Summer CE Week #1: “It’s more than miles that separate us” Aug 23rd
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. chats with readers every Wednesday from 10 to 11 a.m. Pacific time at www.MiamiHerald.com.
Our story so far:
Last year, Barack Obama was elected president, the first American of African heritage ever to reach that office. If this was regarded as a new beginning by most Americans, it was regarded apocalyptically by others who promptly proceeded to lose both their minds and any pretense of enlightenment.
These are the people who immediately declared it their fervent hope that the new presidency fail, the ones who cheered when the governor of Texas raised the specter of secession, the ones who went online to rechristen the executive mansion the “Black” House, and to picture it with a watermelon patch out front.
On tax day they were the ones who, having apparently just discovered the grim tidings April 15 brings us all each year, launched angry, unruly protests. In the debate over health care reform, they are the ones who have disrupted town hall meetings, shouting about the president’s supposed plan for “death panels” to euthanize the elderly.
Now, they are the ones bringing firearms to places the president is speaking.
The Washington Post tells us at least a dozen individuals have arrived openly – and, yes, legally – strapped at events in Arizona and New Hampshire, including at least one who carried a semiautomatic assault rifle. In case the implied threat is not clear, one of them also brought a sign referencing Thomas Jefferson’s quote about the need to water the tree of liberty with “the blood of … tyrants.”
It remains unclear, once you get beyond the realm of Internet myth, alarmist rhetoric and blatant lie, what the substance of the president’s supposed tyranny might be. “Socialized health care?” Given that our libraries, schools, police and fire departments are all “socialized,” that’s hard to swallow.
When and if the implied violence comes, perhaps its author will explain. Meanwhile, expect those who stoked his rage – i.e., the makers of Internet myths, alarmist rhetoric and blatant lies – to disdain any and all moral responsibility for the outcome.
These are strange times. They call to mind what historian Henry Adams said in the mid-1800s: “There are grave doubts at the hugeness of the land and whether one government can comprehend the whole.”
Adams spoke in geographical terms of a nation rapidly expanding toward the Pacific. Our challenge is less geographical than spiritual, less a question of the distance between Honolulu and New York than between you and the person right next to you. Such as when you look at a guy who thought it a good idea to bring a “gun” to a presidential speech and find yourself stunned by incomprehension. On paper, he is your fellow American, but you absolutely do not know him, recognize nothing of yourself in him. You keep asking yourself: Who is this guy?
We frame the differences in terms of “conservative” and “liberal,” but these are tired old markers that with overuse and misuse have largely lost whatever meaning they used to have and with it, any ability to explain us to us. This isn’t liberal vs. conservative, it is yesterday vs. tomorrow, the stress of profound cultural and demographic changes that will leave none of us as we were.
And change, almost by definition, always comes too fast, always brings a sense of stark dislocation. As in the woman who cried to a reporter, “I want ‘my country’ back!” Probably the country she meant still had Beaver Cleaver on TV and Doris Day on “Your Hit Parade.”
Round and round we go and where we stop, nobody knows. And it is an open question, as it was for Henry Adams, what kind of country we’ll have when it’s done. Can one government comprehend the whole? It may be harder to answer now than it was then.
The distances that divide us cannot be measured in miles.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald. His e-mail address is lpitts@miamiherald.com.
As Americans we elected Obama to be our President and before we made this decision we knew he was African American and we knew that his goal was “Change”. This article didn’t as much speak to a current happening as it did to a state of opinions of many Americans about Obama’s Presidency. I have known and it was reiterated by this article that opinions of many people differ on topics such as what type of government, and for that matter what type of lifestyle, best suits them. In this article I found it interesting that words such as “Tyranny” were used to describe Obama because that seems extreme. The Henry Adams quote used, “There are grave doubts at the hugeness of the land and whether one government can comprehend the whole.” I feel best sums up the difficulties that are faced by our government. No plan and no leader will ever please every member of a nation as large as ours, and that is something that we need to accept. My family and I even have different opinions on what is best for us individually and if a family can’t agree how would a nation agree? I do not believe that opinions have a direct correlation to what region a person lives, thus one government is never going to please everyone; the only thing that can be done is for our appointed leaders to represent our varied opinions and decide what is best for the greater good.
After reading this article I am curious to why people resort to racial cruelties when they don’t get their way? And why in our nation with freedoms so high do citizens consider violence, especially against a national leader to be the answer – do they really believe that if they kill they will get what they want?
Personally, I can relate to some of the frustration that people are experiencing. This is because I do not see the government being involved in health care as a good thing for America’s future. Needless to say, I wouldn’t react violently or carry weapons into any political event.
In the sixth paragraph, Pitts mentions that many of the services we use often are “socialized.” I’d like to know what flaws people see in the current government-run programs that exist today.
I also see it is unnecessary for citizens to bring any sort of weapons or violence to a town hall meeting. It is over the top; even when someone wants to make a point, why bring violence into it? What will that accomplish? However, it is hard for me and maybe some others when we are only high school seniors, to understand the impact of the health care reform. As we grow older, a lot older, we could understand it better. But as for now, and for me, it is hard to grasp the entire subject. “This isn’t liberal or conservative, it is yesterday vs. tomorrow.” It is true that everyday, there is a little change with the reform and how it will be handled.
In response to Mary Konis-
I completely agree with your questioning how Americans can resort so frequently to “racial cruelties”. Our country is advanced in racial equality in many regards, but the fact that a person’s race comes into focus at all besides cultural diversity is frustrating. Obama should not be placed above or below his position just because he is black. Since the Civil War we have worked to give every man and woman equal opportunity no matter where they come from. Why is it that being an African-American president brings with it a new stance for slandering apart from the usual disrespect associated with the Oval Office or that it causes one person to be beyond a president, beyond a common man? In regards to your question about our freedoms and misconception that assassination will solve anything, I believe our country has been spoiled to the point of no return. America has been the land of opportunity for generations with few set-backs from the government. If we lived in a country with fewer freedoms and a tighter restriction on patriotic loyalty, we would most likely not have as many death threats against the president. And by patriotic loyalty I do not mean that everyone is completely happy with where the country is going because, as you stated, not everyone will ever be happy. I simply refer to the faith Americans should have in the people they choose to form our government. Our system was not created to only leave assassination as the option but allowed many different men and women to have checks over one another. I would also like to mention that I do not wish in any way that we had fewer freedoms. I only find it troubling that we cannot see our privileges and use them as we should.
In Response to Haley Anderson:
You asked why bring Violence into it? Well over the years our country has taught people that the best way to fix something is violence. Some examples, the Big Stick Philosophy to the United States providing the military for the United Kingdom. The violence will not accomplish anything but people feel it will because that is what they were taught. Violence has always had some spot in our world and nation and that will probably not stop.
I already knew there were diffferent thoughts of the first African American president and some people really did not want it to happen. I think it is almost selfish for these people to bring ‘guns’ to the president’s speaches and put put others in danger. It is unnessesery and will just cause problems for the government and country.
What i want to know more is what the government is doing and plans to do about this problem. What if one decides to fire a shot, misses, or hits the president? How are they preparing themselves if this problem gets out of hand?
In responce to Larae~
What I see as a problem for socialized plans, such as libraries and schools, is that there might not be enough service to go around. Schools fill up pretty fast and libraries have limited amounts of books.
Socialized health care would be horrible in my oppinion. There are so many different things that need treatment for and personal prescriptions. Doctors get paid for specializing, so if there was a flat rate for anything, doctors would not get paid as much, and so they wouldn’t work as hard.
In Response to Kelli Davin:
I have asked the same question as well, what would happen if someone opened fire at the President? The Secret Service has the right to carry firearms as well as arrest people, but this can only do so much. The sign-holder this article speaks of was William Kostric, who was abiding by the New Hampshire law that states carrying a firearm openly is permitted without need of a license. Ande because Kostric was standing on private property, all the Secret Service could do was keep a close eye on him. When Kostric was asked why he would bring a gun to a presidential event, he reasoned that “he was there peacefully, guns aren’t unusual in New Hampshire, and Americans lose rights unless they exercise them”. What makes me question the intentions of Kostric, is that he brought his weapon to a place surrounded with security and government officials all dedicated to keeping the President and the environment safe. So if he was there peacefully, why would he need a gun? I believe in the second amendment, but there is a time and place for exercising this right and this was not it.
In response to Kelli:
If the president were to be hit and potentially wounded or killed, it would be up to the Vice President to take over the white house. Historically that is the way these situations have been dealt with. Other than that, the government can only take preventative measures to make sure the president is as far away from danger as possible with constant vigilance.
In response to Carley’s response to Kelli:
I, too, support the second amendment rights, but with further interpretation the second amendment was really put in place to give the country (in its early stages) a militia to fight on demand. That amendment starts with “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” THEN says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Of course that amendment has expanded and changed meaning to us over the years, but I just felt it is interesting that we advocate the right to bear arms when in reality that right was for an entirely different purpose than it is today. Try explaining that to one of these people!
I think it is ridiculous how everyone focuses so intently on Obama’s race. I mean from the moment he told America he was running for President until now, it has been all over everything. I know some people feel very strongly against him being our President but that does not give them the right to be changing the name of the white house to ‘black’ house. That’s taking it too far. I thought we, as a country, were starting to conquer the whole racial game until Obama’s presidency. I do realize that this article touches but does not focus only on his physical characteristics but why is it that whenever Obama is brought up his race is too. People say that having Obama as our President has shown our leaps and bounds as a country, but has it really? If we continually talk about his race and his position is it any better? If we never separate those attributes from one another does that show any difference in our thinking compared to our thinking centuries ago? This article mentions, ‘change coming to fast’ and I agree with that. I don’t think our country has conquered the racial game yet, and has a ways to go before, but after time maybe we will adjust. Then the real improvement will show.
Kelli : In response to your question about what the government does about protecting Obama and the answer is A LOT haha. More than probably anyone can imagine. I went to the Inauguration and security was insane. There were so many policeman and we even saw some snipers on top of buildings. The parade afterwards was where I got to see really how he is protected. The family sat in a bullet proof glass box to watch the parade and I think it was for his acceptance speech he was surrounded by bullet proof glass but I may be wrong. I feel confident in our government to protect him from any harm. He, like any President, is always taken care of and protected to the best of their ability.
In response to Larae Stotts:
I was also curious what current government-run programs people have issues with and for what reasons. I looked up a few. FEMA is the program that is supposed to aid communities recover from disasters. At a few disaster areas, there were slow recovery efforts that left distraught families vulnerable. Also, FEMA has refrained from answering questions asking how many homes have to be damaged in order for uninsured home owners to receive federal help. In fact, a general lack of communication has been present for a long time.
Another example is ever popular Social Security. Not only has our government been tapping into the Social Security fund for unrelated projects, but the proportions necessary for this program to work have been shifting over the last 50 years. With better health services, people are living longer, adding years to the time they receive aid. Families in the 1950s would tend to have 4-6 children and with families with fewer kids that makes fewer future workers to support the retirees. Social Security was a temporary fix during the depression that was not well thought out for years to come. Politicians are scared to get rid of it all together because that would alienate them from the elderly vote. Another huge problem with the program itself is its lack of organization. There have been countless cases over the years of dead people who continue to receive Social Security benefits. If we are going to have this system, we must make sure it is run with diligence to oversee the distribution of our money. Analysts have estimated that by 2016 Social Security benefits will exceed the taxes collected which will lead to another raise in taxes and/or a drawback in the amount of benefits promised.
Along with other programs I read about, the major issues are lacks of organization, communication, and foresight with how to get rid of or change the current program. Healthcare is important to all of us and I personally am worried that the government will make the same mistakes with it as they did with less important programs.
I found the quote Pitts presented by Adams quite interesting as well as his inquiry into the question. It is unavoidable that the country is divided by views that do not necessarily have to be labeled as “conservative vs. liberal.” The country is torn by many various aspects: culture, religion, and income, just to name a few. There is a profound disparity, which can raise the question of one government being enough or not. However, I disagree with Pitts’ opinion of who is “bringing the firearms.” In his first paragraph, he associated the fact that Obama is African-American as being the fundamental source of hate among critics to his being president. I do not think this was intentional, but that was what came across. He then goes on to say that those are the same people who wanted to secede from the Union, who disagree with his healthcare reform, and who ultimately bring violence to places where the president is speaking. There is no reason in the connection between violent radicals to passive detractors.
My question is how people attempt to define “my country,” as Pitts stated a lady once shouted. Disregarding the shared sense of history and patriotism, with such change occurring, isn’t each person’s view of “my country” varied?
I don’t watch the news that much, so I didn’t realize that people are doing things like calling the white house the “black” house. I didn’t know people still felt that strong about the color of someones skin,and where the person is from. I thought america was getting better about racial situations and comments. I believe it is wrong to judge someone by their color or backround, but its okay to judge his decsions as president. Just because he is an african american, doesn’t change the kind of person and president he is. He can become a good president. I don’t agree with Obamas health care plan, but we don’t need to go as far as angry protests against our leader. Just because he is african american, doesn’t mean that america is in a state of HUGE change.
If people are coming out, telling us they carry firearms to the speakings, then why aren’t we checking everyone who goes to the speeches?
How close has anyone ever got to attacking President Obama?
Is Obama as our president going to divide America?
Responding to Larae Stotts:
In regards to your question about flaws in socialized programs we have today, I think that a lot of the programs work, and some work really well. Though, I notice that a lot of programs are made in the same manner that some people do their homework. The government seems to throw together a bear-minimum program just to get it out of the way or a program that only works for a limited time before it falls apart. The programs should be analyzed deeper to ensure that everything is straight and no money is being wasted.
Change. It shakes, rattles, and rolls us until we find our equilibrium. Some find it within moments. Some never do. America seems to be having a hard time coming to grips with its changes. One simple color alteration and introduction of new ideas is sending the individuals of our “united” country for a whirlwind. I agree with the article, “It’s more than miles that separate us”, for multiple reasons. First of all, I see it within my own home. My dad is a self proclaimed Conservative Republic and stubbornly so. For one who avoids superstitions and conspiracy theories, he will stop at no ends to discredit our president. Why? I have no idea. Is it because of his skin color? I hope not. His ideas? Probably. His differences? Most definitely. He’s too far separated mentally to understand where he is common from. Which is exactly what the article covered.
What I really want to fully comprehend after reading this blog is why Obama is so controversial other than the obvious. What I mean by that is common knowledge stuff: he’s black, he has a now famous wife, he’s a good speaker, and, wait, did I mention he’s black? I want to know the nitty gritties. The meat and potatoes, if you will. Why did he get into politics? What are his basic ideals? Where did he get his namesake? Is he friends with Hilary Clinton? Answer me this, and I’ll consider myself satiated.
-Jeremy
In response to Valerie Nauditt:
Hey Val. Man, I think you are spot on. I was stoked on the fact that finally we considered a minority to run our country. But I don’t think that is enough to vote for him. In your post, you question whether or not our electing a colored President was really any accomplishment. I ponder the same question, was it really? We must remember that Obama is a man before he is a colored man-a concept that was either undermined or completely disregarded during his presidential campaign. Valerie’s post was rather enlightening because it challenges something much deeper: “Has racism really been conquered in our country or simply covered up?” At first, I was gung-ho on the idea of someone different, but our country’s inability to accept and move past this change has me befuddled. Why should we focus on his physical attributes more than his ideals? Maybe we need to gradually ease our way into accepting something new, something different. Maybe we weren’t ready. Maybe we are just getting through the “shock factor”. But I feel as though we can only move forward from here to a better future.
-Jeremy
In response to Valarie:
I wonder the same thing, has Obama’s presidency helped further the civil rights goal most American’s share, or has it thrown wood onto the fire of discrimination and bigotry? My hope is that, while this may have fired up those who hate anyone different than themselves, Obama may also fire up those of us who DO see the world through unprejudiced eyes. Maybe it is time that we work toward equality and stop waiting for it to happen by itself.
Response to JJ Scott:
I do agree. Many things are sloppily drafted. My father told me that when he was in the Air Force, they would spend thousands of dollars on something as simple as a toilet seat. I don’t think it would be a terrible thing for our government to be a little more thrifty.
Larae’s question: “What flaws people see in the current government-run programs that exist today.”
There are quite a few flaws that people can see in these programs. One recent one is the “Cash-for-Clunkers” program. Giving away government money is not going to last long. They said $1 billion and went through that in a short amount of time, so to continue, they went up to $3 billion, how do they keep that going? They are just nationally putting the US in more debt then we already have! It originally was a great thought and a good plan, but not enough time was spent going through the legistics of it all. Also, I have read that the chipped metal is sent over to China. This wouldn’t be too much of a problem except that that is where America buys a majority of it’s prducts; therefore we are sending China stuff to buy back from them. Bad idea.
People knew things like this were going to happen when he was elected. He is the first African American President, and some people don’t like this. President Obama has many supporters, but there are still people who don’t like him. People that don’t want him as President can “Kiss the baby”. It’s done, he’s the President now, and he makes the decisions. He might not make the best choice, but he’s trying. The thing about people bringing weapons to the Presidental speakings is ridiculous. They need to stop that before something goes wrong and things get worse.
Why are the people allowed to bring weapons to the Presidental speakings?
It is true that as the health care debate rages on, the gap, between what Americans want as a whole, widens. In America, the culture as a whole has changed. People see things differently, want different things, and live in different places. No one is like June Cleaver or Andy Griffith, but there decent and honest people. As we look into Americans flaws, the gap seems to widen more. We no longer take time to understand where a person is coming from and we automatically label them as “those right wing nuts” or “those crazy, hippy liberals”. I think the reason for people acting so crazy and irrational at town hall meetings is simply not understanding the information in front of them.
I don’t think it is fair to blame Obama for everything in America. If Obama had not won and lets say, Ralph Nader did, people would still be complaining about his views on health care, and socialized medicine. We cannot act so irrationally just because we don’t like someone else’s views, because if we do, we are nothing but a nation of five year olds.
My question is why do some people people always resort to racial stereotypes when things don’t go the way they thought?
In Response to Drew Williams:
Well word on the street is when he was six years old his mom tried to posion his oatmeal. Just messing with you dude. Nathan Wine and Steven Joseph Christopher are two examples of guys who have threatened to assassinate the President. Obviously they were unsuccessful and now may be in prison for up to five years. So there’s definitely people out there trying to assassinate him, but they haven’t got to close.
In response to Megan E:
I agree that each person’s view of “their country” is different, but people cannot not just shout out “I want my country back!” and expect change. And truthfully when people say that it makes them sound like a little kid crying over a toy that was taken from them. People will have a different view of what their ideal America would be, but the government can’t change what the nation is like today. If everyone got the nation they wanted, it would be chaos.
In response to Valerie Nauditt:
I had no idea that since Obama became president they started calling the white house “the black house”. Just because we have a black president doesn’t mean that we need to be that racial. I don’t totally agree with him, but I still think we need to respect him. I thought that this country was getting over the discrimination against blacks, but I guess not.
In response to Tyler Fackrell:
When President Obama was in New Hampshire making a speech, people brought guns there. They said it was their right to exercise the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. A similar occurrence happened in Phoenix.
Arizona is an “open-carry” state which means that anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it as long as it is visible. A concealed weapon must have a permit.
Secret Service Spokesperson Ed Donovan said that “armed demonstrators” in open-carry states make little impact on “security plans” because the subject is in plain view, not trying to be where he’s not supposed to be. It is the job of the Secret Service to protect the President from harm.
Others, however, think this will lead to more violence against the president because of the liberties taken due to carrying a gun. Those who oppose bringing guns in the vicinity of the president also believe that it has the potential to create a tragic situation.
In short, nothing can be done unless Obama makes speeches in non-open-carry state or create a law that prohibits guns where the President is speaking or partaking in other activities.
How the country is responding to Obama and the change he is enacting: that is the subject of this piece. Its vagueness made it hard to learn anything real politically concrete but it shed light on how people are taking to Obama. At the high school level most students are quite supportive of Obama, whether it’s because he looks good on a tee shirt and it’s the cool thing to, or rather because they actually have a stable political view, I don’t know. This article picked me up out of a student setting and placed me in with the public who are anti Obama, “the ones who went online to rechristen the executive mansion the ‘Black’ House, and to picture it with a watermelon patch out front”.
So now I know the two extremes on the Obama support spectrum. I also pity the president. This article reiterated how hard it is to please a whole nation where the people aren’t separated geographically but “spiritually”.
In response to the closing statement, “Can one government comprehend a whole?” I respond with a definite “no”. It is up to the people to decide what they want and elect those who will represent them well. When things don’t work out the way they voted they must settle, knowing that “majority rules” is fair, and not retaliate with immature insults and threats. Only in this way can the government help the greatest number of people possible.
The author stated “We frame the differences in terms of “conservative” and “liberal,” but these are tired old markers that with overuse and misuse have largely lost whatever meaning they used to have and with it, any ability to explain us to us.” So basically I want to know what a “conservative” is and what a “liberal” is. Also I would like to hear what “Internet myths, alarmist rhetoric, and blatant lies” are being told about Obama and what plans Obama is actually trying to endorse.
In response to Val pal:
I definitely agree with you on the questioning fact as to whether or not having Obama as a president we have shown our leaps and bounds as a country. I feel like it is so true that since we have made such a big deal about it we actually have not grown at all. People still see each other as black and white. We have not grown as a country and taken leaps against racism. Yes, I mean we have grown throughout the years but it is still a very big controversial topic that comes up all the time and I believe it will always be a topic discussed throughout our country.
In Response to Jaclyn: A Conservative is someone who believes in tradition and social stability. They usually prefer gradual development over abrupt change. Liberals are the opposite. They believe in progress and the protection of political and civil liberties. Liberals are more focused on bringing about change whereas Conservatives are focused on maintaining what has already been established.
Mary Konis:
“The greater good”, oh my, someone sounds socialist. But I totally get where you’re coming from. Obviously everybody can’t be pleased so let’s try to please the most. In response to “if a family can’t agree how can a nation?” I say that they can’t. Our back rounds, upbringings, and experiences don’t allow for it. But then again that’s why America is America. And now to your final questions, People result to racial cruelties because they are uneducated, immature, jerks. Nothing denotes attacking somebody personally. There is a literary fallacy, Ad Hominem that means to attack the man rather than his ideas. Such a major fallacy. Anger leads people to do illogical things. Killing Obama won’t solve the “problems” and neither will attacking his nationality. People are abusing their freedom, which is a privilege and right, and letting their anger spew out into violence. So to me these reactions are wrong. Fine, have your opinions but you don’t have to purposefully hurt someone to get that across.
What I know about this topic: I know that I have seen the people on TV that want to see our President dead. We have indeed made significant strides towards equality and understanding, and we proved that by electing President Obama. However, there are still those whose ideology is beyond my understanding. Obviously we have a long way to go as a nation, but we have no doubt made promising progress. Change does seem swift over the time frame of 50 years. But in terms of an individual’s lifetime, change is a slow, drawn-out process.I would like to see a much greater level of acceptance before my life ends. My question is why, in terms of medicine, does socialism have such a negative connotation when the USA has socialized “libraries, schools, police and fire departments” AND it has been proven to work far better than our system in such nations as Japan, Canada, France, and Great Britain?
Jeremy, I feel it is important that you know the basic qualities of your President, so I will try to enlighten you, but no one can speak for Obama but himself.
Why did he get into politics? Obama graduated from Harvard Law School and was the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review, many say this is where he got his first real jump-start into politics. What are his basic ideals? Obama ran on behalf of the Democratic party. As for each individual topic, each Democrat varies. Obama is liberal, and when I think liberal, I personally think of these words: accepting, open-minded and progressive. Where did he get his namesake? As for his namesake, he gained a reputation in the state of Illinois as a bi-partisan leader and was elected by a large majority. While he was in the senate he passed major nuclear non-proliferation bills and open government bills. He also spoke out against the Iraq war before it happened. He has a long history of taking the other side into consideration and standing up for his own beliefs. Is he friends with Hilary Clinton? Well Hillary Clinton is his Secretary of State, so I guess you could call them friends but there relationship is professional. And frnakly, I’d like it to stay professional.
I do not understand why it is such a big deal to some Americans the President Obama is African American. I understand that there are people that are not thrilled about his politics but his ethnicity should not part of forming an opinion about him, whether his ethnicity is causing you to form a better or worse opinion. When he was elected it was said that a lot of African American citizens chose to vote for Obama because he was like them, and would bring “black power” to the white house. So whether you are bringing a gun to a political event or supporting a politician simply because of the color of his skin, I ask why can’t we just look at a person’s politics and not his race?
As to the rest of the article, it talked a lot about Obama socializing health care. Though I have heard the President called a socialist many a times I was wondering exactly how his he socializing health care?
I did not know that people were still so concerned about what race people are, and I think that it is ridiculous that they still do care. I know that some people don’t like that we have an African American president, however I don’t think that it is right to bring firearms to events that he is speaking at. They are not only putting President Obama in danger but they are also putting everyone else at that event in danger as well. Aren’t they being a little bit selfish? Shouldn’t people be focusing more on what Obama is trying to do rather than what his race is? What message are they trying to put forward by bringing weapons to events? I think that since people are bringing weapons to speeches and events then they should have a security check just like they do at airports! I know that health care reforms are helping people but right now I am 17 and I don’t really understand how that impacts me.
In response to Katie Preston’s question “why do some people always resort to racial stereotypes when things don’t go the way they thought?”
I think the answer is because it is easy. People always will use illogical fallacies in place of actual fact or evidence because an illogical fallacy you can just make up. It is much easier to attack the person instead of the argument. For hundreds of years people have used race as a crutch to demean people when they are at a loss for something that is actually wrong with the person.
Comment to williand002:
“Is Obama as our president going to divide America?”
I think many people would agree when I say that I believe he already has. Jumping into office and trying to put a socialized health care plan into place has some people on the very edge of their seats. As the first article states, “it is more than miles that separate us.” I think we are starting to see a division that goes beyond the traditional “Democrat” or “Republican,” but rather labels that have more of a meaning.
So basically these jaded radicals (?) think that the Obama administration has brought about only chaos. Well I fail to see how bringing on more chaos will serve any purpose. When has it ever happened that someone has scared a president out of office? For every one of these opposers, there is a supporter. This nation always seems to find a way to segregate itself, be it politically, racially, or sexually. But “oh no now the worst has happened, a black man in office! We must retaliate for the future of our generations!”
Umm, sorry, no. Obama is not just a black man in office, he now the United States’ President, who has been working to solve the problems of his people, both the people that support, and the one who decide to bring firearms to protest and threaten. If these people are so upset he won office, then they should have created a better following to vote for and promote McCain in the beginning. These people are too late.
And concerning what I would like to know, I would like to know how big of a problem these people have become. This is honestly the first time I have read of this protest being a problem to this extent, but I am definitely not surprised.
I was extrmemly surprised to hear about people bringing weapons to their local townhall meetings. Not only is that incredibly dangerous, but what are they hoping to gain from that? Not only are people not going to listen to a word they have to say, because everyother person is thinking, as Pitts said, “who’s the crazy guy with a gun demanding things?” Not to mention the lack of power your local townhall government has over what the president and congress decide is best for the nation.
I also do agree whole heartedly on what the author said about not being able to measure the distance between you and your neighbor by miles anymore. It has gotten to the point where people have so many preconceived notions on what is Republican or Democrat that if that is the first thing you learned about somebody, you wouldn’t stand a chance at getting to know them. On a large scale, because of this, our whole nation is having trouble agreeing on the simplest things.
Commenting on Taylor:
I was just curious as to how exactly we have “socialized” schools, libraries, police and fire departments. And where that quote was from. And it has such a negative connotation because when people used to think of socialism and communism (yes there is a difference between the two and i know it, not my point) they think of dictators, and one person having all the power. Granted that could easily be avoided now, it’s a worry that’s always there. Not only that but it’s also teaching people that they don’t need to work to get what they need, government will just give it to you. So you really shouldn’t be worried, because that’s where we are headed now.
In response to Mary Konis:
Mary in response to your last statement on your post, I have the same feelings about that question. Sure there have been notorious assassinations in the past, President Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. to name the obvious, but I seem to remember the aftermath of those events uniting the country, and speeding up the change that those figures were attempting to achieve.
Reading this, I know about people bringing loaded weapons to the town meeting where Obama was speaking. From what I saw on the news. it seemed like the people were just following the law to show the president they would use their privileges. I didn’t know that people were bring signs with the “blood of … tyrants” written on it.
I completely agree with the last sentence of this article. We are separated by our beliefs more so than where we live in the nation. An important thing we need to realize about living in a free country is tolerance. We need to agree to disagree. Even if some of us don’t like it, its part of living in the US.
What I want to know is what are some of these other so called “internet myths” about Obama? I mean, are all the bad things we hear about Obama true? What kind of legislation has passed recently, that has made people so angry?
In response to Mary Konis:
I think that people always need to find someone to blame for their mistakes. Not many people want to take responsibility for what they have done that has contributed to the way their life is going today. I think pulling the race card is an option for people who don’t feel kile their better than anyone else except someone with a different color skin than them. We studied in my American Studies class last year how angered the poor farmers and migrant workers were in the South folowing the Freedom of African American slaves, because in some cases they were now the poorest and lowliest people in the country. The slaves that got jobs and became successful moved up in society. I think people who struggle with pride tear others down in order to make themselves feel better.
In Response to Katie: people resort to stereotypes because they are comfortable, they never look at the stereotypes that are associated with them but they can see the ones that go along with others. And sometimes you have to admit they are true, at times. I think that people are acting crazy because it is crazy. You said that the gap widens… so what does that mean? I was under the impression that Obama was going to be as bipartisan as possible but you are saying, which I believe, that he is being very liberal and that people are getting upset. It is as simple as that. Stereotypes are just a scapegoat, they are really just upset about what is going on, you will be surprised by what some people know about certain movements.
I don’t understand why people would think bringing weapons into the picture would solve anything here. Violence never solved anything politically in the past, so why should it be any different in this situation?
In response to Valerie:
I agree with your thoughts and I really think it’s going to take several more decades, if not centuries, for America as a whole to be able to look at every American, no matter the race, equally. I think Obama knew this when he ran for office and he accepted the fact that he was going to be disrespected while America transitioned into his presidency.
In response to Taylor Jordan:
“My question is why, in terms of medicine, does socialism have such a negative connotation when the USA has socialized “libraries, schools, police and fire departments” AND it has been proven to work far better than our system in such nations as Japan, Canada, France, and Great Britain?”
To put it simply, it’s because of the Cold War. For 46 years, anything that wasn’t capitalism was associated with communism. Even twenty years after it officially ended, there is still some lingering resentment. Plus, “libraries, schools, police and fire departments” for the most part had been socialized by our founding fathers. Fun fact: Benjamin Franklin invented the first fire department.
What I know:
I don’t know much I’ll tell you that. But I do know that it seems after every election that the winning candidate’s opposing party is instantly trying to degrade the elected individual. It doesn’t matter what positive things he or she is doing, only the negative is brought out.
I believe the party system has come to a point that everything is cutthroat. Because of this there will never be another President in our history that almost everyone supports because an opposing party will always be trying to dog up “dirt” about our leaders so that they have a better chance in the next election.
Questions:
I know there will always be conflicting ideologies in politics and in life, there’s opposition in all things; but it seems like around election time eveyrone loved Obam. But since his inaugaration that general feeling of positivity about Obama seems to have disappeared, once again everyone is negative just like during Bush’s eight years. It’s like the Hitler article, just like with Bush, people are now using the Hitler card with Obama. Why can’t we all just get shut up for five minutes and trust that our elected leaders might have some idea about what they’re doing?
Response to Taylor:
Everyone gets scared whenever socialism comes up because often times it’s thrown into the same boat as communism. Due to instances in our history such as the Red Scare and the Cold War people are scared of anything that reminds them of communism and problems occuring in countries such as Cuba or the late USSR. I personally support some degree of socialism in our government because it DOES work when used correctly.
In response to Taylor Jordan:
While I agree that in some cases socialized healthcare/medicine works better in foreign countries, I think the negative connotations come from some of the general thoughts about it in those places. I have read before that some people in those countries consider the socialized services slower and less satisfactory, because the system is less competitive.
Week #2 Response Assignment On Larae Stotts:
I know that when words like “socialized” float around people often panic and think “Socialism! Obama wants us to become communists!” and so on. But in this case socialized health care could be good for our failing economy and even better for people who are losing their jobs.
To answer your question on what flaws exist in our health care system today, no one can afford health care! The private insurance angencies’ prices make health care a low priority on many Americans financial list. The private companies need competition and that is exactly what a public option would do.
In Response to Taylor
Taylor I must say you are absolutely right. There are those whose ideology is beyond our understanding and we will never be able to understand if we try. Agreed, the nation has a long way to go before it is in the proud state it once was.
Socialism (I assume you mean socialized medicine or are referring to the healthcare plan) has not been proven to work far better than our system. I must respectfully call you out on that and direct your attention to this.
There are many waiting to be approved for treatment and there are many who die before getting this approval. Canada’s healthcare is notorious of this. Of the almost 37,000 people who died in hospitals, just over a quarter received some form of palliative care, and the majority of these were terminally ill patients. Another story published in the Washington post shows how great Canada’s care really is. A few years back a Canadian man had a brain tumor and desperately needed an Mri. He was told by his Dr. his wait would be at least 8 months, NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO WAIT 8 MONTHS FOR A MRI!!!! I am sorry but that is insanity. So instead of waiting he registered under the name Fido and went to a local vet and paid cash under the table so he couldn’t be tracked. THAT IS MADNESS!!! No one in any country should have to do something as crazy or degrading as that. Now as far as healthcare in the U.S. goes. Not one single case has been reported where someone without health insurance was denied medical attention even if they don’t have the cash. They all find a way to pay for it.
Unfortunately, I didn’t see Jenna’s post tell after I posted mine.
So,
In Response to Jenna
Could you possibly dig up some facts and figures to support your claim about the private insurers. Because unless I am mistaken and I very well may be the costs are competitive and the ones without healthcare are those who don’t want it, are waiting for their benefits to kick in from work, or as you said unaffordable for some.
I realize that it may be unaffordable for some and for some of those people it is by choice others it is an unfortunate circumstance. That is why programs such as DSHS are there.
In Response to Jenna Alaskar’s Comment on Larae Scotts: “I know that when words like “socialized” float around people often panic and think ‘Socialism! Obama wants us to become communists!’ and so on.”
Let us look at the definitions of the words the “panicky Americans” you speak of are correlating:
Socialized –verb (used with object): to make socialistic; establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism.
Socialism –noun: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I would be a little worried if people did NOT see any resemblance between the words. Perhaps the people who oppose health care reform have been studying Marxist theory which shares that “the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”
Next time please check your sources, I checked mine.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialized
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
In response to Allan: Schools, police and fire departments, roads, and libraries are all socialized as they are all paid for through taxes. For example, everyone pays for kids to go to school, regardless fo whether they have children.