I had the very unpleasant experience during my petitioneering last weekend of trying to pierce the illogic of a rancher from Nebraska who avers that President Obama is a Muslim. Again, the proper response to that myth is (1) what's wrong with a public official being a Muslim? and (2) Barack Obama is a Christian. The rancher responds that I he can tell I'm a teacher, which he considers a bad thing.
While I'm in the mood, here's some more teaching against some other common anti-Obama myths:
- The Obama Administration has issued fewer new federal rules in its first three years than did the Bush Administration.
- Despite fighting the worst recession since the 1930s, the Obama Administration has overseen less per capita growth in per capita government spending than any recent president but one, President Clinton.
- AP confirms that more U.S. oil drilling hasn't reduced gasoline prices... just as new tar sands pipelines don't.
I don't expect to convince my Nebraska interlocutor or other underinformed Tea Party shouters to be swayed by facts. But I'll keep trying.
Obviously, your rancher knew what he knew, and didn't need to know anything else.
Comparing one CFR president to another is meaningless. Spending per capital is going up, right? Once you remove the "growth" word, then the truth comes out. What the Tea Party is after is less spending per capita. Again, the contest in Novemeber is which candidate will grow government less than the other. Bottom line, both candidates will be in favor of growing government. That means conservatives will have no choice. And funny that both candidates are going to be "pro-choice".
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacare-two-years-later
http://www.helpingyoucare.com/18753/hhs-notes-successes-of-affordable-care-act-obamacare-on-its-2-year-anniversary
"The rancher responds that I he can tell I’m a teacher, which he considers a bad thing"
You should have told him that you DJ during techno nights at local houses of ill repute. He would have had far better view of your career path.
Oh and don't forget this little fact:
That darned socialist even crafted health care reform around the model designed by the Heritage Foundation and validated by the current GOP nominee apparent Mitt Romney.
Who knew he was lurking in the most hallowed halls of conservatism.
Rule number one and two not debatable. We cannot judge anothers faith; only their actions. Obama does seem to be a terrific father. For that I am truly happy. :)
Rule number three; does not take into account Executive Orders nor Czar summations ordering agency action.
Rule number four; we must have imported a few trillion immigrants for this to be even remotely true. IE- Honestly CH you cannot even print this without chuckling. :)
Rule number five; correct thinking for Democrats in that supply and demand is a subject of economic value; which government does not have any idea of the management needed to incorporate.
Just to clarify: Did the rancher really say being a teacher is a bad thing --- or are you projecting - or worse, making a false inference based on your perception?
It's hard for me to imagine someone would say such a thing, but then the level of political discourse - throughout the political spectrum - never ceases to amaze me. Perhaps it would have been a little less unpleasant for you to get the rancher/presidential scholar to cite his evidence to make his case. At least you'd walk away amused, as you cope with your frustration.
My theory, for what it's worth (and I'm guessing maybe two cents) that fringe positions when repeated by the uninformed usually has a big unintended consequence favorable to the other side of the debate.
As independents (and Independents) try to suss out political positions to get to the truth or at least as closely as possible to the truth, maybe the best tact is less "teaching" (lest it comes across as "preaching") and more dialogue is the way to go. I realize that the time and venue have a major impact whether it's productive to debate or move on.
In the end, usually, the majority of those who do so, will make an informed and good faith decision that serves us well.
In the meantime, good luck with the petitioneering. Do you have the music of The Man from La Mancha on you iPOD?
Whomever you are Mark; I like your thinking. It bodes very well for America and her future.
To be clear, "Mark": toward the end of our conversation, the man said, "I can tell you're a teacher." I said I couldn't tell if he meant that was a good thing or a bad thing. He said that's a bad thing. The man really did say such a thing.
Your experience reminds me of one of my favorite quotes. "Fools give you reasons... wise men never try." Oscar Hammerstein II, South Pacific.
Laughed out loud when i read this! good stuff!
I hope you didn't waste much time on the Nebraska cowboy. Once you find someone isn't eligible to sign thank them for their time and move on. You can't convert everyone and it's a waste of your and their time to even try when they aren't eligible to vote or even register to vote.
Cory:
First, all sides have idiots in their ranks. Let's not impugn legitimate debate by highlighting the idiots.
1). The volume of rules is not the measure that is important. It is the economic impact that matters. The rules associated with Obamacare will dwarf all other rules combined. But even this argument is not the most important. Cory, let's be honest. You believe government is the answer to rectify wrongs. Why are you trying to promote the quantity of rules (vs. the meaningful economic impact) as a good thing except to give the impression Obama is a small government conservative.
2). There is no reference to review his computation. I consider these numbers specious unless I can see how he got these numbers. For instance, in some computations Tarp is counted as a Bush expenditure and it's payback is counted as an offset to Obama expenditures. If this is how he got these numbers, this statement is misleading to the point of being dishonest. Just because your source says something, doesn't make it true and his lack of transparency makes it highly suspect.
3) only in your world would a increase in supply not have a positive impact on prices.
Jana: Like how you give credence to the Heritage Foundation. This said, they are a think tank. Think tanks propose ideas for vetting. After vetting, they opposed both Romneycare and Obamacare. Reason and being reasonableness is allow people to consider matters before making a final determination. This said, I'm glad you think Heritage is a credible think tank.
Troy,
I think the rancher represents a far bigger chunk of the elecorate than you give him credit for.
I mention a similar incident here.
http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2012/03/people-and-prices-following-people.html
I realize that my local situation may color my view of how the public perceives teachers.
That being said, I bet that if you took a survey with the following question---Do you think teachers are
a. Good
b. Bad
c. I have no opinion about teachers--
you would get more than 30 percent saying "bad."
The Nebraska rancher is not expressing a fringe opinion in SD.
LK there was just such a poll taken in SD last year, and it's perhaps not as bleak as you might have guessed. Have you seen it?
http://dakotapoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Education-Dakota-Poll-Toplines-4.pdf
LK,
If we gear the debate level to the lowest common denominator to the absurd, we get nonsense. I don't think the debate is served when it is even given credence to mention it except in passing, which I think Cory did here (re BO is a Muslim) to try to make a point. Unfortunately, I don't think he served the debate by trying to claim:
1) The Obama administration is less intrusive in the economy than Bush.
2) Has had a slower growth in spending than Bush.
3) More supply doesn't affect prices.
Troy,
Misread your comment--thought you were refering to the Nebraska rancher.
Regarding you #3 I would like to know why this guy's analysis is wrong.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/03/25/oil-politics-and-the-truth-about-gas-prices/
Bill,
Thanks for the link. I'll get to the survey later today.
Prices are a function of the following:
Supply: If there is less supply, it puts upward pressure on prices. More supply puts downward pressure on prices.
Demand: If there is less demand, it puts downward pressure on prices. More demand puts upward pressure on prices.
Expectations on the future with regard to demand and supply.
Prices is where these three factors meet.
The article you reference says prices are going up because of increased worldwide demand. Nothing wrong with that analysis. He blames China for the increase in demand. Nothing wrong with that analysis.
But, his comment bringing more supply online won't reduce prices is ludicrous. In fact, he argues against himself when he says if we do these items it will bring down prices as it makes bringing more costly oil unprofitable. Reread his section on "More domestic drilling won't reduce prices."
There is other benefits of increasing US supplies that is never talked about: National security (less reliance on foriegn, less stable sources), balance of trade (less need to use our cash to buy from foreign sources) and more domestic jobs.
When I go to the gas station, I don't care who is to "blame." I just want to know we are doing as a nation what we can to put downward pressure on prices.
Troy, does the demand/supply model really work in the context of a monopoly with no competitors? Seems to me there is a huge demand for alternative energy and more energy efficient vehicles and no supply. A real opportunity for alternative technologies.
Not sure if this is true, but I hear buzz that cars in Europe get double the MPG because gas prices are twice as high. If true, why not insist on cars like that here? Why so adamant about arguing the status quo?
Aren't we a nation of innovators?
Aren't you a venture capitatist?
LOL.
(...isn't the above what we call a "market gap?")
Yes. Even monopolies have to be sensitive to demand. This said, there is no monopoly in oil. OPEC does have significant influence but every barrel we put on the market makes them weaker.
Yes. There is a great demand for alternative energy. Unfortunately, the cost of that energy is 2.5 times oil with current technologies. The money BO blew investing in current technologies would have been better spent researching new technologies and not bringing to market nonvioble technologies.
The Europe car model is fundamentally non-applicable here because of how America is configured. Don't have time to go through it except to say your word "insist" tells us everything. Americans want the cars they drive. You want to tell them to drive something else, run on it. In fact, since BO is the effective owner of GM, let him propose building only volts and hybrids.
Troy, why do you not frequent Ken Blanchard's blog?
I meant the customers insist, not the government. As in "Hey car companies, if you have cars that use less gas, or run on something else, give them to us. And don't make us pay through the nose for them."
It's going to happen, Troy. Don't drag your feet in this deal, buddy. ;^)
(...this is the marketing pitch guy talking to the money guy.)
I'm all for the car companies providing the cars people want. We agree Bill.
I like it when we agree, Troy. That could be dangerous, actually.
"Czar summations"---anybody using this kind of phrase relating Czars to the Obama administration is engaging in the kind of nonsense labeling that suggests every discussion sooner or later descends into somebody tossing in an inappropriate "Nazi" label.
OH Troy..."In fact, since BO is the effective owner of GM, let him propose building only volts and hybrids."
You said 'in fact'...is it a fact? So is BO the owner of GM? Troy? Or were you just saying that as a lie for effect?
By the way, I don't think the President of The United States is as stupid as you think to suggest only manufacturing Volts and hybrids. Do you really think that?
Bill,
Dangerous for both of us.
Speaking of the Chevy Volt...
This just in...Fox News supports the Chevy Volt as a tool in the war on terror.
Fox News Debunks Right-Wing Lies About Chevy Volt: It’s ‘An Anti-Terrorist Weapon’ And ‘The Safest Car On The Road’
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1529856944001/can-the-chevy-volt-help-win-the-war-on-terror/?playlist_id=86912
Nick, I knew this guy was unconvertible and a waste of my petition time, but we were outside, there weren't a lot of people passing by... and I have a weakness for listening to folks on the street. But I will make it a point to challenge face-to-face this anti-Muslim bigotry whenever I hear it. And I still managed to fill a couple petitions that morning.
Troy, to be clear, I don't believe government is "the" answer to rectify wrongs. I believe it is one answer among many. On some issues (like providing affordable universal health insurance), I believe it is the most moral and effective answer. On some issues (like reducing abortion) I believe it is a constitutionally offensive and counterproductive answer. On many issues, I believe government is an effective tool to be used alongside private collective and individual action.
I also happen to believe that reciting economic theory won't solve much of anything. As nice as it might be to boil every policy problem down to simply chanting "Supply and demand!", the data show that drilling for more oil has not reduced gasoline prices. Calling for the drilling of every inch of federal land distracts us from other demand-based solutions that would provide better energy security.
The original post reminds me of a tea party rally I covered last week in honor of the two-year anniversary of the health care law and the hullabaloo over birth control.
A woman I was interviewing invited Pres. Obama "to come worship with us". I followed up asking what she meant by that. She never did explain, but I think it was a thinly veiled inference that she doesn't think he's a real Christian.
Bush, the First endorses Romney: wimp squared.