True, I’ve been crazy to stick with AOL for my personal email address, and not switch to my gmail account—in more ways than one, it now turns out. Today I truly see the error of my ways. Why? Because 58 percent of AOL respondents–58 percent!–checked the box that said they were doubtful President Obama was born in Hawaii. I share an email address with the same ending as these people?
I will not stoop to the absurd indignity of going over, yet again, the reasons (i.e., proof) for why the “Birther Movement” is wrong–on each and every count. If you’re reading this, and you think I indeed ought to do this, I simply urge you to seek professional help in order to learn how human reason works. Nor will I stoop to name calling in talking about people who question President Obama’s place of birth, although it’s tempting to bring up the words “stupid” or–uglier–“racist.”
Instead, I’d like to ask everyone involved in education–at any level–the following question. Where did we go wrong? Why did we end up with so many citizens who have been through our schools who don’t know how to distinguish between fiction and fact, or rumor and truth?
Some, like Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, blame the Internet. Would that it were so simple. True, it takes only a few bucks to get yourself a Web site where you can post whatever slimy hogwash you want. And even the dullest crayons in the box can stumble their way to that post. But posting hogwash and mustering passionate followers is an entirely different matter. “True believers” (as opposed to people using their reason) frequently morph into an ugly mob. (Shouting down your Congressional representative, for example, constitutes ugly mob behavior.)
Scariest of all is the “mainstream media,” which keeps stoking this stinky fire–especially Lou Dobbs at CNN, and with the implicit approval of CNN. After giving credence to “Birthers” by saying, “Well, perhaps, maybe, blah, blah, blah,” Dobbs wasn’t even chastised. Instead, CNN’s president Jonathan Klein hid behind the wretchedly abused excuse of “freedom of speech.” Freedom of speech! That lofty idea, born of the Enlightenment, now used as a smokescreen for a major news organization to deliberately spread malicious rumors? (If you’re wondering about the reason for CNN’s behavior, you don’t need to look far. Hint: money.)
The Birther movement reflects our failure as parents and teachers to educate our children. We no longer seem to care if they become rational adults. This absurd movement reflects a wholesale abandonment of the original American idea of an educated, democratic citizenry.
Oh, sure, most Americans can type out a Web site on the keyboard and flit around the Internet. But the “Birther Movement” is proof positive that a significant and noisy number of them lack the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction. Their brains are stuck in the tedious toddler stage, where it’s fun to respond to every statement with the question, “Why?” And unlike the stupid peasantry of old, whose superstitions were confined to their villages, any fool today can be heard loud and clear and far and wide.
A crackpot group, pulled by their noses, full of intemperance, fueled by a fair amount of racism–recipe for what? Increased ability of America to compete globally? An America on the way to economic recovery? People who can decide whether or not they can afford a house or buy a car? People you want living in your town, and having a say about the future of your community?
The “Birthers” are deeply irrational, period. But unfortunately, they’re adults. It’s too late for them to change, and the only strategy the rest of us have is containment. Hope lies with the future, yes, but only if we get to teach our kids how to use human reason. As my dad used to always say, pay now or pay later.
55 Responses to Please Save This Nation From the Birthers
_perplexed_ - July 28, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The “birthers” are but one symptom of the angry, irrational populism sweeping the interior of our country and lapping up on each coast. It is causing me to rethink my stance on the 2nd amendment and my refusal to buy a gun. Before long that could be all that stands between my family and the mob; because they are out to get Obama now– who’s next?
reincarnate - July 28, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I think that if the birthers are out to get Obama it’s because they feel he’s out to get them. After all, they see his socialist agenda being pushed full force: one of Obama’s “czars” is an avowed Communist. I don’t know if race has anything to do with it, but ceratinly Obama is as racist as they are if it does. He’s proved that. Populist or not, ignore these folks at your peril. They are the people that make revolution at the ballot box.
la4097237 - July 29, 2009 at 5:37 am
“reincarnate” demonstrates that even the growing number of goofuses in the country read publications such as Chronicle of Higher Education. Somehow, you just can’t escape them!
dan_roe - July 29, 2009 at 6:15 am
I remember how stunned I was by the automata who followed Bush and defended his every action as though he was one of them. Now I see the same unthinking, unquestioning attitude among the “elite” (so-called). A case in point: Obama’s recent pick to head the NIH, Francis Collins, is an evangelical who believes that in matters of faith vs. science, faith must prevail. Bush would have been skewered, rightly, by the same people who defend Obama’s choice. How precisely is this “rational?” Obama shares Bush’s monetary policy, expanded his hair-brained response to the financial crisis with more bailouts for big guys, skirted the issues of domestic surveillance and torture…what precisely do you erudite “scholars” think you’ve won???
reincarnate - July 29, 2009 at 6:37 am
I didn’t say I agree with the birthers. I said they have points that should not be ignored by politicos. It’s people like la4097237, who act as if every opinion of others expresses the opinion of the write, that make me doubt the intellectual ability of arrogant asses like him/her. Get a clue, Jerk. When I say ignore these people at your peril, I mean they are a force to be reckoned with even if you don’t agree with them. You’re “goofy” if you can’t make the distinction between writing ABOUT something and advocating the point of view. You must be a Liberal Obama supporter because you’re deaf and offended by even discussing people who disagree with him.
bphil - July 29, 2009 at 6:56 am
Reincarnate, the point is that ignoring these people is precisely what we should do. A little intellectual arrogance–just enough to puff us up far enough to say that the “birthers” are stupid racists, for example–might be seen as the moderate response. That is, if it is intellectually arrogant to recall the deeper and more profound values that gave us our constitution, our bill of rights, our declaration of independece, values that were the guiding force of the Enlightenment, then call me arrogant. The “birthers” are stupid racists no matter how you slice it, and whether you support Obama’s policies or not. The point of this entry seems to be to ask not whether the birthers are as bad as all that, since that is beyond dispute for anyone willing to concede to things like facts, evidence, reason, etc. The point of the entry is to ask how we became so intellectually contorted as a nation that this “birther” nonsense is tolerated and encouraged by people who would laugh it off had we been doing our jobs as educators.
beans - July 29, 2009 at 6:56 am
I think there’s a larger issue here, of which the Birthers are just one aspect. The issue is the inability of an ever-growing number of American citizens to think and reason. And the fault of that inability falls squarely on the heads of American educators. When we let students get away with poorly reasoned (however deeply felt) arguments, we are saying it’s OK. I see teachers from Kindergarten through college who let students hand in subpar thinking because a) they’re tired and b) there isn’t time to fix them. I’m a very politically progressive person living in one of the most liberal states in the Union, but I do think the weakened educational system is the fault of liberal educators. They may have had good intentions, but they also had very little foresight.
hlarew - July 29, 2009 at 6:59 am
it-is-what-it-is
it doesn’t matter where he was born – he IS the 44th elected by a clear majority of american voters – nothing will change that, lets move on to more important issues ?
zizzer - July 29, 2009 at 8:41 am
So how do I “Report Abuse” on the article itself? What condescending venom!
The people you are calling “birthers” are ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG, but the original question that was asked, “Is Barack Hussein Obama II a natural born citizen?”, is a valid question. And whether right or wrong, some folks have been led to believe that the State of Hawaii itself would not accept the “Certification of Live Birth” as proof of citizenship – that only the “long form” would verify that.
You are right that some people will NEVER be convinced, but I think the vast majority would drop it if the White House just PRODUCED THE STUPID BIRTH CERTIFICATE! Just have a delagation of interested parties on both sides examine the original and have a big press conference and get it over with.
Add on top of this that all of President Obama’s personal records have been sealed, which begs the question, “What IS he trying to hide?” Now the rumors are starting fly on THAT. One radio commentator this morning was speculating that his birth certificate lists him as Caucasian, so he would lose his claim to being the first black president.
Your claim that the mainstream media keeps fanning the flames on this is a joke. Lou Dobbs is a rogue. The rest of them won’t dignify it or, like you, poo-poo the suggestion. If Bush had done such a thing the MSM would be pulling out all of the stops, including illegal or immoral measures, to see what was in his records. And when they didn’t find anything damning they would make something up.
And hlarew, it DOES matter where he was born. IF he were not a natural born U.S. Citizen he would be ineligible to be president under the U.S. Constitution. It would not matter if he won by unanimous election. I imagine that Obama would be removed and Biden would become president (Don’t get me started on THAT nightmare).
mbdanderson - July 29, 2009 at 9:32 am
I heard a comment on tv last night that summed it up — for the birthers it is not a matter of documentation, but rather pigmentation. If Obama’s father had been a foreign citizen but white, this would not be an issue. Fear, loathing, ignorance and racism have become the trademarks of all the groups the GOP refuses to denounce. The stupidity of the American public never ceases to amaze me. I am proud to be well-educated and liberal.
pdavis - July 29, 2009 at 9:36 am
Laurie, you ignorant . . . It is evident from your comments that you hate anyone that opposes your viewpoint, and instead of engaging in rational conversation, you resort to your liberal hate-mongering ways and cast aspersions on the character of people who ask a legitimate question. There is no one more than me that would like to see the current resident of the White House get kicked to the curb. What a tragedy to have the likes of him in office. The fact that he was elected by a majority of voters shows the true ignorance of this country, especially people like you.
How soon you forget the bulldog approach to President George W. Bush’s National Guard record. Your kind bullied him through 2 elections trying to find evidence of dirt that was not there, and that idiot Dan Rather was made to look like the fool that he is. You may join that club too now. It is obvious that you hate the Constitution and what it stands for – the ability for people to be able think and say whatever they want, regardless of their stupidity. And your article proves that points very well.
rlpeterson - July 29, 2009 at 9:40 am
I think it would be helpful if we at least tried to be precise in our use of language. Every time I hear someone call Obama a socialist I wonder what they think socialism is. Nothing Obama has done since taking office fits any definition of socialism that I learned.
Liberals did a very similar thing during the last administration every time they called the Vice President a “fascist.”
When these terms are used this recklessly, they lose meaning and become useless for constructive discussion. “Socialist” and “fascist” are just the dirtiest things conservatives and liberals can think to call each other.
Personally, I think it would be better if we just hurled obscenities at each other. At least we wouldn’t have to live with the pretext of actual discussion.
mjg6601 - July 29, 2009 at 9:41 am
It would be interesting to see the long form certificate. McCain showed his when challenged regarding his eligibility for office.
kosboot - July 29, 2009 at 9:42 am
Ms. Frendrich, with all due respect, I think you are rather naïve about many people. You can show these people all the birth certificates you want and they still will not believe it. So it has little to do with logic or education. Whatever the reason for these people wanting to deny Obama as president (race, political party, etc.) these people want to believe it’s possible. (This is also the reason why there are so many hate groups – their hate can not be eradicated with factual knowledge.) I feel the bigger question is how to deal with these people – people who do not want to compromise, or do not want to see a different side to an argument. It runs counter to regular educational values.
saasaa - July 29, 2009 at 9:44 am
Wow! Much of this looks like the commentary you see on AOL.
gmd1057 - July 29, 2009 at 9:46 am
I am going to make a pointless comment, because people who believe in what is functionally a religion are not open to evidence that threatens any of its tenets:
If you’re concerned about your long-term credibility, make sure not to put yourself too far out on a limb that might be dead. When deciding to run for president Obama never expected to be elected; he expected to raise his stock within the national Democrat party and maybe get picked as Clinton’s running mate. People ignored the questions about his birthplace last summer and fall because it felt so warm and fuzzy to support a professional-acting African American. But if as seems quite possible he turns out to have been born in Kenya, the fingers-in-ears thing is not going to look so good to anyone openminded.
Good luck, dudes! The worse thing we can do to someone who is determined to hang himself is give him rope and step back. (Same thing with singlepayer health care, by the way.)
megginson - July 29, 2009 at 10:01 am
I have a serious suggestion for the Chronicle’s Academe Today, which is to be the first major online publication to have the courage to eliminate blog responses, even if they do increase hits and provide a form of entertainment for some people. I understand the argument that blog responses could be a great way to democratize the spreading of information and opinions, but someone at the Chronicle should *please* analyze the string of comments posted to this Brainstorm item, or almost any other one, and see how this furthers either.
In addition to Laurie Fendrich’s posts, I have always enjoyed Gina Barreca’s, but have learned that for the sake of my blood pressure I have to stop reading at the end of Professor Barreca’s before I get to the immediate, deeply offensive responses by the cyberbullies who seem to squeal with delight every time she posts something, since it gives them an opportunity to make the most deeply insulting personal attacks on her, often not even related to the content of her post. (Judging from the time intervals between those posts, this might even just be one person, possibly a former student who received a bad grade from her and now has a chance to get even in a cowardly and anonymous way, but due to the nature of blogs, you can’t tell, can you?)
The research is starting to pour in (as some Chronicle book reviews have pointed out recently) that blogs tend to dangerously narrow and reinforce fringe opinions instead of encouraging people to entertain other viewpoints. Yes, as a nation with the world’s greatest constitution we need to entertain varying viewpoints and understand the value of diversity of opinion, but it’s time to realize that this medium is not doing that, but in fact is encouraging the exact opposite. Really, enough is enough, and the Chronicle could take the lead in saying so.
djwphd - July 29, 2009 at 10:04 am
I can’t believe there is debate even among educated folks about whether Obama was born in the US. GEESH. I thought folks posting here were educated. The State of Hawaii has provided the official copy (that is not distributed) to the media to review and confirm. The newspapers also have birth announcements from that time
But, for the sake of argument, who cares? Correct me if I’m wrong (ha – I’m sure you will) — but given that Obama is the son of an American citizen, does it matter where he was born? (McCain was not born in the states, was he?)
All of this silliness aside, the main point here in the article is an important one. We have a number of folks in our electorate who lack the ability to reason. That is frightening. And we (as educators) have to start doing a better job of teaching our students how to think.
gmd1057 - July 29, 2009 at 10:05 am
Asserting rhetorically your mental superiority does not constitute proof. But as I say, have fun with it.
22113683 - July 29, 2009 at 10:42 am
Ms Fendrich, you amaze me. You want the populace to use their reasoning abilities so they will agree with you, but your “reasoning” consists entirely in name-calling and insult. If you’re going to address such an issue, why don’t you _demonstrate_ what critical thinking is and how it works in this case?—e.g., original sources, open documentation. In any case, for heaven’s sake, tone down your vitriol. It may be therapeutic for you, but it does nothing to advance the tone of public discussion and it makes you sound like the online version of trailer trash.
ex_ag - July 29, 2009 at 10:59 am
Where did we go wrong?
How about emphasizing an educational system–and I’m referring particularly to the Humanities–that refuses to categorize, classify, or in any way judge?
We have gone so far in prioritizing the authority of the reader over the text and of the individual’s reaction over the authority of empirical evidence that we simply cannot avoid the blame for this.
We can’t even vocalize, to our own satisfaction, the difference in quality between a snippet of Homer and the verse of a Hallmark card. So, of course, when our students profess their love for Hallmark, we are too cowardly to authoritatively insist that their tastes are un-developed.
We lavish praise upon and canonize “The Simpsons” but can’t offer a reasonable response when our students want to likewise elevate the rest of Fox’s lineup.
It’s time to stop worrying over hurting people’s feelings. Students need to hear the word “No,” just as much as our children need to hear it. When they prefer Hallmark, they need to be told that they have poor taste. When they cite laughable sources to justify a belief in Creationism over Evolution, they need to be failed. Further, in both cases, they need to be told explicitly that they can’t just believe something because they want to or because they feel like it.
And for our own part, we need to brush up on the basics. We need to be ready to defend our aesthetic choices with certainty. We need to be ready to show our methodologies in our experiments. Our students need to see–by our example–how we arrive at logical and reasonable choices. What they certainly don’t need to hear is more of our wavering, all for the sake of some politically-correct and face-saving idea of relativism.
Our long refusal to insist on the primacy of our own academic values (much less vocalize them) has brought this storm to bear. And now, because we have been so reluctant to authorize any source or text over another for fear of wielding the dangerous power of language, our students and former students feel no hesitation to pick and choose their favored beliefs as their “Truth.”
When they opt for Creationism, swift boaters, or the tenuous “logic” of those who weave birther conspiracies or insist on the existence John McCain’s illegitimate children, they are only doing what we’ve allowed them to do so many times before.
diane57 - July 29, 2009 at 11:17 am
The birthers and their defenders are simply the desperate — and as pointed out above, they can be dangerous. By dressing up any ignorant assertion with the gloss of a legitimate question they’re following the same method as the superstitious creationists who constantly bleat “teach the controversy” when there is none. Time to re-read “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life.” Not much has changed since 1963. Good post, ex_ag!
lpettit - July 29, 2009 at 11:21 am
The “Birthers” are a symptom a more fundamental, and no longer latent, ugly force in American politics that grows out of right wing populism and grievance politics. It is fired by demagogues, and fed by the election of a black president. We are witnessing the emergence of an American facism, with Sarah Palin as its majorette, Rush Limbaugh its clown prince, Bill O’Reilly its carnival barker, and Lou Dobbs its philosopher. All of these are adept at manipulating the basic elements of the movement: hate, fear, resentment and ignorance. The flames of this monster are fanned by groups such as the NRA, and by those Republican politicians whose only strategy or policy is to energize the diminishing conservative base. When Homeland Security took note of this dangerous phenomenon, they were widely criticized for picking on conservatives. How much more degradation of our political culture can we tolerate?
gmd1057 - July 29, 2009 at 11:24 am
someone please wake me up when a defender of this article’s position posts something other than bitter cliches…
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
jasonpaneque - July 29, 2009 at 11:32 am
FWIW, I don’t think the comments for this blog are that bad. I hope The Chronicle doesn’t decide to do away with them.
rockcc - July 29, 2009 at 11:49 am
Fantastic viewpoint. The people questionning the President’s birthplace have truly gone over the line. They should be glad we are so lucky to have him as president wherever he was born. He is truly a breath of fresh air in Washington.
rightwingprofessor - July 29, 2009 at 11:52 am
The evidence is clear that Obama was born in Hawaii. However the evidence is also clear that he didn’t just release access to the original birth certificate from the beginning, and now Lou Dobbs is reporting the original “valut copy” has been destroyed. I think it’s reasonable to suspect there is something on the original he didn’t want to get out.
22218539 - July 29, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Laurie…What percentage of voters actually know where George A. Bush was born? Might it be possible that your original premise that “58% AOL respondents….checked the box that said they were doubtful President Obama was born in Hawaii” might apply to other presidential birth states? (W was born in CT).
From an Obama supporter.
ncticollege - July 29, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Laurie,
you make it seem as if everything we read on the chronicle wasn’t some group or other crying about the way they’ve been treated.
Let’s just call it what it is, not birthers, but a “PUBLIC OUTCRY”
crunchycon - July 29, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I’m amazed at how Obama has been taken at “face value” and has never been vetted — or minutely investigated the way republicans always are. Obama has refused to release ANY of his records — birth, education, medical — from his childhood on. Is this not cause for alarm? What if ANY republican were to do this? Further, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother stated she was AT HIS BIRTH IN KENYA
crunchycon - July 29, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Sorry — hit “submit” before I was done.
then grandma was sequestered and not allowed to speak publicly. Annecdotal evidence is that Obama obtained a foreign-student scholarship at Occidental, meaning his declared himself NOT an American citizen. As far as citizenship, at the time of his birth, his 18-year old mother was not able to confer citizenship upon him if he had not been born in on U.S. soil due to requirements length of time of adult-citizenship of parent(s). It’s not as simple a people are making it out to be. There mere fact that this “new era of transparency” is shrouded in so much secrecy (not just in this area) is troubling, to say the least.
reincarnate - July 29, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I thought that some of the controversy was that his Indonesian step-father adopted him and registered him as an Indonesian citizen, and that Barry renounced his citizenship when he took the name Barak. I don’t know if any of this is true, but it raises an interestng question: if someone renounces his US citizenship, can he just change his mind and become an American citizen again just because he has an American parent? Certainly, the issue needs to be addressed by Congress. With all the illegals we have in America, and all the babies born of an illegal parent and an American parent, and all the anchor babies—- is it time to study the citizenship issue and make some decisions?
jms948 - July 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hey Crunchycon and Reincarnate, What’s wrong with you two? Do you really think that these Marxists are looking for a serious analysis of the Hussein birth situation? Why do you waste your time? [Edited by moderator for abusive language] … jms
taupaft - July 29, 2009 at 4:18 pm
To answer gmd1057, here is the language of the Constiution:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
greeley
22040721 - July 29, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Laurie, you say you will not stoop to defending the president’s birthplace (thus rhetorically dodging that issue without addressing it), then you say you won’t stoop to name calling, breaking that promise before you even end the sentence in which was made. Plus, your “save the nation” title is pretty much the exact same language as is used by the ones you decry as unthinking. Hmmm. Reading your post and then the responses to it reminds me that the greatest loss our culture is experiencing is not critical thinking, as you argue, but civility, the lack of which you and many of the contributors above very effectively demonstrate.
Grumpy
greener - July 29, 2009 at 6:23 pm
1) Parenting is where teaching starts,
2) Adults can learn and change
3) The constitution can be amended
Birther sounds like some sort of anti-abortion club, or a polygamist group.
Obama rocks no mater where he was born,
greener - July 29, 2009 at 6:23 pm
It was a bulleted list…
smiley - July 29, 2009 at 9:35 pm
In terms of simple-mindedness and paranoid idiocy, the truthers pale in comparison to the moronic, left-wing 9-11 truthers. I guess I missed your column on them :) If you’re truly in search of a stupidity barometer, the 22% of Americans that actually support Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare nonsense provide an accurate gauge.
smiley - July 29, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Birthers, truthers, typo but same difference.
jms948 - July 30, 2009 at 12:34 am
Since when is writing that those who work in the field of “academia” regularly engage in the exercise of “jerking one another off considered to be “abusive language.”
Surely you jest…jms
beans - July 30, 2009 at 6:46 am
This “born in the US issue” language needs an overhaul anyway. According to a military wife friend of mine, her son is not eligible to be president because he was born on an army base outside the US (in Germany, I think). They apparently teach the kids this in the base schools and her son came home one day very upset because he, an American citizen whose father was actually serving the country, would never be able to be president.
lee77 - July 30, 2009 at 8:26 am
Fascinating how many comments focused on the example issue that Laurie used to expound on the primary question about how did the educational system produced so many people who can’t reason. Per the final question I fear we are doomed to pay later.
falzf - July 30, 2009 at 8:38 am
To jms948:
This is Laurie Fendrich, the author of this post, directly addressing your comments. I’ve been a college professor for over thirty years. I work with students, other professors, administrators and university staff. Not once, in over twenty-five years of teaching, have I heard the words you used uttered in public by anyone. Not once. To be sure, we’ve all overheard your words–on the street and in bars–and for all I know, many people at my university use them in the privacy of their own homes. Brainstorm is not a street, a bar, or a home, however. It’s an intellectually oriented public forum, sponsored by an academic journal, for debating ideas. Everyone here is invited to express his or her ideas, and no one has a problem with passionate, lively, witty, sarcastic and cynical rhetoric. Resorting to extremely vulgar words such as you used, however, constitutes “abusive language,” and is not welcome here. If you don’t understand that your words are indeed abusive language, and you still wish to express yourself in this manner, you should consider moving over to the multitude of blogs where you will find others of your ilk and you can express yourself to your heart’s content.
brendateshka - July 30, 2009 at 11:32 am
Well, I am well educated, conservative, and proud of it. In my opinion, Laurie, your article was intended to cause all these hateful, arrogant posts since your article was, at the very least, offensive and egotisical. It was definitely not intended to provoke a thoughtful discussion from “educated” folk with many different beliefs. Tell me, when did you and several of the other posts begin believing your thoughts were the only correct thoughts, and anyone differing from your opinions was stupid, uneducated, and unthinking.
Now for rlpeterson. If bailing out the auto industry and taking part ownership isn’t solialism – and the health care bill that Obama is trying to railroad through isn’t socialism … then what is?? Please see Webster’s difinition below:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Lastly, I’m sick to death of hearing the cry of racism everytime someone opposes or questions Obama. For most of us conservatives, it has NOTHING to do with his color. It’s about his mind – what he believes, how he presents himself, and how fast he trys to push his agenda. My years of experience have taught me that anyone with that much charisma is someone to not trust and approach with much caution.
wrhyne - July 30, 2009 at 12:47 pm
If anyone needs documentation of Obama’s roots, birth, etc., Ron Jacobs has book available on Amazon and available at Costco. Click in the link below:
http://www.amazon.com/Obamaland-Barack-Obama-Ron-Jacobs/dp/0970621396
The book has the Hawaii birth certificate image, pictures of Barry playing the ocean, with friends, information on his grandparents from Kansas, etc.
The book is factful and fun with lots of pictures, too!
bcc_meteorites - July 31, 2009 at 4:10 am
saasaa wrote – July 29, 2009 at 09:44 am
Wow! Much of this looks like the commentary you see on AOL
_________________________
You think this is bad? You should see the rhetoric and hate being spewed on CL politics. The language and threats would dismay even Gordon Liddy.
From where I am standing these are the facts.
Hundreds of websites have cropped up latching on and feeding off of this emotional issue, ratcheting up the hate in order generate ad revenue and income. They are posting links through the comment system on CL politics and their websites are littered with ads from shady scams for medical cures, weight loss, get rich quick schemes etc.
I intially agreed that these people should be ignored but the OL scammers won’t let this issue die its deserved death and have the backing of a large block of a truly ignorant populace. Look at Lou Dobbs. CNN is slowly losing ad revenue because it’s viewership is slowly shifting to the convenience of news cycles on the interent. CNN Lou Dobbs have to do something dramatic to pull those viewers back in and raise the numbers to jusitfy their programming.
In my view since its not going to die down, I have come full circle and belive ATF, Homland Security or someone in a position of authority should get together with these radicals and have a town hall style meeting and let them air their grievances and be heard. Sure it’s not going to be comfortable hosting bad company but it’s much better than having to use brute force with nasty results down the line.
Oh, and thank you for the a rticle Ms. Fendrich, it was insightful, compelling and beautifully written.
conservative - July 31, 2009 at 9:42 am
It is really sad when someone becomes so educated that they cannot think logically. In other words, education does not always equal intelligence. Who are the stupid ones??
rightwingprofessor - July 31, 2009 at 10:11 am
Laurie,
I’m a lot more worried about the 1/3 of Democratic voters who believe George Bush knew ahead of time about 9/11 then I am about the birthers. Both are wrong but at least the birthers can claim some “evidence” for their claims. This “evidence” didn’t really pan out but, for a while anyhow, there was definitely smoke there. For example it was many months into the campaign before the Obama campaign even released the “certificate of live birth.” Obama has himself partly to blame for letting this get out of hand.
grgarza - July 31, 2009 at 10:51 am
If the Republicans, the right-wingers, or others wanted to question his birth location, they should have done it before his election. Now it is just sour-grapes and it won’t change anything about the Obama Presidency, its legitimacy or whatever.
I didn’t vote for the guy, but he is the President, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. If you don’t want him to be President, wait until 2012 and vote him out of office. Until then …
live with it.
charliemarlow - July 31, 2009 at 11:22 am
Sarah Palin.
oldfeminist - July 31, 2009 at 7:38 pm
beans: “This “born in the US issue” language needs an overhaul anyway. According to a military wife friend of mine, her son is not eligible to be president because he was born on an army base outside the US (in Germany, I think). They apparently teach the kids this in the base schools and her son came home one day very upset because he, an American citizen whose father was actually serving the country, would never be able to be president.”
Tell her to tell her son not to worry. You only have to be a natural-born citizen.
The constitution is vague on this, unfortunately. But if you have to be born in the USA, then John McCain wouldn’t qualify, because he was born in Panama. On a military base.
reincarnate - July 31, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Military bases, like overseas federal buildings and embassies,and U.S. Navy ships at sea, are considered American “soil”. Thus, when the Marine barracks were bombed, America was “attacked”. McCain was born on an Army base overseas, so he is consdiered a natural-born citizen, period. Obama had one American citizen parent, thus Obama was a citizen, but his mother had to register his birth as such if he was born overseas, but not on American soil.The issue is whether or not she did that in the required time frame and whether his adoption by his step-dad voided his citizenship.
falzf - August 3, 2009 at 10:48 am
The Constitution says that the President and Vice-President can’t be residents of the same state. Cheney changed his voting registration to Wyoming in the nick of time. The letter of the law? Yes. The spirit of the law? Well, we are talking Dick Cheney.
dank48 - August 4, 2009 at 10:43 am
I agree with Lee77. Is the entire educational establishment incapable of paying enough attention to notice what the point is? Well, perhaps CHE readers aren’t a fair sample. Perhaps commentors aren’t a fair sample of CHE readers, for that matter.
We are awash in “feeling,” which is still, despite all the linguistic permissiveness of the last half-century, not a synonym for “thinking.” Everyone who isn’t either dead or comatose or totally anesthetized (one way or another) feels. Very few think. Feeling is an automatic, involuntary process. Thinking is hard work, without any guarantee that the result will be commensurate with the effort. And thanks to our bloody-minded insistence on the validation of each and every single last person’s self-esteem, we’ve gotten to the point where “I feel” leads to “I believe” and thence to “I think” in the sense of having an opinion, which Greshams out any actual thinking in the sense of considering facts, evidence, and other aspects of reality external to one’s own mind.
We are, heaven knows, no brighter than we need to be, and it doesn’t help that we’ve gotten so used to telling ourselves that each set of beliefs, no matter how tenuously related to reality, is just as valid as any other.
A’s sincerely held but utterly uninformed belief that the scientific project has overlooked the truth, that God created the whole shebang in six days and, apparently bushed, rested on the seventh seems to me beneath contempt. I don’t say A doesn’t have a right to believe this, but I do say A has no right to insist that this belief deserves “fair and balanced” treatment in the media and in the classroom. Similarly, B’s sincerely held but utterly uninformed belief that the failure of the weather to stay the same has to be our fault and that if we just dump enough of other people’s money on the problem, maintaining our own standard of living for ourselves, but virtuously declining to inflict it on others, including those who’d like to try it, seems to me appallingly similar. Show me a Creationist or an Intelligent-Design fanatic and a Anthropogenic-Global-Warming aka Catastrophic-Climate-Change true believer, and I’ll show you people who have more in common than they think.
Not one person in ten who believes the Bible is literally infallible has read enough of it to notice the inconsistencies and contradictions, so it’s not possible to rationally discuss the matter. Not one person in ten who believes in AGW knows enough about local astronomy to realize how utterly we are at the mercy of physical processes in our nearest star. I know people who claim to believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary but can’t, off the top of their head, give an accurate and coherent account of that doctrine. I really heard someone say, in all seriousness, that something ought to be done about sunspots.
The heart of the matter is egotism. We just have to believe that we are center stage, starring in the production, running the show. What is needed is a serious dose of humility, i.e. a proper perspective on ourselves. We aren’t that big a deal, and none of us is running anything–except out of time.
dank48 - August 4, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’m not sure that breaking it up into the ten or twelve paragraphs I had in mind would really help it much. Oh, well.