US Politics Group Featured Member - Saladin

this is why i follow this guy, very eloquent speaker and very intelligent man. like reading your posts (even though I don't always agree) but we have amazing debates and I always end up learning something. Keep on truckin Saladin.

Pretty much the same as Atalanda. Knowing you're my age , I guess I better brush up on my Political Science, read the periodical a bit more and watch CSPAN just to catch up to to my age group.

I've read your comments 2 years ago when I first started going to Current and I really thought you were some middle-aged guy considering your insight on all of the stories. Oh yeah, that was a great interview current89

Saladin is one of the very first commentors that caught my attention when I came on to current. I was always very impressed with your knowledge and style and impish wit. It is always weird to think you are only 20 years old. To paraphrase Janeane Garafalo, "I was already a black out drunk with an eating disorder when you joined the party." :)

Great interview. I look forward to your future posts. Your fellow atheist pal, Joy.

That explains a lot. 20 years old, you're too young to know any different. Love the rating on Obama. He lost points because the most far left President in American history is too centrist for him. Kids, gotta love 'em. You think you're cynical now, give it about twenty years.

Thought provoking, almost to the point of sexual arousal. I agree Obama Deserves at least 7.1 maybe a little higher. He inherited a nasty mess from Bush and same interests that Bush helped entrench are now competing to get Obama’s ear.

I always though Saladin was just a vegetarian. I suppose something else should have a Kurd to me.

p.s--One of my favorite analytical types at current. It would be OK with me if he did a little more beheading of the anti-rationalist "one track" infidel,...but hey,....its the Obaman Administration vibe and theme of civility and reasoned discourse. Saladin of old would have appreciated it. I'm down with that.

Very good interview.
Well stated answers. Saladin, you sound wise beyond your years.
When I see/hear people such as yourself that will someday be running this country, it brightens my day.
Lead on....

Great interview!

But I have heroes, like Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, to name a few.
Yes, all comedians!

Good to meet you, "Saladin". I have noticed that you often comment on my posts, some in favor and some not. But, with well founded thoughts and intelligent commentary.

yeah these interviews are awesome. i think every channel on current.com should have their own version...

I thoroughly enjoy these interviews

I think I'm gonna agree with cztheday om Obama's unsung successes in foreign affairs. Its less taked about now that the economy is the number one issue. But Obama has done a lot to change the discourse with countries around the world.

There are critics who say that he's just the same. I can already think of all the people saying Obama is just continuing imperialist policies in Haiti,etc. One thing for sure is that he's helped repair our image around the world since Bush left office.

Good interview, its nice to see someone is majoring in history. I don't major in history, but its been a lifelong obsession of mine.

I always wondered why you seemed very thoughtful for your years . You study history ! Delightful . I wish we all did . Another fascinating interview . Nice to meet you Saladin .

As usual, Saladin has given us much to think about. I was going to digest this interview a little longer before commenting, but I hate to see hunzedog's comments stand as the only reaction.

Contrary to Hunzedog's assertions Obama has, of course, delivered on scores of his campaign promises -- so many that it seems almost silly to start listing them all -- but just as a starting point, he indicated that he would attempt to engage the other nations of the world in bilateral or multilateral conversations rather than continuing Bushco's policy of unilateral engagement -- essentially dictating to the rest of the world. There was no guarantee that these conversations would be successful...and with regard to Iraq and perhaps North Korea, they may not have been (though we are no worse off with regard to those nations than we would have been had Obama continued Bush's policies toward those countries). But they have borne a great deal of fruit with numerous other nations around the world that had pretty much turned their backs on us under Bush.

I agree with Saladin that there is no such thing as a perfect person and that the appellation "hero" is tossed around a little too cavalierly in this society...but I still believe in the concept of heroes (though I certainly don't buy into the current popular culture definition of the word that makes a "hero" out of anybody who breaks a major league sport's scoring record or the like). Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, was heroic regardless of his infidelities. The same goes for Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. They were men of courage who risked their lives in the face of overwhelming odds to improve the lot of their fellow men and women. I don't think they have to be morally pure to deserve to be called heroic.

The child of two lawyers? Oh My God. You have my sincere sympathies -- though I suppose it could be worse. You could be the child of two child psychologists. Kidding. Sort of.

Final Q & A

Q. Free talk. Discuss what you wish.

A. There's a whole lot of apocalyptic talk going on in current right now about the future of America, more than usual I mean. Typically it can be ignored but nowadays they might be on to something. We're stuck in Cold War superpower mode and we don't seem to be learning from our mistakes. Meanwhile corporations have been getting nastier and nastier since the late 80's and 90's and the U.S. is over-committing its military to wars that it cannot win and which provide little to no strategic value.

During the ten year anniversary of the Berlin Wall the Daily Show did a funny comparison between the situation the Soviet Empire was in before its collapse and our own, some of the comparisons were rather uncomfortable. Much like the Soviets, the American Empire is stuck in an economic model which it thinks is perfect but is actually in drastic need of reform and safe foundation building. We've been running massive trade deficits for years now and the dollar likely won't be the world standard for much longer. If that happens, there will be huge trouble on the domestic front. We'll have to run faster and faster just to stay in place. It's ironic that after "winning" the Cold War 20 years ago now, we're going to be going the same way probably in a decade or so. Economists are all apologists for insanity these days and the media only covers scary stories if it's depressing enough to bring in ratings but not depressing enough to stir up action. But it's there, and you don't have to look very hard to see it.

Americans need to think deep about some big questions. About whether their constitution is inadequate (personally, I'm for a unicameral legislature, the senate needs to die), about what kind of nation they want to be (or if they want to be a nation at all), about what to do with religion and about a new consensus with which to work on. We've been stuck in these 1960's debates for too long now, we either need to accept our differences and move on or someone needs to win. Going back to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution doesn't work anymore, we're not the same country we used to be. Both sides need to give up that old sophistry about who is closer to the revolutionary spirit. But most of all, we have to break out of this consumption and war binge that we've been on since the end of World War II. If we don't, we're going to rot.

Again, I get tired of the "what has happened to America" talk on the front page everyday. It's usually melodramatic and out of context. But it's getting increasingly relevant with each passing day. We seem to be transforming more and more into a nation of loudmouth, irrelevant morons and our military and our magic tricks with the dollar are the only things that are keeping the rest of the world from ignoring us these days. Ceteris paribus, those aren't going to last much longer. In any case, Americans should hold onto their hats. Because unless a whole lot of things change, it looks like we're in for some rough times.

Q. Please rate President Obama's performance on a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), explain your rating..

A. Ugh, I think it's a vast oversimplification to rate a president based on a number. What if they pulled an LBJ and did great things for the country but escalated a stupid war that ruined the legacy? Do they get a 5 to balance out the 0 and the 10 on each respective issue? It's not like Olympic Ice Skating where the number can accurately represent how effective their leadership was. Plus it's his first year, so it seems premature.

But since I have to, I think I'd give him a 7. I was going to give him a six because he's too centrist and bipartisan for me and he hasn't gotten much done, but it's only been a year and he's dealing with a corrupt and incompetent congress and a hostile and infantile nation and media.

The right-wing has gone into opposition mode, they're betting everything they have on his failure and doing nothing productive at all. It's an old tactic, particularly for the right-wing who've been using it for nearly a century now. So their criticisms are required, and therefore bunk 90% of the time. It seems they're even trying to invent crises to pile onto him, and they started before his butt even hit the chair. The idea being is that if he -does- fail, they will have been right all along and you should have listened to them, etc. etc. They did a similar thing when Barry Goldwater lost to LBJ.

The left is impatient and unrealistic. They expect him to accomplish all of their hopes and dreams (since that's what he vaguely campaigned on) but he's not going to do what they want. He's a centrist, he likes to compromise and he doesn't really have that much power. He's practically a lame duck in his own congress. He's probably more left-leaning than Clinton but, not by much.

The center is either lulling back into its usual routine of stupidity and apathy or joining the right-wing tea party protests complaining about "getting government hands off of medicare" or calling Obama a Nazi/Communist/Hippy/Muslim/Atheist terrorist.

In short, most of the criticisms against him are unfounded and his party is utterly useless. Being a Democrat these days just means not being a Republican. So they don't agree on anything and, especially in the senate, the rest are too corrupt too care. So with what he's got he's doing an alright job. He's definitely not a change candidate though, just more of the same. Good cop, bad cop as the routine goes.

***My note. I agree with Saladin and others that the rating scale is a bit vauge and oversimplified. However, I think it serves its purpose.

Q. What do you think about the current state of political discourse in this country? For example, is instant gratification an issue, are people too quick or too slow to criticize politicians, does religion play too small a role? et cetera

A. Political discourse is completely broken. Much like the Gilded Age, we have two parties who are hyper-partisan but don't actually differ in ways that are of severe importance to the American people. Sure, their -rhetoric- might make it seem like they have huge, irreconcilable differences. But in practice, they don't fulfill the promises that make Americans so hateful of each other and they are both mostly loyal to special interests that are ruining the country. Since Nixon, Republicans have become increasingly corrupt, laissez-faire, Fundamentalist, militarist and idiotic and since Carter, Democrats have become increasingly centrist, bloated, whiny, wasteful, incompetent and apolitical. I always appreciated Lewis Black's interpretation of the current two-party system. We have a party of no ideas (Democrats) and a party of bad ideas (Republicans). Simplistic maybe, but accurate.

This isn't to say that there aren't huge differences between the parties (a reality made remarkably clear since the Clinton impeachment attempt) and I believe quite strongly that the right-wing in this country has gone completely insane. But when you put two average, non-partisan (or at least not as partisan as the average Joe), Americans in the same room on both "sides," you'll find that they have a lot more in common than Olberman or Beck make it seem.

The problem is that Americans are too connected to their televisions and too disconnected from one another. Sure there are partisans, both left and right, who will never see eye-to-eye (Teabaggers, Rush Limbaughs and Pat Robertsons on the "right" and College Liberals, Keith Olbermans and Chris Matthews on the "left"). But if it came down to reacting to problems in their local community, I think intelligent people on both the right and the left would react with remarkable similarity. The problem is that there are too many dividing issues that separate right from left (welfare, abortion, war, civil liberties, etc.) that people on both sides attribute too readily to each other. While there may or may not be sharp reasons to disagree on these things, Americans are more diverse than the left/right paradigm assumptions imply and the bottom line is that these differences don't matter as much as political and financial reform do.

To answer the second part of the question, yes, too quick and yes. People have become terribly quick to judge issues (myself included occasionally) that really should be evaluated over a longer period of time. I've always been skeptical of the "instant gratification" idea, I believe it's largely unsubstantiated griping. But in the realm of politics, it rings true. New technology and harsher partisan beliefs have created a populace that is quick to denounce but slow to allow redemption or greater context to emerge. Often times people will simply dismiss facts altogether if it's even affiliated with the "left" or the "right." Fundamentalism, too, is a massive problem. The plague has descended harsher on America than any other Western nation. As an atheist, I'm highly skeptical of religion in general. But I was also raised from a young age in a Christian church and know that whatever faults popular religion might have, it does enough good to redeem itself. But in popular fundamentalism, there are no redeeming qualities. From the Terry Schiavo fiasco to Pat Robertson and Jesuscamp, it's just a never-ending parade of insanity and stupidity. And since the 80's, they pretty much are literally Neo-con foot-soldiers. I don't think anyone has any doubt that they were that last 25% that believed in Bush.

Q. The Supreme Court of the United States recently overturned a 20 year old law that restricted corporations from donating money to campaigns. President Obama stated that the ruling is 'devastating to the public interest.' Do you agree or disagree with the decision? Why or why not?

A. As you've probably guessed from my last response, I disagree with them strongly. I believe the conservative bloc on the court has made this the worst set of justices in about a century. Along with the 2000 decision to essentially appoint Bush president, it seems pretty clear to me that the Supreme Court is essentially either bought out or openly partisan for right-wing interests.

Money is not free speech, the concept is ridiculous. The decision is as insane as Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County with corporate personhood, although not as big. That's probably the idea it was based off of.

To me, this decision is just a nail in the coffin, not some monumental change. I'd recommend watching the Investment Theory of Politics, http://goldenruledocumentary.blogspot.com/ .

Elections have been for sale for a little while now. Public funding and mandated time seems to be the answer, but good luck convincing a government-hostile America of that, even though it would cost next to nothing. Plus, the same entrenched interests that manipulate elections would convince a clueless public not to support it.

To be honest, after the 2000 decision that put Bush into office I'm not entirely surprised. This seems like more of the same Supreme Court partisan activism, a backlash against Obama's victory.

Q. Rank the domestic political issues listed below in order of importance from 1-6 (1 being the highest). Once you've finished ranking the issues, talk about the highest ranked issue.

1. Campaign finance reform.
2. Education reform.
3. Economic recovery.
4. Energy independence and climate legislation (how the US acquires its energy).
5. LGBT rights.
6. Immigration reform.

Especially after the recent supreme court decision, campaign finance reform seems to be the most important issue. Although it's really electoral reform (and just government reform period) that the U.S. needs, reform in campaign finance is an essential aspect of that. The bottom line is that our democratic-republic cannot function without autonomy from the private sector. If it were up to me, bribing a U.S. representative would be a felony for the recipient and and treason for the briber. That would stop corruption real fast.

If we don't fix it, we'll just see a repeat of the Gilded Age. Corporations buying senate seats, etc.

Q. Multiple laws were passed by the 111th Congress this year, of those laws, is there one that you wish repealed? Is there one that you completely support?

A. There's nothing I can think of that should be outright repealed, nothing major anyway. Despite how many bills were past last year, nothing was of massive importance despite maybe the extension of TARP and the Stimulus. I don't think those should be repealed, but they certainly could have been done better.

As far as what I of approve of, there were some limited financial and credit reform bills that were pretty good. I support those completely, but they don't go far enough.