Obama wants Citizens to report Health Care bloggers

I suggest people against this use the email address and submit millions of bogus tips.  That will busy!

A million e-mails saying flag this to flag@whitehouse.gov should do it :). 

or at the very least explain what the White House would do with the information it collects.

Well - it's kinda obvious. You get the URLs, videos, email content and see what the latest wingnuttery there is. Get a team together and show them up for the dumb-asses they are. Add to that you have people who will, undoubtedly propose a mass email spam attack, good in theory - but can be seen and shown to be a denial of service attack - bit stupid to have any trace of you mac address on that baby, spooks at the door stuff. I honestly don't know if wingnuts are this crazy - or if they genuinely think that the man who had a team who organised a national web campaign is as dumb as they think he is. The RNC - or some affiliate have been sending in the troops to the town halls aka Karl Roveian tactics (see Florida hand count) to disrupt the meetings - as per exposed by none other that S Colbert in memos sent out as what to do at said meetings.

Nope...first, they aren't saying that the bloggers are criminals...this video is propaganda against health care reform and also against the administration.

One thing good about Obama is that he listens to the public so he knows how to answer their questions and concerns. He is the first president to take advantage of what citizens are saying on the internet.

This is just more trash against health care reform....and against our president, who is trying to really make some positive changes. He isn't a miracle worker...he has to deal with many others who help to make the laws.

But, he is trying.

 

Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.

 

IV. Narcissistic and psychopathic Leaders

  The narcissistic or psychopathic leader is the culmination and reification of his period, culture, and civilization. He is likely to rise to prominence in narcissistic societies.

The malignant narcissist invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and this is further exacerbated by the trappings of power. The narcissist's grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience are supported by real life authority and the narcissist's predilection to surround himself with obsequious sycophants.

The narcissist's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".

The narcissistic leader fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.

The narcissistic leader is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, the narcissistic leader became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman".

But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.

In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to as "nature" is not natural at all.

The narcissistic leader invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.

In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.

Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.

Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon a narcissistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.

Minorities or "others" - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent", they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are narcissistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenceless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.

This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a malignant narcissist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.

The narcissistic leader prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - the narcissistic leader having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely-held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. "Earth shattering" and "revolutionary" scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.

It is important to understand that the use of violence must be ego-syntonic. It must accord with the self-image of the narcissist. It must abet and sustain his grandiose fantasies and feed his sense of entitlement. It must conform with the narcissistic narrative.

Thus, a narcissist who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite - is highly unlikely to use violence at first.

The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc.

When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail - the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

This primitive defense mechanism is called "splitting". To the narcissist, things and people are either entirely bad (evil) or entirely good. He projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. A narcissistic leader is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country, etc.

The "small people", the "rank and file", the "loyal soldiers" of the narcissist - his flock, his nation, his employees - they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated - is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.

This is not good. Thanks for the information.

Americans our treading on there own bill of rights and opening Pandora’s box on themselves... Freedom of the first Amendment and fourth Amendment are being tested and violated in regard to these requests to tell (aka fishy emails) on their Friends, Family, Neighbor and American citizens. (Read the amendments carefully, please.)

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 Congress made no request regarding these requests for citizens to forwarding emails, that are fishy - it was the white house making this a voluntary requests by citizens which is allowing the Citizen to freely provided information making it a violation upon citizens against citizens.

Americans are standing on Touchy ground and they truly have not a clue of what the price or cost of their right as a citizen they are and will be giving up on - all by themselves. The government is not forcing any one individual to do this to protect its citizens - oh no it doing this to protect themselves and this health care plan being proposed by the Obama administration.

This guy is just another bum fom Chicago.

The Obama Administration lacks the constitutional authority to tell people, corporations and paid lobbyists what to say about health care in the blogosphere.  Nevertheless, the president has a responsibility to make good on his promise to offer health care to the 47 million people who lack it while guaranteeing that those who have health insurance will not be unfairly rejected by private insurance companies for medical help when they need it the most.

In the digital age, achieving legislative goals means engaging in hand-to-hand combat with astroturf insurance company lobbyists posing as normal members of the public.  The Administration obviously can't tell anyone what not to say, but the Administration has a responsibility to quickly respond with truthful information that helps Obama keep his campaign promises.

If someone at NowPublic says there is something wrong with implementing the changes in the US that are already working in Canada, France, Brazil and other countries, I certainly hope the Administration will ask and organize its supporters to combat and rebut lobbyists' misinformation and  rhetorical cow dung that masquerades as public opinion.

Just another Chicago thug plain and simple. If Obama thinks there is too much opposition against ANYTHING he wants to do, he resorts to strong arming and intimidation with no regard whatsoever for the will of the american people. Just another Chicago thug. Simple as that.

I am beginning to look into the issue of reporting any information that would be viewed as false information by those whom originated the plan.  I see and desire to understand different viewpoints concerning this issue.

When anything is sent as a forwarded document the sources can be traced (please correct me if I am wrong - with proof of the inability to trace the sources of the document and all those that review it and choose to re-distribute the information). 

If an institution requestes to receive such a document I ask:

What other information can be obtained through such an action?

What is their stated intent?

What other actions are possible upon obtaining the document other than the stated intent?

 

The Request Has Been Made.  Their stated intent is to be given the opportunity to identify statements that are being made that do not accuratly represent their proposed plan.  This will allow them to address the inacurate information which has been titled "disinformation" and present their intended purpose.

Obtainable Information.  Through receiving inaccurate information they are then enabled to clerify the intent of plan according to the intent of the creators.  They would also by default receive a list of those whom have previously received and re-distributed the document. 

Additional Actions Possible.  Questions to ask - though the stated intent has been made what additional unstated intents could exist?  If an entity gains a list of those who are in disagreement, what outcomes are possible?  The list can either be deleted and ignored or the list can be utilized for addressing those individuals.

In our nation we are allowed to vary in opinions and should encourage each individual citizen to develop their conclusions utilizing their own reason - independent thought.  Is the opportunity for an entity to missuse a list of those who are not of like mind too great a potential risk to endorse such a request?

My own independent thought is that the idea of my fellow citizen forwarding my statements to the government in any traceable format is a risk as I am then trusting the government to conduct themselfs in a manor that does not jeopardize my personal safety.  Though I do want to trust our government, I do not want to be under the flawed thought that a government entity will never act against their own people in the pursuite of their proposed agenda.

Given this, I recognize and commend their desire to address our issues but question the reason why they have turned to our fellow citizens rather than to us.

I am beginning to look into the issue of reporting any information that would be viewed as false information by those whom originated the plan.  I see and desire to understand different viewpoints concerning this issue.

When anything is sent as a forwarded document the sources can be traced (please correct me if I am wrong - with proof of the inability to trace the sources of the document and all those that review it and choose to re-distribute the information). 

If an institution requests to receive such a document I ask:

What other information can be obtained through such an action?

What is their stated intent?

What other actions are possible upon obtaining the document other than the stated intent?

 The Request Has Been Made.  Their stated intent is to be given the opportunity to identify statements that are being made that do not accurately represent their proposed plan.  This will allow them to address the inaccurate information which has been titled "disinformation" and present their intended purpose.

Obtainable Information.  Through receiving inaccurate information they are then enabled to clarify the intent of plan according to the intent of the creators.  They would also by default receive a list of those whom have previously received and re-distributed the document. 

Additional Actions Possible.  Questions to ask - though the stated intent has been made what additional unstated intents could exist?  If an entity gains a list of those who are in disagreement, what outcomes are possible?  The list can either be deleted and ignored or the list can be utilized for addressing those individuals.

In our nation we are allowed to vary in opinions and should encourage each individual citizen to develop their conclusions utilizing their own reason - independent thought.  Is the opportunity for an entity to misuse a list of those who are not of like mind too great a potential risk to endorse such a request?

My own independent thought is that the idea of my fellow citizen forwarding my statements to the government in any traceable format is a risk as I am then trusting the government to conduct themselves in a manor that does not jeopardize my personal safety.  Though I do want to trust our government, I do not want to be under the flawed thought that a government entity will never act against their own people in the pursuit of their proposed agenda.

Given this, I recognize and commend their desire to address our issues but question the reason why they have turned to our fellow citizens rather than to us.