Is President Obama Too Thoughtful?

I remember, when I was a little girl, my grandfather saying that Adlai Stevenson had lost the election to Dwight D. Eisenhower because Stevenson was "too smart" for the American public to appreciate him.

We in the western world have always had an ambivalent attitude toward intellectualism. On the one hand we revere geniuses like Einstein and Shakespeare and Newton and are taught in school to emulate them. On the other hand, we have the somewhat comical images of the mad scientist and the absent-minded professor -- characters who are capable of amazing mental feats but generally incapable of dealing with the mundane realities of everyday life. We have Shakespeare's Hamlet, a thinker who becomes so paralyzed in the process of weighing the meaning and consequences of his actions that he cannot act at all. We are familiar with the question, "If you're so smart, why can't you (enter the appropriate common sensical act)?" We have the frequent portrayal of intelligent young people as nerds and socially inept losers who are never invited to the prom.

It is to America's credit that we managed to elect an intellectual to the highest post in the land. We proved that we really can choose a leader who doesn't fumble for words and wasn't a C student in school. We have overcome many of the stereotypes of the effete academic. This is progress.

Still, while I like and admire President Obama, I find myself impatient with what sometimes appears like an inability to act decisively. We need a leader who can not only expound on the necessity to move the ball down the field but the ability to get it through the goal posts.

When the president calls on us to reflect on our goals and aspirations he calls upon our highest and best selves. We are heartened and inspired. He invites us to reason and to act according to the most noble motives. Sometimes, though, we as a country must not only reflect but move forward decisively.

President Obama has said that among the many notable presidents our country has produced he most admires and tries to emulate Abraham Lincoln. There is no doubt Lincoln was a mental heavyweight. But he was not only a thinker, he was a fighter. He pulled no punches when he wrestled with his enemies and was not afraid to make unpopular decisions. No one wanted a bloody civil war less than he did, but when he was called upon to lead he moved forward with courage and determination as well as with grave doubt and apprehension and, yes, sorrow.

Our president believes strongly in the power of reason and civil debate. This is why, in large part, we have elected him to office. It is this sanity that appealed to so many of us during his campaign.

Now, though, it is time to take on those enemies who are determined to stall all progress and mire our legislative process in the mud. It's all very good to reach out to our adversaries and invite them to reason with us, but another thing entirely to let them bring our government and our society to a standstill. Every concession to the forces of inertia is a victory for the status quo, and a defeat of the change we voted so enthusiastically to enable.

It is time for President Obama to do more than speak softly and reasonably. It's time for him to step down from the professor's podium and fight.

I Discover Above Top Secret

I found it while browsing for a good discussion site. Most of the chat rooms and other internet discussion forums I had encountered were either hopelessly stupid and inane, or so hostile toward those who dared to post in them that it was off-putting. I've always enjoyed a good debate, but name-calling and personal insults are no fun and at best just annoying. Any idiot can abuse people.

Above Top Secret was, surprisingly, one of the first hits I got on my search. The title alone conjured up images of spies, saboteurs and government intrigues. It turns out that impression was largely true. All three of those topics are to be found on its boards, and more -- much more. I was at first amused by the image of tin-foil-hat wearing lunatics and aliens from outer space and thought I was going to read them and get a good laugh. But my condescending and superior attitude soon changed.

The discussions of even the most far-out subjects are usually supplemented by evidence -- articles, experts, photographs, etc as well as personal experiences. There is almost always some form of documentation for each claim. I'm still not convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, for example, but after reading many of the zillion threads and posts on the subject, I have come to respect the amount of research that has gone into this claim and the sincerity of the people who write on it. I remain skeptical, but willing to keep my mind open now.

In order to be able to post replies on this site one has to join ATS, but this is possible and still retain one's anonymity. When one registers he or she just provides a screen name and an e-mail address to which your password is sent. No personal information beyond that is asked or required.

There are many forums on every kind of conspiracy from the medical (is H1N1 a government deception?) to the governmental (secret federal detention camps? Was the Warren Commission hiding something?) to the artistic (who really wrote the Diary of Anne Frank?) to the paranormal, to the predictions of Nostradamus, to the inner workings of secret societies and organizations. Some of these last ones border on old prejudices and persecutions and make me somewhat uncomfortable; the terms and conditions of the site, however, discourage the expression of out and out prejudice or xenophobia. But there is more -- much more.

There are forums on medicine, education, science, the media, and many other subjects which may or may not involve conspiracies.

Two of my favorites are the Breaking Alternative News forum and the Breaking Political News forum. Breaking Alternative News has a preference for non-main-stream media accounts, although provocative, unusual or suspicious items may be accepted from these sources. Threads are never more than a day or two old when they are posted. Breaking Political News covers a spectrum of recent political events and controversies.

I, myself, am an avowed political junkie, so I spend a lot of time on the numerous political forums, though I browse the others from time to time.

One of the features that makes this site so unique is the terms and conditions, which one must agree to when one becomes a member. There are prohibitions on profanity, name-calling, or any other kid of abuse. The T&C is strictly upheld; members who disregard the rules are issued warnings and after repeated offenses are banned. These rules create an atmosphere of civil debate very unlike most other internet discussion forums.

Since I joined two years ago, rarely a day goes by when I don't spend some time on ATS. There is always at least one thread that captures my attention. You get points for every post or thread you initiate. These can be used to "buy" things at the ATS store (like backgrounds for your avatar) or just accrue to one's prestige. Particularly outstanding posts, and accompanying points, are awarded by the forum moderators. Generally speaking, the longer one is a member the more accustomed one becomes to the protocols and expectations of the site, and the more solid one's posts are the higher one's status.

It seems silly to try to accrue so much status, but that's part of the fun.

I invite anyone who has an inquiring mind and a taste for civil discussion and debate to visit ATS. It's one of my favorite places on the internet.

I've Been Double-Crossed By My Congressman

If the guy were a Republican I could understand it. He would be acting on his own deeply-held convictions and there would be no hypocrisy in his voting against the House bill on health care reform (or more accurately health insurance reform).

But the congressman from my district, Health Shuler, is supposed to be a Democrat. He has enjoyed the full support of the local Democratic party and raised a lot of money from us. We threw picnics and barbecues, went door to door, made calls and passed out leaflets. We all celebrated when he won the election against a popular Republican incumbent. I am sorry, now, to report that I voted for Shuler. Twice. I actually liked his Republican predecessor, but the guy was, well, not a Democrat. So we were all happy. For awhile.

It's true that our district is relatively conservative, and Shuler no doubt felt that he owed his victory in large part to his conservative support. Now we Democrats feel we were taken advantage of.

I hesitated, but continued to support Shuler, even after I learned that he is the whip of the Blue Dog coalition in the House. The Blue Dogs are a group of conservative Democrats and like Heath they also come from conservative districts and sometimes vote with the Republicans. That's okay, as long as he doesn't cross any major ideological divides, like health care reform.

The trouble is we Democrats were whole-heartedly in favor of the House bill. We made our voices heard through phone calls, letters, and petitions to Shuler's office. We also heard a lot from Shuler's other constituents and in many cases even the Republicans wanted at least some kind of reform. Shuler's office responded with the assurance that he was listening to us but never gave us specifics on his position. But I was optimistic that he would, when push came to shove, assert his loyalty to the people who got him elected and give him most of his financial support.

I was still hopeful on that fateful Saturday night when the House voted on the bill. I was glued to the coverage on C-Span (which I like because it is totally unbiased. It gives you only the actual proceedings with no commentary ). I was still hopeful as the Congressmen began voting electronically. When I didn't see how my congressman voted, I went on-line to the C-Span site and read the official vote tally. It said "Shuler - nay."

Nay? I couldn't believe it. He had stabbed me, and his party, in the back. He was a Benedict Arnold who did not honestly prepare us for his defection to the enemy. He takes money and votes from the Democrats but he might as well be a Republican. At least then he would be true to his voting record and what are, apparently, his real convictions.

The next day the phones were ringing at the county Democratic Party headquarters. An article was circulating that disclosed Shuler had taken more money from the insurance industry than any other congressman in our state, including the Republicans. Another was produced that brought up an old scandal that connected Shuler to a dishonest real estate deal with the TVA in the next state. I was prepared to listen to the buzz. I had been bamboozled and gone from shocked to mad.

As I said earlier, if my congressman was honest and forthcoming about his true convictions I would not be happy but I could accept it. As it was, however, he has taken a lot of us for a ride. Just wait until 2010.

The President's Address at Fort Hood: What Does It Mean To The Muslim-American Community?

It's rather eerie that my last post was about fear of Muslim-Americans, particularly of interns on Capitol Hill. I had no idea, when I wrote it, of the events that would transpire at Fort Hood last week. I had no idea that it would have broader implications.

While President Obama stopped short of calling Dr. Hasan's murder spree a terrorist act, he didn't deny it either. The fact is, I think, we are all waiting for more evidence before jumping to conclusions that could have serious and even dangerous implications for the Muslim-American community in this country.

I am not familiar with the Muslim faith and have no close friends who are, so I can only speak from my own point of view. I agree with President Obama when he says:

"It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next."

I think people of all faiths can relate to that. But Dr. Hasan's violence is already being met with a violent response from the more volatile segments of society. They call for blood in return for the blood that was spilt. Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I believe that this is the conviction of the majority of sane people in this country, even atheists.

I only hope and pray that the acts of Dr. Hasan's tormented soul do not lead to the same violence from the non-Muslims among us. It is too easy to point to the continuing unrest in the middle east as proof that all Muslims are murderous and lawless. It is all too easy for some among us to form into mobs, mindless and destructive in their fury. It has happened in our history before, to other segments of our population, and these acts are remembered with shame. We must not let it happen again.

Muslim-Americans have lived peacefully among us for many years, long before the events of 9/11 caused Americans to react with such hatred. There is no reason to believe that the vast majority will not continue to be vital, productive and peace-loving citizens of the United States, or that they will not continue to try to control the extremists among them.

We must be careful not to punish the many for the sins of a few. Those guilty few who deserve punishment should surely receive it, but they should be recognized as the exception, not as the rule.

Muslim Interns on Capitol Hill

Most people are familiar with what interns are and what they do. In most places of business they are the fresh-faced young beginners, just out of college and in some cases still enrolled, who are working for minimum wage or sometimes for free just for the opportunity to learn the ropes and perhaps someday climb the ladder to positions of greater responsibility in their present company or a future one.

On Capitol Hill, interns, who usually work in the offices of senators and congresspeople, do much the same sort of work--xeroxing, collating, running out for coffee, etc.--as do their counterparts in the private sector. These interns, rather than setting their sights on a business career, are there to learn the ropes of a life in the political arena. These positions, often political appointments, are highly sought after and considered a great privilege.

It does not surprise me that these interns often come from many different ethnic and social backgrounds, just as all Americans do.

I am completely surprised, though, at the outcry of some Americans upon finding out that some interns are of the Muslim faith. There has not been a similar reaction to those of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, B'Hai or Buddhist persuasions, for example, only, apparently, to Muslims.

Given that many Americans view Muslims as violent people bent on the complete destruction of the western world, perhaps that should not surprise me. But it does. It must be clear to most reasonable people that Muslim Americans do not, as a rule, support Al Qaeda or its passionate hatred of western civilization. They are, first and foremost, Americans. It's not like the Muslim interns in Washington are being brought over from the middle east, these are home-grown American citizens. They are young people pursuing careers in politics.

Then, I remember the heated accusations, during the last election, that President Obama is secretly a Muslim, bent on waging Holy Jihad against the United States at every opportunity. The great flap about his Christian minister notwithstanding, some benighted individuals still insist that he is a practicing Muslim. And then the outcry begins to make some sense -- sort of. The reasoning, apparently, is that somehow the president is personally filling the Capitol with violent young people who will bring down the hallowed walls of Congress and crash airplanes into our national parks and other revered landmarks. The assumption is, I suppose, that President Obama hates everything American and has enough power to force Congresspeople and Senators to hire interns with ties to Al Qaeda.

This because his father was born in Kenya. This sort of fear has a name--xenophobia. It means an extreme fear and hatred of anything foreign or outside one's own culture. I have posted a link to the free dictionary definition of the word. The fact that xenophobia pertains to irrational fears should be obvious.

If John McCain had won the election, and there were some interns on Capitol Hill of the Muslim faith, then I've no doubt no one would have raised an eyebrow.

But, apparently, because the current President of the United States has been accused of being a Muslim, we must all hate and fear Muslims in any position of responsibility anywhere in this great country of ours.

Somebody needs to get a grip.

Health Care Reform: OMG That's Socialism!

Here's an excerpt from Wiki on Medicare and Socialism:

Socialism

At the time it was enacted, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:

• Ronald Reagan: “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” [1961]^[58]

• George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]^[59]

• Barry Goldwater: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.” [1964]^[60]

• Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the presidency, Dole stated that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ... because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [1992]^[61]

• Libertarians and the Austrian School of economics suggest that social programs such as Medicare fail to participate in theprice mechanism of competition. Bypassing market forces allows for arbitrary pricing and increased utilization of resources by the public (see also marginal utility).

[edit]

Sound familiar?

It happened when Roosevelt passed Social Security, too, in the 1930's. There were people who predicted that the U.S. was headed down the slippery slope to socialism, and from socialism to communism. We would lose our freedom and all our liberties and be the subjects of a totalitarian slave state. The United States of America would be doomed.

It's happening again today, in the debate on health insurance reform.

The cries are coming from much the same sources as they did when Social Security and Medicare were passed.

What's different today is that the people who are voicing their fears are often those who LIKE their Medicare and Social Security just as they are. They are against socialism, in other words, except when they are for it.

This fear of losing treasured benefits is being played upon by politicians and corporate interests who are interested only in preserving their own campaign contributions or their own bottom lines. It's cynical manipulation of a vulnerable population.

With health insurance reform insurers will have to provide competitively-priced coverage with no loopholes for pre-existing conditions. To keep their premium costs down and keep insurers honest, there will, hopefully, be a public option -- a government-run, not-for-profit insurance plan for those who want it. Those who are satisfied with their present insurance will keep it. The huge profits of some of the biggest health insurance providers may well decrease somewhat. The high cost of pharmaceuticals, in addition, would probably come down as the drug companies would have to negotiate with the regulated insurance industry on prices. These are the costs to corporate interests, which are funding and disseminating some of the most vehement attacks on the proposed health insurance reform in America.

Another problematic proposal for some people is to make it mandatory for everybody who is eligible for health insurance to have coverage. This is much like our present policy of requiring by law that everyone who drives must have car insurance. Such policies are in effect in countries like Japan, where the level of satisfaction with health care is generally higher than it is here in the U.S. The rationale is that if everyone buys insurance that will enable the cost of premiums to come down and the additional burden of covering the uninsured won't add to health care costs for everybody.

But none of this is socialism.

Socialism is an economic theory in which the means of production are owned by the state. Neither Medicare nor Social Security nor health care reform as it is presently proposed would entail government ownership of the means of production. Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom are not socialist societies, for example, yet they have socialized health care which their citizens are basically satisfied with. Yes, there are some horror stories, but there are also plenty of those in the U.S. too, with its present capitalistic system of health care provision.

Capitalism will continue as it always has, and drug and insurance companies will not be put out of business, although they may have to come down on their astronomic costs somewhat.

At the risk of alienating those who, like Ronald Reagan, believe that government is always the problem, and never the solution, I would point out that programs like Medicare and Social Security are run better and more efficiently by the government than they could be if health care were left to the vagaries of the private sector, as it is now.

There are just some things that government can do better, and health insurance reform is one of them.

And America hasn't turned into a communist state yet.

What Difference Does It Make How Many People Were At the 9/12 Rally?

According to the crowd estimates given in this "Politifact" article (click on the title of this post for the link) various organizations have given widely differing numbers for those who attended last Saturday's "Tea Party" rally in Washington, D.C. The estimates range from 60,000 (D.C. police) to 2 million (Michelle Malkin) demonstrators.

I looked first to see what the New York Times reported, a source I believe to be generally objective, and was disappointed to find that it said "thousands," an estimate I find vague and unhelpful. "Thousands" could mean anywhere from 2,000 to a million. Beyond that, it seems like the numbers depend largely on one's political orientation. Glen Beck, Fox and ABC apparently gave the highest tallies, and government workers the lowest.

Politifact goes on to describe a misleading photo which was purportedly of the crowd on Saturday, but turns out to be a shot of the Promise Keepers' rally in 1997. This rally covered the vast expanse from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, while other pictures of the 9/12 protest showed significantly less acreage. The event has been widely discussed on the internet, but the disparities of reporting make me nostalgic for the heyday of newspapers.

The trouble with the internet is that we tend to go to sites that we like and that we agree with, and we get a lot of our news from them. This news is usually slanted in directions we approve of, and can eventually give us a false sense of important issues and public opinion. In addition, photoshopping and other techniques have allowed photos to be doctored to a point where it becomes impossible to be sure of the images we see. While newspapers never created a consensus they did offer a version of events that all readers could use as a starting point, and pictures that were less easily tampered with.

Still, it seems to me that reasonably precise estimates of crowds could be made by anyone with a helicopter. If you know approximately what number of people are in a given segment of the picture, then multiplying that amount by the number of segments should give you a good idea of attendance. Though there were variations in the estimates of the crowd at Obama's inauguration, they covered a smaller range of possibilities than the wildly differing numbers given of Saturday's march.

So that leads me to the question: why does it matter how many people there were? After all, even 2 million people are hardly a majority even of the people who voted in last November's election. The answer, I think, is that two thousand people can represent many more who just didn't have the time, means or energy to travel in order to attend themselves. Two million protesters can represent how many more? A two-million-sized gathering represents quite a bit of discontent in the country.

It has been alleged that many of the attendees at the Tea Party 9/12 rally are bought and paid for by the insurance companies and big pharma. Certainly Freedomworks, a political group funded by corporate interests, has been active, especially behind the scenes, in much of the agitation at this summer's town hall meetings, in funding a number of political ads, and at Saturday's demonstration. There is no doubt that powerful interests are dedicated to undermining this president and his administration and opposing any changes to the status quo.

I also believe that many conscientious, patriotic and hard-working people are being manipulated through fear and false representations of the facts.

My greatest hope is that fear, hatred, rabble-rousing and emotional manipulation can be replaced by reasoned dialogue between those who advocate for positive change and those who want everything to stay the same. If we are all reduced to the political equivalent of food fights we all will be losers.