I watched last Sunday's 60 Minutes with usual interest. In particular, this time, I was interested to see what John Boehner would be like in an in-depth interview. I knew that Boehner could become emotional, but I was unprepared, as was Leslie Stahl, for howfrequently he became emotional and what he became emotional about. As a man who is also extremely emotional, I found it somewhat refreshing that Boehner could allow himself to be so emotional without being ashamed. But I also found myself paying attention to what seemed to be making him emotional. He teared up when he talked about himself and reaching the "American Dream," and he expressed not being able to be around kids at schools because he wants the same for them like he has achieved, but he did not say how he wanted to help other people achieve the same thing. The implication was that the goal is on future stories of individual "rags to riches," but less on feeling someone else's pain by giving them (through equitable tax revenue) what they can't get for themselves individually, one of the functions of any government, federal or state. Joy Behar of "The View" said it best, "He cries only when he talks about how sad his life was... He had to sweep floors, he was a janitor, and yet he has very little empathy for people who are in that position now."
It was also mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece that Boehner is a former Democrat. What changed his mind and caused him to become a Republican was seeing his earnings taxed by the federal government in a way that I'm sure he deemed excessive. What was not mentioned, and is rarely mentioned in any newspiece about taxation, is what in particular Boehner objected to his money (in the form of taxes) being put toward. This is always a necessary (and overlooked) question. It isn't complete to object to something without knowing specifically what it is that's objectionable. Simply objecting to raising taxes in general is not specific enough. We need to know what the revenue obtained by the tax increase(s) would actually pay for before objecting.
This is a prime example of what I often feel to be one fundamental difference between people: a difference between selflessness and selfishness; and politically, between the Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats tend to empathetically remember what it was like not to have wealth and support programs that assist people. Republicans tend to forget what it was like to have little wealth and want to keep their hard-earned wealth for themselves. Republicans therefore support less government involvement and interference, and more individual success and gain. In "my view," however, it's the simply difference between being selfless andselfish.
I was most impressed in reading James T. Kloppenberg's article, True To His Word, in the most recent issue of Newsweek (November 29, 2010). Personally, I have been impressed with the way the president has been taking his job seriously and implementing decisive and needed legislative action ever since he took office. What I had not thought to do was to revisit either of his books, Dreams From My Father, or The Audacity of Hope, to assess his performance, but Mr. Kloppenberg did. Kloppenberg points out that Barack Obama explained in detail in both books what he intended to do if elected president, and he has, in fact, stayed "true to his word."
I read The Audacity of Hope and listened to most of Dreams From My Father as a book on tape. I was extremely impressed with both of the books and they only strengthened my already positive impression of Obama. I did not think to reread either of them prior to the Mid-Term elections or afterward. Frankly, however, I wouldn't have felt the need. I am not at all among the voters who have been disappointed with his performance as president thus far. Quite the contrary. I think he and his administration have done an outstanding job considering the abysmal mess that he and his administration were handed by the previous administration. But it was elevating and confirming indeed to read from Mr. Kloppenberg that the exaggerated din from both sides of the aisle, comprised of extreme Democrats and Republicans (not to mention the Tea Party), are forgetting how consistent, productive, and successful this president and his administration have actually been in saving this country from near economic disaster.
James T. Kloppenberg's article confirms what I already thought: that though they certainly aren't perfect and they have made their share of errors, we have one of the finest presidents and administrations in history currently in the White House. We need to tone down our collective anger and impatience as a nation and appreciate that they are doing much more good than harm.
After reading the cover story of last week's edition of Newsweek, November 8, 2010, ("Power of 50") and hearing the feedback from the angry voters who successfully gave control of the House back to the Republicans, I am struck by a strong tentative conclusion: That it is mostly the extremely wealthy who are giving the general public the distorted impression that the federal government is trying to spend too much of their money (in the form of taxes for domestic and foreign government expenditures). The reality is that the wealthy are too protective of, and selfish with, their wealth. It is selfishness in the guise of a protective warning: a greatly exaggerated (verging on paranoid) warning to the public that the federal government of the United States, under the Obama administration and its passage of legislation, has become an oppressive, mammoth, Socialist, and autocratic federal government. Ironically, those who listen and believe the wealthy proponents of this scenario keep themselves ignorant and poorer while the wealthy grow all the more wealthy. In short, demonizing the federal government for the normal and necessary regulation of national capital is a decoy by the wealthy for a compulsive desire to remain individually, selfishly, and egregiously affluent.
Even though it is true that millions of people are still out of work and have lost their homes, and even though the national debt is still dangerously out-of-control, I don't feel that the severity of the anger generated by extreme conservatives is appropriate or directed at the correct source. The Obama administration was correct in acting as swiftly as they did in the passage of the Stimulus Package (which saved the country from bankruptcy), and they were correct in passing a preliminary health care bill because the health of health care is directly tied to the health of the economy. These were necessary emergency measures, probably necessary in their expense, and likely actually inadequately funded rather than too expensive. One of the reasons that unemployment is still too high and the health care reform disappointing (no Public Option) is that the Obama administration compromised too much and did not press for more spending for both initiatives. In other words, maybe you get what you pay for; not enough money means not good enough results. However, it is then highly unreasonable to give the impression that too much money was spent when in fact it was exactly the opposite. To little was spent in the short term for adequate enough gain in the long term.
According to the article in Newsweek, "Power of 50," the largest influence on voter anger and negativity is Rush Limbaugh. Of the wealthy people listed in the article, Limbaugh is the wealthiest. I suspect that if one is prone to anger and negativity, and if one is wealthy, and one is as self-righteous in their personal and political agenda as Limbaugh sounds (from his quotes in the article), this is the kind of person who would be the most likely to warn against the evils of a source other than himself (namely the federal government). In my view, one of the primary traits of immaturity is a quick and consistent tendency to demonize others (in this case, large institutions like national governments). In other words, to find everyone else but oneself in error.
Major applause to Ezra Klein for his most recent article in Newsweek (click on the link below). All I want to say is that I'm in complete agreement and I wish that more voters (particularly Democrats) had realized this before the Mid-Term elections. I did. If we can now just encourage the new Congress to do more of the same.
For a Democrat like me, the results of the Mid-Term elections were greatly disappointing. However, instead of responding with anger and disgust (as so many members of the Tea Party and Republican Party were wont to do regarding the elections), I think it would be the best response to try to turn what might feel like a silly and useless step backward into a positive democratic step forward. It is always important to hear from anyone who feels that they aren't being heard, and to that extent the Tea Party's organization has been healthy. That's the process of a good democracy. But it would be a severe mistake to make as the only new agenda just more negativity and uncooperation.
For example, I have heard on the news from Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, that their primary goal now is one of repealing constructive legislation such as health care. However, the election results showed more anger over the amount of money spent for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Package), not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. Though some, also like me, felt that the Stimulus Package and health care legislation was actually insufficient not excessive, maybe one of the lessons of these last Mid-term elections is that peoples' voices need to be heard and paid attention to, and sooner. But one of the lessons too is that people also need to learn how to let their voices be heard most effectively.
Anger seems to have motivated and fueled many discontented people to the polls on Novemebr 2, 2010. But that temporary anger needs to subside now so that the results that those same voters want to see take place in Washington can have a chance to productively work. More negativity and anger should not continue to be the prime motivator, particularly from our leaders. Our leaders (old, and now new) need to pay attention to the anger, but they need to govern with sobriety.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine on Facebook recently, but I read an article in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter ("Why the Mid-Terms Matter: The GOP's agenda has to be stopped." Newsweek, November, 1, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/23/alter-midterms-matter.html) in which he raises the very valid point that it is not the Obama administration that we need to be concerned about in these Mid-Term elections. It should be the concern of handing control back, and so dangerously soon, to the very political party that got us into this economic mess in the first place. It is simply unrealistic to hope that the economy would recover substantially in only a year-and-a-half. It is ironic indeed that the Republicans and the Tea Party are attempting to paint the Obama administration as the primary cause of the severe unemployment and the soaring national deficit. In plain truth, this is not in perspective at all. While it is always true that one can conceivably always find a way to spend less money, the eight years under President Bush (who was elected by many of the same people who are now laying the blame at President Obama) spent a phenomenal amount of money on the Iraq war, a ruinous prescription drug program, and tax cuts which got us into the financial mess we're in; that could be considered "big government" too...but that overly-general and exaggerated perspective depends on who is spending the money and for what.
In short, the electorate should be looking at and criticizing themselves in these Mid-terms, not President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. We elected them to try to help repair the crumbling economy, not to take office and do as little as possible. It is very unwise of us as an electorate to judge the proactivity of the Obama administration as "big government" when they are not only taking the plight of the current condition of the country seriously, but also successfully steered the country away from the brink of bankruptcy. Doing that in only a year-and-a-half is no small accomplishment at all!
At the very least, Jonathan Alter's point is that we must not sit these Mid-Term elections out by not voting. Neither anger nor apathy are credible reasons for deciding how to vote. In point of fact, when given the opportunity, one should always vote.
Usually, I don't pay a lot of attention to excess political e-mail, but this morning I received one that contained a video that was particularly aggravating. I have included the link to the video here. Suffice it to say that I will be happy when, like racial bigotry, prejudice against sexual orientation will be a thing of the past. What a waste of time in the least, and unkind and amoral at worst, to spend one's time in discomfort and judgment by trying to prevent people from simply being themselves.
(BTW, kudos to the Obama administration for having the courage to hire people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexuality (which matters not in the least).)
It is annoying, but a bit typical, that the Obama administration's successfully passed health care legislation is not being referred to by its correct title but by a derogatory epithet. The incorrect title (epithet) is "Obamacare." The correct titles are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. The epithet is easier to say and read, but it is only designed to chide the legislation and to catch the attention of the reader negatively. It does not respect the meaning of the words of the correct titles nor does it do justice to the significance of the legislation.
Everyone knows that the health care system is broken and we have known it for a long time. Fewer people still realize that the health care system is directly tied into the health of the economy. As a matter of fact, it is one of the primary foundations of a healthy economy (if your citizens are not healthy, there's not much point with anything else) and it should be the first priority in restoring an economy, which is why the Obama administration made it a greater priority immediately than job creation.
Incidentally, even though unemployment is still so high, since the economy is the number one issue in the coming election, it is somewhat surprising that the American electorate would not have been more enthusiastic about the successful passage of the health care legislation. But this is tied to the misperception that most any idea generated by the federal government insinuates "big government." This is, in fact, one of the main purposes for the coining of the term "Obamacare." It is a short, unflattering, and disrespectful way of suggesting that Barack Obama and his administration are taking control away from the citizens of the United States, via the federal government, with the passage of large legislative initiatives. It is true that the Democratic Party (along with the Republican Party) is one of the two largest, wealthiest, and most dominant political parties in the United States. And it is probably true that it is not healthy for there to be only two major political parties in a wealthy country; it probably feels only one short of an implication of a monarchy. But a major difference is who we as a people elect/hire to put into that government. In my opinion we have one of the smartest, most compassionate, least dysfunctional, and proactive administrations in history. It is also the first African-American president who is completely dispelling the ancient and preposterous notion that the African-American is in any way inferior to any other race (it would be nice indeed if the notion of racial inferiority was now a dinosaur). The contrary happens to be true: this particular African-American, Barack Obama, is among the most brilliant of the United States citizens in every way, and he has chosen a like administration.
So instead of deriding what the current administration is doing, I would like to offer that we take more time in our evaluation of their efforts for the country. Let's realize at the very least that they are making a serious effort to do what we hired them to do, and not allow our insecurity and fear of the slow recovery of the economy to cause us to exaggeratedly misjudge their intentions. I am one American who simply has no fear whatsoever that the Obama administration is attempting to turn this country into a Socialist dictatorship. It is the opposite. Our country nearly went bankrupt because of Capitalism run amuck. The Obama administration is trying to show that a little compassion and concern for our fellow citizen with assistance from the federal government -- rather than mostly pursuing individual wealth and reducing governmental regulation of that wealth -- can go a long way toward righting the ship of our economy.
In that spirit, and in the spirit of helping to properly educate each other, let's doff the term "Obamacare" and just use the correct phrases of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act.
In an article in the October 25, 2010 issue of Newsweek by Ezra Klein called, "Circle of Trust: Obama Needs Some New Blood,"(p. 24) Klein states that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Package) was a good and necessary idea which worked. It saved the United States from bankruptcy.
But, contrary to the sustained din of opposition to the Stimulus Package, according to Klein it was also not enough. The 10% unemployment is a result not of reckless spending by the Obama administration, but because not enough financial resources were allocated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And the reason there was not enough was because of Republican resistance and obstruction. In other words, as I have suspected one cannot right a ship that has severe leaks before fixing those leaks. And you can't fix those leaks free of charge or for too little money. The national debt has to be increased in the short term to insure that the economy is made healthy again in the long term. So even though the Republicans and the Tea Party are angrily rallying against the spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that very obstruction is what has largely caused the unemployment that they are accusing the government of not improving; it is "passing the buck." In other words, the irony is that the very thing that people want (jobs, employment) is being stymied by their own refusal to allow the federal government to spend the necessary money to create the jobs they want. They are fearful of the myth that a government that spends money in the short term, even if it's for the long term gain of its citizens, is only a reckless, oppressive, and controlling government. As I have written before, like Glen Beck's reaction to distrusting nearly everyone who runs for public office, this thinking verges on paranoia. It's also operating primarily out of fear which is never productive or healthy. Congratulations to Ezra Klein for the clarification.
I remember a 60 Minutes piece not long ago about observing countries where the people seem to be the happiest. The winning country was Denmark. The reason: very modest expectations. The people of Denmark are content with simple basics of life: health, education, food, and some nice leisure. What they don't seem to be concerned about is whether their government is out to take advantage of them or is not doing enough to help them. True, their tax system is perhaps quite a bit more excessive than we would be comfortable with in this country (50% of their income goes to taxes, but they are provided with free health insurance, for example, among other benefits), but their citizens don't go wanting for some basic securities of life. They also don't seem to have an unrealistic view of what their government should be doing for them.
I just watched a short video at the White House website showing the trend of the U.S. economy from 2007 to the present. Clearly before President Obama took office the economy was in a downward spiral. But, according to the video, due in part to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the economy did not "bottom-out" but did indeed recover and has been recovering (albeit very slowly) ever since. The graph shows that we are now about where we were when the recession began, certainly not "out of the woods" yet, but no longer in the severe hole either.
Drawing on the reference to the Danes, what seems to me to be the largest problem is that we are expecting too much from our government too soon. And almost contrary to that, we are deciding that because the federal government is not creating the jobs fast enough for us that the answer is that the government should be involved much less. The obvious question that arises from that is, wasn't it less government involvement that got us into this mess in the first place? Wall Street running amok was because of not enough government involvement (deregulation), not more government involvement (regulation). It's funny that the Tea Party's answer to the continued woes of the economy is to allow the very unbridled market that created this mess to try to fix it as well; that's like going back to the same doctor for more surgery who nearly killed you during your last major surgery. It's already been tested recently and failed miserably, nearly to the point of the demise of the U.S. economy. Makes no sense at all.
Sure, we would like to see more swift evidence already from our new leader that all those who lost jobs during the recession are now working again, but that is not happening because it is simply unrealistic. President Obama seems to have been successful at the first important task, avoiding an economic meltdown. But that also seems to be have been the relatively easy part. The hard part is going to be getting a large enough percentage of all those who lost work back into new jobs, and that will likely not be possible for a while. It is not because of inaction, it is because huge damage takes much longer to repair and that many people being out of work is just not going to be rectified quickly. It will likely take an equivalent amount of time that the recession took to develop in the first place...years more.
So I would like to propose that we are being much to judgmental of the Obama administration in demanding that they be proving already that they can get even a substantial amount of the unemployed back to work after only a year and half. They have already proved that they can bring an overall economy back from the verge of collapse (akin to Captian Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger landing the plane on the Hudson). Let's allow them to continue this good work with the other critical items still on their agenda. It will take more time and more patience on everyone's part.
I just watched the story on 60 Minutes about the Stand Down organization that helps homeless veterans over a three-day period. They are given food, shelter, medical care, and clothing. Some, after interviews and counseling, make it on to further care. Most do not and are forced to return to the streets. Understandably, the ones most eligible for further assistance are those with the most severe crises such as addiction and serious medical conditions. But this leaves the remaining homeless with little options but the streets once again.
The conservative mindset is that the role of the federal government needs to be extremely limited. Small. Less. But the words "limited" or "small" or "less" are all too general and vague. As a result, these words often translate into non-existent. Though I am not a proponent of war unless absolutely necessary (for example if one's country is directly attacked by another nation), what is maddening to me is the fact that because the American attitude toward the federal government is to try to over-limit it, this translates into not enough services for our citizens in need. In this example, we offer the soldiers respect and support for enlisting and serving, but disregard and even ignore them when they return from duty. It is an example of where the conservative mindset of shunning "big government" can be so damaging. In other words, it's not "big government" to spend money on defense in order to fight a war, but it is "big government" to spend money on resources to provide for the comfortable transition and continued care of the same soldiers after they have served. That is simply irresponsible and inhumane. It is also selfish...like wanting someone to fight your battle for you, but unwilling to assist them with their wounds when they return. I'm afraid that this is consistent with the conservative attitude that assisting someone might make them lazy. But there is a big difference between providing for someone permanently and giving them temporary and necessary help. If our country is going to accept a volunteer soldier and deploy them into combat, we as a country need to be equally prepared to provide services for the safe and effective transition of those soldiers in reentering civilian life.
We should be mortified with embarrassment and shame that any of our veterans are homeless after they have served for us in any military capacity. A portion of our tax dollars should go toward offering the best V.A. care money can buy.
Kelly O'Donnell, on the Chris Matthews show this morning, made an excellent point in clarifying/rebutting the derogatory use of the term "elitist" to describe an "intelligent" politician or candidate for public office. President Obama was labeled an "elitist" by many conservative voters during the 2008 presidential campaign, and he is still often referred to as elitist. Many incumbent Democratic Senate candidates up for reelection this November who are educated and intelligent are also being labeled as elitist and "out-of-touch with the people." The label is being used by conservatives, both in the Republican Party and in the new "Tea Party," and it is derogatorily intended to try to paint the person/candidate as one who sees themselves as intellectually superior and unable to identify with or feel compassion for the average, ordinary citizen.
What I find particularly interesting is that this kind of criticism or epithet does not tend to come from people who are educated. It comes mostly from the less educated and less experienced. As Kelly O'Donnell pointed out, intelligence should not imply elitist. The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines elite as a "socially superior group." So there is a tremendous difference between elite and intelligent. Most of us don't much admire anyone who is interested in feeling superior to someone else. But I don't think anyone who is at all educated would say that it is not valuable to be intelligent. However, I do think that someone who is less well educated might be the first to criticize or condemn someone who is well educated by referring to them as seeming "superior." In my view, some Republicans, and many of the members and candidates of the Tea Party, are not particularly well educated. (Sarah Palin, the ringleader of the Tea Party movement is a case-in-point. One need only watch the interviews of her with either Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric to see the evidence.) This is one of the reasons that they tend to level the epithet of "elite" toward intelligent and highly educated candidates. It is a weak and childish criticism revealing their own insecurity and their probable jealousy of the education of the people they are criticizing.
In short, intelligence is a commodity not a detriment, but elitism, being by definition about superiority, is hopefully never desirable. We have a superbly intelligent president right now with a highly intelligent administration. They are not elitist, but many of them happen to be highly educated people which is one of the criteria I certainly use to vote for anyone for public office. They also seem, by their action in the passage of much valuable and varied legislation, to be genuinely and seriously compassionate to the needs of the American citizens. They also need to be given the time that we gave them (at least one term, not only a year and a half) before we criticize them for not solving all the problems that were dropped in their laps by the previous administration. It takes intelligence not elite thinking to repair the kind of damage that is now crippling this country. We have that in the current administration in the federal government.
I read two very interesting articles in Time magazine. One was by Fareed Zakaria entitled "The New Challenge From China" (October 18, 2010). In addition to Mr. Zakaria being a superb writer and journalist, the article illuminates the tremendous success that China has had in the last decade alone with improving its education system. It easily rivals and even surpasses the United States. Another article by Joe Klein, from the same issue of Time, called "America from the Road" interviews a number of people who are extremely displeased with the direction they feel that President Barack Obama is taking the country. One person was quoted as fearing that we are headed toward a "..'European' style of Big Government..." This is another way of saying "Socialism."
I feel particularly tired of hearing this argument. First, we have carried the term "Socialism" over to the present day from the years of fear of Communism. The Communists employed a "Socialist" government. Their form of Socialism was extreme and brought about the demise of the Soviet Union. However, there is a big difference between being concerned for the welfare of the citizens of your own country and imposing autocratic rule. For starters, it depends very much on who is at the helm, who your leaders are. We happen to have elected a president who is not only brilliantly intelligent but also truly cares about the American citizens. That is certainly being socially compassionate but it is a far cry from Socialism. It's time that we cease the use of the term "Socialism" as a derogatory term to avoid the fact that we as a country do not have enough compassion for our poorest citizens. (I don't recall ever hearing the funding of the Iraq war or campaigning for criminalizing abortion as "Big Government" or "Socialism." That strikes me as a very subjective and hypocritical categorization of the issues.) If we did, we would not hesitate to promote and vote for higher taxes for domestic issues such as education, health care, affordable housing, and other large-scale issues that do indeed need support from the federal government. Though China has certainly been guilty of suppressing human rights, it is also an example of a country that is apparently not concerned about whether their improved education looks like Socialism. Clearly, their Premier, Wen Jiabao, is more concerned with the education of his country's citizens.
Frankly, aside from the fact that the word "Socialism" conjures up the former Soviet Union and Joe McCarthy, I simply don't understand the vehement desire to not want to help our poorest citizens. This is what Vice-President Joe Biden meant when he referred to "fairness." If I could be pretty sure that a portion of my tax dollars would go toward providing universal health care for every person from birth to death, I would gladly agree to my taxes being raised (an additional $100 or $200 a year, for example) as long as that tax increase was applied to everyone who could afford it. That way, I would know that if I ever lost my job and was unemployed that I would be covered under universal coverage until I got another job in which my employer paid toward my health insurance. This, to me, is just normal common sense and compassion.
So please, let's stop referring to valuable governmental assistance with domestic issues as "Socialism." It prevents us from doing on the national level what we would all do in private if faced with helping someone in need.
The election this November is not about electing a president, but the anger that is fueling the races for Congress is directed mainly at the president. In my opinion, the Democrats have consistently made the mistake of distancing themselves from their own party's president (from Clinton in 1994 for example and the Republicans retook the Congress) instead of campaigning on a platform of supporting what their president has accomplished. It is, in my view, a rather cowardly posture: supporting the president when they're popular, but shunning them when they're not. Shunning is rarely kind or admirable, but especially not when the person being shunned has done well and much of the populace is too ignorant or misinformed (in the current climate because of unrestrained anger) to recognize it. President Obama and many of the Democratic senators have built a substantial resume of successful and beneficial legislation. It is up to the incumbent candidates now to tout those accomplishments, not to be afraid to mention them for fear of being aligned with an unpopular president.
I would like to offer a rebuttal to a recent article in Newsweek (“I’m Mad As Hell…And I’m Going To Vote! The Psychology of an Angry Electorate,” October 11, 2010, p. 29).
The article reports that many voters are enraged and furious with the Obama administration for what they see as reckless spending by the federal government and insufficient assertion (and even absence of anger) in response both to the ailing economy and to the Gulf oil spill caused by BP Oil. These voters see President Obama as both too calm and cool in the face of disaster, and insensitive to the fact that they are still out of work, out of their homes, and fearful of the federal government in general. However, in my view, this anger is inappropriate, misplaced, incorrect, and highly unproductive in a variety of ways.
First, Barack Obama inherited an economy that was crippled by a former president who was elected by many of the very voters who are angry now. So, for starters, these angry voters should be angry with themselves, not at President Obama; one needs to accept lying in the bed of their own making. But some of the angry voters are ones who voted for President Obama but have their sights too short and are too impatient for the change they want and were expecting from him. He has already fulfilled many campaign promises of change, but some of the larger changes his initial supporters want, and that he is working toward, will take much more time to enact.
Second, Obama was hired for his intelligence, compassion, and general intellectual skill with problem solving which are the qualities we should demand in any leader, but particularly ones that are needed in a time of extreme crisis. We are undoubtedly still in an expreme crisis (no matter what any financial expert might say about the “end” of the recession…we are certainly not “out of the woods” yet), and what is needed is level-headedness not anger. Anger is a temporary loss of control. It is healthy to express anger but unhealthy to operate from it. Crises need calm control not loss of control, and Barack Obama is remarkable at calm control. To quote Anna Qunidlen, Obama is “unflappable,” a superb quality and skill in times of crises.
Third, rebuilding a damaged economy takes both time and money. It cannot be one quickly or for free. Since the current economic damage we now face was brought on for eight years under President George W. Bush, and since for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, it will both likely take an equal amount of time to undo that damage and it will take more money in the short term to make the necessary repairs to our economy; these even though the deficit had already been increased to astronomic proportions under President Bush. In other words, balancing the federal budget cannot be priority right now. The repairs have to happen first, which means the federal government will have to spend more money for the repairs for the time being (resulting in the increase of the national debt in the short term) until the economy stabilizes and regains its footing. Then the goal can shift back to rebalancing the federal budget. To react to the passage, signing, and enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as simply reckless spending by the federal government (and the current administration) is to be wholly ignorant of all this. It is necessary short-term federal spending in response to the unwise and reckless spending by Wall Street and the federal government during the Bush presidency. Holding the Obama administration responsible for reckless spending is completely and inappropriately shifting the blame and ignoring the reality of the situation.
The appropriate response to the current economic situation should be patience and appreciation. We have a president and an administration that have approached the job with intelligence, efficiency, and effectiveness. The economy did not collapse (that is evidence of success in this crisis alone) and many effective pieces of legislation have been passed and signed. In short, we now have an administration of adults in the White House. Adults do not exhibit anger carelessly. It was carelessness and recklessness that resulted in the economic situation in which we arrived in 2009. Let’s not make the mistake of reverting back to the behavior that got us into that state in the first place by operating prematurely with careless and reckless anger, particularly toward an administration that is making steady progress in correcting the problems. We need to operate with sober intelligence (patience) in addition to deep emotion (elation or anger). The Obama administration is doing just that and, though not at the pace many would prefer, is slowly righting the ship. You can’t sail a ship with even a small crew (much less a full one) if the ship still has substantial leaks. (The current unemployment state is a result of those substantial leaks and it that will take much longer to rectify. It is completely unrealistic to expect that the Obama administration would have managed to substantially reduce the unemployment rate by now, or even in four years. It will take longer.) But you also can’t repair the leaks with no money, even if the shipyard seems to be on the verge of bankruptcy. The first success of the Obama administration was to successfully prevent the bankruptcy and begin the repairs. That is no small feat.
So please turn down the anger and vote in these Mid-term elections to allow the current federal and state governments to continue the job they are successfully doing. (Also pay a visit to the White House website. One brief browse shows the success.)
Of all the amendments to the Constitution, the one that is the most often misquoted is the Second Amendment. It clearly states:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Infuriatingly, this amendment is almost exclusively quotedbeginning from the word "the" after the second comma, leaving out the prerequisite reference to a well-regulated militia. One slight understandable problem is the use of the two commas. However, other than the commas, this is indisputably one sentence. The Founding Fathers were protecting the individual citizen's right to own/carry/utilize a firearm, but only those who were members of a militia, not the right of the individual citizen to own a firearm independently of a militia. The latter is much too general and carries too great a risk of accident and death. The former is much more specific and safe, particularly considering the danger posed by guns.
A larger point, in my view, is that this amendment itself needs to be amended. It is outdated and needs to reflect the fact that we no longer have militias comprised of the general citizenry, and that if a citizen desires to own a gun, that they must comply with and follow some basic safety regulations (yes imposed at the federal level). It may be a right but notwithout restrictions. As it is now, too often this amendment is interpreted to mean that the general public has the right to own a gun with little-to-no restrictions or regulation. In other words, just like laws in place to better insure safe driving, gun use by the general public needs to have laws in place that protect the safety of the general public.
This leads me to the NRA. I think for a president who has proven that he and his administration can handle more than one difficult issue at a time (multi-tasking), to avoid standing up to the NRA with the reinstatement of both the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban is simply allowing the NRA to intimidate the federal government. Gun violence has been a problem in the United States for a very long time, and President Clinton at least had the courage to tackle the problem head-on and with legislation. True, some members of the House and Senate lost their seats in 1994 due to their support of these very measures, but Bill Clinton did the right thing. If President Obama needs to wait a little longer before reintroducing this issue, I just encourage him to make sure he's smart about how long he waits and not to ignore the issue entirely. Prudence is one thing, but being reluctant to confront the NRA or being too afraid to tackle an extremely contentious issue is highly imprudent, unassertive, and irresponsible. This president got my vote in part by how assertive he is. If there was ever an issue that needed more assertiveness and action by our government, it is protecting our citizens against the senseless accidents and deaths caused every day by guns.
Though not a known health risk, cell phone use in public places is as much of a nuisance as smoking.
I was very slow in the purchase of a cell phone. I have an iPhone 3GS now, but the first time I used a cell phone was in 1996 in a friend’s car making a call to my mother at her home. It felt very strange to be able to call anyone from an automobile when I was so used to stopping for a pay phone. But it was handy and, now that I have owned one for many years, I can personally attest to the fact that cell phones are a predominantly positive invention. They are definitely more of a help than a hindrance. Like my first experience with a cell phone, having one in your car, for example, is, unquestionably, a huge asset, especially in an emergency.
However, I also think that, as with anything, along with a new item of technology should come responsibility with the availability of its use. Cell phones should only be used by the driver while they are at the wheel and in motion with a headset, and texting while driving should never be done. That is the largest problem with cell phones. The number of automobile accidents caused by drivers talking on their cell phones (without headsets) while they’re driving is well documented. (My mother was hit by another driver who accelerated out of an intersection without looking her direction because, as she thought she remembered, he was talking on his cell phone.) Unfortunately, cell phone reception is sometimes quite good in traffic where it is less safe.
Another, far less potentially deadly problem with cell phone use is that many people (perhaps unwittingly) violate the comfort and relative privacy of others’ by turning their private conversations into public addresses systems. It took years for public places to acknowledge and enforce smoking and non-smoking sections, and cell phone use in public places will take a similar amount of time to regulate; some public places have signs requesting that patrons not use their cell phones in their lobbies, but far more do not or do not even bother to enforce their own policy. The general public can be very resistant (and sometimes rightly so) when it comes to the idea of regulating anything, so regulation of cell phone use in public will be more tricky implement.
Smoking is now known to cause severe health risks including death, even for non-smokers nearby (second-hand smoke); case-in-point, Dana Reeve. Though cell phones are not a known health risk (probably nil for second-hand users!), hearing someone else’s cell phone ring and their subsequent conversation in the booth, table, or area next to you, is annoying in the extreme. But, like smoking in public places, it will take equally long to prohibit.
I think the answer is easy. In addition to the possible regulation I suggested above with cell phones in automobiles (which is already in place in some states like New York and California), cell phone policy in public places needs to be treated in the same way as public pay phones. If you want to use your cell phone or receive a call, leave your table, group of friends, or the peopled area near you and walk outside, to the lobby, or to the area where there is/are pay phones—if any still exist!—and talk privately. This is really very simple and I think common sense. Part of this aspect of the cell phone problem is that cell phones have become too easy to use and carry around. More people own one now than not. So now even though it may appear that, “Everyone talks on their cell phone in public,” those who do talk on their cell phones in public assume that it is not bothersome to anyone. (That last sentence, and our trust in it, is not only untrue but the largest problem in our perception of using cell phones, in addition to just being plain unconscious and inconsiderate.)
An additional problem is the fallacy that if we don’t take the call at that moment we might not only miss the call but we might lose the business or not hear the personal news as quickly as we think we need it. What is not a fallacy is that the speed of life has undeniably increased which has made the invention of the cell phone practical and necessary. What is untrue is that we need to respond to the cell phone, or place a call, faster than it would take us to move somewhere where we would not force other people to listen to our conversation; sadly, I will speculate as well that some people actually enjoy broadcasting their conversations in public because it makes them feel more important.
In short, talking on a cell phone near other people in public places is rude, bad manners, and an invasion of public space. After all, a public place is just that, public. The space belongs to everyone. A phone call is private. The two do not and should not mix. Just because a phone is not constrained by being connected to a wire and connected to a wall doesn’t mean that the sudden ease of a wireless phone should make us forget the boundary between public and private. There are other, more “thorny” and sensitive issues involving the distinction between public and private. This would be one issue regarding their separation that would be far easier to regulate, observe, and practice.
President Obama made a great point about the fear of government regulation of health care (which the Republicans don't want at all). The president just pointed out that the federal government already regulates the inspection of food and drugs and that that costs the taxpayer money but is necessary because of safety benefit to the consumer.
His point is that the federal government needs to also protect the citizens against private health insurance companies with regard to purchasing and affording adequate and dependable health care; that is also an issue of the safety of the public and needs federal regulation. Obviously, with no regulation now, the private insurance companies can charge whatever they want and change prices whenever they want and it's making everyone suffer because when people are uninsured all the prices balloons exponentially. So just like food and drug protection by the federal government, so does the federal government have to be part of the answer in protecting the citizens from the abuses of the private health providers. The Republicans object to the federal government protecting people's health care, because they feel that federal government regulation is intrusive at all and too much “big government.” But it's inconsistent thinking. The problem is that the bigger the problem the more the federal government has to be involved. The Republicans are not realizing that we are already using the federal government for food inspection and drug inspection, so we need it for health care too. And, mandating heath coverage purchase by the federal government is for purchasing any type of health coverage, not only the kind the government decides. The only thing that the federal government is in control of is mandating its citizens have some kind of health coverage so that they are protected and so that the system is healthy as a whole.
The Obama administration is proposing that there be a system set up where there are many options of coverage to choose from, where the individual can choose which kind of health coverage they buy. If they like the coverage they already have they do nothing and are unaffected. But everyone must buy some type of health insurance. If someone doesn't buy health insurance and they get sick they are a drain on the system because they are uninsured. That’s the extent of the federal government intrusion into the public sector. The individual must buy some coverage for the stability of the nation. The Republicans are objecting to the government having anything to do with regulating the system at all because they are afraid that any federal government control at all would limit individual choices by its very involvement at all. That's too extreme in my opinion. It's verging on paranoid. The federal government needs to step in because the insurance companies are not being responsible. They are taking advantage of consumers because they don't have to answer to anyone. They are unregulated. So some regulation is needed. The Republicans want the states to offer their own versions and keep the federal government out of it. (That is an old fear of the federal government becoming socialist or communist or like a dictatorship. That is old, antiquated thinking.) The Democrats fear is that if left to the states that the states will not regulate the insurance companies enough. It is a legitimate concern because the insurance companies are not regulating themselves enough and the system is suffering. The Republican ideal is too much toward free market and less government control and regulation. But then businesses, like insurance companies, can do what they want. The Democrats don't trust that the individual states would regulate the insurance companies enough. This is perhaps where the Democrats are too extreme. Maybe a compromise between federal control and state control is needed with health care more than with food and drugs.
I personally think that the bigger the problem the more the role of the federal government will be. States are more local. Health care is a national problem, not only a state problem. The fear of the federal government taking control of even a portion of the health care system is too extreme and a myth as I've written about before.
The above phrase is clearly an unrealistic and selfish position. We would say to a child or adolescent who uttered this that they can't have it both ways. It's akin to "wanting their cake and eating it too."
We elected Barrack Obama to help steer the country out of the recession, help create jobs, reform the health care system, help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and help move our energy consumption to cleaner forms, among other important issues. And yet at the same time we want him to take care of these issues, we also fear our federal government too much to let him do any of the more major work or passany of the more important legislation necessary to right the damage. It is a dysfunctional paradox. We want the system to be fixed, but we're too afraid to let the person we hired take the steps to fix it.
President Obama has unveiled his own proposal for reforming the health care system. It is thorough, well conceived, sensible, and realistic. He is also clearly open to other ideas because, in addition to saying so repeatedly (and already having spoken to the Republican members of the House), he has scheduled a bipartisan meeting for tomorrow, February 25 to discuss alternative ideas. Clearly too, the unveiling of his proposal is an indication that he prepared for that meeting. Congress needs to be prepared to and accept his invitation. In short, we need to stop obstructing and agree to cooperate in light of this overture from president, on this issue and all others.
I have said it before in other blogs I’ve written. Those of us in the United States who are in support of blocking almost anything that President Obama proposes are in my opinion responding and acting from paranoia and not from constructive intelligent thinking. President Obama has made many excellent proposals and has already passed some key important legislation. He is doing a good job. But too many of us in the country are not letting him do what is necessary and what he is capable of doing. We are just getting in his way simply because we don’t want him to succeed and we fear our federal government too much. It is a greatly exaggerated and unwarranted fear.
True, we don’t want a dictatorship and government that allows its leaders to do what they please without its citizenry questioning (the reason for the Bill of Rights) their leaders. But we do not have a dictator in President Obama. His presidency is so far one of the most transparent in history—not to mention that this president is one of the smartest in history—and those who oppose him are doing so with such a zeal and fervor that you would think that the White House had barricaded their doors and threatened to shoot anyone on the spot who disagreed with them. In fact what we have now is exactly the opposite. We have an administration that is being very honest, very transparent, that knows what it’s doing, is trying to implement ideas, is attempting to actually do something about all the problems the country is facing, but is being ridiculously stymied by too much mass paranoia.
I understand that in extremely difficult times (such as we are still in now) it is not easy to trust a centralized government. But we as a nation have forgotten whom we elected as president of United States. We have a brilliant, caring, and compassionate man at the helm, and though we need to exercise our individual and collective rights, we also need to relax more and let him and his administration do their job. In fact, they have been trying to do their job ever since they took office. It is “we the people” of the United States who are getting in his and their wa
We Americans are really living in preposterous times, both with the economy but also with ourselves as a citizenry. This country elected a new president in November 2008 to help rebuild this country. Rebuilding is not free. Even in times of serious financial hardship, spending money to repair damage is an unfortunate necessity. In any financial crisis or temporary emergency, it would be understood that the expenses needed to repair any damage previously incurred would soon level off. As the health of the structures that were damaged regain their momentum, that initial expenditure of money would cease or be redirected and used for other things, say for lowering, and then eliminating, the temporary and former debt.
Our national economy was nearly bankrupt. The solution at first has to be a solution at the federal level and with federal money. The country asked Obama to help by electing him as our next president. The Obama administration took their job seriously and took necessary steps to save that bankruptcy from happening. That assistance was not going to happen with little-to-no expenditure by the federal government. The economy is now healthier than it was a year ago. However, the public is still being critical now, but for a different reason. President Obama is being criticized for spending the money that was necessary to rebuild simply because federal money was spent. We are only seeing that more money is being spent and added to the already bulging deficit, but we are not understanding the importance of how and why the money is being spent. It is necessary and it has been effective. The recession that we were facing has diminished. Not all the problems facing the country are over of course, but they have been lessened and improved. But the public is only seeing the temporary necessary spending as more federal government wasteful spending in the face of an enormous deficit. However, in this case it is not wasteful spending. The spending of the Bush administration that created the enormous deficit (after Bill Clinton’s surplus) was wasteful. What the public at large does not see is that even in the face of a deficit, some money needs to be spent in repairs in the short term to ensure that the economy regains its footing and rebuilds for the health of the country for the long term. Once again, this is an example of many of the citizens of this country being much too short-sighted and wanting results too quickly. But it is simply not possible to correct eight years of disastrous policy in only one year. The preceding year needs to be looked at in terms of money necessarily spent in order to begin to rebuild.
Jacob Weisberg wrote a very direct and astute article in Newsweek (“Down With the People: Who’s to blame for the political mess? You.” Newsweek, February 15, 2010, p. 20) asserting that the American public wants in both ways. We want the federal government to solve the problems facing the country, but we don’t want the federal government to use any of our tax dollars to do it. As Weisberg points out, this is utterly unrealistic. It is also unreasonable and uneducated. You have to continue to spend some money to rectify a serious mistake, no matter who is to blame. To think that the Obama administration can implement any successful recovery from the recession (that we’re still in though less severe now) without a largish temporary price tag is just not using our collective heads.
We need to wise up as a country, take a deep breath, swallow hard, and face the fact that we are going to have to spend some money (probably by increasing the federal deficit, plus revenue from some higher taxes (yes, mostly on the wealthy because they can afford it, and because some of them got us into this mess in the first place) ) temporarily so that we can curb spending more later. This is just common sense, mature thinking, and the mindset that the nation had (even if only subliminally) on Election Day, November 2008.
The speech that Sarah Palin gave at the Tea Party Convention was once again evidence of her strong personality but lack of skill and knowledge. She has a commanding presence on stage and has a projecting voice, but her scope of world knowledge and her concept of government is much too narrow and limited. So though she is touting limiting government, her mantra of “less” or “limited” government is in itself too narrow a concept and position. Curiously, and ironically, though her main point is limiting the role of the federal government, what has been more conspicuously limited from the moment she stepped into the public spotlight as John McCain's running mate is her vocabulary and knowledge of national and international issues. This is evident not only in the frequent reference to a single issue (less government), but also, in this speech, by the notes she had scribbled on her hand during the speech and that she awkwardly referred to during the question and answer portion of her appearance.
She is also limited in her ability to make substantial points. She resorted to making derisive comments about President Obama more than once. (Incidentally, making derisive comments about her is something that the Obamas completely refrained from doing in their campaign, and are continuing to refrain from. It’s a petty form of making your points which the Obamas have the grace and dignity to avoid.) Palin referred to President Obama as a, “charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” This when she had notes written on the palm of her hand, which is silly, elementary, and even tacky. It’s grade-school preparation. She should have had her talking points memorized. But then I find Sarah Palin’s complete persona and presentation grade-school and almost elementary.
Also referring President Obama she said, “We need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.” The fact that President Obama was a professor of law is an enormous asset to the presidency, not a detriment. It doesn’t take much observational intelligence to notice that. Like Joe Wilson’s outburst during President Obama’s speech on health care, Sarah Palin’s comments reveal much more about her own ignorance and lack of qualifications than those of President Obama. And finally, she said mimicking addressing the president, “How is that ‘hopey, changey’ thing workin’ for ya?” This is childishly ridiculous. Even if she had had a legitimate point (which I don’t think she does), the way she chose to phrase it is mocking and juvenile, even if only somewhat playfully. This lack of skill with mature oratory is not a quality becoming of a serious adult, much less a potential candidate for president.
The plain truth in my view is that this country was smart enough to recognize Barrack Obama’s smarts to elect him president of the United States, but that when it comes to accepting the work that needs to be done (and that he has demonstrated that he is prepared to and can do) that some of the same people who elected him have become prematurely fearful of the actual reality of the work that is necessary. They have begun to lose trust in the qualities of the very person in whom they put their trust on election day, November, 2009. Conservative Republicans did not trust him already, so there is no surprise in that portion of the drop in his poll numbers. But some liberal Democrats have begun to distrust him because they are allowing themselves to feel their short-term fear more than his and their long-term thought process. President Obama is essentially doing an excellent job. But partly because there are still so many dire issues in the country, and partly because the solutions to the problems will take much more time, the country is feeling impatient and wants results too quickly. Many of the problems the United States faces right now are large, national problems and therefore the responsibility of the federal government, not state governments. The Republicans (the new “Tea Party”) are encouraging a distrust and paranoia with the federal government, promoting the view that most of the serious problems should be handled by the states, even if the problems are too large to be handled effectively by the states, such as health care, transportation, unemployment, and the crippled Wall St.. Limiting the size of the federal government is not always the solution. But again, focusing only on limiting the degree of involvement (size) of the federal government is too narrow and incomplete a point of view. It is clearly no coincidence that this new “party” calls itself the Tea Party after the “Boston Tea Party” which was an excessive reaction to federal government taxation, and a revolution on a small scale. The reaction by the Republicans (and the “Tea Party”) to the federal government now was referred to by Sarah Palin as a “revolution” and
is also excessive.
Palin is no more qualified now to be considered as a candidate for president or vice-president than she was when she ran with John McCain. The truth is she never will be. Her education and skill is not in that league. Add to that that her comments about President Obama are derogatory and disrespectful and not exemplary of a serious political candidate. They indication of lack of substance of her part and proof that she has to revert to “cutesy” insults to make her speech and arguments strong. It is in fact the opposite. Her oratory is juvenile. She is a strong personality, but that is all. She is ignorant, immature, mediocre, paranoid of the federal government, and not in the least qualified to run for federal public office.
In a word, this was fabulous! President Obama was invited to this discussion by the Republican House members which is very much to their credit. I’m very glad he accepted and even more glad that everyone present was civil and respectful. (Clearly the Republicans had learned from Joe Wilson’s ridiculous and juvenile outburst at the president's speech on health care to the joint session of Congress last September.)
In addition to the civility of the entire discussion, what particularly struck me was how well prepared President Obama was with some of their proposals. He had read many of the copies he had been given in advance so was able to talk about some of the specifics of their plans and how they might be incorporated into his own proposals.
Furthermore, not only did President Obama attempt to answer all the questions thoroughly and with care, but he also respectfully contested a couple of the questions when he thought they were either incomplete or plainly false.
President Obama did a splendid job with this discussion and it only confirms what I have always thought since he took office: that the United States has one of the best presidents at present that it has had in its entire history.
I am in complete agreement with President Obama and Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (as well as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Michigan Senator, Carl Levin), that the law “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” needs to be repealed. In fact it should never have been instituted in the first place. I also think it was extremely noble and courageous of President Obama to include it as a request and challenge to the military in his first State of the Union address.
President Bill Clinton was the first president to attempt to lift the ban on gays in the military in his first month in office. But he received such a backlash from the military and General, Colin Powell, that Clinton and his administration had to “compromise” with the flimsy policy of allowing gays to serve in the military as long as they kept their sexuality to themselves. This is only a small step removed from denial and was a sadly uncourageous solution to the problem. The solution is to allow people to be themselves without prejudice of any sort. Like any other personal or genetic characteristic, one’s sexuality should have no bearing on the performance of one’s duty, and that includes the military, even in time of war. It is not surprising that the military is still resisting this initiative. Even though the military is to be greatly admired for the service and sacrifice of its personnel in uniform, it has also been guilty of machismo attitudes and behavior. This continued resistance to openly gay men and women within its ranks is yet another example of that prejudice and suppression (Senator John McCain's position of support to continue the policy (until and unless it is repealed by congress) is an example of that.).
The general resistance to allowing gays to openly serve in the military is also an example of another civil right that society as a whole is too slow to embrace.
If you have not already seen this, I encourage you to to check out this video. President Obama has clearly thought the budget through well, as have his advisors. He dispels the notion that this budget is just more unnecessary spending on top of an already staggering national deficit. It is necessary temporary spending to help correct an extreme deficit (following an extreme surplus) caused by the last ten years of irresponsible spending by the federal government. Part of the president's point is that in order to repair a system that has overspent itself into serious debt, that same government will need to add to the national debt temporarily in order to implement repair measures before being able to bring down the overall debt. It is not possible to make repairs to a house in utter shambles and disrepair by spending no money at all for the needed repairs. This, as the president explains here, is the situation that was facing him and his administration when they "walked in the door" last year. So we as citizens of the United States need to exercise much more patience and understanding before we respond with irritation that the government is spending more money for necessary repairs in the short term in order to ensure the overall health of the country in the long term.
We have some true winners for representatives from South Carolina. First Mark Sanford, then Joe Wilson, and now Andre Bauer.
I only have one word for Mr. Bauer's colossaly insensitive comparison of the risk of subsidizing welfare recipients to avoiding feeding stray animals: Despicable. His meager apology was at least an apology, but it does not negate the fact that he had the contemptuous stupidity to utter the words in the first place. His words were hateful, without compassion, and grossly unjust, and they say much more about him than any welfare recipient.
Bravo to Theodore B. Olson for his superb article on gay marriage! (“The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” Newsweek, January 9, 2010) His writing is not only first class and compassionate, but it resonates exactly with what I've always thought: that marriage is a civil right and should be available to all loving couples, homosexual and heterosexual. His article is not only an excellent essay about the issue of gay marriage, but it is a message of love to humanity.
I don't know how to begin to express my consternation at the attitudes of both Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, and the sheer mediocrity of Sarah Palin during their interview on Jan. 13, 2010. Both of them mentioned not being able to trust anyone when referring to the federal government and elected officials. It took me a while into the interview to realize what I was observing in both of them behind that distrust. The answer that came to me was "paranoia." Paranoia is not a healthy posture with which to form opinions or make decisions, and I find them both to be paranoid and unable to trust people in general (except for their immediate families). I observed it particularly in Glenn Beck: [On anyone in government] "We're talking about...trust...how do you restore trust and honor...how do you...how do we even know anymore?" [On trusting Sarah Palin] "When someone says, 'Who's out there?', I answer one of two ways, 'I'm waiting for George Washington to appear'...and then it's usually followed by your name...and I say, 'but...I don't know...I can't give my trust out to anybody...every time you do, (snaps his fingers) they burn you.' " I have observed this in him before as well, for example when he was interviewed by Katie Couric: "If you don't fear your own government..." That paranoia extends to their specific focus, (federal) elected government officials, but it is symptomatic of their paranoia in general (and those of their followers).
In addition, while Sarah Palin is a pleasant woman and clearly a loving wife and mother, she is one of the most mediocre and uninformed citizens I have ever seen in the public eye. The fact that she does not recognize her own mediocrity is in itself extremely disquieting. (She should have known immediately that she was not qualified to be John McCain's running mate and politely and humbly declined his offer. When she accepted, she put herself in the position where her mediocrity would be apparent, and it was and still is.) The fact that she (still) has as many supporters as she does is not an exemplary commentary on that segment of American society.
Link to the interview segment: (Approximately 1/4 of the way into the interview)
