegal. Cops, like teachers and others who supervise, need to have a thicker skin.

Plus getting arrested and cuffed right in your home can be quite disquieting.

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-28-2009 @ 3:30pm

"Stupid" is a very strong word. Race is a very controversial subject. Combine the two and it's not at all surprising that this comment has gotten the attention that it did.

LV

by: penelope2

07-28-2009 @ 4:13pm

Thank you for making that distinction. It is one thing to call someone stupid. It is another thing entirely to say someone acted stupidly. The first is a personal insult, the second is pointing out a lapse in judgment - which this obviously was. but maybe it would have been wiser for Obama to refrain from giving his opinion on this matter.

I'm not surprised this got the media attention it did. I am however, very disappointed this got the attention it did.

by: bgcurtis

07-28-2009 @ 4:31pm

How about these illuminating words from the ever-astute James Baldwin, published in 1962? -

"In a society that is entirely hostile, and, by its nature, seems determined to cut you down-that has cut down so many in the past and cuts down so many every day-it begins to be almost impossible to distinguish a real from a fancied injury. One can very quickly cease to attempt this distinction, and, what is worse, on usually ceases to attempt it without realizing that one has done so. . . . And this leads, imperceptibly but inevitably, to a state of mind in which, having long ago learned to expect the worst, one finds it very easy to believe the worst."
-James Baldwin from _The Fire Next Time_

by: jazzact13

07-28-2009 @ 5:09pm

--In this case, the hyper-media got stuck on the word "stupid." Was this an insult to all law enforcement?--

All law enforcement? Perhaps not. But then, consider how Gates and others (like Sojo) have used this one incident as an example how all of color are treated (whether all have been or not), then you point is rather moot. People of color can stand together, and be insulted when one is (or perceived to be), while cops must stand alone?

--Had the president used another word, we would not be having this conversation.--

And yet, he didn't

--Multiple meanings can lead to new understandings that help us ask better questions and find better answers. However, sometimes the misreading is pernicious.--

So, finding multiple meanings is ok until you think they are pernicious? How very pomo of you.

--It is a useless conversation if we stay stuck on stupid and the conversation generates more heat than light, where it becomes a divisive distraction from the fact that we all have to interact with the police and that we all need a better health-care system--

Ah, the crux of the matter--stop focusing on this matter when we really need to socialize health care.

by: Eric77

07-28-2009 @ 5:37pm

I agree the media frenzy over Obama's word choice is overkill. But I also think all the media attention being paid to this incident is overkill as well. Even Sojourners has had seven commentaries on it so far. I haven't seen a commentary on the on-going war in Iraq since around May. Americans and Iraqis are still dying over there. The last "Economic Crisis" post was back in April. Are we no longer in an "economic crisis" or is it that there's no stimulus bill to pass right now? A couple months from now no one is going to care about the Gates arrest. The decisions made about our economy and Iraq will last for a long time.

by: Amy_Sojo

07-28-2009 @ 5:46pm

"Stupidly" an unfortunate choice of words? Even replaced with any synonym- it still doesn't make sense.
It sounds as though Obama (and others) have said that it's unacceptable for the police to arrest anyone who has offered proof that he's in his own home. (If the President thought that's what had happened- that Dr. Gates was arrested "just for being in his own home" as had been reported on CNN- his "stupid" comment is perfectly valid.)

A LOT of people are arrested while in their own homes, mostly for good reasons! It seems he was arrested because by arguing and refusing to comply with a reasonable request, he kept the police from being able to do their jobs which included keeping him safe. The question is whether Dr. Gates' behavior legitimized the arrest or not. (I don't know. I wasn't there.)

But- "Stupid" is a convenient thing to focus on, I guess. Anything to keep us from the real issue the President spoke about- that regardless of the facts of this particular case, racial profiling exists and some people do have real honest reasons to fear those who are supposed to serve and protect them. When people respond fearfully, those who really ARE serving and protecting aren't safe either. But instead of addressing that, yeah, lets all pick on the President some more.

by: brgulker

07-28-2009 @ 12:35pm

Even though I agree that it was in fact stupid to arrest a man who proved he was in his own home (that's the account of the story that makes sense), I think it's stupid for the President to call any member of law enforcement stupid. You can denounce the act using a better word. Injecting the word stupid with all of its negative connotations into an already charge conversation about race and privilege is probably a stupid thing for the President to do.

So, even though I think you're right about hermeneutics, and you're right about the media, it could have all been avoided with a better choice of words. The President could have expressed his feelings honestly, denounced the act, and not created the whirlwind by choosing an apt synonym, no?

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 1:15pm

On the one hand, I don't really care if Obama used the wrong word, offensive as it may have been. He's human. He makes mistakes. And at the moment, if that's what he thought of them, then so be it. Why should he be apologizing?

On the other hand, why are we defending a president who has made poor word choices (and has apologized for each of them)?

And had John McCain claimed that black police officers acted "stupidly," does anybody doubt some in the media (if not most of them) would be calling the statement a racist comment?

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 1:48pm

First of all, the intent of holding a late night press conference is to dominate the news cycle. Obama was attempting to harvest that 24/7 news media to his advantage, as he has done numerous times in the past. Second, nobody claimed he was calling all of law enforcement stupid.

A confluence of factors have contributed to the explosion of this story. The first was his listless approach to the healthcare issue. The press conference was unremarkable, short on specifics, and some rather shabby talking points. Then, Obama got to the Gates issue.

At that point, Obama decided to opine on a local police enforcement issue. This is where his lack of big stage experience showed. Community organizers and state legislators troll through the weeds all the time on these issues, but it is nearly unprecedented for a sitting president to do so.

With or without using the word "stupidly", he had already set the news cycle into motion. It was his choice to do so. And, yes, when you use such an emphatic term, especially when you have a reputation for calibrating your words, that's going to be your sound bite.

Given that Congress almost immediately retreated on healthcare, there wasn't much news on that front. Congress passing legislation is news. Congress hoping to address an issue at some point down the road is not.

by: WaveTossed

07-28-2009 @ 3:12pm

Obama didn't call the police "stupid." He said, they "acted stupidly." And I agree with him. Why should someone be arrested in their own home after they have proved that it is their home?

As for what Professor Gates said (or didn't say) to the police: There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives exception for police officers. I'm not saying that smarting off to a cop is a very smart thing to do because it's not. However, it's not illegal. Cops, like teachers and others who supervise, need to have a thicker skin.

Plus getting arrested and cuffed right in your home can be quite disquieting.

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-28-2009 @ 3:30pm

"Stupid" is a very strong word. Race is a very controversial subject. Combine the two and it's not at all surprising that this comment has gotten the attention that it did.

LV

by: shaunlockett

07-29-2009 @ 1:06pm

Mr. Obama didn't "call any member of law enforcement stupid." He said they acted stupidly, which we all do, all the time. The negative connotation arose because the corporate news media and its voracious public IS stupid, and apparently doesn't know the diference between "stupid" and "stupidly."

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

Thus the President, who unlike the previous occupant of his office is not stupid, nevertheless responded stupidly to the American public by overestimating their understanding, capability, and keenness of mind in sorting out the two.

He would have done better to to stick with simplistic phrases, spoken v e r y slowly, and with hand signs: "Mr. Gates was home. Mr. Gates showed ID. Mr. Gates was mad. Mr. gates yelled. The police yelled. Mr. Gates did not break the law. Mr. Gates was taken away. He was sad. The police were bad. Bad police, bad."

by: penelope2

07-28-2009 @ 4:13pm

Thank you for making that distinction. It is one thing to call someone stupid. It is another thing entirely to say someone acted stupidly. The first is a personal insult, the second is pointing out a lapse in judgment - which this obviously was. but maybe it would have been wiser for Obama to refrain from giving his opinion on this matter.

I'm not surprised this got the media attention it did. I am however, very disappointed this got the attention it did.

by: bgcurtis

07-28-2009 @ 4:31pm

How about these illuminating words from the ever-astute James Baldwin, published in 1962? -

"In a society that is entirely hostile, and, by its nature, seems determined to cut you down-that has cut down so many in the past and cuts down so many every day-it begins to be almost impossible to distinguish a real from a fancied injury. One can very quickly cease to attempt this distinction, and, what is worse, on usually ceases to attempt it without realizing that one has done so. . . . And this leads, imperceptibly but inevitably, to a state of mind in which, having long ago learned to expect the worst, one finds it very easy to believe the worst."
-James Baldwin from _The Fire Next Time_

by: brgulker

07-29-2009 @ 2:05pm

You're missing the forest from the trees, I'm afraid.

Obama himself admitted he should have 'calibrated the words differently." And that was my only point. So it seems like the President agrees with the point I'm making...

I'm not saying the police didn't act stupidly; I don't know with certainty, but it seems like they were out of line. But, I'm not sure it's helpful to the situation for the President to use the word "stupidly" (adverb) when talking about the police. I think there's a way to phrase it that doesn't undermine the competency of law enforcement.

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

When the President of the United States uses 'stupid' in any of its grammatical forms and applies it to law enforcement, it's inevitably going to be misunderstood -- because it's an inflammatory word that is easily misunderstood. Whether or not the actions were stupid is beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that using this word was a slip up, something the President even admits himself.

And by the way, your tone is more than a bit condescending and arrogant.

by: jazzact13

07-28-2009 @ 5:09pm

--In this case, the hyper-media got stuck on the word "stupid." Was this an insult to all law enforcement?--

All law enforcement? Perhaps not. But then, consider how Gates and others (like Sojo) have used this one incident as an example how all of color are treated (whether all have been or not), then you point is rather moot. People of color can stand together, and be insulted when one is (or perceived to be), while cops must stand alone?

--Had the president used another word, we would not be having this conversation.--

And yet, he didn't

--Multiple meanings can lead to new understandings that help us ask better questions and find better answers. However, sometimes the misreading is pernicious.--

So, finding multiple meanings is ok until you think they are pernicious? How very pomo of you.

--It is a useless conversation if we stay stuck on stupid and the conversation generates more heat than light, where it becomes a divisive distraction from the fact that we all have to interact with the police and that we all need a better health-care system--

Ah, the crux of the matter--stop focusing on this matter when we really need to socialize health care.

by: Eric77

07-28-2009 @ 5:37pm

I agree the media frenzy over Obama's word choice is overkill. But I also think all the media attention being paid to this incident is overkill as well. Even Sojourners has had seven commentaries on it so far. I haven't seen a commentary on the on-going war in Iraq since around May. Americans and Iraqis are still dying over there. The last "Economic Crisis" post was back in April. Are we no longer in an "economic crisis" or is it that there's no stimulus bill to pass right now? A couple months from now no one is going to care about the Gates arrest. The decisions made about our economy and Iraq will last for a long time.

by: Amy_Sojo

07-28-2009 @ 5:46pm

"Stupidly" an unfortunate choice of words? Even replaced with any synonym- it still doesn't make sense.
It sounds as though Obama (and others) have said that it's unacceptable for the police to arrest anyone who has offered proof that he's in his own home. (If the President thought that's what had happened- that Dr. Gates was arrested "just for being in his own home" as had been reported on CNN- his "stupid" comment is perfectly valid.)

A LOT of people are arrested while in their own homes, mostly for good reasons! It seems he was arrested because by arguing and refusing to comply with a reasonable request, he kept the police from being able to do their jobs which included keeping him safe. The question is whether Dr. Gates' behavior legitimized the arrest or not. (I don't know. I wasn't there.)

But- "Stupid" is a convenient thing to focus on, I guess. Anything to keep us from the real issue the President spoke about- that regardless of the facts of this particular case, racial profiling exists and some people do have real honest reasons to fear those who are supposed to serve and protect them. When people respond fearfully, those who really ARE serving and protecting aren't safe either. But instead of addressing that, yeah, lets all pick on the President some more.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 2:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: TedVothJr

07-30-2009 @ 2:46am

Mom brought me up to respect policemen. Then we moved to Mississippi to teach at Tougaloo College from 58 to 62, and I got to observe a virtual fascist police state. We all remember Bull Connor's police dogs. Then I came up to the University of Wisconsin just in time to participate in the antiwar movement; I was living o a farm when the bloody Dow police riot took place. I've faced overwhelming forces of anonymously armored police twice, where there didn't need to be any police, once when the city commandeered the Student Union for a National Mayors' meeting.

Unfortunately too many police are the sort of people who like to carry guns, wear uniforms, and push people around. The attitude of various of the policemen interviewed for the NY Times was the attitude that 'We've got to put fear into the hearts of the public.' This is scarcely the way Jesus won friends and influenced people. Whether the police like it or not, they are the dogs of the state, in in a democracy they're paid by and working for the people of the democracy. Any respect or deference due in the relationship between a citizen and a police officer is owed by the officer to the citizen. Period. The policeman was way out of line; his career should be in the gravest jeopardy, on the line. He owes Dr Gates and all the rest of us an abject apology, and that might not be enough.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 12:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: shaunlockett

07-29-2009 @ 1:06pm

Mr. Obama didn't "call any member of law enforcement stupid." He said they acted stupidly, which we all do, all the time. The negative connotation arose because the corporate news media and its voracious public IS stupid, and apparently doesn't know the diference between "stupid" and "stupidly."

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

Thus the President, who unlike the previous occupant of his office is not stupid, nevertheless responded stupidly to the American public by overestimating their understanding, capability, and keenness of mind in sorting out the two.

He would have done better to to stick with simplistic phrases, spoken v e r y slowly, and with hand signs: "Mr. Gates was home. Mr. Gates showed ID. Mr. Gates was mad. Mr. gates yelled. The police yelled. Mr. Gates did not break the law. Mr. Gates was taken away. He was sad. The police were bad. Bad police, bad."

by: brgulker

07-29-2009 @ 2:05pm

You're missing the forest from the trees, I'm afraid.

Obama himself admitted he should have 'calibrated the words differently." And that was my only point. So it seems like the President agrees with the point I'm making...

I'm not saying the police didn't act stupidly; I don't know with certainty, but it seems like they were out of line. But, I'm not sure it's helpful to the situation for the President to use the word "stupidly" (adverb) when talking about the police. I think there's a way to phrase it that doesn't undermine the competency of law enforcement.

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

When the President of the United States uses 'stupid' in any of its grammatical forms and applies it to law enforcement, it's inevitably going to be misunderstood -- because it's an inflammatory word that is easily misunderstood. Whether or not the actions were stupid is beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that using this word was a slip up, something the President even admits himself.

And by the way, your tone is more than a bit condescending and arrogant.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: brgulker

07-28-2009 @ 12:35pm

Even though I agree that it was in fact stupid to arrest a man who proved he was in his own home (that's the account of the story that makes sense), I think it's stupid for the President to call any member of law enforcement stupid. You can denounce the act using a better word. Injecting the word stupid with all of its negative connotations into an already charge conversation about race and privilege is probably a stupid thing for the President to do.

So, even though I think you're right about hermeneutics, and you're right about the media, it could have all been avoided with a better choice of words. The President could have expressed his feelings honestly, denounced the act, and not created the whirlwind by choosing an apt synonym, no?

by: brgulker

07-28-2009 @ 12:35pm

Even though I agree that it was in fact stupid to arrest a man who proved he was in his own home (that's the account of the story that makes sense), I think it's stupid for the President to call any member of law enforcement stupid. You can denounce the act using a better word. Injecting the word stupid with all of its negative connotations into an already charge conversation about race and privilege is probably a stupid thing for the President to do.

So, even though I think you're right about hermeneutics, and you're right about the media, it could have all been avoided with a better choice of words. The President could have expressed his feelings honestly, denounced the act, and not created the whirlwind by choosing an apt synonym, no?

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 1:15pm

On the one hand, I don't really care if Obama used the wrong word, offensive as it may have been. He's human. He makes mistakes. And at the moment, if that's what he thought of them, then so be it. Why should he be apologizing?

On the other hand, why are we defending a president who has made poor word choices (and has apologized for each of them)?

And had John McCain claimed that black police officers acted "stupidly," does anybody doubt some in the media (if not most of them) would be calling the statement a racist comment?

by: xfree9

07-28-2009 @ 1:15pm

On the one hand, I don't really care if Obama used the wrong word, offensive as it may have been. He's human. He makes mistakes. And at the moment, if that's what he thought of them, then so be it. Why should he be apologizing?

On the other hand, why are we defending a president who has made poor word choices (and has apologized for each of them)?

And had John McCain claimed that black police officers acted "stupidly," does anybody doubt some in the media (if not most of them) would be calling the statement a racist comment?

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 1:48pm

First of all, the intent of holding a late night press conference is to dominate the news cycle. Obama was attempting to harvest that 24/7 news media to his advantage, as he has done numerous times in the past. Second, nobody claimed he was calling all of law enforcement stupid.

A confluence of factors have contributed to the explosion of this story. The first was his listless approach to the healthcare issue. The press conference was unremarkable, short on specifics, and some rather shabby talking points. Then, Obama got to the Gates issue.

At that point, Obama decided to opine on a local police enforcement issue. This is where his lack of big stage experience showed. Community organizers and state legislators troll through the weeds all the time on these issues, but it is nearly unprecedented for a sitting president to do so.

With or without using the word "stupidly", he had already set the news cycle into motion. It was his choice to do so. And, yes, when you use such an emphatic term, especially when you have a reputation for calibrating your words, that's going to be your sound bite.

Given that Congress almost immediately retreated on healthcare, there wasn't much news on that front. Congress passing legislation is news. Congress hoping to address an issue at some point down the road is not.

by: lumens

07-28-2009 @ 1:48pm

First of all, the intent of holding a late night press conference is to dominate the news cycle. Obama was attempting to harvest that 24/7 news media to his advantage, as he has done numerous times in the past. Second, nobody claimed he was calling all of law enforcement stupid.

A confluence of factors have contributed to the explosion of this story. The first was his listless approach to the healthcare issue. The press conference was unremarkable, short on specifics, and some rather shabby talking points. Then, Obama got to the Gates issue.

At that point, Obama decided to opine on a local police enforcement issue. This is where his lack of big stage experience showed. Community organizers and state legislators troll through the weeds all the time on these issues, but it is nearly unprecedented for a sitting president to do so.

With or without using the word "stupidly", he had already set the news cycle into motion. It was his choice to do so. And, yes, when you use such an emphatic term, especially when you have a reputation for calibrating your words, that's going to be your sound bite.

Given that Congress almost immediately retreated on healthcare, there wasn't much news on that front. Congress passing legislation is news. Congress hoping to address an issue at some point down the road is not.

by: WaveTossed

07-28-2009 @ 3:12pm

Obama didn't call the police "stupid." He said, they "acted stupidly." And I agree with him. Why should someone be arrested in their own home after they have proved that it is their home?

As for what Professor Gates said (or didn't say) to the police: There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives exception for police officers. I'm not saying that smarting off to a cop is a very smart thing to do because it's not. However, it's not illegal. Cops, like teachers and others who supervise, need to have a thicker skin.

Plus getting arrested and cuffed right in your home can be quite disquieting.

by: WaveTossed

07-28-2009 @ 3:12pm

Obama didn't call the police "stupid." He said, they "acted stupidly." And I agree with him. Why should someone be arrested in their own home after they have proved that it is their home?

As for what Professor Gates said (or didn't say) to the police: There is nothing in the First Amendment that gives exception for police officers. I'm not saying that smarting off to a cop is a very smart thing to do because it's not. However, it's not illegal. Cops, like teachers and others who supervise, need to have a thicker skin.

Plus getting arrested and cuffed right in your home can be quite disquieting.

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-28-2009 @ 3:30pm

"Stupid" is a very strong word. Race is a very controversial subject. Combine the two and it's not at all surprising that this comment has gotten the attention that it did.

LV

by: Lord_Voldemort

07-28-2009 @ 3:30pm

"Stupid" is a very strong word. Race is a very controversial subject. Combine the two and it's not at all surprising that this comment has gotten the attention that it did.

LV

by: penelope2

07-28-2009 @ 4:13pm

Thank you for making that distinction. It is one thing to call someone stupid. It is another thing entirely to say someone acted stupidly. The first is a personal insult, the second is pointing out a lapse in judgment - which this obviously was. but maybe it would have been wiser for Obama to refrain from giving his opinion on this matter.

I'm not surprised this got the media attention it did. I am however, very disappointed this got the attention it did.

by: penelope2

07-28-2009 @ 4:13pm

Thank you for making that distinction. It is one thing to call someone stupid. It is another thing entirely to say someone acted stupidly. The first is a personal insult, the second is pointing out a lapse in judgment - which this obviously was. but maybe it would have been wiser for Obama to refrain from giving his opinion on this matter.

I'm not surprised this got the media attention it did. I am however, very disappointed this got the attention it did.

by: bgcurtis

07-28-2009 @ 4:31pm

How about these illuminating words from the ever-astute James Baldwin, published in 1962? -

"In a society that is entirely hostile, and, by its nature, seems determined to cut you down-that has cut down so many in the past and cuts down so many every day-it begins to be almost impossible to distinguish a real from a fancied injury. One can very quickly cease to attempt this distinction, and, what is worse, on usually ceases to attempt it without realizing that one has done so. . . . And this leads, imperceptibly but inevitably, to a state of mind in which, having long ago learned to expect the worst, one finds it very easy to believe the worst."
-James Baldwin from _The Fire Next Time_

by: bgcurtis

07-28-2009 @ 4:31pm

How about these illuminating words from the ever-astute James Baldwin, published in 1962? -

"In a society that is entirely hostile, and, by its nature, seems determined to cut you down-that has cut down so many in the past and cuts down so many every day-it begins to be almost impossible to distinguish a real from a fancied injury. One can very quickly cease to attempt this distinction, and, what is worse, on usually ceases to attempt it without realizing that one has done so. . . . And this leads, imperceptibly but inevitably, to a state of mind in which, having long ago learned to expect the worst, one finds it very easy to believe the worst."
-James Baldwin from _The Fire Next Time_

by: jazzact13

07-28-2009 @ 5:09pm

--In this case, the hyper-media got stuck on the word "stupid." Was this an insult to all law enforcement?--

All law enforcement? Perhaps not. But then, consider how Gates and others (like Sojo) have used this one incident as an example how all of color are treated (whether all have been or not), then you point is rather moot. People of color can stand together, and be insulted when one is (or perceived to be), while cops must stand alone?

--Had the president used another word, we would not be having this conversation.--

And yet, he didn't

--Multiple meanings can lead to new understandings that help us ask better questions and find better answers. However, sometimes the misreading is pernicious.--

So, finding multiple meanings is ok until you think they are pernicious? How very pomo of you.

--It is a useless conversation if we stay stuck on stupid and the conversation generates more heat than light, where it becomes a divisive distraction from the fact that we all have to interact with the police and that we all need a better health-care system--

Ah, the crux of the matter--stop focusing on this matter when we really need to socialize health care.

by: jazzact13

07-28-2009 @ 5:09pm

--In this case, the hyper-media got stuck on the word "stupid." Was this an insult to all law enforcement?--

All law enforcement? Perhaps not. But then, consider how Gates and others (like Sojo) have used this one incident as an example how all of color are treated (whether all have been or not), then you point is rather moot. People of color can stand together, and be insulted when one is (or perceived to be), while cops must stand alone?

--Had the president used another word, we would not be having this conversation.--

And yet, he didn't

--Multiple meanings can lead to new understandings that help us ask better questions and find better answers. However, sometimes the misreading is pernicious.--

So, finding multiple meanings is ok until you think they are pernicious? How very pomo of you.

--It is a useless conversation if we stay stuck on stupid and the conversation generates more heat than light, where it becomes a divisive distraction from the fact that we all have to interact with the police and that we all need a better health-care system--

Ah, the crux of the matter--stop focusing on this matter when we really need to socialize health care.

by: Eric77

07-28-2009 @ 5:37pm

I agree the media frenzy over Obama's word choice is overkill. But I also think all the media attention being paid to this incident is overkill as well. Even Sojourners has had seven commentaries on it so far. I haven't seen a commentary on the on-going war in Iraq since around May. Americans and Iraqis are still dying over there. The last "Economic Crisis" post was back in April. Are we no longer in an "economic crisis" or is it that there's no stimulus bill to pass right now? A couple months from now no one is going to care about the Gates arrest. The decisions made about our economy and Iraq will last for a long time.

by: Eric77

07-28-2009 @ 5:37pm

I agree the media frenzy over Obama's word choice is overkill. But I also think all the media attention being paid to this incident is overkill as well. Even Sojourners has had seven commentaries on it so far. I haven't seen a commentary on the on-going war in Iraq since around May. Americans and Iraqis are still dying over there. The last "Economic Crisis" post was back in April. Are we no longer in an "economic crisis" or is it that there's no stimulus bill to pass right now? A couple months from now no one is going to care about the Gates arrest. The decisions made about our economy and Iraq will last for a long time.

by: Amy_Sojo

07-28-2009 @ 5:46pm

"Stupidly" an unfortunate choice of words? Even replaced with any synonym- it still doesn't make sense.
It sounds as though Obama (and others) have said that it's unacceptable for the police to arrest anyone who has offered proof that he's in his own home. (If the President thought that's what had happened- that Dr. Gates was arrested "just for being in his own home" as had been reported on CNN- his "stupid" comment is perfectly valid.)

A LOT of people are arrested while in their own homes, mostly for good reasons! It seems he was arrested because by arguing and refusing to comply with a reasonable request, he kept the police from being able to do their jobs which included keeping him safe. The question is whether Dr. Gates' behavior legitimized the arrest or not. (I don't know. I wasn't there.)

But- "Stupid" is a convenient thing to focus on, I guess. Anything to keep us from the real issue the President spoke about- that regardless of the facts of this particular case, racial profiling exists and some people do have real honest reasons to fear those who are supposed to serve and protect them. When people respond fearfully, those who really ARE serving and protecting aren't safe either. But instead of addressing that, yeah, lets all pick on the President some more.

by: Amy_Sojo

07-28-2009 @ 5:46pm

"Stupidly" an unfortunate choice of words? Even replaced with any synonym- it still doesn't make sense.
It sounds as though Obama (and others) have said that it's unacceptable for the police to arrest anyone who has offered proof that he's in his own home. (If the President thought that's what had happened- that Dr. Gates was arrested "just for being in his own home" as had been reported on CNN- his "stupid" comment is perfectly valid.)

A LOT of people are arrested while in their own homes, mostly for good reasons! It seems he was arrested because by arguing and refusing to comply with a reasonable request, he kept the police from being able to do their jobs which included keeping him safe. The question is whether Dr. Gates' behavior legitimized the arrest or not. (I don't know. I wasn't there.)

But- "Stupid" is a convenient thing to focus on, I guess. Anything to keep us from the real issue the President spoke about- that regardless of the facts of this particular case, racial profiling exists and some people do have real honest reasons to fear those who are supposed to serve and protect them. When people respond fearfully, those who really ARE serving and protecting aren't safe either. But instead of addressing that, yeah, lets all pick on the President some more.

by: shaunlockett

07-29-2009 @ 1:06pm

Mr. Obama didn't "call any member of law enforcement stupid." He said they acted stupidly, which we all do, all the time. The negative connotation arose because the corporate news media and its voracious public IS stupid, and apparently doesn't know the diference between "stupid" and "stupidly."

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

Thus the President, who unlike the previous occupant of his office is not stupid, nevertheless responded stupidly to the American public by overestimating their understanding, capability, and keenness of mind in sorting out the two.

He would have done better to to stick with simplistic phrases, spoken v e r y slowly, and with hand signs: "Mr. Gates was home. Mr. Gates showed ID. Mr. Gates was mad. Mr. gates yelled. The police yelled. Mr. Gates did not break the law. Mr. Gates was taken away. He was sad. The police were bad. Bad police, bad."

by: shaunlockett

07-29-2009 @ 1:06pm

Mr. Obama didn't "call any member of law enforcement stupid." He said they acted stupidly, which we all do, all the time. The negative connotation arose because the corporate news media and its voracious public IS stupid, and apparently doesn't know the diference between "stupid" and "stupidly."

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

Thus the President, who unlike the previous occupant of his office is not stupid, nevertheless responded stupidly to the American public by overestimating their understanding, capability, and keenness of mind in sorting out the two.

He would have done better to to stick with simplistic phrases, spoken v e r y slowly, and with hand signs: "Mr. Gates was home. Mr. Gates showed ID. Mr. Gates was mad. Mr. gates yelled. The police yelled. Mr. Gates did not break the law. Mr. Gates was taken away. He was sad. The police were bad. Bad police, bad."

by: brgulker

07-29-2009 @ 2:05pm

You're missing the forest from the trees, I'm afraid.

Obama himself admitted he should have 'calibrated the words differently." And that was my only point. So it seems like the President agrees with the point I'm making...

I'm not saying the police didn't act stupidly; I don't know with certainty, but it seems like they were out of line. But, I'm not sure it's helpful to the situation for the President to use the word "stupidly" (adverb) when talking about the police. I think there's a way to phrase it that doesn't undermine the competency of law enforcement.

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

When the President of the United States uses 'stupid' in any of its grammatical forms and applies it to law enforcement, it's inevitably going to be misunderstood -- because it's an inflammatory word that is easily misunderstood. Whether or not the actions were stupid is beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that using this word was a slip up, something the President even admits himself.

And by the way, your tone is more than a bit condescending and arrogant.

by: brgulker

07-29-2009 @ 2:05pm

You're missing the forest from the trees, I'm afraid.

Obama himself admitted he should have 'calibrated the words differently." And that was my only point. So it seems like the President agrees with the point I'm making...

I'm not saying the police didn't act stupidly; I don't know with certainty, but it seems like they were out of line. But, I'm not sure it's helpful to the situation for the President to use the word "stupidly" (adverb) when talking about the police. I think there's a way to phrase it that doesn't undermine the competency of law enforcement.

"Stupid" is an adjective describing a person lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind, or dull-witted. "Stupidly" is an adverb describing actions that are stupid, doltish, or without thinking.

When the President of the United States uses 'stupid' in any of its grammatical forms and applies it to law enforcement, it's inevitably going to be misunderstood -- because it's an inflammatory word that is easily misunderstood. Whether or not the actions were stupid is beside the point I'm trying to make. My point is that using this word was a slip up, something the President even admits himself.

And by the way, your tone is more than a bit condescending and arrogant.

by: TedVothJr

07-30-2009 @ 2:46am

Mom brought me up to respect policemen. Then we moved to Mississippi to teach at Tougaloo College from 58 to 62, and I got to observe a virtual fascist police state. We all remember Bull Connor's police dogs. Then I came up to the University of Wisconsin just in time to participate in the antiwar movement; I was living o a farm when the bloody Dow police riot took place. I've faced overwhelming forces of anonymously armored police twice, where there didn't need to be any police, once when the city commandeered the Student Union for a National Mayors' meeting.

Unfortunately too many police are the sort of people who like to carry guns, wear uniforms, and push people around. The attitude of various of the policemen interviewed for the NY Times was the attitude that 'We've got to put fear into the hearts of the public.' This is scarcely the way Jesus won friends and influenced people. Whether the police like it or not, they are the dogs of the state, in in a democracy they're paid by and working for the people of the democracy. Any respect or deference due in the relationship between a citizen and a police officer is owed by the officer to the citizen. Period. The policeman was way out of line; his career should be in the gravest jeopardy, on the line. He owes Dr Gates and all the rest of us an abject apology, and that might not be enough.

by: TedVothJr

07-30-2009 @ 2:46am

Mom brought me up to respect policemen. Then we moved to Mississippi to teach at Tougaloo College from 58 to 62, and I got to observe a virtual fascist police state. We all remember Bull Connor's police dogs. Then I came up to the University of Wisconsin just in time to participate in the antiwar movement; I was living o a farm when the bloody Dow police riot took place. I've faced overwhelming forces of anonymously armored police twice, where there didn't need to be any police, once when the city commandeered the Student Union for a National Mayors' meeting.

Unfortunately too many police are the sort of people who like to carry guns, wear uniforms, and push people around. The attitude of various of the policemen interviewed for the NY Times was the attitude that 'We've got to put fear into the hearts of the public.' This is scarcely the way Jesus won friends and influenced people. Whether the police like it or not, they are the dogs of the state, in in a democracy they're paid by and working for the people of the democracy. Any respect or deference due in the relationship between a citizen and a police officer is owed by the officer to the citizen. Period. The policeman was way out of line; his career should be in the gravest jeopardy, on the line. He owes Dr Gates and all the rest of us an abject apology, and that might not be enough.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 12:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 12:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 2:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.

by: canucklehead

08-03-2009 @ 2:28am

Dream on, Eric 77. Truth be told, I haven't commented here for a long time simply b/c, w/ the exception of a few like Neuro and Buckeye Don, I no longer visit very often after realizing that most comments here don't help my understanding of the world or even American's role in it. I go elsewhere for that. Regrettably, albeit understandably, much of what is presented on GP is just a rehash of whatever inside-the-beltway dictates is THE story of the day/week. Most posts from abroad garner few if any comments which is unfortunate.

And please review my comments, with the exception of trumpeting the blesssings of universal health care, I have never ever presented Canada as a utopia of any kind on GP, nor suggested that domestic matters here have any kind of ongoing relevance for the broader world. I take no responsibility for whatever your uncle has to say.