|
What Is the Real Reason?
by Sudhama Ranganathan
Sunday, Sep. 06, 2009 at 5:55 AM
uconnharassment@gmail.com
People aren't always clear about their reasoning when they just don't like someone. So as not to appear envious, spiteful or harboring any other irrational though human emotions folks often compensate by trying to use explanations that appear sensible or logical. As adults we often attempt to appeal to one another's sense of social responsibility. The less our observations are based in reality the easier it is to devolve into absurd accusations and storytelling.
scared.jpg, image/jpeg, 468x584
Of course to say you just don't like someone is to give yourself a pass on how you actually feel. That or to keep others from discovering your true feelings. There's always a reason. In a civilized society we agree to disagree and realize we won't all get along. But we can work to deal with these emotions respectfully and our actions hopefully follow.
Since taking office the current president has been the target of an ever growing climate of outlandish rhetoric. It's come from those who for political reasons either disagree with his positions or simply want him removed from office. Of course he hasn't been in office long enough to have actually done anything worthy of real dislike.
He has some policies instituted which were more popular than others, but that has been the same with every president. This is usually better understood once their policies have had a chance to actually have shown results. With president Obama there seems to be a movement to whip up a frenzy before his policies bear fruit.
he buzz words seem to be communist, socialist and other extreme labels. There have been leading opponents accusing him of attempting to kill senior citizens. Some have said he was attempting to kill their children.
Some have accused him of being racist towards white people. This despite the fact he is himself half white, the main advisors in his cabinet and through his election campaign and political life have all been white and the people he credits with making him the person he is today, his grandparents, were also white.
Millions of Americans elected him and obviously more than half of America would not be interested in electing a socialist. No rational person could possibly believe he is trying to kill senior citizens or children. With a majority of the people who elected him being white it seems a little absurd to think they elected someone racist towards themselves.
The people spewing and endorsing these strange things are in some cases leaders of his opposing party. People like Senator Chuck Grassley, Rush Limbaugh and Audra Shay. We've seen the results of this rhetoric funded by GOP affiliated lobby groups acted out at the recent health care town hall infernos. Outside of crazy talk they don't seem to have anything of substance to throw at him.
When President Obama decided to address schools across the nation one might think this would be one place kept out of politics - right? I mean the president wanted to talk to kids about staying in school, doing well and even had the idea of fun exercises for kids to participate in expressing how they felt about education. What parent would involve their child in their politics and forbid them from listening to the President of the United States?
As it turns out - a lot of people. Not only are people questioning whether the president addressing children in school is p.c., but are actually opting out of school because of a different political affiliation. That refers to parents of course as most of the school kids are not even old enough to have formed a political viewpoint.
My parents were Democrats when I was growing up and when President Reagan's address was played by one of my teacher's in high school no big stink was raised although they were not of the same political affiliation. The president was speaking and they were happy I enjoyed myself.
What the rabble has been about regarding the president of the United States talking to school kids has been a bit unclear. Quotes selected to be aired on FOX News from disgruntled parent read something like this:
"It's a form of indoctrination, and I think, really, it's indicative of the culture that the Obama administration is trying to create... It's very socialistic."
"I want to know how it's being presented," she said. "I'm all for my child having respect for the president, but why wouldn't he show us the speech first and then go from there?"(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/03/parents-object-obamas-national-address-students/?test=latestnews)
The Republican Party Chairman in Florida said he, “was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology.”(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) When politifact.com asked Florida's GOP for proof there was none. The claim made by the Florida GOP stated, "the goal of these materials is to tell students why they should support President Obama in his overall agenda." Politifact's finding stated, "based on the press release that the Republican Party of Florida used as a basis for this claim, there remains no evidence that Obama intends to discuss the controversial policy issues of health care, banking, the automotive industry, taxes or the national debt during his address to students." (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/02/republican-party-florida/republican-party-florida-says-obama-will-indoctrin/)
They spread a flat out lie. Of course this wasn't the only one thrown around. Regarding health care kookiness cooler headed Republican leaders had to admit claims like "death panels," "pulling the plug on grandma" and "not providing health care to Republicans" were ridiculous.
One can't help but wonder why? The health care proposal was large surely there were weak points in the legislation... right? I mean since when has an American party run by adults stooped to such childish language? Why would anyone even need to in an age when with all the many forms of communication available any weaknesses regarding policy can be brought out and hashed civilly? I mean they must have legitimate points of departure with the president or why so much fuss so soon?
Suggestions about the President running past parents what he expects to talk about with school kids is also strange. Did any other Presidents ever have to run their speeches by parents before going to speak at their schools or having speeches broadcast in classrooms? Media matters reports, "On November 14, 1988, (President) Reagan addressed and took questions from students from four area middle schools in the Old Executive Office Building. According to press secretary Marlin Fitzwater, the speech was broadcast live and rebroadcast by C-Span, and Instructional Television Network fed the program “to schools nationwide on three different days.'"(http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020) I ought to know I watched it in high school.
The New York Times reports, "The first President George Bush, a Republican, made a similar nationally broadcast speech from a Washington high school in 1991, urging students to study hard, avoid drugs and to ignore peers 'who think it’s not cool to be smart.' Democrats in Congress accused him of using taxpayer money — $27,000 to produce the broadcast — for 'paid political advertising.'"(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/us/04school.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) But no one was running around en masse pulling kids out of school, forcing schools to pull the broadcast or forcing the president to change his broadcast. He was the president and he was addressing kids in their schools.
On Monday, January 09, 2006 FOX News reported, "Emphasizing the softer side of his agenda, President Bush went back to school Monday, touting rising test scores as proof that his education law is working. Bush marked the fourth anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act by visiting North Glen Elementary, a suburban Baltimore school that has made big gains in reading and math. It was a reminder of a major bipartisan success that Bush scored early in his White House tenure, far from the wrangling over war, domestic spying and other matters overshadowing his second term."(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181118,00.html) President Bush often made school appearances reading to children and promoting education and on Septmber 11, 2001 when our nation was attacked he was reading to school children at school. President Clinton made visits to school children as evidenced by this press release,"5 May 2000-THE WHITE HOUSE: Office of the Press Secretary... Today, in Owensboro, Kentucky, President Clinton will visit Audubon Elementary School to kick off his School Reform Tour and to highlight the Clinton-Gore agenda of investing more in our schools and demanding more from them. Audubon Elementary School is an award-winning school in the Daviess County School District."(http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61916095.html) Where were Republican party leaders forcing schools to reject his "indoctrination" then?
There is no basis for the ridiculous wild claims being tossed about by the GOP regarding "indoctrination," "political agendas" or anything else. It's been researched by a politically unaffiliated media group and found to be wholly untrue. What is so different about this president he has to put his speeches on a DVD to be sent home to parents first? Our president like every president before him is addressing children on the importance of getting a good education, staying in school and setting goals. Mild as any other president since Reagan and even more mild than some instances.
So why lie? Why the hype? The president is speaking to children about the importance of education. What is wrong with that? Why no real specifics here?
When people are envious, bitter or otherwise upset they tend to behave irrationally. When there is no real logic behind actions they tend to come across as exaggerated, immature and often based in base emotions. It seems the cult of personality being referred to is one created by having little real information about a person. Thus if that person is on the "opposite side" of a specific viewpoint in order to get across the message the person in question is to be disliked as an enemy throwing things to the wall to see what will stick may ensue.
The more things flop and flail the wilder the more desperate those on the opposing side become. An obsession can sprout around that single person and feelings of resentment perhaps at being bested or beaten by them may arise. This can give way to a cult of personality like atmosphere, but as adults it is always wise to make sure we are realistic about what we are doing. As the president has not even finished a year of his first term and has not had any of his policies bear fruit yet there really is not anything to point to here and the language confirms that.
I have some differences with the president, but don't think he's a ghoul out to get me. This cult of personality seems created by an obsessive group of folks who have felt bested and it's becoming a bitter and resentment filled atmosphere. It's too bad the people involved can't see the President is not "hypnotizing" them or their children. They are creating a boogeyman and absorbing fear and envy into their own viewpoints. The obsession is of their own making. They are victimizing themselves here.
To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.
www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com
| 
