Obama’s School Speech in Context

The President announced that he was going to give a speech to all school children nationwide.  The Department of Education released guides for supportive activities for grades 7-12 and for K-6.  Among other things, the suggested activities included encouraging children encouraged to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.”

That’s when “everything” (to keep this PG), broke loose.

So what’s the big deal?  A speech by the president on the benefits of education is not in and of itself objectionable, even though a democratic Congress launched a Congressional hearing when President George H. W. Bush did the same.

The big deal in this case was in the “package” deal—the speech with the lesson plans.  That displayed an approach that is extremely un-American.  I blush to use that term, which has been overused and misapplied a lot lately (mostly by Nancy Peolosi).  For the life of me I can’t think of a more appropriate description.

American politicians do NOT use their position to create a dutiful and adoring following as if they were royalty or dictators, especially with children.  Adulation must come from bottom up—through honest appreciation of a leader’s talents—rather than being orchestrated from top down.  Any politician can brag on himself or herself, but he or she cannot use their elected position and government funds to set themselves up as something great.  AND, even more importantly, in America children are never the target of efforts from an American leader to set up hero worship.  Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong Il can schedule events as a leader with “learning” activities that show how great they are.  They can mandate that schoolchildren study them and their words and have the education system instill in them the idea that their leaders are the greatest thing since sliced bread.  That is odious to anyone in a free society, especially in America.

The uproar over the speech must have averted something not only because the lesson plans were changed, but because the speech was changed.  If the speech wasn’t changed, then someone doing lesson plans in the Department of Education was creating an impossible task for the children.  If you think this is not the case, then perform a little exercise.  Read or listen to the speech—it’s on the web—and then do as the original lesson plans asked: Based on the speech, write a letter to yourself to say what you can do to help the president. I have a college degree and I couldn’t do it based on the speech that he gave.  His speech doesn’t indicate anything that he wants help with.  I looked very carefully.  There was only one thing that I could come up with reading between the lines, and it’s a stretch.  If what Obama is saying is that each student is really getting an education for the president’s sake, you can help the president by staying in school.  Even with all of the talk about personal responsibility in the speech, it may boil down to that.  Everything is for the sake of Obama.

A common complaint of someone being criticized is that the media takes things out of context, so let’s consider the President’s words in context by looking at all of the lesson plans provided.  In context, what is going on is that this is all about immersing students in Obama—listening to Obama and learning to think in terms of performing for Obama.  “Teachers may post in large print around the classroom notable quotes excerpted from President Obama’s speeches on education.”  Teachers can tell children to “build background knowledge about the president of the United States by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama.”  The recommended activities for before, during, and after the speech, especially for the younger children, are all about surrounding themselves with pictures, posters, stories, “poems, songs, or personal essays,” contests, conversations, and all kinds of classroom activities that would keep the ideas in Obama’s speech.  Given the age group, it would undeniably result in many images of Obama.  (Think:  an early year elementary student is told to draw a picture of what they got out of the speech—what is the most common image that will result?)  Like the inspiration source itself—Obama—more time is to be spent on discussing the concept of learning in the plans than on actually learning concrete basics.

Even though proponents of the speech have claimed it’s no big deal, they made it a big deal.  For example, Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevurgan said of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty for criticizing the giving of the speech.  “Outrageously, Governor Tim Pawlenty, who, as a leader in his state, should be encouraging the success of our children . . .”  So, if anyone has any problem with this situation, they are not encouraging the success of our children?   This speech is the only thing that matters?  Being in favor of an inspirational speech by the president is the only way you can encourage the success of our children?

In the end, the speech that was given was not as objectionable as I think it would have been without the uproar.  Also, one speech may be ok, but if it happens again . . .we need to consider the context.

Snitching on “fishy” Informants

I was so disappointed when they took down the flag@whitehouse.gov site.  You know, that was the one where I could have reported “fishy” information that I got in emails from my friends, or heard in conversations.

I really tried to get some of that fishy information.  I surfed the web until the sea salt dried on my skin.  I introduced the topic with my friends until they started avoiding my calls.  I hadn’t come up with a single smelty statement before poof! The website was gone.

I thought I had it nailed about where they were doing all that organizing for those angry mobs at the health care events.  I found this web site that allowed you to sign up to man phone banks four nights a week, every week, to intrude into people’s houses with a simple ring! on their phone, to get them to support health care.  They had canvassing on the weekends to go door to door to get support.  They even had just plain old organizational meetings every Monday night. They even have a self directed event starting on August 30:

“Beginning this weekend, make a ‘name badge’ to wear over your heart whenever you go out in public…but this won’t be just any old name badge, this tag will carry your own special health care message instead.”   They even had some suggested messages for you to claim as your very own, like: “HELLO!  I’m Uninsured  I WANT A PUBLIC HEALTH CARE OPTION.”

I was ecstatic, thinking that I could be the one that let the White House know at flag@whitehouse.gov about this fishy site.  Then I noticed that the badge they were suggesting was in support of the health care bill.  I realized that this wasn’t a fishy right wing extremist organizing site at all, it was a legitimate, Democratic organizing site for decent, real grass roots kind of people by Organizing for America.

Then I heard Maria down the street say something very fishy:  She said the House Bill would allow illegal aliens to get into the public option.  She showed me an article about how a Representative had tried to get an amendment that explicitly said that no illegal aliens would be accepted on the public option.  It was voted down in committee.  I didn’t know if that would exactly classify as fishy, since it made sense that illegals can get on the public option if the bill doesn’t say that they can’t.  Just like with other things, if it is not specifically forbidden, then it will be allowed.

Then I got an email from my friend Martha, who got it from her friend John, who got it from his friend Betsy who got it from her friend Tom.  It said that the bill would allow government funding for abortions on the public plan.  I thought I finally had the smoking gun!  Unfortunately, it was soon followed by an email that said that some Senators had tried to get in an amendment on one of the Senate bills that would say that no public funds would be used for abortions.  This amendment was also voted down.  Again, just like with other things, if it is not specifically forbidden, then it will be allowed.  How could the government not cover this as part of a woman’s “reproductive health,” especially since an abortion is the only medical procedure ever that is a Constitutional right?

I was sure that I could report what Milne said about rationing.  He said he had read all 5 bills in play, and that even though none of them contained the word rationing, what was being proposed had the same similarities as every other Government Health Care system in the world.  He said that those countries don’t have the word “rationing” in their bills either.  They don’t have the word “ration” on any of their boards that make decisions.  Those countries didn’t start out with rationing as a goal or a desired outcome, but it always ends up there.  He said that it’s almost like dropping something and expecting it not to fall due to gravity.  I checked it out.  He was right.  Can something be fishy if it is correct?  I wasn’t exactly sure.  It was fishy that he was comparing our country to other countries.

Then Barbara Wagner died in Oregon early this August—right here in the US!  She was that woman on the Oregon government health plan who had a recurrence of cancer when she was 64.  The Oregon Health Plan very politely turned down her doctor’s prescription that would slow the cancer and give her a few more months to live.  In the same letter, they offered to cover the drugs for assisted suicide, which is legal in Oregon.  It would have cost the taxpayers $4000 per month for her to live a few months longer instead of $50-$100 to die immediately.  She tried a couple of appeals, but the Oregon Health Plan doesn’t provide for life extending drugs, only disease curing drugs.  The drug company was finally approached and offered the drugs free for a year, but the cancer had been progressing and she died shortly after.  A cancer Doctor, Dr. Fryefield, said, “We are looking at today’s … 2008 treatment, but we’re using 1993 standards.  When the Oregon Health Plan was created, it was 15 years ago, and there were not all the chemotherapy drugs that there are today.”  Then I thought, what if we have government health care on national level passed in 2010 with standards applied in 2025?

I decided that maybe the rationing claims weren’t that fishy.  I was pretty despondent—I did so want to help the White House.

Finally, I had a breakthrough.  Here’s the fishy part:  I had been looking for fishy information, but what was fishy was the activity. Regular citizens are actually reading the bills.  It is beyond me why they would want to do that when experienced politicians in Washington don’t even go there.  People are not only reading the words, they are looking at what’s happened with other laws here and in other places and are drawing logical conclusions from what the bills say.  I find that highly suspicious:  Regular citizens are reading and reasoning.  Why would they want to do that?  Don’t we elect people to do that for us so that we don’t have to?

So I tried to report this “fishy” activity to flag@whitehouse.gov.  I had taken too long.  They had shut it down!  I’m just waiting for my next chance.  Maybe I’ll be quicker about it next time.

Rightwing Terrorists?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on 7 April 2009 issued a report done by the governmental Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.”  (It can be viewed at http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf.)

The first sentence of the Key Findings notes that there are “no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence . . .”  In assessing what IS a threat, the part of the report that caused the biggest firestorm at the time stated:

“Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.”

A lot of people, probably including almost every person who has fought for our country and survived, were incensed.  The rest of them were rolling over in their graves.  Based on nothing, veterans returning from fighting for our country were singled out in this report as potential terrorists.  It’s bad enough to get shot at overseas.  It’s worse to come home and be shot at by your government in this fashion.  The report did not even state that there was any indication that veterans were being recruited, only a concern that there might be an attempt at recruitment.

This report came out just in time to disperse it to all of the police departments for the Tax Day Tea Parties and scare the populace about right wingers.  I have one friend who works for a city government who was highly unsettled because the police had to be called out to defend her place of work.  Her sources of news are NPR, Jon Stewart, and CNN, so I guess I can understand (even though she went through Lamaze at one time and learned that lack of knowledge breeds fear).  I have another friend who works for another city government who, when she heard about the report and its dispersal, said, “That must have been what those police officers were chuckling about.  They’re probably going to Tea Parties themselves.”

During the hubbub of reaction to the report, a conservative, libertarian think tank named Americans for Limited Government filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to have the documents underlying the report released to the public.  Two of the items requested were “All data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data created or reviewed by the Department in general to draft the report” and “All data and all studies, reports, or other documents regarding data on specific groups. . .”

On August 5, the Department responded to these two items.  (It can be viewed at http://www.getliberty.org/files/09-502%20Interim%20Response%201.pdf.)  It stated that there were 217 pages of information that were pertinent to these 2 parts of request.  The good news was that nothing had to be declassified, since all were public documents.

“All data and all studies, reports or other documents . . .” turned out to be articles on 50 internet websites.  The response listed the sites.  (See them at http://www.getliberty.org/files/09-502%20Interim%20Response%20Website%20Links.pdf.)  No covert ops info.  No infiltration of any “extremist” groups with inside information.  No “boots on the ground” work.  No statistical analysis to quantify the danger.  No verification of anything.

It looks as if someone at DHS doing the report googled something (I can’t figure out exactly what that was), then went through the first 50 hits and called it a day—literally.  That person could have easily read all articles on the list in a single day, even if it were a Friday before a long weekend.  Maybe he or she took the next day to actually write the report, but research was quick and easy.

Some entries were by organizations that everyone would probably recognize—The Washington Post, Fox News, MSNBC, USAToday, CNN, and The New York Times to name a few.  Only two sites occurred more than twice in the list of 50 entries:  the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website (www.splcenter.org) had 10, and www.whatdoesitmean.com had 10.

What is as important as the sites listed is what appears not to have been subjected to analysis.  For example, in a Washington Post article dated June 22, 2008, it made a big deal about statements from Billy Roper, head of a white supremacist group named White Revolution that their membership was increasing.  That’s a story.  However, so is the statement by Roper that “The flat-globe society still has more people than us.”  Is this a real threat?

Additionally, there were a couple of articles about “right wing extremist” Richard Andrew Poplawski, who shot 3 Pittsburg policemen in a standoff at his home after a domestic dispute with his mother.  He had enlisted in the Marine Corps but had been dishonorably discharged during boot camp three years before, so he wasn’t a returning vet.  If you dig into the beliefs of Poplawski’s hero, Alex Jones, you’ll find that he firmly believes that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.  That’s not exactly a “right wing” extremist view.  Is he the example used to justify stigmatizing our “returning veterans” even though he wasn’t a returning vet?  Was he used to exemplify a “right wing” extremist even though he wasn’t right wing?

It appears that if you are an extremist in the category of “hate-oriented” where you hate “particular religious, racial, or ethnic groups” then you are automatically a “right wing” extremist.  Don’t left wing extremists hate, too?  Isn’t there such a thing as “extremist who is just plain kooky, not necessarily left or right”?

My favorite website (for comedic relief) on this list is whatdoesitmean.com, which comprises 10 of the 50 web addresses listed.  When I went to this website, the first thing that caught my eye was an advertisement for a book by David L. Booth entitled Dirty, Filthy, Christians: Treatise On The Most Dangerous Death Cult In Human History.

If that ad doesn’t give you a clue that this may not be a news site of note, take a look at titles some of the articles posted. The titles say it all: “Russia Says Comet Strike on Venus Following Jupiter Hit is ‘Dire Warning’ for Earth,” “Death Star Pandemic of 2009-2012: End of Age Begins,” and my personal favorite “ ‘Radio To God’ Reported Destroyed By American Scientist.”  I am reminded about Men In Black where the government agents get their news about ETs from the National Enquirer. If I worked for the government (other than in that movie) and was putting out a report, I think that I might have been hesitant to list this as a source, much less as 20% of my sources.  Then again I have to worry about being taken seriously in life.

One article cited from this site as studied for the report was written on August 30, 2008 by Sorcha Faal.  Entitled “Russian ‘Sleeper’ Agents Begin ‘Day X’ Attacks in US,” it begins:

“A number of conflicting, and disturbing, reports are circulating in the Kremlin today that are stating that ‘someone’ appears to have ‘activated’ Russia’s ‘deep core sleeper agents’ in America . . . to begin attacks on the United States Homeland.”

What I’m wondering is this: Is the fact that these attacks have not occurred proof positive that the Soviet Sleeper Agents were inducted into right wing extremist groups?  That is the most obvious conclusion that might come to the mind of someone who would cite this as a source for the conclusions drawn in the DHS report.

In this crazy world of our today, when we eliminate the War on Terror by calling things Overseas Contingency Operations, when terrorist acts are “man-caused disasters” and our freedoms are being legislated out from under us, I am comforted that the Department of Homeland Security is looking out for us.  They must have their best people working on the real threats to our Homeland, because they certainly don’t have anyone with half a brain working on the “right wing extremist” threat.

Democracies Have Consequences

If I hear it one more time, my tennis shoes will be traveling rapidly towards my television screen:

Elections have Consequences.

The words, in and of themselves, are not objectionable.  It is the intent behind the speakers who have been preaching this lately that is objectionable.  To sum it up, saying “Elections have Consequences” is an urbane way of saying, “We won. You Lost. We get to do everything we want.”

This “winner take all” approach is perhaps appropriate in The People’s Republic of China, Venezuela, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, but not in the United States of America.  It is true and it is important that elections have consequences.   What is true and more important is that we are a democratic republic. THAT has consequences. “Democratic” basically means that we get to vote for people to represent us, not to rule us.  “Republic” means that we don’t have a monarch.  No one gets to be king.

All of our elected representatives—whether part of the majority party or not—get a say in the government. “Tyranny of the majority” is the phrase that was coined to describe what happens when a majority simply ignores a minority in our type of government.  We currently have a situation where one party controls the Executive Branch and a majority in both chambers of Congress.  Instead of using statesmanship and discretion to be sure that the party representing the minority (30% in the Senate and 40% in the House) is heard, the current majority has become belligerent.  Republicans can’t even offer amendments or bills in the House.  In the Senate, they can, but they are simply ignored.  All the minority can do is vote up or down on Democratic ideas.  Why are they even in Washington if that is the case?  To rubber stamp one sided legislation?  We have a two party system, not a single party rule.  Ideas from both parties should be accepted at all times.  A majority in our government can limit ideas from the minority, but it should never simply ignore them.

I have some things to say to our elected politicians:

Senators and Representatives, you are there to represent us and our interests.  You are not there to represent a political party.   You are not our superiors, you are one of us.  If it comes down to a choice between acting in our best interests and acting in the best interests of your party, then you are obligated to choose us.

Parties come and go—there was no Republican Party or Democratic Party when the country was young.  Our country has a lasting power beyond the life of any political party.  You are the party, so if it has become too overbearing, get it under control.  The Constitution charges you to “promote the general welfare,” not “promote your political party.”  If you are of the opinion that what is good for your party is good for America because your party has to remain in charge, think back to the 1970s when the CEO of General Motors reputedly said, “What is good for GM is good for the country.”  Look at GM today.

Representing us means that you do not simply substitute your desires and preferences for ours.  You don’t have to listen to polls constantly, but you need to listen to us on the big stuff.  Listen to us when we tell you that we don’t want TARP or bailouts or Cap and Trade or a deficit so big that children have a lifelong debt from the instant of their birth.  You are not spending the government’s money, you are spending our money.  We are not so stupid that we don’t have informed opinions. On the big stuff, you should be reflecting those opinions. Stand up for us if the party says that we don’t know enough to know what’s good for us.

Citizen Obama, you were elected President, not King or Head Czar. It is often said that once someone is elected as President, that person is President of all Americans. If you are my president, then start acting like it. You need to consider what is best for all Americans, not just union members, community organizers, and your political contributors. You are the President of the United States of America, and should be proud of your country. Yes, it has made mistakes, but I don’t think that I have ever once heard you say anything about what is good and decent in America.  Honor our system by changing within the limits established by our Constitution.

You were also not elected to be boss of Congress.  Our elected lawmakers are there for you to interact with, not to be constantly intimidated by you.  They are there to represent We the People, not Obama the President or the Democratic Party.  If they are trying to represent their constituents—their true bosses, and the ones that can fire them—then don’t make them offers they can’t refuse. There is a fine line between persuasion and bullying; with your Harvard education I am sure that you can make the distinction. All indications are that you are governing by the “Chicago Way,” which is out and out bullying. You are President of the United States now, not some two bit Chicago hoodlum masquerading as a politician.

As long as we are on the subject of respect, you need to respect us, We the People, too.  You said, “I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking.”  That feels like a backhanded way of saying “Shut up if you don’t agree with me.”   Don’t tell us to shut up.   Until legislation is passed, it is our not only our right, but our duty as citizens to be talking about it.   You have said in the past that you really want a single payer Health Care System.  You indicated that you knew that it would take a while because we would resist, and the easiest way to get it was by starting with a public option.  It can be shown that we overwhelmingly don’t want single payer, by any and all polls out there, liberal, apolitical, or conservative.  Furthermore, we don’t want to open the door to single payer by creating a public option.   Don’t lie about what you want.  If you have changed your mind or you really didn’t mean what you said before, then tell us that.  It is ok for you to want it; it is not ok for you to force it on us.  You are our representative, not our dictator.  We’ve heard enough about Health Care.  Stop trying to change us.  Lead in a direction that we, your bosses, want.  We have to pay the bills.

Yes, elections have consequences. Living in this country means that The Constitution limits those consequences.  The Constitution says what you can’t do to us.  Stop and take a look at that.   Stop trying to do more than you are allowed.  Remember: in this country, you will never get to rule us or boss us.   That is the truly important consequence of elections in the United States of America.

And please, stop saying that elections have consequences just to justify acting like a big shot.

Nancy Needs a Chauffeur

Nancy was driving to a meeting on proposed Health Care Reform in Fort Collins, Colorado.  She was running late and ended up behind a very slow driver.  So she waited for a “PASSING ALLOWED” sign:and passed the car.  Pretty soon, she realized that she had just breezed past the place for the meeting, so she waited for a “U-TURN” sign:and turned around.  She pulled up in front of the place where the meeting was going to be and was relieved to find loads of empty spaces in a PARKING zone:After she got out of her car and got halfway up the stairs, she noticed a Nazi SWASTIKA on a sign that a lady was holding:

Terrified that Nazis were there, she ran back to her car.  A policeman was waiting for her.

“I need to see your license,” he said.  “I’ve been following you for 2 miles, and you passed in a NO passing zone, made a U-Turn where there was a NO U-Turn sign posted, and now you are parked in a NO parking zone.”

Nancy protested.  “I did no such things!  But there is a mob of Nazis right over there.  I am afraid.  I need to leave.”

She was so terrified that the policeman let her go with just a written warning.

The next day Nancy was asked about the protestors.  “They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a Town Hall Meeting on Healthcare,” she said.

The awful agony that she must have experienced when she thought that a crowd was pro-Nazi or pro-fascist!  I feel so sorry for her because she does not recognize the sophistication of the symbolism of the red circle with the slash across it imposed over the swastika, indicating NO to the swastika, meaning “NO Fascism” or “NO Nazism.”  Even worse, what were the “symbols like that” that were so terrifying that she could not even mention them by name?

Maybe Nancy’s difficulties recognizing the symbolism in the “NO” part of the protest sign lie in her previous exposure to protests.  For example, the Gaza War Protest and Anti-Israeli Rally in San Francisco last January had lots of signs with swastikas, but none of them had the international symbol for NO.  (Kerry Picket collected many images of these swastikas on protest signs in a blog that he wrote at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2009/aug/06/pelosis-visions-swastikas/.)

I hope that someone takes the time to explain to Nancy about the red circle and slash.  Nancy, it’s ok.  These people at the current protests are AGAINST Fascism in the United States.  They do NOT want a repeat of a demagogue being elected and then using his power to completely usurp the government.  You don’t have to be afraid anymore.  I want you to kNOw this.

I think that Nancy needs a chauffeur.  The good citizens that drive on our roads in this country need to be protected until Nancy has time to catch up on the concept of symbols in signage.  More than that, the citizens in the international community need to be protected.  When she goes to Afghanistan for a day and spends 7 days in Italy on the way there, she is going to be a hazard on the road without a grasp of the meaning behind the red circle with the slash across it.  They use this symbol even more in Europe.  I would hate to see the headlines:  Democratic Leader of the US House of Representatives Parks in No Parking Zone, Claims Ignorance of NO.

Luckily, with all of those new private jets for Congress, the chauffeur can travel with her when she goes overseas.  Not only that, but she can spend her time in the back of the limo reading all of that legislation that she needs to catch up on. Hiring two lawyers to help her read, as John Conyers suggested, would be much more expensive than a chauffeur.  A bargain from more than one angle!

She may even have time to read the written warning that the policeman issued her in Fort Collins.  It said:

WARNING:  Learn how to Read the Signs correctly.

Tea Parties and Town Hall Meetings

There were Tea Parties beginning in February of this year.  They were largely ignored by the press.  There were large Tax Day Tea Parties on April 15 of this year.  They were largely ignored by the press, except for FOX news.

Mainstream media coverage on the Tax Day Tea Parties mainly centered on the Tea Parties being a phenomenon created by FOX news, consequently reported on by CNN as being “anti-CNN.”  Police departments were put on notice that there were right wing extremists on the prowl.  People who only watched mainstream media were scared about the radicals participating in these events.

There were large Tea Parties on July 4 of this year.  They were largely ignored by all of the press at the national level.  I googled “July 4 Tea Party” to read about them.  I had to go to the 11^th page of the results to find an actual entry from a national cable or network station.  On page 11, CBS had a 1 minute 40 story from Boston that played on the evening news July 4.  In it, the reporter notes that “thousands” of people were gathering at “hundreds” of places across the country to protest “big government and big government spending.”

In the 11 pages of google results that I looked at, a lot of the entries in the results were snippets from local papers or blogs.  There were quite a few about how white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and anti-Semites were going to recruit at the Tea Parties.  Some were about how the Tea Parties were just Obama hate fests, i.e., conducted by racists.  Most articles written after the fact mentioned crowd sizes as being in the hundreds.  Even the blogs talked about “them” not “us” at events they criticized but did not attend.

I went to the Tea Party for Dallas at Southfork Ranch.  The next day, a local paper estimated attendance at 35,000.  A local radio station estimated the attendance at 25,000.  (I’m guessing that there were between 25,000 and 35,000 people.)  It got up to 101 degrees that day, so most people came in the evening.  I went in the afternoon.  Despite the heat, everyone seemed to be celebrating our country by having a good time.  There was music, there were speakers (one in Spanish), and there were lots of petitions to sign.

When I was there, I saw blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, young, and old.  I spoke with Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and Republicans.  I did not see Janine Garofalo, who was personally invited so that she could educate herself about who really went to tea parties and what they were really protesting.  People did carry signs, but the main uniting idea was that the Federal Government is out of control; it no longer represents the people.

This was not a single person hate fest (i.e., Obama) or a single party hate fest (i.e., anti Democratic Party).  Everyone seems to understand that this problem that we have is bigger than that.  No one was spouting hatred for anyone, and if I saw a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, or anti-Semite, they didn’t try to recruit me or anyone else that I saw.

There was a Tea Party in Columbus, Ohio on August 1.  MSNBC reported that it was attended by 300 people.  The police told the keynote speaker, Judge Andrew Napolitano, that there were 8,000-10,000 people in attendance.  It was largely ignored.

Therein lies the recipe for angry “mobs” at town hall meetings.  People turned out at over 1000 places on July 4 in crowds ranging from probably hundreds to at least around 30,000.  A crowd of over 8,000 turned out on a hot, muggy August Saturday afternoon in Ohio.

NO ONE LISTENED.

No one carried the message to the nation or to our government in Washington.  No one tried to figure out what the real complaint is to report on it.  Instead, there has been a lot of speculation and extrapolation by people who have never even seen a Tea Party.  “Tea baggers” have been represented as a small, radical fringe group with nothing important to say.  Reactions of elected representatives that have been reported have involved scorn, ridicule, and/or vilification of the “tea baggers.”

Now, Health Care Legislation is being considered and Town Hall meetings are being held.  A lot of the same people that went to Tea Parties are showing up, and for the same reasons.  In a nutshell, as CBS reported, we are upset with big government and big government spending.  We are angry—with real anger, despite what Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs and Barrack Hussein Obama are saying.  We are also afraid that our country as a whole is ignoring the basic concepts upon which our country was formed, and as a consequence we will lose our freedom.  We are desperate because no one is listening.

Anger, fear, desperation:  Isn’t it understandable that yelling is going on?  Less civilized citizens would not be yelling, they would be reaching for guns.  There have probably been a lot fewer people at all of the Health Care Reform Town Hall Meetings in the entire United States so far as there were at the Dallas Tea Party on July 4, but look at the difference in the hours of coverage.

Nice or loud, we are vilified, mischaracterized, and second guessed. Asking nicely by showing up and making a statement with a peaceful protest doesn’t get reported.  Showing up and making a lot of noise does get reported.  It doesn’t take a PhD to figure out that negative attention is better than no attention at all.

I don’t know where this is going, or how it will end.  I do know that if the press doesn’t start doing its job, things will most likely get uglier before they gets better.  We feel that our very lives are at stake.  WE WANT TO BE HEARD.  If our representatives don’t start doing their job, which is listening to us and representing us, things will get uglier before they get better.  This is not by coordinated design, it is by genuinely reacting to basic human emotions.  Anger can turn into rage, even blind rage.

Congress:  Look at the polls—every single major poll, even those with a liberal bias, show that we want Health Care Reform but that we don’t want the PROPOSED Health Care Reform.  We know that you are not too stupid to understand the difference.  Please acknowledge that we are not too stupid to know what we do not want, and represent us.

Otherwise, all that we can do is to show up and keep yelling.

Bullish on Fabricated Feelings

Fabricated Feelings rose sharply 20 points on the stock exchange yesterday after Robert Gibbs caused increased sales by commenting on “manufactured anger” at the Town Hall Meetings about Health Care Reform.  Fabricated Feelings is the primary manufacturer of this product in the US.

Getting Medicine from a Bureaucracy

If you put a military bureaucrat and a federal government bureaucrat in a contest, which one would come out ahead in a rules making contest?  Since both are really government bureaucrats and control freaks of the highest order, I would think it would be a pretty even contest.

Survival of the press through Health Care Reform

I just figured out why the Health Care Reform Draft Bills are structured like they are.  It has nothing to do with improving the quality, accessibility, or cost of health care, and everything to do with saving mainstream publications.

Operation Winning Hearts and Minds by Being Clowns

There is a new, top secret training program going on in Washington DC.  Not many people know about it, but be prepared for the increasing rollout of this program.  They are training our Federal Government Employees to be Clowns.