There was a luncheon event at the library. A woman who had run for local political office and a self-proclaimed "political junkie" was reviewing a book about Obama’s campaign. She wasn’t a very good speaker, giving a talk peppered with "Ums" and "Ahs" and what she had to say wasn’t particularly interesting. I wasn’t interested in the book before she reviewed it and was even less interested after.
However, I was intent on making a go of this and trying new things.
"Light refreshments will be served" was the promise and, while I was not expecting much, I was expecting something more than apple juice and Ritz crackers. Also, considering the library is right downtown and very close to government offices, I was expecting a more mixed audience. Of the 40 or so people there, more than 75% were OLD and only two were not white.
When the speaker was done making her review, the floor was opened to discussion. It wasn’t really discussion of the book, though, it was a broader political discussion that was taking place. One old man stood up to say that he thought that Obama should ressurrect FDR’s fireside chats and find a way to listen to what people thought. I interjected that this was happening on the internet, quite often in fact, but was completely ignored for having said that.
Well, not completely, since the gentleman in front of me acknowledged me and called it a generation gap. That he and the rest of the old men and women were not likely to understand the importance or reliance on the internet, so this idea of radio broadcasts or television broadcasts made the most sense. I disagree and told him so, because most people will just change the channel, especially those who hold the most common misconceptions and embrace them. It was a nice side conversation we had.
But the general conversation turned to the ridiculousness of the "birthers" – those who question whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate states. The question was how do people believe this and, by the way, what is the process for determining citizenship for presidential candidates, anyway?
Because she had run for local office, our speaker explained that she thought that it was a case of citizenship being a presumption and that no one would look into it unless it was challenged.
This is ridiculous, false and a fear-mongering response to make to anyone questioning the process. I was so angry that I jumped up and interrupted her. We are forced to produce evidence of citizenship on a regular basis, and that’s just those of us who aren’t involved in politics. We prove our citizenship with every government document we request, with every passport application, with every new job we apply for. We regularly have to produce our birth certificate and/or social security card. That’s just to live a normal life.
Add in security clearance, which top officials need to have. This requires a background check, which would ferret out any issue of non-citizenship early into the process and would, most likely, cause security clearance to be denied. Even a standard background check for employment would find that information, but we’re talking about military clearance that is required of higher officials. The bottom line is that no one could possibly get anywhere near the nomination for President without having been thoroughly vetted and their citizenship proven beyond a doubt.
In return I got blank stares. Apparently, the only expert in the room was the speaker, who was sharing misinformation with old people, rather than to say "I actually don’t know the answer to that question." The old people were resentful of me for correcting the misinformation of the speaker. The speaker was resentful of me for correcting her and for (as far as I can tell) being more knowledgable about the political sphere than she.
So I left. I was done with the whole political discussion, such as it was. I remembered why I dislike the liberals of this area as the speaker went on about how proud she was to have helped elect a black man to office – how difficult it was for the country to choose between the first black president and the first woman president. In a sea of white faces, she went on and on about how good a person she was for voting for a black man (even though she would have preferred to vote for a woman).
I won’t go back for another political review/discussion/whatever, but I think I will give it another try. There’s a talk coming up about orangutans in the wild and that sounds interesting. Also, since it’s someone’s personal experience, the liklihood of them being outright WRONG about the answers to the questions is unlikiely. We’ll see what happens.
