Barak Obama is different.
I watched the debate the other night and saw something I rarely see among those debating for political office. He listened and gave credit for points well made. He even admitted a mistake no one had considered bringing up.
In contrast, Senator Clinton seemed to need to be defensive of her points, never admitting that Senator Obama might have been right on something.
One could say that he is using a calculated device meant to hide his inadequacies compared to more experienced debaters and politicians.
I’m not even sure I should have offered that view of what Dr. Obama did. It is really quite cynical. Cynicism is easy in this day of politicians who say one thing (e. g. “family values” devotees who actually have been caught in sexual misbehaviors and crimes) and do another. Hypocrisy reigns . . . sometimes.
What we as citizens need to do is pay attention, get more information (not cherry-picked by ourselves or our favorite news sources), and see what makes the most sense before we make an opinion.
The more I think about what I saw, the more I think that Professor Obama is acting out in the debates what he says he will do as President and what he says he has done as a state and senatorial legislator: listen, take the best of what he is told by another, and give it credence by taking it into his current position. He doesn’t just accept anything. He stands up to what he sees as errors. But he doesn’t slash and burn in response. He tries to lay out why he has taken the position he has.
In the next President of the United States, we desperately need someone who does not feel s/he has to be right. We desperately need someone who understands why s/he thinks the way s/he does and presents those facts and ideas as an opportunity for others to see, respond, recognize common ground, and want to keep trying to come to a workable agreement.
That bodes well for a kind of Presidency that will bring people together. When someone pays attention and listens to you, you feel a lot better about working with that person.
Based on the way he has conducted himself in these debates, I believe Barak Obama will learn very quickly what the various sides of a problem and possible solutions are and maintain respect for those who are honest with him so that he can work with them to develop a reasonable resolution.
And if he is willing to listen to the experts who differ with his advisors, he will not fall into the trap most of the rest of us do, thinking we are on the right track and don’t need to listen to other alternatives.
Finally, for my purposes in this essay, add to that way of operating the fact that he can go back and see a mistake he made, he could be one of the wisest Presidents we’ve ever had.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Latest Nastiness in Politics
You have to know how impressive it is in the current campaign for the White House that THOUSANDS of people are showing up when Barak Obama speaks.
In any setting, it is unusual for anyone to get thousands of people to come for s SPEECH, let alone a POLITICAL speech. In my life time, which goes back to watching my brother take campaign material for Wendall Wilke around to neighbors' homes, I have never seen anything like it.
As a professional public speaker (I am an ordained minister), I'm envious of Obama. Billy Graham needs weeks of preparation by local pastors beating the hustings on his behalf to fill a stadium. Obama has been doing it overnight. I don't think Ronald Reagan could do that.
And how have the media "talking heads" responded? Just as you would think jealous people would respond: by twisting the phenomenon to look like something else than the curiosity, appreciation, and hope that it is.
Instead of realizing that Obama has real class, good manners, and a way with words, they say he is "all words and no substance." They obviously have not looked at his website where there are all the details of his current proposals.
Instead of seeing the obvious enthusiasm for a politician who actually knows something and who speaks with much more respect of his opponents than they do of him, the "wise ones" now think he is some kind of mystical cult figure.
The point of their jab is to put down something they cannot engender with their own public speaking. They explain away something they cannot do themselves, get large numbers of people excited and moving into the political process.
They want to turn a political movement into something lesser, a "quasi-religious" movement.
Now they are trying to discuss something I know a little about.
A cult is a closed movement surrounding a manipulative personality. A cult has a central character who is the father-figure for the followers. That central person has to control how his followers will behave and will try to separate them from the real world where the cult's ideas would not stand up to scrutiny. The leader of a cult takes on almost divine traits. He wants to be the center of his followers' lives.
Do any of those characteristics sound like they are true of Barak Obama?
The ones who are trying to strike at Obama's vulnerabilities now are attacking those who come and end up cheering him on.
I don't think that strategy is going to work. It just offends me.
There are even worse things that are happening. In particular, someone has said he is like Adolph Hitler in his charisma. Hitler used the brownshirts, youth willing to do violence in his name, to get support. And Barak's middle name (Hussein) is used to try to associate him with Iraq's dictator and with terrorists in general.
Such nastiness revs up more than the partisans who want to win by any means. It revs up those who think they should cleanse the earth of such people. It provides a culture that is so poisoned that it allows people to feel they are serving the common good by assassinating the Obamas of the world.
It reminds me of how it was in Dallas in the early 1960s after John Kennedy became President. I was in Seminary there at the time. It was so bad that when one of the area's major high schools put on SOUTH PACIFIC, the most crucial song in the whole musical, "You Have to be Carefully Taught," was edited out of the performance.
Just after I left, Kennedy was assassinated. Students in many of the schools in Dallas heard the news and cheered.
Is the political atmosphere becoming that bad? Will it be that deadly?
Whether or not we prefer Barak Obama as our candidate for the Presidency, a whole lot of us are holding our breath and hoping the Secret Service is completely successful.
In any setting, it is unusual for anyone to get thousands of people to come for s SPEECH, let alone a POLITICAL speech. In my life time, which goes back to watching my brother take campaign material for Wendall Wilke around to neighbors' homes, I have never seen anything like it.
As a professional public speaker (I am an ordained minister), I'm envious of Obama. Billy Graham needs weeks of preparation by local pastors beating the hustings on his behalf to fill a stadium. Obama has been doing it overnight. I don't think Ronald Reagan could do that.
And how have the media "talking heads" responded? Just as you would think jealous people would respond: by twisting the phenomenon to look like something else than the curiosity, appreciation, and hope that it is.
Instead of realizing that Obama has real class, good manners, and a way with words, they say he is "all words and no substance." They obviously have not looked at his website where there are all the details of his current proposals.
Instead of seeing the obvious enthusiasm for a politician who actually knows something and who speaks with much more respect of his opponents than they do of him, the "wise ones" now think he is some kind of mystical cult figure.
The point of their jab is to put down something they cannot engender with their own public speaking. They explain away something they cannot do themselves, get large numbers of people excited and moving into the political process.
They want to turn a political movement into something lesser, a "quasi-religious" movement.
Now they are trying to discuss something I know a little about.
A cult is a closed movement surrounding a manipulative personality. A cult has a central character who is the father-figure for the followers. That central person has to control how his followers will behave and will try to separate them from the real world where the cult's ideas would not stand up to scrutiny. The leader of a cult takes on almost divine traits. He wants to be the center of his followers' lives.
Do any of those characteristics sound like they are true of Barak Obama?
The ones who are trying to strike at Obama's vulnerabilities now are attacking those who come and end up cheering him on.
I don't think that strategy is going to work. It just offends me.
There are even worse things that are happening. In particular, someone has said he is like Adolph Hitler in his charisma. Hitler used the brownshirts, youth willing to do violence in his name, to get support. And Barak's middle name (Hussein) is used to try to associate him with Iraq's dictator and with terrorists in general.
Such nastiness revs up more than the partisans who want to win by any means. It revs up those who think they should cleanse the earth of such people. It provides a culture that is so poisoned that it allows people to feel they are serving the common good by assassinating the Obamas of the world.
It reminds me of how it was in Dallas in the early 1960s after John Kennedy became President. I was in Seminary there at the time. It was so bad that when one of the area's major high schools put on SOUTH PACIFIC, the most crucial song in the whole musical, "You Have to be Carefully Taught," was edited out of the performance.
Just after I left, Kennedy was assassinated. Students in many of the schools in Dallas heard the news and cheered.
Is the political atmosphere becoming that bad? Will it be that deadly?
Whether or not we prefer Barak Obama as our candidate for the Presidency, a whole lot of us are holding our breath and hoping the Secret Service is completely successful.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Bush and the Foreclosure Problem
The following was posted yesterday on the "Crooks and Liars" website. H equotes the current New York governor, Elliot Spitzer who was an attorney General when the predatory practices first began. He explains how come there was no blocking of the practices by the states.
-----
Bush Administration invoked an obscure Banking clause 1863 to enable predatory lending practices
By: John Amato @ 3:16 PM - PST
Gov. Elliot Spitzer explains:
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
That sounds good. I witnessed such practices and saw prices skyrocket before my eyes . That was a huge reason that the Bush economy held up as long as it did—I think Bush called it the “ownership society.” I guess we can call it the foreclosure society…. The right wingers usually try to say that we blame Bush for everything. Well, let’s see how he did, shall we…
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers. In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative.
Nuff said….
-----
Bush Administration invoked an obscure Banking clause 1863 to enable predatory lending practices
By: John Amato @ 3:16 PM - PST
Gov. Elliot Spitzer explains:
Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York’s, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.
That sounds good. I witnessed such practices and saw prices skyrocket before my eyes . That was a huge reason that the Bush economy held up as long as it did—I think Bush called it the “ownership society.” I guess we can call it the foreclosure society…. The right wingers usually try to say that we blame Bush for everything. Well, let’s see how he did, shall we…
Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.
The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers. In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative.
Nuff said….
Monday, February 11, 2008
Pro Bowl Observations
I enjoyed the Pro Bowl yesterday. I have to say it was a very satisfying game to me.
Just as the Packers started off terrible against the Seattle Seahawks and came back to win, the NFC team did the same with the AFC team.
So, you ask?
Mike McCarthy and the Packer coaching staff handled the NFC team.
The coaches of the teams that lose in the conference championship games take the all-stars of their respective leagues for the Pro Bowl. If anyone had any doubts about the quality of coaching the Packers have had the last two years, he or she should be assured the McCarthy group knows what it is doing.
The AFC has been dominant in recent years. But yesterday, McCarthy "put players into the best position to win." The NFC players had a few more such moments. The slant passes at the six yard line were brilliant. With the corners not being able to play bump and run at the six yard line, one yard from where the game's special rules allowed it, the NFC was able to quickly get TDs. And when the AFC defense was looking for it at the end of the game, McCarthy threw a run at them which was successful.
The defense was restricted by the special rules of the Pro Bowl. Al Harris had to play back because of the no bump rule. There was a rule against blitzing. And yet, in the second half, the NFC's defense held the AFC's high-powered offense to two field goals. And the twist which brought Aaron Kampman up the middle for a sack to stop the AFC at the end worked perfectly. It seemed to be the only time it was called. Bob Sanders' style of defense clicked.
Packer fans have every right to be proud of how the coaching staff did in the Pro Bowl.
Just as the Packers started off terrible against the Seattle Seahawks and came back to win, the NFC team did the same with the AFC team.
So, you ask?
Mike McCarthy and the Packer coaching staff handled the NFC team.
The coaches of the teams that lose in the conference championship games take the all-stars of their respective leagues for the Pro Bowl. If anyone had any doubts about the quality of coaching the Packers have had the last two years, he or she should be assured the McCarthy group knows what it is doing.
The AFC has been dominant in recent years. But yesterday, McCarthy "put players into the best position to win." The NFC players had a few more such moments. The slant passes at the six yard line were brilliant. With the corners not being able to play bump and run at the six yard line, one yard from where the game's special rules allowed it, the NFC was able to quickly get TDs. And when the AFC defense was looking for it at the end of the game, McCarthy threw a run at them which was successful.
The defense was restricted by the special rules of the Pro Bowl. Al Harris had to play back because of the no bump rule. There was a rule against blitzing. And yet, in the second half, the NFC's defense held the AFC's high-powered offense to two field goals. And the twist which brought Aaron Kampman up the middle for a sack to stop the AFC at the end worked perfectly. It seemed to be the only time it was called. Bob Sanders' style of defense clicked.
Packer fans have every right to be proud of how the coaching staff did in the Pro Bowl.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Super Bowl XLII
Yesterday's Super Bowl was definitely one of the most exciting I've watched. Two great teams really fought it out all the way to the very end. It was sixty minutes of drama well played on both sides.
It was not anywhere near the surprise upset that the Jets pulled in SB III. Having watched the Giants beat the Packers two weeks ago, I thought they showed they could hurt anyone. Their pass rush was superb and Eli was nearly flawless against the Pack. He had found his stride in the previous games going back to the time they faced the Patriots in December. So I really expected he would keep it together and the defensive line would challenge anyone successfully.
What really helped the Giants was the injury to an offensive guard in the Patriots' line. It is harder for an offensive line to work with subs having to play. The Giants showed what having a healthy o-line means. Eli hardly got his shirt dirty where Tom will have a huge laundry bill!
I like to think the Pack would have done well against New England in light of the success of the Giants. After all, GB took the Giants to overtime before losing while the Pats couldn't do it. If the Pack had made the SB and if the Pats' o-guard had been injured early in the game, who knows how well the Packer defense would have rushed Tom.
But that takes us to next year if we want to see such a thing. I expect to see the Pack and Giants fight it out again because both have many young players just now coming into their own. Hopefully, next year, the result will be different and it will be Favre v. Brady in SB XLIII.
It was not anywhere near the surprise upset that the Jets pulled in SB III. Having watched the Giants beat the Packers two weeks ago, I thought they showed they could hurt anyone. Their pass rush was superb and Eli was nearly flawless against the Pack. He had found his stride in the previous games going back to the time they faced the Patriots in December. So I really expected he would keep it together and the defensive line would challenge anyone successfully.
What really helped the Giants was the injury to an offensive guard in the Patriots' line. It is harder for an offensive line to work with subs having to play. The Giants showed what having a healthy o-line means. Eli hardly got his shirt dirty where Tom will have a huge laundry bill!
I like to think the Pack would have done well against New England in light of the success of the Giants. After all, GB took the Giants to overtime before losing while the Pats couldn't do it. If the Pack had made the SB and if the Pats' o-guard had been injured early in the game, who knows how well the Packer defense would have rushed Tom.
But that takes us to next year if we want to see such a thing. I expect to see the Pack and Giants fight it out again because both have many young players just now coming into their own. Hopefully, next year, the result will be different and it will be Favre v. Brady in SB XLIII.
Little Things
Anyone watching the national political scene is aware that policy decisions made quietly in some corner of the administration and not widely reported by the media often lead to some serious consequences.
Both political parties have moments of such activities. But anyone who knows me and reads my blog realizes I am more likely to notice those from Republican administrations. You must also realize that I am just as unhappy about Democrats who make bad decisions and do things that harm the common good. None of those made my listing for today, though you will find some further back in my blog.
The “O” rings were frozen and the gases in the solid fuel tanks leaked and ignited and then exploded. It was the day before Ronald Reagan was to give his State of the Union address during which he was going to speak with Christie McAuliffe, the first teacher in space. He really wanted that moment for his speech so postponing it would have been a major disappointment to him. He didn’t give his speech as planned, postponing it after the death of the astronauts in the space shuttle, including Ms. McAuliffe.
President Reagan also worked hard to change the policies of the Federal Transportation Administration so that trucking companies could put trailers on our highways carrying 80,000 pounds rather than 72,000 pounds, something that the engineers designing and building highways and bridges had never envisioned. His policy was accepted and the roads and bridges began to take an extra beating. One inch connector plates such as those on the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis probably weren’t enough for that additional stress.
George W. Bush told audiences all over the country that the best way to grow the Republican Party was to enlarge the pool of home owners in the United States. Free money started showing up in lending companies that allowed people with no financial strength to buy homes . . . starting at low interest. These loans became known as “sub-prime lending.”
Am I the only one who noticed such little things? Or am I wrong about the facts and possible connections I’ve picked up from here and there?
If I’m right, shouldn’t we all be watching the little things?
Both political parties have moments of such activities. But anyone who knows me and reads my blog realizes I am more likely to notice those from Republican administrations. You must also realize that I am just as unhappy about Democrats who make bad decisions and do things that harm the common good. None of those made my listing for today, though you will find some further back in my blog.
The “O” rings were frozen and the gases in the solid fuel tanks leaked and ignited and then exploded. It was the day before Ronald Reagan was to give his State of the Union address during which he was going to speak with Christie McAuliffe, the first teacher in space. He really wanted that moment for his speech so postponing it would have been a major disappointment to him. He didn’t give his speech as planned, postponing it after the death of the astronauts in the space shuttle, including Ms. McAuliffe.
President Reagan also worked hard to change the policies of the Federal Transportation Administration so that trucking companies could put trailers on our highways carrying 80,000 pounds rather than 72,000 pounds, something that the engineers designing and building highways and bridges had never envisioned. His policy was accepted and the roads and bridges began to take an extra beating. One inch connector plates such as those on the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis probably weren’t enough for that additional stress.
George W. Bush told audiences all over the country that the best way to grow the Republican Party was to enlarge the pool of home owners in the United States. Free money started showing up in lending companies that allowed people with no financial strength to buy homes . . . starting at low interest. These loans became known as “sub-prime lending.”
Am I the only one who noticed such little things? Or am I wrong about the facts and possible connections I’ve picked up from here and there?
If I’m right, shouldn’t we all be watching the little things?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)