Open Thread #65

“I remember my first vote. The person I vote for never wins. I’m willing to accept money to vote for your opponent. Any takers?”

I get paid not to vote.

Chun: “My question was narrowly about those who spend a lot of time online, criticizing or complaining about the country and its people. My questions was not about those criticism or complaints, which is understandable, but was about why they use so much time and energy doing it, which is sometimes overwhelming.”

Mr. Chun, I believe my response addressed this the most directly. If they didn’t feel slighted, they wouldn’t need to blow off steam. The answer lies in how they are treated.

To live in a foreign culture one needs to invest a huge amount of psychic energy. One willingly opens himself up to a completely different worldview and embraces it.

When all this energy that poured into understanding the culture, learning the language and customs, and attempting to befriend the people ends up meaning nothing because of a glass wall, there is going to be a profound disappointment that results in hurt and indignation.

After all this good will, insult is added to injury, and the expat sees his county and culture publicly vilified and slandered (think of all the groundless anti-American demonstrations over the years – the nonsense about the 2 schoolgirls and the nonexistent mad cow disease, etc.), then there is indignation.

I believe the indignation turns to anger when the expat has no forum in Korean society to express his opinion without being shouted down and suppressed.

So, if they let off a little steam online, that would appear to be a perfectly civilized way of expressing the frustration of being so profoundly disrespected.

I’ve been on both sides of the fence so I believe I understand. I hope you will take this as a sincere explanation.

“I also promise not to say anything that may annoy or offend anybody.”

Imagine. If you could get the same pledge from McCain/Palin, there would be nothing left of their campaign.

What’s your point Elgin? Presumably, you have one.

Brendon: “Oh, how I wish the left would stick to the truth. The cynical advancement of so many lies as truth, and the labelling of many truths as lies, is the chief thing I cannot stand about the Democrats. What’s gone wrong with them?!?”

I don’t see it. What I see is the opposite. McCain/Palin have been spreading fictions about Obama and assassinating his character. And I also don’t buy the “leftist media” myth either. We all know they’re corporate controlled. One can see how much the press has been playing into the Republican distractionist ploy by focusing on the Republican criticisms of personal criticisms of Palin rather than the real substantive issues that should really alarm America about her reactionary philosophy, corrupt public record, and disgracefully dishonest attacks on Obama.

To the contrary, Olberman is good at what he does and has achieved the best ratings in the history of the network because of it. Once he raised his voice against Bush, his show’s ratings rose precipitously. However, MSNBC has, according to one employee, “banked the entirety of the network on Keith Olbermann,” which drew criticism like a lightening rod. I believe it was his presence, rather than his comments, that caused this flap, because this ill-conceived experiment, obviously aimed at increasing ratings, blurred the line between news and commentary.

This is unfortunate because it provides fodder for the non-issue Republicans who are banking on distracting the voters from the issues with such fallacies as the supposed “unfairness of the left wing media” to galvanize public approval for their do-noting, deny all brand of excusism.

Brendon:

Besides, we all already know that Barry’s more about the overall narrative and not so much about the details

As fallacies go, this is an interesting one. The appeal to general knowledge, in which the phrase “we all know” is used to create the illusion that the argument’s validity has already been established and passed into general knowledge.

It is in fact the Republicans who are busy setting up strawmen left and right to counter all the substance the Democrats are raising. The issues are quite clear to the public, and to the Democrats, but the Republicans are busy trying to redefine the issues with a series of distractions including Sarah Palin, whining about media coverage and diffusing the public’s call for change by making the improbable claim that they – the very party that created the mess that precipitated the public outcry for change – are the real agent of change!

The RNC, narrowly focused on damage control, locked Bush away in a closet and did not even give a nod to Reagon’s conservative idealism. McCain, who lost the last primary to Bush because of his failure to appeal to the religious right, did major damage control by naming a VP right from their ranks.

While Brendon throws out the comment that the Democrats are increasingly desperate, it is quite obvious who the desparados are here, those who are desparately launching canards to shepherd the American public away from the issues it considers vitally important. And if there ever was a more apt discription of “mislead,” I haven’t seen it.

“BTW, Keith Olbermann having only “blurred” the lines between news and commentary is the understatement of the millennium. He makes Bill O’Reilly seem tame and humble, and that’s definitely not an easy feat to accomplish.”

Platitudes. Provide examples.

“Do-nothing, deny all brand of excusism” would be the Democrat-controlled Congress from 2006 to the present. They supposedly know what issues the American people consider to be vitally important, but what have they done? Pull the troops out of Iraq? Impeach Bush? What did they do? What did they change?! They can’t even get a budget passed on time. I wonder if that is why their approval ratings have been consistently 10% below those of Bush.”

I agree with you here. I am disappointed that they didn’t stand up to Bush. At least Obama voted against the war.

“You engage in logical fallacies frequently but only seem to point out the ones made by others. You respond to Brendon’s supposed fallacy with a slew of your own loaded arguments and logical fallacies.”

Not that I know of. Can you show me a concrete example?

“McCain is not a standard conservative or an agent of Bush. It’s not really correct to label him as being the “Republican Party” or generally representative of it”

Even though the record clearly shows otherwise? See below.

“And, if anybody is whining, it is Obama whining today in a speech in Michigan that McCain stole his slogan. It’s a good strategy on McCain’s part to take away Obama’s talking points.”

Obama isn’t whining but properly pointing out that it is extremely difficult to show an example of a McCain position representing a change from Bush’s policies. McCain isn’t taking away Obama’s talking points, but creating diversions, running like a banchee from the issues.

“Obama speaks in empty platitudes about hope ‘n’ change without really saying what that means, and then McCain speaks of change and says exactly what he means by that.”

The exact opposite is true. Obama’s positions are both specific and clearly laid out.

“Obama’s response of “Hey! I said it first! I call ‘first!’ No take-backs!” is a juvenile argument to say the least.”

This argument is juvenile, and I’ve already repudiated it above.

“And this is the crux of Brendon’s argument: Obama tells a simplistic story with sloganeering but never gives details as to exactly what he plans to do. The Obamessiah being elected is change enough for the unwashed masses.”

Well, this is either a willful distortion or plain ignorance of the facts. The fact is that the Democrats have continued to make the choice about issues, while the Republicans are attempting to make it about personality. McCain is a war hero. He puts his country first, bla bla bla.

Obama on the other hand has concrete proposals on the significant issues of concern to the American public.

“The recent poll numbers seem to have put Obama into a desperate damage control mode.”

What damage control? There is a Republican bounce which won’t last. Obama currently leads in the electoral map. But the majority polled – say that they fear that McCain will repeat Bush’s policies.

Americans aren’t buying the empty spin. According to a new New York Times poll, “Mr. McCain is yoked to the legacy of President Bush.” Indeed, a majority of Americans believe that as President, McCain “would continue Mr. Bush’s policies in Iraq and on the economy”:

– 78 percent: McCain would continue Bush’s Iraq policies

– 61 percent: McCain would continue Bush’s economic policies

– 65 percent: McCain would not bring change to Washington

“He was going to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq, but now he says he would wait.”

This just isn’t true. His position is nuanced but essentially unchanged.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=92226488

“He said that “The Surge” had failed, but now he says that it was a success beyond expectations.”

Again, his position is nuanced but unchanged. He continues to maintain that it has not succeeded in its aim although there has been limited military success. And he’s right.

“He said he would raise taxes, but now he says he would wait until the economy recovers (You mean lower taxes help the economy?!). Now that’s “change” you can believe in!”"

I’ve already highlighted his position on taxes. When did he supposedly say he would raise taxes? From his own voting history and from his words, we can safely draw some conclusions about Senator Barack Obama’s stand on taxes. We can see that he supports tax cuts for the working poor by the work he did as an Illinois State Senator. The creation of the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit saved Illinois’ working families over $100 million dollars in taxes. He supports tax breaks for the middle class. However, Senator Obama opposes tax breaks for the rich. This idea is supported both by his vote against the estate tax cut and his idea to use the roll back of President Bush’s tax cuts to fund his health care plan.

Sorry.

A disenbodied charge, such as “nebulous, intangible position” doesn’t just support itself, you know. Obama’s positions have been clearly enunciated and remain consistent.

Dismissing the NY Times out of hand? tsk tsk. There is a conversation to be had about the corporate media but it needs to be much more “nuanced” shall we say. The fact is that the polls shift wildly after the conventions and have, according to Brokaw, “a 2 week halflife”. The race was always expected to be tight, and the polls you cite are white noise.

Thanks for supplying that link again. It is an amusing send-off and homage, a melange of malaprops that stands in contrast to my logic. The fallacious use of fallacy nomenclature woven into a string of non sequitors is a comedic irony at its finest.

Nuance becomes you.

shakuhachi: “Mizar5,Obama has essentially embraced the war monger position. He no longer uses anti-war rhetoric. He is trying to out warmonger the warlord, and it isn’t going to work. He is going to lose the election because he has turned his back on the constituents that got him the nomination.”

Let’s hope you are wrong because Obama is more likely to establish the single most important initiative that the US needs today.

I’m talking about the fact that what is needed more than anything else today is an energy czar who can jump start the ET (Energy Technology) revolution that Thomas Friedman sees as the next IT revolution. Universal health care, national security, and all the other issues are simply ancillary (btw, Bush has been a disaster for national security -did you see the just-realeased report showing how Bush has dropped the ball on bioterror?)

http://ap.google.com/article/A.....QD933ESJG0

Friedman agrees that Obama is better poised to incentivise industry to take this direction and he points out that McCain has given a pass on such legislation 8 times in a row. He points out that govt policy must drive the enterpreneurial environment needed to get this thing started. His interviews with leaders in countries like China, France, Russia and other countries tells him that, given the US research infrastructure, the rest of the world is looking to America for leadership in this field.

McCain will continue to stand in the way of progress which will only set things back further economically.

Can Obama do better?

The only way to find out is to give him a chance.

“The US is a corrupt and declining power. If the 9-11 attack failed to make the country and its people aware of this fact, then I don’t know what besides a nuclear blast on its soil will do so.”

Bombastic and incendiary rhetoric. Shame on you. I agree that the US needs a swift kick in the ass but even if the current trajectory of decline were to continue (which is highly doubtful), it would still not decline to the status of France.