Sunday, April 06, 2008
I BELONG TO A BLOG OF MOSTLY AFFLUENT REPUBLICANS -- AND
PREDOMINANTLY CONSERVATIVES. ONE OF THEM, PAUL SKIERMONT,
A LAWYER, STUDIED WITH OBAMA. AND MORE IMPORTANT IS CASS
SUNSTEIN ( A CONFIDANT OF OBAMA) EXPLAINING OBAMA.
I SUGGEST YOU READ THIS THROUGH, IT IS A GUIDE TO
UNDERSTANDING HIM.
From: Paul Skiermont <paul.skiermont@bartlit-beck.com>
Subject: RE: Obama as professor
I had him for Constitutional Law IV: 13th, 14th, 15th Amendment.
He taught other con law classes as well.
The University of Chicago faculty and student body is probably the most
conservative elite law school.
This meant that he was challenged often. He was very good in class -
well prepared to deal with the frequent comments from the conservative
"racial realists" (think Steele, D'souza, etc.). When I say "deal with" it was
not a debate. He had an uncanny ability to get people who were very far
apart to reach common ground through the class discussion. The class started at the same place as his speech "A More Perfect Union" - with the "original sin" of slavery. Our class wound through the
Constitution, the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1783 and 1850, the arguments of
Frederick Douglass, and on to Dred Scott v. Sandford and the New Deal
and beyond. With the latter part of the class focusing heavily on the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
What was clear throughout the course was Obama's constant impatience
with simple and easy answers. On every argument made by the author of one
of our readings or by one of the students, Obama was constantly pushing us to
take explicit note of the background context, to recognize the difficulties
presented by complex details, and to understand as thoroughly as
possible the materials we read.
Obama brought something extra to the classroom, just as he has to the
campaign: I'm not any better at putting my finger on it than anyone
else is, but two ingredients of the formula are his obvious intellectual heft
and his passion and energy regarding the issues in the class. Obama constantly
agitated for smarter, more elevated conversation about divisive matters,
which in this class centered on race.
His colleague Cass Sunstein recently wrote a piece that captures a lot
of what I saw in law school - it is worth reading (below).
The Obama I Know
Cass Sunstein
Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama. For
more than a decade, Obama was my colleague at the University of Chicago Law
School.
He is also a friend. But since his election to the Senate, he does not
exactly call every day.
On this occasion, he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy
over President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance of international
telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists. I had
written a short essay suggesting that the surveillance might be lawful. Before
taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through.
In the space of about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal
details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the President's power as
commander-in-chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the
Authorization for Use of Military Force and more.
Obama wanted to consider the best possible defence of what Bush had
done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counter-argument.
After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said that he thought the programme was
illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked
me for my time.
This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's
mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic
leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not
want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what
might be said on the other side.
This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful
and even-handed analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple
points of view.
The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of
the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic
foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.
But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by Republicans
and Democrats alike. Some of the local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama
supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal
touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally
able.
But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama also has a
genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes
wherever reason takes him.
Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little
amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a
teacher of law, is also able to inspire large crowds?
The Obama we know is no rhetorician; he shines not because he can move
people, but because of his problem-solving abilities, his creativity and his
attention to detail.
In recent weeks, his speaking talents, and the cult-like atmosphere that
occasionally surrounds him, have led people to wonder whether there is
substance behind the plea for "change" - whether the soaring phrases
might disguise a kind of emptiness and vagueness. But nothing could be further from the truth. He is most comfortable in the domain of policy and detail.
I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate questions. After all,
Obama has served in the Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?
Obama speaks of "change", but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his own advisers -- and, in view of his relative youth,
criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.
Fortunately, the candidate's campaign proposals offer strong and encouraging clues about how he would govern; what makes them distinctive is that they borrow sensible ideas from all sides.
He is strongly committed to helping the disadvantaged, but his University of Chicago background shows; he appreciates the virtues and power of free markets. In this sense, he is not only focused on details but is also a uniter, both by inclination and on principle.
Transparency and accountability matter greatly to him; they are a defining feature of his proposals. With respect to the mortgage crisis, credit cards and the broader debate over credit markets, Obama rejects heavy-handed regulation and insists above all on disclosure, so that consumers will know exactly what they are getting.
Expect transparency to be a central theme in any Obama administration, as a check on government and the private sector alike. It is highly revealing that Obama worked with Republican (and arch-conservative) Tom Coburn to produce legislation creating a publicly searchable database of all federal spending.
Obama's healthcare plan places a premium on cutting costs and on making care affordable, without requiring adults to purchase health insurance. (He would require mandatory coverage only for children.) Republican legislators are unlikely to support a mandatory approach, and his plan can be
understood, in part, as a recognition of political realities.
But it is also a reflection of his keen interest in freedom of choice. He seeks universal coverage not through unenforceable mandates but through giving people good options.
It should not be surprising that in terms of helping low-income workers, Obama has long been enthusiastic about the Earned Income Tax Credit -- an approach, pioneered by Republicans, that supplements wages but does not threaten to throw people out of work.
But Obama is no a compromiser; he does not try to steer between the poles (or the polls). "Triangulation" has no appeal for him. Both internationally and domestically, he is willing to think big and to be bold. He publicly opposed the war in Iraq at a time when opposition was unpopular.
He favors high-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators. He would rethink the embargo against Cuba.
He proposes a $150 billion research budget for climate change. He wants to hold an unprecedented national auction for the right to emit greenhouse gases. He has offered an ambitious plan for promoting technological innovation, calling for a national broadband policy, embracing network
neutrality, and proposing a reform of the patent system.
His campaign has spoken of moving toward "iPod Government" -- an effort to rethink public services and national regulations in ways that will make things far simpler and more user-friendly.
These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in US politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't even think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.
Obama wants to know what ideas are likely to work, not whether a Democrat or a Republican is responsible for them. Recall the most memorable passage from his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention: "We coach Little League [baseball] in the blue [Democratic-voting] states, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the
war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq."
In his book The Audacity of Hope, he asks for a politics that accepts "the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point". Remarking that ordinary Americans "don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal", Obama wants politicians "to catch
up with them," After he received an email from a pro-life doctor, Obama recalls how he
softened his website's harsh rhetoric on abortion, writing: "[T]hat night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own -- that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me."
In short, Obama's own approach is insistently charitable. He assumes decency and good faith on the part of those who disagree with him. And he wants to hear what they have to say. Both in substance and in tone, Obama questions the conventional political distinctions between "the left" and "the right".
To the extent that he is attracting support from Republicans and independents, it is largely for this reason.
From knowing Obama for many years, I have no doubts about his ability to lead. He knows a great deal, and he is a quick learner. Even better, he knows what he does not know, and there is no question that he would assemble an accomplished, experienced team of advisers. His brilliant
administration of his own campaign provides helpful evidence here.
But there is some fragility to the public fervor that envelops him. Crowds and cults can be fickle, and if some of his decisions disappoint, or turn out badly, his support will diminish. Some people think it might even collapse.
My own concern involves the importance of internal debate. The greatest American presidents (above all Lincoln and Roosevelt) benefited from robust dialogue and from advisers who avoided saying, "how wonderful you are," and were willing to say: "Mr President, your thinking about this is all wrong."
Because Obama himself is exceptionally able, and because so many people are treating him as a near-messiah, his advisers might be too deferential, too unwilling to question. There is a real risk here. But I believe that his humility,and his intense desire to seek out dissenting views, will prove crucial safeguards.
In the 2000 campaign, Bush proclaimed himself a "uniter, not a divider",
only to turn out to be the most divisive President in memory. Because of his
own certainty, and his lack of curiosity about what others might think, Bush
polarized the nation. Many of his most ambitious plans went nowhere as a
result.
As president, Barack Obama would be a genuine uniter. If he proves able
to achieve great things, for his nation and for the world, it will be above all
for that reason.
............[End of Obama email]
............[Beginning of 'Leno' message, sent 'in response to Obama's calls for massive change in America']
Written by Jay Leno:"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.
So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?'' Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.
Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11
The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?
The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day. Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane! Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day or at least be thankful and appreciative. "With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Jay Leno
2007
........[end 'Leno' email]
........[beginning of MY response to all that...and the commentary that drove me to re-enter activity in this blog]
Truth be told -Initially I thought you sent the Leno thing as a joke, but because it was sent in response to the Obama articles I decided to take it seriously.
The "Jay Leno" message is cataloged on snopes.com, an Urban Legends website. I googled "Jay Leno knuckle dragger (a label the author used)" and the first thing to pop up was: www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/hitnail.asp
The point is those are not Jay Leno's words.
However, if you agree with everything in that message then it doesn't matter who wrote it. Assuming you agree with the message, I will respond.
Did you read the Obama email all the way through? I read the Leno reply you sent a few times so that I could be fair. There are many debates I could enter from all the points that were made, but I decided to focus on just a couple. I'm responding from my original assumption that a) he wrote all of it and b) you agree with all of it.
He made some valid points which could be made about any 'developed' country. He reminded me that I have resources, rights and freedoms that people in underdeveloped countries do not have. Though I have never supported war as a means to peace (it is counterintuitive, yo), I have worked hard to support the soldiers who volunteer for a mission they originally felt was worthy of their strength and skills. Leno does not take into account the high numbers of soldiers who are returning, completely disillusioned because of what they learned about the 'truth' of our history in the middle east...and, as a bonus, they start living the post-war nightmare of PTSD, endless recovery, and their own VA (translation: the US Government) cannot support their rehab on a timely basis because of the 'red tape'. WHAT?
Oh, right, and then there is the assumption that our Pres has *anything* to do with our country not being attacked by terrorists. While I would love to believe this, it is a false sense of security rooted in arrogance. There is supporting info below (if you feel like making time).
Consider that Leno is speaking from a platform high above middle and lower class America. I say that because he made many assumptions about what American Life looks like that just are no longer true for many people I know - people who have been struggling to pay for electric, heat, a/c, food, and water. And the water that flows so 'freely' from their faucets actually leads to more than one form of cancer and viruses that may actually be connected to fibromyalgia among other disorders.
The overall message I got, however, was that he is advocating silence - stop your whining. This from a man whose wealth comes from being able to use his voice. That, alone, makes his message deeply hypocritical. To say nothing about what NBC will pay him to say.
Let's ignore the fact that developed countries like ours have come so far because they have more financial wealth than underdeveloped countries (it takes a whole different conversation to dive into HOW we became so wealthy - not a pretty picture at all).
Many underdeveloped countries are dependent upon foreign aid, in part, because their infrastructures were originally weakened by outside forces...like, hmm, who d'ya think? No, not ONLY us, but every other developed nation.
I'm not going to say much about his 'recession' comment. Don't need to if you have been paying attention to the market.
Leno, himself, is of the Elite wealthy in this country. If he's so concerned about the state of the store shelves in Darfur maybe he should be doing more about it...instead of buying more cars and motorcycles and spending the cash it takes to maintain the storage facility to keep them shiny (read article linked below).
from http://www.go-star.com/antiquing/leno.htm
Leno has made at least $1 Billion for NBC and owns "...somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 cars and 80 motorcycles. He also owns a fire truck...Leno's collection occupies three football-field size warehouses..." I wonder if he owns a flat screen (is it possible he owns more than one?)?
For the record, I used to vote for Democrats and am officially as disappointed in them as I have always been in Republicans. I have now joined the legions of undecided and disillusioned. I do not currently like McCain, and it makes me sad as a woman to say I do not like Clinton. I do like Obama so far. There were other, far more promising candidates and none of them would ever make it because they couldn't make the - there it is again - MONEY.[Nader is actually making the most sense right now - I will be posting about him from now on, as well. - This thought added at the time of this post]
So I am left trying to ignore the smear emails from friends and family and trying really hard, instead, to spend my online time researching the truth. Truth that is NOT on the news because the 'parent company' (has a nice tone, doesn't it?) can't get advertisers to pay to support it.
We're very lucky that our government does not YET have absolute control over our internet content. It is up to the audience (you and I) to decide we are worthy of a better education than what comes so easily right now. We are being spoon fed. Does that activity sound familiar?
Here are a couple of websites that, if you are willing to consider questioning the status quo, really want to BE an American, will be educational. If you are a dedicated moderate or conservative and have already written me off as 'liberal' (if by 'liberal' you mean 'educated', then I accept the label) then, by all means, ignore this.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
This next one - video - takes some time and is all analysis of what happened September 11. It is *really* interesting and *really* sad. If you are willing to be open minded (i.e. the last few decades - leadership of BOTH parties - the U.S. government has not been working toward its citizens' best interests), then you will get a lot out of it.
http://blip.tv/file/306082
Thank you for sending the "Leno" message. It's helped me get my ducks in a row...telling me to stop complaining and be grateful for all I have has compelled me to speak up.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Labels: site updates
