”Do We Not Pay You Enough?”
Cidu Bill on Aug 18th 2009
Chris Reaves: Okay, this Doonesbury went over my head. Is the idea that the birthers won’t believe even the actual physical document? That they won’t show up to see it? That displaying it would be giving in to terrorists? That the birth certificate in fact DOES say “Kenya” on it? None are really funny. Furthermore, the language itself seems to imply that it’s the last option (the sentence trailing off where it does suggests the problem is with what they would see) which would be an incredibly uncharacteristic joke for Trudeau.
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, CIDU, Doonesbury, G.B. Trudeau, birthers, comic strips, comics, humor | 44 responses so far
John Aug 18th 2009 at 01:22 pm 1
I think what Trudeau is trying to say is that the Birthers Movement is so ridiculous and stupid, it’d be equally ridiculous and stupid to respond at all. By responding, the administration acknowledges that movement may have weight, or its claims may be possible. It’s an insult to Obama to suggest he respond to such a moronic and obviously untrue claim.
Tim Aug 18th 2009 at 01:48 pm 2
I think if he’d done this, it would have put an end to it. Refusing to show his birth certificate is fueling the fire.
yellojkt Aug 18th 2009 at 01:49 pm 3
It’s also impossible to satisfy the claims of the Birthers and they would not be silenced no matter how iron clad the proof to the contrary is.
TasmanSea Aug 18th 2009 at 01:50 pm 4
I agree that this isn’t as clear of a critique of the birthers as it should have been. It seems like there is also a specific problem with addressing it using evidence like the actual certificate in particular (in addition to addressing it at all like John said). It seems like the people who are stirring up this nonsense in the first place likely are doing so towards ends (political, financial) other than spreading what they perceive to be facts. Since none of it is rooted in any kind of evidence-based argument, the idea of countering it with evidence is kind of a mismatch.
JHGRedekop Aug 18th 2009 at 02:00 pm 5
My take was that even going to such lengths wouldn’t convince the Birthers that Obama was a US citizen. This article covers Birther logic perfectly:
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/591/Obamas-Birth-Certificate-Why-the-controversy-wont-go-away-hilarious.aspx
John Aug 18th 2009 at 02:54 pm 6
He didn’t refuse to show his birth certificate - it was released during the campaign. http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
padraig Aug 18th 2009 at 03:00 pm 7
Whereas the birthers WERE willing to believe the obviously phony “Kenyan” birth certificate, which turned out to be Australian. So their grip on reality has been voluntarily released.
See http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp
Christian Aug 18th 2009 at 03:20 pm 8
Tim, do you A) not know that Obama has released his birth certificate over a year ago (and that it is still available today for anybody to inspect), or B) believe that the birth certificate Obama provided is invalid? If B, why is it important to your belief system and/or your way of living to believe that way? I understand the argument that if he’s not a citezen he shouldn’t be pres. But if the state of Hawaii says the birth certificate is valid and all other verifiable evidence is supporting that validation, what is the benefit or attraction of believing B? If you believe B can you imagine any evidence that might possibly be produced that might convince you otherwise?
And just out of curiosity I’d like to know what percentage of Birthers believe the moon landing was a hoax.
Nicole Aug 18th 2009 at 03:28 pm 9
Given Trudeau’s political leanings, I think it safe to say that he is not implying that Obama’s birth certificate says Kenya. I think the point of the joke is that he has already released his birth certificate for all the world to see, and the birthers still don’t believe it. The ‘do we not pay you enough’ is a way of saying .. we did that , you should know that.
Oh — and if you are interested, you can generate your very own Kenyan birth certificate here http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/
Cidu Bill Aug 18th 2009 at 03:34 pm 10
Christians, not only do Birthers believe the moon landing was genuine, they’re convinced Obama was born there.
Daniel J. Drazen Aug 18th 2009 at 03:49 pm 11
Having run into some of these jokers at The McLaughlin Group’s message board, I know that with these clowns it’s a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose situation. They won’t believe the official Hawaiian certificate or any other because they don’t want to.
It’s the Kenyan allegation that’s the most heinous. I grew up hearing bigots grumbling about how “all the n*ggers should be shipped back to N*ggerland where they came from.” In this case, the Kenyan birth allegation is code, with “Kenya” as a substitute for “N*ggerland.”
Nobody’s saying this to the face of the bigots (which I think is more descriptive and accurate a term than “birther”) but that’s what this argument is all about. It’s only too bad that Trudeau can’t take the strip into THAT swamp because no editor in his/her right mind would take the risk.
Charlene Aug 18th 2009 at 03:50 pm 12
I’m sorry, but people who claim that Obama hasn’t released his birth certificate when there is documented proof going back over a year that he has are not honestly questioning anything. They are lying, malevolently and maliciously, and they know they’re lying. In fact, they’re glorying in the fact that they are lying. Why? Because they are using the lie to plant that seed of “Obama isn’t a real American” in people’s minds.
I wonder why they’re so desperate to portray Obama as less than a real American. Gosh, hard to figure that one out.
Christian Aug 18th 2009 at 04:48 pm 13
Maybe all Birthers are bigots. But can it be said that not all bigotry is race-based? Often enough it’s simply anti-Liberal, anti-Democrat, etc. Sure Anti-black is certainly in the Birther mix. But many Birthers are not, in fact, racist. Ignorant, sure. But not racist.
There are many belief systems out there that persistently teach that the world is ACTUALLY under the control of this or that secret combination of elite oligarchs bent on destroying the lives/beliefs/etc of one’s own group. The “Secret Combination” idea is often as not a bigotry thing (see Elders of Zion). But often it’s just a justified paranoia thing. It is useful to enforce feelings of powerlessness and/or dependency and it helps justify/rationalize either inactivity or the de-legitimacy of an opposing group/viewpoint. The results are very much like race-based bigotry (enforces an Us vs. Them paradigm), it’s just that the “Them” isn’t always a race-based distinction. And, frankly, for many, it’s not even code for a race-based distinction, not even on a sub-conscious level.
If one desires to have a dialog with Birthers (and who could be blamed for not wanting that) starting with accusations of racism won’t help. If they are overtly racist, there’s probably no point to dialog in the first place. If they’re in denial about their racism, accusing them of it probably won’t help. And if they are, in fact, not racist, the accusation, again, ends the possibility of dialog.
What worries me about this whole shindig is the aggressive ignorance. It’s like the fake-moon-landing crowd, only more virulent. It’s like 6-24-hour-day Creationism, but with thinner “evidence”. It’s aggressive Luddite-ism, or at least it could be if Luddite includes not just anti-technology, but also anti-information/knowledge. And as the rush of technological advances accelerates, how many more people will be left behind to founder in that realm? Will such Luddite-ism attain a critical mass that can ultimately slow or stop the technological/information flood? Or will there be a new societal split (added to racial, gender, economic, etc. divides) a technological/informational divide? Has that already happened? Will the Luddites take over? (or did they just recently fall out of power? But that would be unjustifiably unkind of me to suggest).
Pinny Aug 18th 2009 at 07:00 pm 14
Some Republicans in 2009 : “Obama was not born in the US and therefore is not the real President.” :: Some Democrats in 2001 : “Bush did not really win the the election and therefore is not the real President.”
Christian Aug 18th 2009 at 09:02 pm 15
Right, Pinny. However, while in the end the result is the same (the guy the losing side didn’t like was still officially, or at the very least effectively, the president), there does seem to be far and away more legitimacy to the “Bush didn’t win” argument vs. the “Obama’s not a citizen” argument.
Mark M Aug 18th 2009 at 09:48 pm 16
Christian, “far and away”? Really? In this country the winner of the electoral vote wins the election. Please explain how there is any legitimacy whatsoever to the “Bush didn’t win” argument.
Mitch4 Aug 18th 2009 at 10:09 pm 17
@Mark M: But it isn’t really based in electoral college vs. popular vote. There’s a persistent suspicion of irregularities, and of an unjustified court settlement over the Florida case.
src Aug 18th 2009 at 10:11 pm 18
Mark, the recount was stopped and the presidency was given to Bush by the Supreme Court. Whether or not Bush would have ultimately won in the recount is an open question to this day. That’s why the argument is legitimate.
anaceofkidneys Aug 18th 2009 at 10:32 pm 19
“Birthers could then come see for themselves that…it’s the same document that’s already been released, that they have already had ample time to view, and that they STILL won’t believe is legitimate.” I guess?
I tend to agree with Trudeau politically, but I rarely find his cartoons funny or clever. My parents, on the other hand…
Frank the curmudgeon Aug 19th 2009 at 02:26 am 20
Trudeau hasn’t had anything worth saying since Lacy died.
Christian Aug 19th 2009 at 04:26 am 21
Mark M: src gave as good an explanation as any I could have authored.
Maybe I should have expressed it this way: there does seem to be far and away less illegitimacy to the arguments supporting the “Bush didn’t win” position vs. the arguments supporting the “Obama’s not a citizen” position. However, in both cases the positions are ultimately futile.
I recognize the parallel between “A’s candidate won but B felt it wasn’t a valid win. Then later B’s candidate won and A felt it wasn’t a valid win.” What other parallels do you see?
To make the observation of that parallel can appear to imply that the observer sees the arguments supporting A’s and B’s positions as equivalent, or at least comparable. So do you believe the disagreement about the 2000 recount is forensically equivalent, or at least comparable to the 2008-2009 doubted birth certificate?
In 2000 the losers’ main demand was to complete the recount and abide by its results. While that was physically possible to do at the time, it was not the path the powers that were chose to follow. In 2008-2009 the losers’ main demand is to see either a valid birth certificate (which has already been produced) or to see an “even more valid” birth certificate, for which no system exists.
If the 2000 losers had received their wish and the recount had been completed and Bush still came out the winner, there would probably still have been people who would not have accepted the results for various reasons (bad counting methodology, mistaken votes for Buchanan, etc.), but at least the main demand would have been met. In 2008-2009 the Birthers did, in fact, get their demand. The valid birth certificate was provided and verified by all the proper and appropriate authorities.
Imagine a baseball play on a game-winning run where the runner slides home just as the catcher is getting the ball. There is a cloud of dust and it’s very difficult to see whether the runner is safe. The umpire calls it a run, but the opposing team and crowd is calling for re-consideration of the call through examination of the video replay. But the umpire says no, his call stands. The losing team argues the point a bit longer, but ultimately concedes. Many of the losing team’s fans continue to grumble about it and claim they was robbed.
Imagine a similar baseball play on a game-winning run where the runner runs home and gets there before the catcher gets the ball. It’s clearly a “safe” call. But somebody says the runner forgot to tag first base. So the umpire asks the first base umpire, who, along with the first base coach, confirms that the runner did, indeed, tag up. They even check the video replay and show it on the Jumbotron for everybody to see. And there it is, the runner did tag first. Nevertheless, some of the the losing team’s fans continue to grumble about it and claim they was robbed.
Which losing team’s grumbling fans have a more legitimate reason to grumble?
Powers Aug 19th 2009 at 07:33 am 22
Not that the arguments have any merit… but as I recall, isn’t there some other more “original” document that the birthers are looking for besides the short-form that was posted online?
Mitch4 Aug 19th 2009 at 07:49 am 23
I;ve never followed Doonesbury closely or consistently enough to identify most of the characters or remember significant events or relationships from their history. … Which seem (perhaps surprisingly) to make a gap in understanding current strips. Also — and I blame the drawing — I have trouble distinguishing the different generations, by appearance anyway.
@Frank — who is this Lacy you mention? Was she the Congresswoman? Or the Joan Baez-inspired figure?
The self-contained political strips work better for me than the character-history-required storylines. But GWB was a juicier target for him, no doubt, so maybe the political strips are flabbier this year.
Tim Aug 19th 2009 at 08:37 am 24
Christian and Powers,
The document that was released was not actually a “birth certificate.” It doesn’t mention anything about what hospital he was born at or other precise information. As I understand it, I could go to Hawaii and request one of these documents, even though I was born in New Jersey. The actualy birth certificate would prove where he was born, but Hawaii privacy laws forbid it being released to anybody who doesn’t have “need to know,” which is why journalists can’t get it released to the public.
Add to this the fact that Obama accepted a scholarship in college available only to non-citizens.
I’m not a “birther,” but I find myself wondering why these questions don’t get answered once and for all. Classifying everything from Area 51 only fueled conspiracy theories.
John B. Aug 19th 2009 at 09:32 am 25
Obama is just afraid of showing the truth. If he was born in Kenya, then it shows that he is indeed not eligible to be president, and if one was produced, is it real? (you know something like that can be easily faked).
So avoiding the situation is his “solution” to the problem, just like all the other problems he’s attempting to solve (and failing miserably at with the exception of Cash for Clunkers - and even then he couldn’t get it right!)
src666 Aug 19th 2009 at 09:36 am 26
Tim, check your sources. The whole “scholarship for non-citizens” thing was a April fools joke. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/occidental.asp
The sad fact is that the questions DO get answered. It’s just that the people asking the questions don’t WANT answers. They just want the confusion to live on.
GP Aug 19th 2009 at 10:25 am 27
If the 14th amendment were not so poorly written, this wouldn’t be an issue. A new amendment might be in order to prevent this nonsense in the future. I didn’t vote for Obama and I think it’s insane that we don’t require all presidential candidates to prove citizenship, but the birther controversy should be a non-issue.
A child born to an American citizen mother overseas is automatically a US citizen (given that the mother has spent a certain amount of her life in the US). Yet the 14th amendment defines citizens as those born or naturalized in the United States. Since this hypothetical child was not born in the US, it would be assumed to be naturalized by the wording in this amendment. The child would be a citizen “at birth” but not a citizen “by birth.”
Clearly the purpose of the citizenship requirement for the presidency was to prevent a person who had gone through the naturalization process from becoming president. Regardless of where Obama was born, he has been a US citizen his entire life, from birth. He should therefore fulfill the citizenship requirement.
firedmyass Aug 19th 2009 at 02:27 pm 28
Hey, look at John B. everyone!! Awwww… he’s putting on a hat! HAW! He thinks he’s people!
Lost in A**2 Aug 19th 2009 at 05:20 pm 29
I don’t think the 14th Amendment is so poorly written: it is inclusive, not exclusive. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” does not mean “Only persons born . . . in the United States.”
Interestingly, to me, anyway, there was controversy over McCain’s citizenship as well. We’d be having this argument no matter who won.
Prosfilaes Aug 19th 2009 at 08:51 pm 30
Lost in A**2, I don’t think we would be having this same argument if McCain won. Yes, he was born in Panama, so there are technical issues, but McCain’s father is not a black man from a third-world nation. I think racial, national, cultural and miscegenation issues are all more powerful here than any real issue with where he was born.
Endro Aug 19th 2009 at 11:41 pm 31
I’ve never fully understood Doonesbury but it often reads more British than American - that is have a go at all sides not partisan. So he leaves it maybe - could be the Birth Cert is Hawaiian but ‘birthers’ would never believe it anyway, could be it’s not. In fact, for all the fuss made of ‘citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ in documents from times when Mr. Obama could never have been either, as born to a C/citizen with 5 years’ residence, he is American if born on Mars. For those who care to know, the alleged ‘Kenyan’ birth cert has two glaring errors: 1st the price of 7s6d when British currency was never used in Kenya, they used the East African Shilling of 100 cents from 1922 (probably a German Schilling before as they were first German colonies) and second it has ‘Republic of Kenya’ on the bottom in Feb. 1964. Kenya achieved Independence on 12. Dec. 63 but waited a year until 12. Dec. 64 to declare itself a Republic. What it was in between, God knows and Wikipedia does not.
Frank the curmudgeon Aug 19th 2009 at 11:43 pm 32
Mitch4 Millicent Hammond Fenwick R. N.J.
Powers Aug 20th 2009 at 06:35 am 33
Endro — if Obama was born on Mars, he would not have been an American citizen, because Stanley Ann Dunham was three months shy of having lived in the U.S. for five years after the age of 14.
Tim — sure, you could go to Hawaii and request one of those documents, but it’d say you were born in Jersey, not in Honolulu.
GP Aug 20th 2009 at 08:25 am 34
Lost in A**2,
So in the case of a hypothetical child born to American parents (let’s say both are American for simplicity) in Japan, the child is an American citizen. Was that child born or naturalized in the United States? The 14th amendment implies the child must be one of the two. Since not born in the US, it must be the case that the child was naturalized. Since no naturalization process took place, the child must have been automatically and instantaneously naturalized. If naturalized, the child will not be eligible for citizenship at age 35. The amendment is plenty inclusive, but it did not take requirements for the presidency into account. It also did not take into account the general case of a child born abroad to American citizens. Since such children are clearly not “naturalized” and also clearly not excluded from citizenship, the amendment’s wording is clumsy and its clumsy wording creates potential issues that were not intended.
The amendment doesn’t limit citizenship only to those born in the United States, but the Constitution does not allow naturalized citizens to become president.
chuckers Aug 20th 2009 at 09:06 am 35
GP:
Refer here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Specifically here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
and here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1405.html
Obama would not be a citizen if he was 110 years old. Pretty sure he is not.
My daughter is an American citizen but unfortunately (or fortunately) can never
be President. She will just have to grow up to be an Astronaut.
Ian Osmond Aug 20th 2009 at 09:27 am 36
Tim: that’s the argument I don’t get.
That’s a CERTIFICATE of live BIRTH. Also known as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE. Where did you hear that there exists a Super Secret Mysterious Even More Certificate Of Even More Live Birth?
The thing says “CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH” right on the top of the sucker. That’s what a birth certificate LOOKS like.
Doctor/Lawyer/Realtor ORLY? YA RLY claims that there exists an even more super secret birth certificate that he’s not showing . . . but maybe she’s just delusional.
anaceofkidneys Aug 20th 2009 at 10:44 pm 37
“So he leaves it maybe - could be the Birth Cert is Hawaiian but ‘birthers’ would never believe it anyway, could be it’s not.”
Of course! I had forgotten about the Hawaii thing. Yes, there was a recent survey among birthers in which an alarming number - over 10% - did not believe Hawaii is a state. Now I think that must be what Trudeau was getting at.
Lord-z Aug 23rd 2009 at 03:33 am 38
Powers - You are talking about a law concerning citizenship of the children of non-citizens. Had Dunham not been a citizen by birth, then the law might have applied. Since she was born a citizen, that law doesn’t apply.
Lost in A**2 Aug 24th 2009 at 12:55 pm 39
GP, I disagree with your interpretation of the wording of the 14th Amendment; the Amendment is NOT exclusionary, as you seem to think.
My daughter fits your hypothetical. By law, she is a citizen by birth and so is eligible to the Presidency.
The issue in Mr McCain’s case is that the law did not cover Panama at the time of his birth. So any retroactive law would make him a ‘naturalised’ citizen and so ineligible for the Presidency. And yes, folks were arguing about his citizenship before the election.
blueiguana Aug 25th 2009 at 10:45 pm 40
@Several Posters: There were at least *four* recounts in Florida - all of which resulted in Bush winning. Gore kept handpicking counties where he thought that he could do well, and ballots were showing up in garbage bags and in the trunks of cars. The nonsense was finally brought to an end when it seemed clear that it all was getting fishier the longer it went on.
Harise Sep 3rd 2009 at 04:56 pm 41
it’s the pause after he says “that”, that prompts him to ask, what don’t we pay you enough. it’s like, et tu brute?
tool Sep 26th 2009 at 04:10 pm 42
McCain, like me, was born in US territory (the Canal Zone for him) on a US base in a US hospital. If he isn’t a natural born (not naturalized) citizen of the USA, then what would he be? A citizen of Panama? Ridiculous. Stateless, like children born in France (and other European nations) of immigrant parents? Gah.
Unless there is any record of Obama’s mother traveling abroad near his birth date I have no problem accepting his citizenship status, but that doesn’t mean requests to view the original are invalid. I have seen California birth certificates that look much like a receipt (narrow paper from a roll, blue printing, no seal) that can’t possibly be the original. Claiming “we refuse to provide evidence because it won’t be believed anyway” solves nothing.
While I’m at it, casting opposition to Presidential initiatives as racist is worse. A majority opposed the health care plan proposed by the Clinton administration, too; policy should be defended on it’s merits, not by attacking detractors.
Lost in A**2 Sep 26th 2009 at 05:06 pm 43
tool, yes, he would probably be “stateless,” depending upon the laws of Panama. The problem is that *at the time of his birth*, Congress had made no provision for the citizenship of the children of citizens abroad. (Remember, servicemen still needed the permission of their commanding officer to wed.) Did the ex post facto law grant him citizenship at/by birth, or make him a naturalised citizen? I don’t know. Fortunately, the matter is moot.
Prosfilaes Sep 26th 2009 at 07:30 pm 44
So do we have records of where John McCain’s mother was during John McCain’s birth? How do we really know that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone? Isn’t it a little suspicious that he was born somewhere so tightly controlled by the government where people from on high could trivially manipulate every detail of the records?
The Honolulu Sun published the report of Obama’s birth in Hawaii when it happened; between that and his birth certificate, I can’t see how anyone could honestly believe he wasn’t born in Hawaii without quite a bit of bias. You’ll note that no one bothers arguing with the flat earthers any more, and that most biologists refuse to respond to scientific creationists. If your audience is holding on to a belief that’s completely absurd and illogical, arguing with them will gain you nothing, waste your time and may give them credence.