- At issue are comments Sen. Obama made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last week. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, speculating on why they have become frustrated with their economic condition:
- "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- An explanation that seems wide enough to include most human interactions. Two activities left out were Arts and Sports, areas in which the best make enough money to insure the proper behaviour of others.
- This is the kind of universal approach to deal with the human condition, that typifies the deep thinking of Sen. Obama, in contrast with the shallow meaningless, soud-bytes of his opponents.
- His words set off the twin team of Clinton and McCain to draw attention to an angle of attack to Obama’s image of a Harvard-trained lawyer and a deep thinker? No, to attack him by asserting he is “aloof!” Is that their best thought for today?
- Sen. Obama tried to explain why he may have difficulties convincing some low-income workers, to join his partnership, to be able to convince them they have no choice, that only by working together can we alter the future; comments made in a private fundraiser in San Francisco.
- He did his best to briefly outline their outlook, but did not expect it to, exactly, apply to all. He may have spoken, perhaps over a fine brandy, speculating on the human condition, and the reasons the situation exists.
- He proposed: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- In my opinion, being one aptly described by those words, these are properly respectful words in a universal description of the human condition of a particular segment of people. Now, Sen. Obama is accused, by blog lynching, of being an aloof, arrogant elitist.
- Because he tried to elicidate and amplify on the possible reasons of people unfamiliar with politicians that can be trusted and tell the truth?
- The bitterness he mentioned is real, to many but not to those outside their group. Is he accused of a theoretical sociology error on something most people, and politicians, have been happy to ignore throughout history? My, how Arrogant are those in this gang!
- The choice of the Clinton gang was to call the comment “arrogant” and let voters, most of which have no clue on what causes the bitterness he alluded and, take a simple way out: “If I don’t see a reason to be bitter, they are not allowed to be bitter, they should go back where they came from and stop their belly aching! They sneak into our country, they can sneak out, too! With my daddy’s gun I would gladly chase them out!” Now, that is arrogant!
- Sen. Obama outlined the source of the problem: The source can be directly traced to the present, by the lack of attention to problems that have continuously festered since 1865.
- Most people refuse to admit that just like some were given many opportunities to study, learn, grow in age and wisdom -change, others changed by accumulating resentments from continued inhuman treatment.
- The words of Pres. Lincoln did not change a single mind, anywhere. Changing minds is the purpose of Education but, how can one learn about equality in a segregated school?
- Were ideals reinforced, or contradicted, by the treatment outside school?
- Students learn that friends and teammates smile and giggle, only in school grounds but sat in a segregated bus, until Rosa Parks, said no! But, she, also, did not change a single mind, anywhere. It is true that if you change your mind, you change your life, but only you can do it. People alter behavior to obey the law but this does not alter or change attitudes of arrogance and discrimination.
- Now, they want to blame arrogance on Sen. Obama?
- What kind of tortured logic would one have to follow to see any logic in such an, arrogant, illogical and preposterous view?
Shouldn't they try to learn logic, before it is too late? Or, is it too late for them?
Shouldn't we make the ability to use logic, correctly, a requirement to be elcected President, or dog catcher?
Posted on Sat, 04/12/2008 - 20:40 — by MikeSar
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
I'm starting to get a little upset with Hillary. Instead of sticking to the issues, she seems so desperate to win, that she will throw anything at Obama and see if it sticks and gets a reaction from the voters. Elitism? That's a funny word to call a black man who grew up in a one parent family who occasionally needed food stamps to get by. Poor Obama has to consider all his words carefully lest he offend someone’s political or social sensibility. The “Tempest in a Teapot” reaction to his “typical white person” remark, just made me angry about politics. I’m a typical white person I guess. Doesn’t hurt my feelings at all. I wished that I was a remarkable white person, but that not my story. Unfortunately, Obama has to watch his words because he is talking to the 20% of the population that has an IQ of less than 50 points. During the last Presidential election a reporter asked this woman why she voted for George Bush. “Because he is a God fearing man” she replied. She didn’t concern herself with issues like the economy and foreign relations and all the other things that goes into being a President. Nope, just “Roe v. Wade” and gay marriage was her agenda. I find that discouraging.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
There is one solution to your well-expressed (and understandable) frustration with "politics". I know you don't want to talk to me anymore ... but here it is anyway: turn off your television set! And if TV offers you other programming that you enjoy, then just don't watch the television news. There are lots of other ways to get the news and to remain informed without having to subject yourself to the circus that the media creates in order to show how hard it works to dig up "important stuff" for us to know. Those other sources will also cover the same circus (hey ... it is news, after all ... just what I would call "self-generated" news), but you can pick and choose which parts you want to read instead of having the media short-attention span theater version of "news" blasted at you 24-7. Think about it ... you can plug almost any "important" story into the following template, and this is the local 5:00 "news" that used to have some credibility and some substance:
• 10 Minutes: Local mayhem (robberies, fires, murders, car wrecks, plane crashes, sex abuse, political scandal with maybe one national story so big it cannot be left out of this segment: e.g., the Pope's visit)
• 2 Minutes: Commercials
• 5 Minutes: National and International "news" (often tabloid or sensationalized, but this is also the time-slot for coverage of the "major issues") -- often handled by local reporters at the scene who happened to be on the satellite link from which the story was lifted
• 2 Minutes: Commercials
• 3 Minutes: Weather
• 2 Minutes: Commercials
• 3 Minutes: Sports
• 2 Minutes: Commercials
• 1 Minute: Wrap-up ... usually something warm and fuzzy, cute and touching, odd and eccentric, deep and endearing
Just think how much time your local channel has for substantive and deep coverage of the real issues confronting your community (and nation).
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Hi shays. As I said before, it’s difficult to communicate with text messaging. Hard to express all the subtleties or nuisances necessary when discussing a complicated issue. And it is too easy to escalate the dialog into an argument with a few well placed red button words. It helps to put a smiley face on some of my work :) but then one doesn’t always know if I’m being funny or sarcastic. I enjoy the forum. I like talking about politics and the environment. I wish there was more debate on those issues, but mostly it’s about more mundane close to home stuff....and that’s alright too. Although....one thing that bothers me is directed at the forums readers. I realize that not all folks are inclined to reply to a post - especially one requiring a lengthy reply. But it would be nice if the people who read a given comment would take the time to at least respond to your thoughts and ideas by clicking the star chart at the bottom of the post. If I don't get any feedback, then I think, maybe I'm talking to myself. I can do that home alone. I see that you put a lot of effort into your commentaries and that’s just too much work for someone to just pass by in cyberspace without at least acknowledging it. It just take a click. We don't have to agree, that's what keeps it interesting, but at least you know someone took the time to read your thoughts and agreed or disagreed with your position.
Your right, much of television news needs a lot of work. Still watch most of them though. Did you read Leslie Griffith’s comments on this forum about trends in news broadcasting? Excellent piece. Only got 2 replies though. Didn’t generate much interest. I don't think all TV news is badly put together. I like the “NewsHour with Jim Lehrer” Charley Rose has some pretty good interviews, and of course there is C-SPAN. I watched the General Petraeus testimony the other week ago. What about Bill Maher? I agree with him and disagree with him.....pretty much sums it up.....always entertaining though. There is Olberman on MSNBC, he biased too as you would say, but he is bias for Obama, so we’re simpatico. And of course, there is the Daily show; funny and informative.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
First, thank you for taking the time to read my comments. Secondly, thanks for deciding that maybe it is okay to talk with me. I know sometimes my comments come across as pretty harsh, and they certainly are opinionated (why else would I post my opinions?) ... but believe it or not I am a pretty reasonable fellow and try to at least give credence to those who take the time to talk with me. Unfortunately, on this list, there are a lot of posers who shut you out or shut you off if you do not agree with them.
Okay ... so I said my bit.
I notice the news shows you mention are not technically news shows. C-Span, for example, just runs a camera and lets those watching make up our own minds about what is going on. There should be a lot more of that, in my opinion. Given all the pap filling up the airwaves, easily three or more "public access" channels could be added to the cable menu (not that any of us get to actually select much from the cable menu ... guess that's what happens in a deregulated market with no competition, heh?) without really injuring anyone's sensibilities. Then we could put high quality broadcast cameras (and maybe even an on-site reporter/commentator) in place for all local city council and county board meetings, all important commission meetings, etc. etc. It doesn't matter if hardly anyone watches them, just so long as someone watches them (but they never know how many, or who it is) ... it's called forcing the suckers to be accountable. What passes for "public access" in the corporate dominated media right now is a cheap camera at a city-council meeting on a tripod that is turned on at the beginning of the event and turned off when the event ends (or the time slot ends, whichever comes first). I would go further and suggest that all such meetings also be attended by a Public Fair Witness (Read Stranger in a Strange Land).
The other shows you mention are interpretive and analytic "news" shows. They are okay, so long as you understand the bias each presents. This may be why Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert are so successful ... their "news" certainly comes with a huge dash of opinion, but since you know the perspective, it's funny.
I was referring to the main stream media "news". It stopped broadcasting news sometime after the Kennedy assassination, and more clearly after the Iran Hostage subterfuge (that's another topic, one involving the deceptiveness of the Republican leadership and its golden idolatrous leader, Ronald Reagan), when it discovered how "disaster" could attract public attention and viewership. Today, the best word to describe what passes as mainstream "news" is "infotainment".
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
I am awful glad that you seek multiple sources of information, however. I wish more people did. I even subscribed to Townhall.com for quite a while just to get the really right version of stuff. Unfortunately, they started using a program that did not sit well on my macintosh, and I had to stop reading the stuff there.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
I suppose that the cable new channels are at an economic disadvantage. Basically, they have to take an hours worth of news, that most Americans will find interesting (or lose them to Opra) and spread it out over 24 hours. I guess that’s why we get all the glitzy graphics and sounds and beautiful woman in short skirts reading the news. We have to be dazzled to keep us on channel. What the cable channels are: is they are convenient for most folks, although superficial much of the time for the above reason. If one wants to know the "news" anytime during the day, its there for you, even though it may have a “slant” to it. But I think most intelligent people can see through the bias. As you say, it’s best to get the news from many sources, but to be honest, I tend to watch or read more sources that agree with my political bent. That’s why most of the time, I don’t listen to Fox News, Russ Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and et al. Nor do I find it necessary to subscribe to “The Heritage Foundation” I also have a built-in "truthiness", until someone can knock me off my feet with something better.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
Jon Stewart addressed this issue very succinctly. He said (and I paraphrase): Hey, I remember another meaning for the word "elite" -- it means "the best". I don't know about you guys, but the person I want running this country needs to among the elite. I am not so sure I want a whiskey and beer guzzler making the important decisions.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 283
and if he's so Elite (good)....why does your guy Obama choose a bowling alley for a photo op? (and score 38 ?) Is that where the Elite meet? ok. Ask John Stewart then. Do liberals shift connotations of words...to suit their (weak) arguments? You can answer that yourself.
Are Obama's continuing "spiritual leader" problems not his fault and something only Elites can understand ?...OR just further, mounting evidence of who he really is... and is NOT.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Backrow: "why does your guy Obama choose a bowling alley for a photo op? (and score 38 ?) "
Obama is campaigning for office; I think it's pretty smart to go where voters congregate. It's not uncommon for the candidates to be taped at restaurants, workplaces etc.
You said 38 pins......he doesn't bowl. Try some "one on one" with Obama, and see what happens. :)
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 494
I am sure we all know at least one person who is the "best" (i.e., among the "elite") at everything. Unfortunately, most of us are not quite that gifted, and very few of the ones I know are running for President.
Unfortunately, Jon Stewart was making a joke and sort of kicking us all in the ribs for the way too serious way we deal with words, with the meaning of words, and with the way we approach life. I guess you didn't get it. Oh well.
As to some of your other points ... a large number of Americans, despite their loud proclamations that they believe in the "United States", really have no intention at all of ever uniting around any set of ideas that is not their own. I watched one such group just have sizeable hissy-fits over Bill Clinton. I watched a different group do the same thing with George W. And now, no one can find anything about any of the candidates over which to "unite". To unite, people need to have a desire to understand their fellows, wish to find a way to sincerely get what they want without having to give up too much of what they want. No one set in their ways is going to be convinced that they need to "unite" with anyone ... it's their way or the highway, don't you know. Jesus had a hard time uniting people living in a very divisive time. He would have just as much trouble today, I am afraid.
However, compare the "uniting" message of Barack Obama vs that of George W. Bush. If you want, I can even supply the words for you. But you are a citizen of this country, and you have lived here for at least a little while. You know how George W "united" us. Can you honestly say that Barack Obama is worse? I don't know about John McCain ... I honestly don't. The man who ran for President in 2000 might have been a uniter. This guy is different. But I'll give him a chance.
As to progressives and socialists. Why do some words create such a knee-jerk reaction from otherwise intelligent people? Certainly you recognize that the US is already a socialist country, and has been for quite a long time. Give credit where credit is due ... and then figure out how to take the best of all worlds.
As to my "aging hippie logo". Well, I drew that picture and while it isn't exactly the Mona Lisa, I think it is a pretty fair representation of my physical appearance. Like most whacked out leftist loonies, I am both an artist and a musician (though most classify both as artists), which probably explains a lot about why I like people and think everyone deserves a shot and, if necessary, a leg up. I am not sure what you mean by "state largesse". Perhaps you are complaining about the tiny stipend I receive from STRS for 25+ years of service to the state (and the families) of California ... half of which I paid into and half of which was paid into by the three different school districts in which I was employed over time ... per negotiated settlement and the right we have, as Americans, to collectively bargain in our livelihoods (a right many a Republican would gladly take away in a heartbeat, I might add).
Is my thinking correct thinking? I think so. Is it the only correct thinking? Hardly. Do I have stuff to learn? Absolutely. Did I learn anything from the post to which I am replying? Hardly.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 325
Shays you're guilty of being too rational, if you want to survive in this silly forum you have to attack your adversary and destroy him. You certainly can't win them over with well though out discussion.
You know, if we were all sitting around a table having a topical discussion with beer and pizza, I'm sure the demeanor and language would be greatly improved from what it is here. But unfortunately, on this crazy board, everyday is a “WWE Smack Down,” and no quarter is given.
I been called a racist, left wing idiot, socialist et cetera, et cetera. I tend to reciprocate, so I can show them, I can be as dumb as anyone. Actually, I consider myself more of a moderate; I don’t care for any kind of extremism. There is certainly no "uniting" on this board. Most have their own opinion, especially about politics and they will not speak politely about it, let alone meet you half way.
Socialism, there is a explosive subject..... it gets some people’s bowels in such an uproar. So many people are so eager to deny it. They don’t seem to understand that it's a necessary part of a just capitalist system. If we all were subject to unrestrained capitalism then 20% of the population would acquire all the wealth and the other 80% would starve.
If some of these righteous zealots had to give up some of the concepts of socialism like child labor laws, the 40 hours work week, social security, minimum wage and a lot of other things they take for granted......they would just howl.