He says he can't... but he wants to.

While in Africa, Obama said he could win a third term if he was only allowed to run:

"I love my job," he told the assembled leaders in Ethiopia. "But under our Constitution, I cannot run again. I actually think I'm a pretty good president — I think if I ran, I could win — but I can't!"

Why is it that, whenever Obama says the law prevents him from doing something, he's actually working on a way to circumvent the law and do it anyway?

George's apology

George Takei has apologized for referring to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as "a clown in blackface" in response to Thomas' dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Many people who were offended might think that Mr. Takei's apology is not adequate but I would like to point out something that I think is rather important.

Many times when people who make offensive statements with regard to politics or political figures, they end up apologizing in a manner that indicates that they are not really sorry about what they said, but rather that anyone has called them out on it. The apology usually goes something like, "I'm sorry if I offended anyone," or, "I'd like to apologize to those who were offended." In contrast, Mr. Takei's apology states:

While I continue to vehemently disagree with Justice Thomas, the words I chose, said in the heat of anger, were not carefully considered. 

I am reminded, especially on this July 4th holiday, that though we have the freedom to speak our minds, we must use that freedom judiciously. Each of us, as humans, have hot-button topics that can set us off, and Justice Thomas had hit mine, that is clear. But my choice of words was regrettable, not because I do not believe Justice Thomas is deeply wrong, but because they were ad hominem and uncivil, and for that I am sorry.

Note that, while he does not apologize for his belief that Thomas is wrong - a belief he has every right to hold - he also does not qualify his apology. He says he is sorry, period. Although he says Thomas hit his "hot button topic," he claims it as a contributing factor to his error, but not an excuse that absolves him of responsibility for that error. While he may not admit to as egregious an offense as many believe him to have committed, and they're probably right, his apology is to everyone.

No George, it's racist.

Actor George Takei who, for the small percentage of people who don't already know, portrayed the character of Hikaru Sulu in the original Star Trek television series, several feature films, and even an episode of Star Trek Voyager (in flashback), is coming under fire for a statement he made in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. In his reaction to the dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas, Takei said that Thomas, "is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn't belong there."

Many have responded that this statement is racist. The use of actual blackface, and the use of just the word, are routinely decried as inherently racist whenever they occur in contemporary times. Takei responded to this criticism with the statement (available at the above link):

"Blackface" is a lesser known theatrical term for a white actor who blackens his face to play a black buffoon. In traditional theater lingo, and in my view and intent, that is not racist. It is instead part of a racist history in this country.

So, basically, he is saying that Clarence Thomas is a white man who has applied dark makeup to his face to "play a black buffoon." And that's not racist. He attempts to separate the act from the history, and maybe he has a point. However, I wonder what his response is to the use of the very same argument in the controversy over the Confederate flag (that is, the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virgina). Although I cannot read his mind, and thus I cannot know for sure, I suspect he would say that argument is invalid and that the flag itself (that is, the design used on the flag) is inherently and irredeemably racist and must be forbidden. If so, then by his own standard his statement was indeed racist and any attempts to justify it fail by definition.

Mr. Takei has succumbed to the temptation that is experienced by many who are strongly passionate about something they believe to be right. He is so convinced of the correctness of his position that he simply cannot accept the premise that people of good conscience can disagree. Instead, the only possible motivation for any opposition must be evil - in this case, hatred of gay people - and thus any argument presented in opposition must be invalid on its face. Logic and reason are discarded, and any dissent is grounds for censuring the dissenters, or even censoring them.

The passion, and its associated narrow vision, has, I believe, caused Mr. Takei to misinterpret Justice Thomas' words. As noted at that article, the relevant text of Thomas' dissent reads:

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,' they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Mr. Takei apparently holds a view that is common among those on the left side of the political spectrum, namely that Government is the sole source of all good things. To them, for example, rights are not inherent, they are bestowed by government. If government does not specifically declare something a right, that right simply does not exist.

You can argue about whether or not Thomas is correct. However, he is, in these paragraphs, presenting a conservative (or, rather, classically liberal) view which is that there are things that humans possess inherently as a consequence of their very existence, and that government, while it can certainly infringe up on them, or suppress them, cannot remove them or replace them.