Birthers
August 5th, 2009 | Editorial Cartoons | 24 Comments
Tweet
Americans love conspiracy theories, and none more than right wingers indulging their favorite fears about the left. The one in vogue currently among the loonies of the far starboard (quietly abetted by the GOP), of course, is that President Obama was not born in the United States. So successful have the birthers been in spinning this one that in a recent poll, a majority of Republicans surveyed claimed to believe it. We are all, left and right, ready and willing to believe the worst about the other side, but I’d like to trust that were the situation reversed, the Dems wouldn’t buy into such a fantasy about, say, Ronald Reagan. Then again, maybe I’m the one who’s fooling himself.
Topics: birth certificate, birthers, birthplace, Obama, presidency
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
I think it is Lou Dobbs on CNN that is keeping the birth certificate thing alive. I heard O’Reilly say that Fox News had checked on it over a year ago and that there is no doubt that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
Yes, I think you are the one who is fooling himself. I saw an ad this evening by the DNC stating the people showing up at these Town Hall Meetings are planted there to disrupt the meeting and referred to them as a mob. I have never before publically protested anything but if there is a Town Hall Meeting within one hundred miles of my home, I will be there and they will get an ear full.
I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but an Independent with a voting record to back it up. I have voted in 15 Presidential elections and I have only lost 3 votes. Actually, I have only lost two, as I voted for Perot as a protest vote because I didn’t like either of the other candidates.
So, Don,
I’m truly curious.
If you were invited to a Town Hall Meeting with the President, what 3 things would you want to give him an earful about?
Government controlled health care, Cap and Trade, government controlled corporations such as GM and Chrysler, just for starters.
Jerry, my first attempt at answering your question was rejected, so I will try again. Government controlled health care, Cap and Trade and government controlling corporations such as GM and Chrysler, just for starters.
Don,
I have to admit, “government control” is a pretty scary term, at least for those of us that grew up reading “1984″ and hearing about the “communist menace”. I’m assuming, though, that you are not against government control of anything. How about clean air and water? Speed limits? Social Security? My guess is that the problem is some line that shouldn’t be crossed and each of us would draw it differently. Some of my staunchest anti-government control neighbors want the government to control abortions, marriages, and crime but not guns.
You are right that the governments (Canada has a share also) now control GM. I think that the UAW controls Chrysler. I actually think I agree with you on this one. My understanding is that we took the ownership position in GM to try and get back at least some of the millions we loaned them. So, really, the issue in this case is we never should have given them the money in the first place. That decision was made under the prior administration.
In hindsight, we shouldn’t have, the bankruptcy that was to be avoided happened anyway. Once we did, though, the government protected the taxpayers and the UAW to the detriment of the bondholders.
I am also puzzled why we saved some financial institutions and not others. My gut tells me that an ex-Goldman Sachs CEO as Secretary of the Treasury had something to do with it.
I am not against government control of things like you mention, it is absolutely necessary and that is what the government’s role should be. Any law or control should be based on common sense and the same should apply to it’s enforcement. It is only when it leaves the realm of common sense that I oppose it.
For example, our little city receives it’s water supply from deep wells. The Department of Natural Resources is going to make our city spend in excess of $1,000,000,00 to combat something called radio-nuclieides (this isn’t spelled correctly – heck, I don’t even know what they are). At one City Council meeting, it was stated that if “a person drank 70 glasses of water a day for 70 years, it would be detrimental to his or her health.” This, Jerry, is the kind of government control that tee’s me off.
Now, I would like to ask you a question – what is your opinion of the “Cash For Clunkers” program?
Don,
Since you don’t know how it is spelled, I can’t be sure what you are combating. I did find:
A radionuclide is an atom with an unstable nucleus, which is a nucleus characterized by excess energy which is available to be imparted either to a newly-created radiation particle within the nucleus, or else to an atomic electron (see internal conversion) . The radionuclide, in this process, undergoes radioactive decay, and emits a gamma ray(s) and/or subatomic particles. These particles constitute ionizing radiation. Radionuclides may occur naturally, but can also be artificially produced.
If radionuclides are released into the environment, through accident, poor disposal, or other means, they can potentially cause harmful effects of radioactive contamination. They can also cause damage if they are excessively used during treatment or in other ways applied to living beings. This is called radiation poisoning.
Now, I’m not a scientist but it sounds scary enough for get more detils and if this is the stuff, I would think you and your neighbors would be up in arms if our government wasn’t checking into it. Who made the comment about 70/70? A government scientist or a city council person?
As far as the Clunkers program, I’m not a big fan. Then again, I wasn’t a big fan of sending out checks to everyone either. This whole thing about “stimulus” programs is dicey. Deficit spending can be useful in times of need, like WWII, but in general, the problem these days is that we never go back and pay down the debt. So, at best, I ambivalent but for the most part I think they are a bad idea.
It is obvious that you are better educated than I. I would never have researched radionuclides unless I thought they were affecting my family.
Here is my take on the Clunker Program and you tell me if I am wrong. I see it as taxpayers giving an individual a $4500.00 gift to use to purchase a new automobile. Maybe 1/2 of these individuals would have purchased it without the gift. A percentage of the remainder are purchasing something they cannot afford and cannot pay for. (Does this sound familiar?) Now we have taken some perfectly usable vehicles off the road that lower income wage earners could have made use of. Because of this, the price of a vehicle that a lower income wage earner needs for everyday use, increases in price. This penalizes the person that knows he or she can’t afford a new car.
More than 50% of these new cars being sold, are not American cars. Our President stated that “although they are not American cars, many are produced in the U.S.” It is my belief that they are only assembled in the U.S. and that the parts are foreign made. Hopefully, I am wrong about this, if so, please tell me bcause it would make me feel a lot better.
Ed,
I also got hung up adding my comments. Given Don’s duplication, I “re-cycled” my browser and found that it had posted ok. We’ll see what happens with this one.
It went fine.
There was a time when I was fairly concerned about this issue, but it has been laid to rest in my mind.
You all know that this will never go away; we will see documentaries about it years after the Obama administration has left office.
On a side note, its interesting that Obama has a lower approval rating that Bush did during the same period of his administration.
I am not a Bush fan by any means, I just think its interesting considering how popular Obama got during the campaign and how much the main stream media loves him.
Glad to hear that it has been laid to rest in your mind. As we know, though, nothing will ever just go away. The JFK conspriracy still lives on.
I find the whole notion of a presidential approval rating to be pretty worthless. The whole idea of
“Do you approve or disapprove of the way So-and-so is handling his job as President?” really has any value is laughable. In fact that the highest rating ever achieved (since FDR) was by GW, right after 9/11. The 2nd highest was by Bush Senior after the Persian Gulf, the 3rd by Truman after V-E Day and the 4th by FDR after Pearl Harbor. The lowest includes two of the above (GW and Truman) as well as Jimmy Carter. The worst average ratings for their entire terms were for Truman, Carter and Ford. Does anyone believe they were the worst?
As far as GW and BO, what was happening in the country/economy during the 1st six months of each term likely has a lot to do with the results. Also, I wouldn’t doubt that 10%+ of BO’s detractors are from his base that are not happy that he isn’t doing more to do things he campaigned on like getting our troops home sooner.
Don,
There was no “Reply” at the end of your latest comment – maybe there is some sort of limit.
I actually don’t see the gift to the purchaser, rather the car dealer (and to the salvagers who are crushing them). The dealers could have likely given a discount that got close to the $4500, anyway. My guess is that these folks weren’t dickering alot. I’m actually glad that these old beaters are off the road. At $3 billion, that will be about 750,000 of them. They were likely not the safest things around and were getting at least 3-5 miles to the gallon less than what they purchased. So, without doing the math, if those 750,000 drive 15,000 miles/year, that’s a lot less gasoline being burned up.
These days, what’s an American car? Was Chrysler an American car when it was owned by Daimler? Heck, are Budweiser or Coors American beers? To answer your question, though, most cars that are built in the US use at least 75% US/Canadian parts. They have to to say they are Made in the USA. But, how many business in the US don’t get alot of their parts/components/materials from some other country.
P.S. It’s not a matter of education, it is pretty easy to Yahoo/Google for info. You just have to understand that everything you read may not be the truth – but what’s new about that?
Don Johnson: “I would never have researched radionuclides unless I thought they were affecting my family.”
-R: Now imagine that there were a cancer outbreak in your town and there was no effort to control the radionuclides and the real science showed that 70 glasses a year was enough to cause the issue…
I don’t know what the real data are for your town, but just some random comment being made at a council meeting should definitely be supported by actual scientific studies. Was the person making the comment a relevant expert on the subject?
-Rusty
Rusty,
It was our City Administrator whom I have a lot of respect for. We are a small city of 16,000 with most of the advantages of a large city. To answer your question, I will meet with him Monday morning and get the facts and will reply again Monday evening.
The ridiculous figure was 70 glasses a day for 70 years, not 70 glasses a year.
Don
Hi Don,
Yes, I understood what you said. My meaning was, What if the *real* statistics indicated a problem at 70 glasses per year (as opposed to 70/day for 70 years)?
After talking with your City Admin, see if you can get independent information from your state’s State University. I can understand having trust and respect for this individual, but is he actually up on the science involved? Obviously, I don’t know.
Good luck, and I hope you get the right solution in place (if one actually needs to be put in place).
-Rusty
Oh, and here is the EPA recommendations:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/index.html
-Rusty
Thanks for the info and of course I would be concerned if it were 70 glasses per year. The original point I attempted to make was how ridiculous government intrusion can sometimes be. If it were 70 glasses a year, I would be alarmed and demanding a solution. At 70 glasses a day for 70 years, it’s a joke.
Don
I think that is the problem, Don. You’re tee’d off at government control and intrusion and you really don’t know what the problem is. That sounds al lot like what is going on in a number of areas including the birthers and the health care debate. I’m personally puzzled how folks can get wrapped around the axle without knowing anything about the subject. It seems like Ed’s toon above is right on. Too many listening to talk radio or watching ’24′?
Oh, I know what the problem is and I believe it is well on its’ way to being resolved.
Hi Don,
“The original point I attempted to make was how ridiculous government intrusion can sometimes be.”
Or how ridiculous government intrustion can be made to *seem* to be. You don’t know if the 70 glasses/day by 70 years is a real statistic, or just political rhetoric.
Here’s the kind of question you should find the answer to: In a town of 16,000 over the course of 20 years, how many people are expected to get cancer due to not having the system in place, vs having the system installed? 40 years? 60 years?
Then you’ll have a better idea of the long-term benefits of the system, and be better able to understand whether the cost, in your opinion, is worth it. If your talking 1 person over 60 years, then the total costs over that 60 years might not be worth it. But what if it’s 10 people over 30 years? Or 12 people over 20 years?
Those are better estimators, because if it comes down to the probability of a single individual, it might seem terribly low for such a cost. (For example, if the probability of a single person getting sick over 40 years is 0.1%, over the whole population, that’s an expectation of 16 people getting sick. Are 16 people worth it?)
-Rusty
Rusty,
The knowledge required to discuss this intelligently is far above my pay grade. I have e-mailed out City Administrator and asked him to weigh in on this subject. Hopefully, he will oblige.
Don
Ed Stein – I just read your cartoon on the Obama birth certificate. I have an idea for another cartoon.
A professor in front of a class with an enlarged picture of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.
The professors asks, “does anyone know what the word redacted means?” Why does anyone redact part of a document?
No one has answered that one.
ML
Documents are redacted to keep certain information from being publicly available, e.g., to avoid identity theft.
BUT, did you hear about the student who got ejected from that professor’s class who said, “Did you see the article on FactCheck.org, where they actually have photos of the unredacted cert?”
-Rusty
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html