Tuesday, October 24, 2006
|
|
Absolute Moral Authority Revisited
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
6:11 PM
|
|
Allah yesterday uncomfortably alluded to an Ann Coulter theory that the left was devising a strategy where it would rely solely on spokespeople that you couldn’t argue with. While I, too, deplore Ann’s bomb throwing, when she’s right, she’s right. The left’s strategy is to have absolute moral authority figures like the Jersey Girls or Cindy Sheehan carry its message. The messengers would also necessarily be victims so if you got down ‘n’ dirty with them, you would automatically qualify as a cretin.
I learned this firsthand over the past couple of days when I questioned Michael J. Fox’s actions during this campaign season. My inbox filled with vituperative semi-literate screeds, while on the internet blogging imbeciles inferred from my post that I was “mad that I can’t attack handicapped people.”
Much as Glenn Greenwald heaves one of his virtual despairing sighs when neither he nor any of his alter egos can achieve a productive dialogue with his right wing critics, I now face the temptation to walk away from this matter. Alas, sadly, there is more to say. Markos Moulitsas has coined the Michael J. Fox offensive the real October surprise. Thus, it must be dealt with.
First, given the ridiculous protocols of our day, I feel it’s necessary to establish the fact that my victim bona fides compare favorably to Fox’s. For those of you new to the site, I have Cystic Fibrosis. CF is a genetic disease, so I’ve had it all my life. It is no exaggeration to say that while Fox was gamboling around the set of Family Ties in the mid-1980’s, I was fighting for my life. Since then, my health has ranged from shockingly good for a CF patient to rather precarious.
I say this not to elicit anyone’s sympathy. Quite the contrary, I have willingly entered the rough and tumble of politics via the blogosphere expecting no quarter. Nor have I offered any. If I have a code, that’s it.
Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, often operate as if guided by the exact opposite principle. They think a person’s victim status means that he must necessarily be treated with kid gloves. Max Cleland has become a voice of perpetual outrage since he was ousted from the Senate in 2002. The Democrats bring him out every time they wish to create a visual representation of how mean Republicans are. Cleland’s triple amputee status serves as an implicit and often explicit indictment of Republican politics – so venal are Republicans, Cleland’s very presence seems to scream, they attacked this heroic man.
But I’m here to tell you that you’re not a hero just because you get sick or have bad luck. You’re not even special. Before we get off this planet, we’ll all have serious illness or serious bad luck, likely both. Sorry to say, the world isn’t full of 6 billion heroes.
I’ve sat in lung transplant support groups and seen people show incredible courage and stoicism. I’ve also seen people carry on endlessly, lost in their own self-pity, angry at the world and doing everything possible to make their loved ones miserable. I can tell you from personal experience, you’d have to have a heart of stone to not feel for all these people. But they’re not all heroes. No way.
Michael J. Fox has willingly entered the political fray several times over the past decade. I’ve learned that a lot of people think that questioning him, his motives or his wisdom is a third rail of polite conversation. It isn’t, or at least it shouldn’t be.
The ad that premiered yesterday in support of Claire McCaskill was grossly misleading. It didn’t mention any of the specifics where Talent differed with Fox, surely because McCaskill knew that on those areas of difference, Talent is much more closely aligned with Mizz-o-rah voters than Fox is. What’s more, the areas of difference will be settled by a referendum question in the Show Me state, so the differences between the Senate candidates are moot.
Today Fox debuted an ad on behalf of Maryland Senate candidate Ben Cardin. The scene was the same as the McCaskill ad – an obviously unwell Fox looking into the camera and beseeching viewers to support Ben Cardin.
In both ads, Fox’s commentary raises the issue of what lines of research have been promising and what lines haven’t. Oddly, both ads avoid the mention of embryonic stem cell research, but that must be what Fox was talking about. I haven’t heard a single politician, either Republican or Democrat, oppose adult stem cell research or any other kind of stem cell research except embryonic stem cell research.
The first thing of note about embryonic stem cell research is that to date it has been a dead end. Again, regarding what kind of funding embryonic stem cell research should get, I can call on some personal expertise. The medical research community has scarce dollars. Those dollars get funneled into the most promising areas. Unless the government is doing the spending, they are not frittered away on vanity projects or to make political statements. Based on embryonic stem cell research’s results to date – none – it is not a logical recipient for scarce research dollars.
And then of course there is the moral issue. Fox’s plea is presumably supposed to preempt any debate on that matter. His presence seems to defy any political antagonists to defend a fetus and deny him hope.
It doesn’t work that way, or at least it shouldn’t. Michael J. Fox has no particular monopoly on morality. Quite the contrary, his past admission that he appeared before a Senate subcommittee without having used his medication suggests an unbecoming moral flexibility. This is brutally manipulative behavior, and I’ve seen many ill people use similar means to get what they want. Such conduct is contemptible.
Here’s the part that Michael J. Fox and his abettors in the Democratic Party don’t get. A presence like Fox’s or Cleland’s can end arguments, but they don’t win them. People may be reluctant to disagree with them publicly because of the pity factor that Fox and Cleland so assiduously court, but just because people who disagree with them are cowed into silence doesn’t mean they rest in agreement.
When all was said and done, Max Cleland lost his reelection campaign in 2002. That’s a fact the 2006 Democratic Party would do well to remember.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com .
|
|
|
Also, let me add that you all were right that my explanation of how Bush started the squabble with Shehan was lame. There is a truth I was getting at, but it was very poorly expressed--and ideas have no power without being properly articulated. So your sneering at my "reasoning" was warranted. |
|
I guess this thread is running to an end. Could not respond earlier because had other priorities.
Did want to say, however, that while you are right that some people on the Left hate Bush, I sure don't. And I don't understand their sheer antipathy, although I must say it is not nearly as vituperative and ridiculous as Clinton-hating. I don't expect you to agree with that, but you can believe whatever you want. One in three Americans are self-described "conservatives" and only one in five are self-described "liberals". The noise of your bile is far louder than the noise of mine. And I would also add that the Republican inability to unite the Country in time of war--due to putting partisanship over patriotism--will discredit them for years to come.
And again, Kerry is the better man. You can cite bad examples from Kerry's life and good examples from Bush's, act as though these "specifics" give you some insight into their relative character. I don't follow a childish moral narrative of heros and villans. My good guys and bad guys are human beings, not purely good nor purely evil. And since I am aware of my fatal moral flaws, I notice that usually have better insight than those who castigate their enemies.
Finally, I don't appreciate being called a liar, which you intimated in the absence of my being "clueless." While I have not always told the truth in my life, and at key moments at that, I do realize that I am probably more truthful than the next guy. This business of casting aspersions on the next guy just because he see's things differently is tiresome and idiotic. We all have the right to our own opinions and, as Pat Moniyhan once said, we do NOT have the right to our own facts. Spare me the harsh nonsense. A philosophic friendship is the highest friendship one can have--but a lowlife who casts aspersions on the character of someone because he thinks Kerry is a better man than Bush, or because he doubts the notion there is deep-rooted hatred towards Bush on the part of the Left (there are outliers--and in a country of 300 million, outliers are numerous), is just a lowlife. I mean, excuuuuuuse me for challenging your precious beliefs. |
|
Can you say scanned? I didn't think so. I don't read posts, for the most part, that are too long or that seem to have no punctuation or grammer in them, must be the teacher's son in me.
Make your point, but do it briefly, and try to use proper grammer. Otherwise people will question your intelligence.
Calling people names doesn't make them likely to give your argument much weight either.
Kane |
|
This is a little off topic, but I just wanted to give my two cents about how the politicization of science has affected me.
As a scientist who works currently in the field of breast cancer research, my colleagues (one who is also a Jesuit priest) and I have had to deal with the consequences of the politicization of science. We were recently barraged by hate mail when someone noticed that a fetal cell line that was derived decades ago elsewhere, was being stored at our institution. As mentioned above we do breast cancer research and not in this area, but it made no difference.
And then there is the concern that PETA members may compromise or destroy research that involves animal model systems for various diseases. Yet I have never encountered any problems with PETA directly at any of the four research institutions at which I worked throughout the country.
Science is hard enough with not having to deal with death threats or worse. Dealing with the Unibomber in the 80s was bad enough when one worried about opening a package in the mail.
As someone originally from a rural coal mining village, I appreciate the job opportunity and the opportunity to try to give something back to the country that has supported my education and training.
Again, it saddens me to see the devolution of the discussion of science in the public sphere these past years.
So many other things to discuss, particularly Mr. Barnett's mention of "scarce research dollars", but that's all I can write for the moment, I need to go finish an experiment.
|
|
...if perhaps Fox hasn't even been informed of all the promises of adult stem cell research and the problems with ESCR. I read once about an activist named James Kelly who once debated Christopher Reeve on the issue; afterwards, when he started to tell him about how promising adult stem cells were in treating spinal cord injuries, someone actually came up behind him and put his hand over his mouth to prevent him from doing so. In fact, there has been quite a bit of deception regarding this issue. Take Missouri's Amendment 2 for example; it claims to make human cloning for ESCR illegal, when what it really does is change the definition of cloning in order to only outlaw reproductive cloning rather than cloning for research purposes. They also use the term "early" stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells to deceive the public into thinking that human embryos aren't being used.
In addition, the media has been responsible for deception and omission on the issue. When a scientist named Carlos Lima published the results of his research, which showed that patients with spinal cord injuries regained some sensation (such as bladder control) and improvements in motor scores after being treated with their own stem cells and cells that lined the inside of their nasal cavity, it was ignored by the mainstream media, whereas even the smallest advancement in ESCR in rats or mice is all over the news.
Adult stem-cell research is, right now, being used in early human trials as a potential treatment for over 70 conditions, like cancer, MS, Parkinson's, and heart conditions. Embryonic stem cells have not, to my knowledge, been used in any human trials so far. It's not even known yet if they really can be turned into to any of the 200 cells in the body. Of course, this isn't to say it's not promising, and it could change, but even if it could, science cannot tell us if we should fund the research and if it is ethical. That is not within its scope, despite assertions to the contrary by those who think science should go from being value-neutral and amoral into a value system in and of itself.
Judging by their tactics, so far proponents of ESCR have not shown themselves to be on the moral high ground. For more on this issue, see the excellent bioethics blog, Secondhand Smoke http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/ |
|
I thought that liberal patriot was a quack until I came across your gem! You sir are a certified nutjob! Your suggestions that GW is the first president that "talks with God" would be comical, if it wasn't so disturbing that someone could have such a poor understanding of what being a Christian really means.
You may find a better response to your non-sense posts at DailyKos or Huffpost. Good luck with that! |
|
May, May, May-
How about you do a little reading before you attack the Scots? Some books you might find interesting are "How the Scots Invented the Modern World by Arhtur Herman and Thomas Cahills' Hinges of History series.
The Romans and Arabs did invent many improvements then stopped. The Scots developed ideas that have made democracy and education hallmarks of the modern era. We still use their ideals to further mankind.
Become educated may before slinging ethic slurs. |
|
Fox News showed a clip of the Michael J. Fox ad with the spastic movements. Then they showed him appearing at the podium at a campaign appearance for that woman veteran in Ohio (the one who lost her legs - her name escapes me at the moment). No spastic movements in that short clip. Apparently he took his medication for that one so as not to freak out her supporters.
Bottom line: It certainly appears that he didn't take his meds for the ad, in order to make his actual daily condition seem worse than it was, and to make a greater appeal for pity (and therefore, votes). That seems deceptive and dishonest to me. |
|
The lesson you missed out on in my sarcasm is this: unsupported assertions are worthless in furthering any sort of debate. Which is to say, simply asserting "you prove my point" without any supporting material, proves exactly nothing except that you know how to play primary-school games: "I did so!" "Did not!" "Did so!" and so on, ad nauseam.
Meanwhile, the lesson you learned from my sarcasm is... well, frankly, I can't see that you learned anything, judging by your latest baffling, non-sequiturial nonsense.
You have, however, amply demonstrated your ability to respond to criticism with bile, hatred, and vileness of the first rank. Well done! You have earned yourself a place among the liberal elite, all of whom possess that same quality. You should go see Mr. Moulitsas about getting a spotlighted blog on his site. |
|
No no no... you proved OUR point!
Gosh, isn't that game fun? |
|
1. As a matter of public policy, the debate is not whether or not anyone should be pursuing embryonic stem cells, but whether the government should by putting any valuable research dollars into it. And given the current state of the art, embryonic stem cell therapy would be about as useful a place to stow federal dollars as anti-gravity or time machines.
2. Your experience as a biology major notwithstanding, the fact IS that embryonic stem cells are simply NOT panning out. In fact, there was a story in the news JUST THIS WEEK about embryonic stem cells used on Parkinson's in mice: to wit, it caused new tumors.
3. The debate in Missouri - where the Fox ad is running - is *specifically* about a referendum making cloning legal.
4. Assume all you want about Dean, but don't mistake your own little fantasies for anything that is going on in anyone else's head - much less Dean's. But thank you for casting yet another aspersion, proving the point that the opponents of conservatives, be they Dem, lib, or whatever, can't seem to help themselves when it comes to casting conservatives as the Bad Guys.
Hateful little troll. |
|
speak for yourself, pilgrim.
We make less than $200, and the bush tax reform did impact our taxes.
You can lie all you want about taxes and about how patriots vote, but you are still what you are, and your lies are still lies. |
|
|
One assumes Dean would look at a kid with Down's syndrome who'd been locked in a closet for eight years, simply pronounce "Well, he ought to be an Olympic pole vaulter by now, I can't think of any other explanation other than his innate lack of potential." and shut the door again. |
|
Has anyone noticed that Dean's logic doesn't allow for any new scientific advances, ever?
Stem cell research, a field choked by political grandstanding, hasn't yet produced enough practical breakthroughs to impress Nobel Laureate Dean Barnett. No sh*t. Maybe next he'll take a bold stance against gravitic drives, or time machines. Unlike those two, however, stem cells hold actual promise, unless all my experience as a biology major is lying to me. What's your educational background, anyhow, Dean? |
|
You give away your agenda with your statement that Kerry is under attack by "lesser men." Who are these lesser men? The people he served with, and who would know what happened? Kerry lied about his record, and made up stuff to get more medals. And who can forget "I was for the war before I was against it"?
And you've ruined any credibility you may have with the statement that you don't think Bush and Cheney are bad men. Nancy Pelosi has been saying over and over that they are. Once again, you show us that you are all lying liars who lie.
Please don't think we are as obtuse as you seem to be, just because we disagree with you. Just because you think we are stupid doesn't make it so.
Kane
P.S. May, capitilization and paragraph breaks are your friends, they even make it so that your words will be read. |
|
George Bush is the first American President expressing Christian certitude in his Presidential decisions. God even speaks to Bush, and as the President told the press, he consulted with “another Father,” “a higher authority” than Bush41 on going to war with Iraq. If true, presumably God would have also told him how to win this Iraq war without all the mistakes, suffering and death.
The world has seen Christian certitude before and it’s not a pretty picture: papal infallibility when the Pope had armies, the Inquisition (intolerance at home) and the Crusades (intolerance abroad). When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099, they slaughtered all its inhabitants. When the Arab leader Saladin recaptured the city, he spared all the Christian inhabitants. So the Middle East is already primed for another war with Christian invaders; and accordingly and as the latest NIE confirms, the war in Iraq has increased the number of jihadists and terrorists and made America less safe. This is not praise for the enemy, but history and insight into why our “bring it on” cowboy President is only fueling this centuries-old fire.
Our brave, innocent young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for a better world, but a leader ignorant of history and cultures can easily cause the opposite. The stupidity of World War I and of Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau caused terrible consequences for another 70 years after the end of that war. Afghanistan is the right war, certainly a just war and the whole world agreed and was on our side, and if we would have concentrated our efforts there we probably would have wiped out Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11 by now. Iraq is the wrong war even if hopefully we win it, and Iran will be another, but larger wrong war.
The leader of Iran comes off as a whacko, however, the Iranians and the rest of the world view George Bush in the same way, so there is a common starting point. Real diplomacy involves talking with your adversary one-on-one without preconditions, and Russia and China have forced Bush to make a positive step in that direction. And there’s a lot to discuss with Iran: the CIA in the 1950s, the Shah, the 1979 hostage crisis, sponsorship of terror, Israel and justice in the Middle East. But if past is prelude, then Bush’s diplomacy with Iran will be perfunctory and manipulated (as it was with Iraq), and likely God has already spoken to our President and told him to go to war after the November 2006 elections (as he did with Iraq in 2002-2003). When Bush finally increases the level of hatred against the United States to where it engulfs Pakistan, then we face nuclear terror, and Biblical Armageddon becomes real and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Back at home, Christian certitude is present in Bush’s politics of division and hate. Nonbelievers of Bush’s Christian values and policies are viewed with contempt, instead of as fellow citizens in a pluralistic democracy. Civility has gone out of our civilization, and this type of Christian Right hate is now completely out of the closet with Ann Coulter’s latest book, which has been repudiated by few if any on the right who claim to practice the Christian message of love. Hate, hate, hate -- welcome to the new Christian America (not exactly like Mother Theresa or the Amish) . The Foley-Hastert scandal further shows the actual evil of the "perfect" practice of Christian good.
“Good and evil” is a concept common in religion, morality and ethics. Obviously the whole world needs more good and less evil. But is there a practical definition that everyone can agree on and that lends itself to objective measurement. How about: GOOD is something that makes the many human lives better and no or few lives worse, while EVIL is something that makes many lives worse, and no or few lives better. Some obvious good in this world: Habitat for Humanity, St Jude’s Children Hospital, etc. Evil under this definition would include a considerable number of Hollywood movies, a lot of poison on TV and violent video games, and internationally the Kim regime in North Korea and what it has done to its citizens.
Measuring George Bush’s actions by this definition with objective facts, our compassionate conservative, Christian President does mostly evil: from the growing Iraq disaster to Katrina mismanagement/incompetence to “no child left behind” (children in extreme poverty up 20% since Bush took office) to the $3 trillion dollar tax giveaway to the rich. Particulars on the last item: SUPPLY-SIDE (trickle-down) economics is a bogus theory promoted by those who benefit from it. In a mature capitalist system, supply side never rules, it’s always the demand side of the equation that governs growth and well-being. Think about the 1930s Depression, General Motors had plenty of supply, but demand evaporated.
Previous U.S. recessions have been cured with only $200 billion in tax cuts targeted to the middle class, because the consumer (the great middle class) spends that tax cut and primes the economic pump. But George Bush has raised the debt that your children and grandchildren will have to pay from almost $6 trillion to almost $9 trillion for this current recovery, which is uniquely without wage gains, and which has shrunk the middle class that makes America strong and great.
Corporations (the supply side) are now loaded with cash, but there’s no place to spend it because they don’t see any demand. So many corporations are using that cash to buy back their stock -- WOW, isn’t supply side wonderful in how it fulfills America’s needs? As the rich-poor divide increases, we’re headed toward previous shining examples of trickle-down economics: South America of the recent past and feudalism in the Middle Ages (South America and feudalism also had no wage gains). This is such good evil by our Christian President and his myriad of engorged friends.
I see a dark future for the country we all love. Even our Constitution is at risk when a President says he speaks directly to God (witness how God/Allah influences and corrupts Islamic attempts at democracy). The Constitution guarantees freedom to all, and freedom for all from tyranny. Our precious Constitution binds us together as a nation, and allegiance to it is the definition of patriotism.
|
|
You are welcome for my point-by-point rebuttal. I will not be providing another one, for the simple reason of this one quote from your post above:
"we don't think Bush and Cheney are bad men. That's hogwash, fabricated by the Republican attack machine to justify their own hatred."
Here, you are either lying, or demonstrating an ignorance of the debate so profound as to stagger the mind. Can you really be this clueless? I can't imagine that you are, but perhaps that is merely a failure on my part. Either way, the fact remains that this statement is even more laughable and ludicrous than your "John Kerry is a better man" assertion - and no, I have no intention to take that argument apart. Again, either you are lying, or you are clueless, and in either case it would be pointless to debate you further.
As to the hatred of the left for GWB et al, have you ever actually READ the Daily Kos? Or quotes from the heroes of the left?
Here, try these quotes from Cindy Sheehan, whom you think is just righteously protesting the wrong done to her by the government in going to war in Iraq:
"Then we have this lying b*stard, George Bush..."
"You get that evil maniac out here..."
"The biggest terrorist is George Bush"
"Our country has been taken over by murderous thugs"
Then there's Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic party:
"This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good" [and, lest you try to quibble about the context, IN CONTEXT he was referring directly to Democrats vs. Republicans]
"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for"
And if that last one wasn't clear enough for you, then there's Claire McCaskill, whose campaign got us on the discussion of this thread in the first place:
"George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black."
That's about as hateful an accusation as one can level. So don't trot out this malarkey about how "we don't think Bush and Cheney are bad men," or "we don't hate Republicans." You as an individual may not, many Democrats may not hate Republicans, but many do, and the party apparatus does, and hatred of Republicans, the casting of Republicans as bad men, evil men, etc., is the CENTERPIECE of the Democrat platform this campaign. There practically IS no other platform, since, as was mentioned and you agreed, the Democrats are not putting forth any plan or ideas of their own. All they are doing is saying "Republicans are evil. We're not. Vote for us."
So if you want to have a serious debate, either pay attention to what's really going on, or stop lying about what you already know is going on. |
|
|
We make far less than $200K/Year and are under no illusion that Bush's tax cuts have benefited us. As a family with 5 children any money back in our pockets that WE earned is is big plus. This classism stuff from the Dems is really old and a farce. |
|
|
You should label me cretin then because like you I don't think someone having an illness or handicap is shelter from criticism. I have tremendous sympathy for Mr. Fox's condition but I find his "moral flexibility" (nice phrasing there) reprehensible and would happily tell him so. Politics is game for heavy hitters..don't play ball if you are afraid of getting beaned. |
|
(Sorry, I've got to stop commenting before reaching the end of the thread.) But here goes:
" you could make the argument that a duplicitious, unsober, vainglorious Iraq adventure killed her son, and that she was attacked first by Bush's partisanship (i.e. use the war on terror to gain political advantage for the Republican party via invading Iraq). That's who attacked whom first!"
Did I read something this brilliant from Thomas Aquinas once?
You could make the argument that LibPat was severely cut on the tongue licking tomato paste lids as a child he/she thought was cranberry sauce, not quite up to reading age yet, which festered for ages into a maladjusted tenure throughout grade school and high school, which perpetuated itself into a stream of consciousness tenured track thought process, producing arguments similar to this one...
Or not. Is this a vituperative? |
|
|
As SnapDogger asserts that "Republicans and conservatives don't content themselves with attacking somebody's *views*, ...they attack the person ..." no facts from us will penetrate such armor. All rebuttals become personal attacks. Will you rebut this with another gratuitous assertion or a personal attack? |
|
"Based on embryonic stem cell research’s results to date – none – it is not a logical recipient for scarce research dollars."
The same can be said for nuclear fusion, quantum computing, and manned spaceflight. |
|
In terms of Cindy Shehan, you could make the argument that a duplicitious, unsober, vainglorious Iraq adventure killed her son, and that she was attacked first by Bush's partisanship (i.e. use the war on terror to gain political advantage for the Republican party via invading Iraq). That's who attacked whom first!
Also, I don't think your argument about "intellectual" differences meets my point about Republicans treating philosophic (or intellectual, if you prefer) differences as indicative of a deep-rooted moral (or character) flaw. I'll admit that all sides get a little huffy, but I think the Christianist divide between "saved" and "unsaved" is at the heart of Republican moral thinking these days. It is a sort of thinking that only differs from our Islamist enemies by degrees. We Democrats are of a different type altogether. Morally speaking, there are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people and those who do not. Unfortunately, there are too many Republicans in that first category.
Also, the distinction you draw between Shehan and a crime victim speaking up for a law and order candidate is a distinction without a difference. You are simply asserting Shehan is "parading her grief" as opposed to "speaking openly." I think you call it "parading" instead of "speaking" because you disagree with the message.
Also, we don't think Bush and Cheney are bad men. That's hogwash, fabricated by the Republican attack machine to justify their own hatred. Bush would be a great guy to meet at a bar and tell a dirty joke or two. Our argument against Bush & co is based on: Iraq, Katrina, Korea, Iran, flat wages, war profiteering, deteriorating health care and social insurance, massive public debt, right-wing judiciary, etc., etc. It is not an emotional argument at all--or if it is, it is the emotion of patriotism and dismay over what these guys are doing to our country. They think they are doing the right thing. Great evil is sometimes done by men thinking they are doing Good.
Also, why are Republicans authoritarian? I don't think there is much fidelity to Democracy there. Stated before elsewhere that you all would think it is better for America to win an election that is dicey than for the Democrats to win an election on the up and up. Am I wrong about that? Talk radio is a perfect metaphor for the state of the Republican mind: the illusion of democracy, of the marketplace of ideas, masking a deeper reality of a cult of personality (built around the host). Look at Bush! I never saw Clinton as something he was not. Why do Bush supporters act as though he is the second coming of Winston Churchill? Its ridiculous--or authoritarian, take your pick.
Also, how is Kerry a better man? The two grew up in privilege. One went to Vietnam, even though he was opposed; the other stayed home, even though he was in favor. And hilariously, it is Kerry's record that is under criticism--albeit by lesser men. He does not wear his faith on his sleeve, acting as though he is bigger than mere politics. He does not ridicule people for the way they talk or the clothes they wear or where they're from--basic things you learn in character 101. Bush has a bit of a cruel streak, and a bit of a temper. You don't hear that about Kerry. Kerry is the better man. Not that Bush is bad. Kerry is simply a better man than most--Bush isn't.
Also, sorry my friend, the Monty Python "I want to buy an argument" analogy doesn't wash, except to this extent: Republicans argue with straw men. They do buy arguments and via their noise machine, verbal bullying, and sheer authoritarian willpower, foist both sides--their own and the straw mans--on the public. Many Americans, particularly in the media, do not have the grounding to sort through arguments, and just go with the folks who have the power. Hopefully, once you lose an election, these idiots without a compass will take you less seriously. When it comes to Republican governance, the Emperor has no clothes.
While leads to the final point: the Republican "successes." No terrorist attacks? Have you found the anthrax guy? He's the fellow who sealed the hysteria in the aftermath of 9/11. How about the folks who attacked the WTC? How about the attacks in London or Madrid? Is England our best buddy in the whole wide world, except for when they are attacked, and then they are on their own? Steaming economy? For investors, to be sure. How about employees? How about the portion of the national product that is distributed to work (as opposed to ventured capital)? Wages are flat, and Bush could give a heck. I think Katrina is a perfect example of Republican unfitness. What if terrorists blew up those dikes instead of Katrina? What has the Bush Administration been doing with all that GWOT money? And the rock and hard place are our eroding strategic options in Iran and Korea as a result of misspent strategic decisions made by Bush and Co. Now we have to negotiate--and when you have to negotiate, you are negotiating from a position of weakness.
Anyhow, I think these should answer your objections. I commend you for your point by point refutation. I apologize for my less than organized response. My wife is calling from the other room and I don't have time to format into a nice outline. FOR ENFORCEMENT and CONCERNED: Don't you worry about my soul. It is orderly, patriotic, and fair-minded. |
|
He's just supporting who he thinks will further a cause that of course he is passionate about.
His methods certainly fall within the zone most actors would employ.
For social Conservatives his lending credence to Federal funding for new lines of stem cell research in the form of supporting an opposing Candidate is a call to arms, but he is free to support whom he chooses.
But then, the immoral strategy of searching out and developing those injured and needy who would tug at our heartstrings and be considered an unfaultable authority in and because of our politically correct society by the DNC is without doubt beyond exploitation, it's below pond scum.
For people who are this loathsome. A swift kick in the nads from Ann brings nothing but pure joy.
|
|
Excellent commentary on manipulation.
The Dims are never going to stop. When one thing doesn't work, they'll go to the next level, endlessly.
And I hope to high heaven that Americans are getting totally fed up with being manipulated.
There is some decent research on various diseases, and some good work coming from nutritional experts as well on some issues, that do really help.
I'm tired of a system set up to guarantee the promoters of fancy schmaltz being able to help make eachother wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, while sucking the air out of the room for things that really help - like natural things that cannot be endorsed by the FDA because they ARE natural, and synthetic patented products not having to face the full light of honest examination because of huge fat fees passing between govt bureaucrats and big company executive (not confusing that shady business with honest capitalism - this is closer to the old fiefdom system of "friends of the King!"). |
|
|
Guess you just had too much ketcup. |
|
|
|
|
All I can say is: may God have mercy on you poor misguided soul. There is nothing we can say here to help you. There truly is such a thing as being beyond help. |
|
|
Obviously not a dittohead eh snappy? Rush did cite Fox's book that says he (Fox) sometimes doesn't take his meds before speaking in front of Congress,for example, to get his point across. Hard to quote the master if you haven't heard from him directly. |
|
you wrote:
"I don't remember conservatives refraining from attacking Cindy Shehan or the Jersey "Girls". In fact, its your modus operandi to assault the character of anyone who dares to have an opinion that deviates from the Republican line."
1. So? Yes, we have attacked Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls. Question is, who attacked who first?
2. Are you saying that Democrats DON'T do this? If so, I suggest you read up on the last several months of Joe Lieberman's career.
NEXT
"I believe that today's Republican considers a liberal worldview to be a moral shortcoming, when at the very most, it is a philosophic shortcoming."
1. Believe what you like; you are incorrect regardless.
2. Most Republicans consider a liberal worldview neither a moral shortcoming nor a philosophic shortcoming, but rather an intellectual shortcoming. By contrast, most liberals prefer to cast the debate between conservatism and liberalism (or "progressivism", lately) in moral terms, to wit: liberals are compassionate, and therefore moral; conservatives are callous, and therefore immoral.
NEXT
"politics is all about "deputizing" leaders to speak for you."
Fair enough. But what's in question is the choice of who each party "deputizes," and what goals they have in mind when doing so. The thesis of Dean's argument (and Ann Coulter, and many other conservatives) is that Democrats do so in blatantly disingenuous, if not actively hypocritical ways, trying to short-circuit debate through seizing an illusory moral high ground.
Rebuttal?
NEXT
"On balance, John Kerry is manifestly a better man than George Bush, but the American people were bamboozled into thinking otherwise."
Can you provide *any* examples of ways in which Kerry "is manifestly a better man" than GWB? I find this assertion a crock, and I would find it amusing to see on which grounds you would try to base this laughable assertion.
Tell me, which of the following qualifies Kerry as a "better man"?
- Marrying his way into wealth, not once but twice
- Forever concealing his service records, after making his record as a Vietnam veteran a central point in his presidential bid
- Trying to silence critics who had served with him in Vietnam, and thus had firsthand experience of the matters on which he based his claims of being a War Hero (TM)
- Either (A) participating in atrocities such as murder of innocent Vietnamese civilians, cutting off of ears, electro-shock of genitals using a portable phone, etc, AND/OR (B) Falsely accusing his compatriots of same.
I would never argue that Bush is anything close to a moral paragon, especially in his younger years. But in the nearly six years since he took office, he has shown spine, and the courage of his convictions, and if nothing else, this constitutes a major point of character, one in which Mr. Kerry is markedly deficient - at least to judge from his performance as a senator and a presidential candidate.
NEXT
"On the other hand, Michael Fox and Cindy Shehan and the WTC Survivors are allowed to make their arguments without being branded out of hand. Would you say that it is not legitimate for a victim of crime to speak on behalf of a law and order candidate?"
As stated, no; I think a crime victim absolutely has the right to speak.
HOWEVER, you miss the point that conservatives are making:
1. A crime victim has no special moral status on the issue of any crime, much less the crime which the experienced firsthand. Ms. Sheehan, Mr. Fox, et al, are claiming otherwise.
2. It is one thing for a crime victim to speak openly and publicly in favor of one political position or another; it would be something else entirely to parade their grief to win "sympathy votes." Any crime victim who did so in order to win votes for their position would rightly be open and subject to whatever criticism might be lobbed at them.
NEXT
"As for "not having any ideas"... no ideas are better than bad ideas."
Indeed? Can you defend that assertion, or do you find it so self-evident as to require no logical support? I think you will find that many agree with you.
Moreover, it is far from self-evident that the ideas of Republicans are "bad ideas." Certainly that is the position of the Democratic party, but they are arguably doing a horrible job of supporting that position, relying instead on the emotional argument that George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, et al are bad MEN - which is a separate argument entirely.
NEXT
"The Republicans have given themselves over to an authoritarian philosophy--a philosophy which, also manifestly, provides terrible government."
Please provide a logical argument to support your assertion that Republicans have given themselves over to an authoritarian philosophy, and that the Democrats have not. In so doing, please take into account the vast diversity of Republican positions on Bush, Iraq, the salutory effects of tax cuts, et al. Please also take into account the Lieberman fiasco, and apparent ideological rigidity within the Democratic party on many of those same issues, before attempting your response.
NEXT
"It is not necessary to have "a plan" or an agenda. In elections, we deputize our leaders and they must deal with an evolving world situation."
Excuse me, the core of the Democrat "vote for me" argument is that they will do better than Republicans have. In order to make that argument, it is not sufficient to say what Republicans have done wrong - an argument which has yet to be conclusively argued - but rather, they must also effectively argue for what they will do differently, and HOW they will do it differently.
To quote Michael Palin: "An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition; it's not just contradiction."
To which you libs invariably reply, a la John Cleese, "Can be!"
Republicans: "No it can't! An argument is an intellectual process; contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says/"
Democrats: "No it isn't."
Republicans: "Yes it is!"
NEXT, AND LAST
"We make this decision on the basis of our values, and frankly, over the past six years, we have seen where Republican values take us--to that space between a rock and a hard place."
Excuse me. There has not been a major terrorist action on U.S. soil in over five years. Our economy is booming. Unemployment is at its lowest point in years. the stock market is hitting its highest point EVER, and without an Internet Bubble to artificially lift it. The economy is humming along so high, that tax revenues are exceeding all previous records, despite tax cuts. So apart from Iraq, what exactly are the parameters and details of that hypothetical space? |
|
Conjuring up visions of a "commie conspiracy" to explain the IAVA's ratings is easier for some than others, but what is more likely is that the methodology used to rate the legislators has not yet been refined to the point that it's useful. It is probably safe to assume that these veterans do not want the United States to be defeated militarily, so the fact that they give high marks to legislators who DO indicates only that the IAVA's key votes are too narrow and "inappropriately contexted" to be statistically meaningful.
Max Cleland did not sacrifice his limbs for his country while engaging the enemy; he blew them off himself while he was horsing around. That does not offset in any way the gratefulness of our nation for what genuine service he was able to render. There is no question, however, that the reason Jimmy Carter tapped Mr. Cleland to head the VA was that he was a "token cripple." Not all T.C.'s escaped the Carter Administration with their heads on backwards: Dr. Krauthammer turned out just fine.
|
|
Anyone who appears in a political advertisement is fair game for criticism - even of the tasteless or derogatory variety.
Viewers know that misrepresentations or exaggerated accusations are made against the ad creator's opponent. Fox can make his point, but just because he's ill, and happens to believe that very controversial research will cure him, does not let him off the hook.
Dare to enter the arena and prepare to defend yourself! |
|
I don't remember conservatives refraining from attacking Cindy Shehan or the Jersey "Girls". In fact, its your modus operandi to assault the character of anyone who dares to have an opinion that deviates from the Republican line. I believe that today's Republican considers a liberal worldview to be a moral shortcoming, when at the very most, it is a philosophic shortcoming.
With reference to this idea that Democrats hide behind the phony moral authority: politics is all about "deputizing" leaders to speak for you. If the 2004 election taught us anything, it is that people of good character are not necessarily able to distinguish good character in others. On balance, John Kerry is manifestly a better man than George Bush, but the American people were bamboozled into thinking otherwise.
I agree that there is something shameful, even contemptible, about using pity to win votes. Dean and the rest of you are right about that. On the other hand, Michael Fox and Cindy Shehan and the WTC Survivors are allowed to make their arguments without being branded out of hand. Would you say that it is not legitimate for a victim of crime to speak on behalf of a law and order candidate?
As for "not having any ideas" (I think someone brought that up--as in, 'they hide behind Cindy Shehan because they don't have any ideas"): no ideas are better than bad ideas. Today's Democratic party is a coalition, not a "party" in the European since of the term. We are the Democracy in this country. The Republicans have given themselves over to an authoritarian philosophy--a philosophy which, also manifestly, provides terrible government. We Democrats do not have all the answers. Maybe that's why we are the better alternative. Maybe we need leadership that is capable of drawing forth the best ideas rather than leadership that is disinterested in ideas other than its own.
In any event, the future is open-ended. Hate to say it, but Jesus is not coming. We human beings are stuck with each other. It is not necessary to have "a plan" or an agenda. In elections, we deputize our leaders and they must deal with an evolving world situation. We make this decision on the basis of our values, and frankly, over the past six years, we have seen where Republican values take us--to that space between a rock and a hard place. The failure of Republican governance is ultimately a failure of Republican values. And just as we Democrats were consigned to a generation in the political wilderness due to the failure of the welfare state, you Republicans have brushed against the limits of your social Darwinism. It doesn't work, and if Americans can see past the flim-flam, they'll recognize that the Democracy (i.e. the Democratic party) is the vehicle for restoring good government. |
|
P.S. -The Maryland referendum that Fox debuted for Dem Ben Cardin is the same as the Missouri (McCaskill)referendum vote "CLONING". Don't let the name of the referendum fool you read the fine print - it's not a stem cell vote at all.
Another devious democrat October surprise. |
|
Yeah right. Tell yourself that bilge over and over and over, it might taste like truth finally.
Are you suggesting that just because someone is a vet, they cannot be challenged? No, you are saying that if you get a vet to say what you like, you can disparage the vets you don't like.
Cleland lost jsut the same way any other candidate lost: He lost touch with his bosses, the voters.
That you lefty hacks keep lying about why he lost, and want to pretend that all lefties who happen to be vets are untouchable, while vets who don't agree with you don't count, is not even entertaining anymore. It is just pitiful.
Most soldiers vote Republican. Period. Most military families vote Republican. Period.
Most pro-military people vote Republican. Period.
And any alleged index that shows durbin or kucinich as being pro-military or pro-soldier is an insult to anyone who ahs been awake and sober even slightly over the last many years.
Take your phony baloney poll and stuff it. |
|
Well said. I admire that you, unlike the lefty victimologists, take your fight out to the square and keep it on ideas. You don't have to manipulate or mislead to make your points. You don't make the false shallow claims of the lefties, making appeals to self-declared moral authority to squelch discussion. Until this regrettable scam by MJ Fox, I had no idea you had any tough medical condition.
Congratulaitons on your excellent thoughts and on the content of your character. |
|
To: Snapdipwad
Big Daddy Rush said it seemed that Michael Fox was either acting or did not take his medication when he appeared in this ad. Fox said in his book "I did not take my meds when I appeared in front of the Senate hearings on stem cell research" (he appeared to be in the same condition as in this current ad). Big Daddy also said that if Fox is not on medication, maybe the democrats duped him into appearing in this ad since the Missouri referendum is a vote on cloning not stem cell research. The Dems are trying to disguise this as a stem cell vote. Big Daddy Rush is right 99.8% of the time. Do your homework when you talk about Big Daddy Rush. |
|
Should be the catch-phrase of leftists like snapdigger and black prince of peas.
'Cause 'I think' is something they do NOT do. |
|
Well said. I listened to Rush the past two days as well. Thanks for correcting the record. Unlike Snap, Rush's argument were logical and devastating to his opponents.
Lefties use the tactic of repeating a lie over and over. They hope that its repitition will overwhelm its actual validity. This tactic is used by trolls like Snap as well as by Lefty bloggers: Koz is an excellent example. |
|
Snapdigger, You said the following -
Limbaugh doesn't argue that Fox is wrong about stem-cell research. He says that Fox is faking it in the ad.
You obviously got this from the fautly news reports and the Democrat web sites. You obviously haven't listened to Rush yourself. I have listened to Rush on this for the past two days. He spent almost his entire show today talking about it. He has made many of the same points that Dean does. He has gone to great lengths to point out the misconceptions in the ad, the truth about the "stem cell" research referenedum on the ballot in MO. It's not even about stem cell research, its actually about legalizing cloning, so it's mis-named and meant to be misleading. What he said regarding the "faking" was that Fox was either acting OR he was off his meds. Guess what, you conservative bashers -- Rush was right. Fox WAS off his meds to make his misleading points. He was trying to make us all believe that this is the way he has to live every day with no relief, which is a lie because he does have medication to help him. As Dean pointed out, he even admits this little trick in his very own book. So stop defending Fox and the Democrats. Fox knows exactly what he's doing. He knows what he's leaving out of the ads in order to mislead. So do the Democrats. This is just more lies and dirty tricks by a despicable Party that can't win any other way. They should be ashamed and so should you. |
|
|
Why don't you get your own blog? You should knock 'em dead in the sinestrosphere! Wouldn't it be more fun having original thoughts rather than just responding to those of others? |
|
The Max Cleland business is a particularly odious example of this phenomenon, and as evidenced by snapdipwad, up above, liberals _still_ aren't over it: liberals paraded him around as if he'd heroically lost his limbs in the thick of battle; conservatives objected and called attention to the misrepresentation in an effort to challenge the phony moral authority that liberals were attempting to imbue Cleland with; whereupon those liberals (see snapdipwad) screamed like little girls that said conservatives were somehow "mocking" him.
It's nothing more than a variation on the contemptible "DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN" moral grandstanding that was the Clinton Administration's modus operandi in the gun control debate: pick up a victim or an innocent and use him as a political cudgel to portray your opponents not as having a good-faith dispute with your policy, but as monsters. Heck, I don't even subscribe to the pro-life absolutism that views embryonic stem cell research as an atrocity -- I agree with Fox, in other words. But after seeing that ad? I'd vote exactly the opposite of his endorsements, just to repudiate the despicable tactic.
|
|
Please wake up. You are doing the internet version of drooling.
Kerry was totally wrong on national security, and he is a proven liar as to has bona fides.
MJ Fox is wrong and lying about stemcell research. Republicans are for and are funding stemcell research. They are funding the stemcell research taht is actually producing results: Adult stem cells.
The Jersey girls are wrong on their views on terrorism, and are using their husband's deaths to claim credibility they do not deserve,a nd at the expense of the other survivors of 911 who disagree with them.
Max Cleland was not defeated because he was mocked. He was defeated because instead of representing the views of Georgia voters, he was was representing extreme lefties. If mocking and insulting was a good strategy for defeating candidates, GW Bush would not be President.
Wake up. You need to realize you are in a debate of ideas and you are unarmed. |
|
Show me the hatred for the victim. Just no special status of moral authority, no crushing of dissent because you suffered. You still have to win your argument on the merits.
One thing about the dying Liberal movement is there need to create victims.
|
|
Not sure about Limbaugh - so I'll defer for now.
Kerry based his national security bonafides and campaign (and has for a long time) on the fact that he served and what he did when he served. Therefor it was perfectly acceptable for his COMRADES IN ARMS - to disagree with his citing of his records. Last I checked he still hasn't released all of his military records, as he agreed to. Furthermore - while serving in the military doesn't make you right - claiming false hero status DOES impeach your character.
Mark Steyn is a pretty bright and fair guy in my reading of him, here is the link to that article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040215-110249-5963r.htm
I believe within the context of that article Steyn's usage is fine; he was addressing the trend of democrats using inflated biographies to provide a basis for their criticisms.
|
|
|
|
Why do you think Democrats use spokesmen with "backstories" (Max Cleland's war record and disability, M.J. Fox's Parkinson's, John Kerry's war record) in the first place? If the Democratic message is so compelling, why not just have ordinary people present it?
The answer is that Democrats are consciously trying to enhance the effect of the message by the "moral authority" of the speaker. It's a logical fallacy -- a message's truth stands or falls no matter how many limbs a person still has attached -- but most people wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it knocked them on the head. Just as a lawyer loves to have a client with a sympathetic sob story -- nothwithstanding that the law is supposed to be reason shorn of passion -- a sympathetic political spokesman does, generally, enhance the appeal of a message.
What you're saying is that Democrats ought to be able to seek political advantage by trotting out sympathetic spokesmen, and that Republicans should be barred from trying to rebut this (fallacious but effective) appeal to sympathy. That's not fair. If you choose to place a person's characteristics at issue, in addition to his arguments, you open his characteristics to impeachment. (The same holds, incidentally, with the law of evidence -- you generally can't try to show a party's bad character unless he places his character at issue.)
So when John Kerry pretty much placed his presidential campaign on the foundation of his Vietnam War service, it was entirely proper for his opponents to try to show that that service may not have been quite what it was cracked up to be. If you say we should vote for you because you're a war hero, don't be surprised when your opposition comes back with people who'll say "er...not really."
Short version: If you want the debate to center on "views," don't place characteristics at issue.
|
|
|
...just want to point out that it wasn't Michelle Malkin who broke the story on Kerry. It was his fellow Swift Boat veterans. They also were the originators of the rumor that Kerry wounded himself. |
|
Pretty good timing this week, that Michael J. Fox wants to advance the embryonic stem cell research. This very week researchers found that during the treatment of Parkinsons(in mice) by embryonic stem cells they were causing brain tumors. See story below.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061023/hl_nm/stem_cells_dc_1 |
|
I agree with you on this: nobody has absolute authority because they suffered. Nobody. Fox isn't automatically right because he's sick. Kerry isn't automatically right because he served. Cleland neither.
The problem is that Republicans and conservatives don't content themselves with attacking somebody's *views*, which are fair game. Instead they attack the person and try to prove that they didn't really suffer at all, or that they're faking it. Conservatives seem to accept the idea that suffering confers moral authority, and so they set out to attack the supposed source of moral authority.
Consider these examples:
- Limbaugh doesn't argue that Fox is wrong about stem-cell research. He says that Fox is faking it in the ad.
- Conservatives didn't say that Kerry was wrong on national security. They tried to say that Kerry's military service was not honorable (and Michelle Malkin even suggested that Kerry inflicted his own wounds).
- Ann Coulter, Mark Steyn and others mocked Max Cleland for the way he lost his limbs (because it wasn't actually in combat).
- Ann Coulter didn't attack the Jersey Girls for their views on foreign policy, she attacked them for supposedly "enjoying" the deaths of their husbands.
And on and on and on. Someone's views are fair game. Call them wrong all you want. But it seems that people like Limbaugh and Coulter would rather attack the suffering instead of trying to make counter-arguments to what these people are saying. |
|
|
|