I was planning to point out all of the falsehoods and outrageous allegations, and the fact that a man I once admired, John McCain, has lost all integrity he once had in the name of winning (he has turned his back on every "maverick" ideal he once championed, that's not opinion, it's fact, look it up), including nominating the most frightening VP choice since, well, Dick Cheney (she has done nothing but lie about her record and hide from criticism behind the claim of sexism, not to mention her rather medieval ideas on morality and justice).
Instead, I'm going to quote from an Op-Ed peice in today's New York Times:
"GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist?
And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now.
Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too?
I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained.
There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"
This is such an important election, we simply can not afford to let the falsehoods stand. Obama already has on display the intellect, the charm, the vision, now we need to see the passion! Not blind rage and hatred, but steady and forceful anger at what has been done to him, and to this country.
As the passage says, so what if he appears angry? He has reason! I am both angry and frightened at the prospect of a McCain victory based on lies and deceit. McCain is going to win a Rovian victory, and when the country goes even more to shit — and it will, McCain has shown that he is no better than Bush — everyone's going to wonder why. That is, unless Obama stands up and calls a pig a pig.
They've handed him the knife, all he has to do is have the nerve to drive it home, and then twist the shit out of it.
The election is his to lose.
PS: I sent the Obama campaign an edited version of this post through their contact page. I know, the odds of anyone of consequence seeing it, or caring even if they do, is slight, but I feel like I have to do something.
20 comments:
obi wan once thought as you do.
And Gandalf the White (and Grey) would agree with me.
But I'm not sure I get your meaning...
i read your postscript as Luke's monologue that proceeds that line: I know there is good in you. [the political process] hasn't driven it from you fully. That is why you couldn't destroy me ... Come with me.
the analogy breaks down later on when we're down on the floor, writhing in pain from the effects of force lightning, and nobody is willing to chuck our antagonist into the ship's reactor.
[i'm thinking this is probably the second geekiest thing i've ever written.]
Gah, of course, that's a line from The Empire Strikes Back. My nerd card is in jeopardy...
Then again, despite not understanding, I answered by invoking Tolkein, so maybe I'm OK...
... and even more in jeopardy since that line's from The Return of the Jedi ...
Damn it.
So, who's the pig(s)?
No one in particular, I just picked that phrase because of the infamous "lipstick on a pig" thing.
It amused me. I'm simple like that sometimes :)
A few other things:
1. What has been done to Obama to which he ought to respond with steady forceful anger, besides the travesty of him being called an elitist?
2. I don't think Dowd makes a good argument by countering the connotative meaning of elitism with the denotative meaning of the root word, but Dowd tends to '"dumb down" her subject matter by viewing it through the lens of pop culture,' (per a New York Press article) so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
3. Are we going to have a litmus test on the content of each candidates personal relgious beliefs? Before you say, 'Yes, if there are indications they would try to impose them through force of law', you might go back and examine the aims of Black Liberation Theology.
4. And charm as a qualification for President. Really?
OK, I'll bite.
1. How about outright lies and fabrications? Even Karl Rove, who basically invented modern dirty politics, has said that McCain has gone too far with the lies.
Here's an article from Time that spells out much of it in a fairly balanced way:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842030,00.html
Here's a hit list of McCain campaign lies for those who don't want to read that:
- Obama favors comprehensive sex ed for kids (his plan would teach appropriate lessons to kids, for example how to avoid sexual predators)
- Obama is against off-shore drilling and nuclear power (he's said many times that he's open to them both)
- Obama was refering to Palin as a pig (he was refering to McCain's coopting of his own "change" message)
- Obama and the "elite" press have been spreading smears about Palin and her family (those were spread by bloggers and pundits)
And that's only a few of the lies he's told about Obama, not to mention those he's told about himself and Palin (he constantly flip-flops on issues then derides Dems for doing the same, Palin loved ear marks and even the bridge to nowhere before they became political liabilities, etc).
I think it's worth repeating that Karl fucking Rove has said he went too far. Karl Rove is behind one of the most devious attacks on McCain when he was running against Bush in 2000. He had people call and ask voters if they would vote for McCain if they knew he'd had illegitimate black children (he hadn't, and they didn't say he had, but that's how people took it). If the piece of shit who thought that one up thinks McCain has gone too far, that tells you something.
2. Words have power, and if you can redefine a word you can control the sway of public opinion. The GOP has done this by defining words like "elite", "progressive", and "liberal" as bad words. I fail to see how attempting to bring these words back is a bad idea.
For some examples, just look at my answer to 1 above, and 3 below. Debates hinge on words like "comprehensive" and "appropriate". And I have pointedly used the word "mythology" several times in these comments for a reason.
3. This has nothing to with religious belief (hear me out). This has to do with the ability to understand and interpret science and its implications for the world. I couldn't care less what you believe about God, the beginning of life, etc until you start making scientificaly varifiable claims based on those beliefs.
You can claim that prayer heals, but we can prove that it does not. You can claim that the earth is 6000 years old, but we can prove that it is not. You can claim that humans are not related to apes, but we can prove that we are. Faith is the belief in that for which there is no proof, science is the study of that which can be proven or tested. Faith has no claim over that which science has quantified.
Someone who is willing to sweep aside centuries of varifiable, repeatable, predictive science because their particular mythology says differently is, in my opinion, unfit to hold any sort of governmental power. If you do not accept science as a methodology, then you are unfit to judge the results of scientific study (that's not to say you can't refute commonly held beliefs, but to do so you need to have contrary evidence that stands up to scrutiny, not simply "faith").
Our world runs on science, and more and more legislation is about science (stem cells, abortion, science in the classroom, energy policy, net neutrality, etc.). Is it really so hard to follow that logic? Would you want an atheist directing your church's activities?
By the by, if we're going to criticise Obama's pastor, let's go ahead and do the same to McCain's (who actively pushes for a war to end all wars with Islam, and has extrordinarily nasty things to say about Catholics and Jews, among others).
4. Sure, why not? The ability to get people to listen to you is vital for any effective leader. Arguably, it's the reason Bush was president. Many people voted for him, according to surveys, because they'd rather have a beer with him than with Gore or Kerry.
They didn't want to hang out with Bush because he was smart, or had vision, or was passionate, but rather because he had charm. Even his detractors (Al Franken for one, Michael Moore for another) have commented that in person Bush is very charming and likeable.
The difference between him and Obama is that Obama is actually smart and articulate too. And, of course, he actually knows and respects the Constitution (he was a professor of Constitutional Law for a decade and a half).
I'm not going to take the time or do the work to rebut all that, In fact some/much of it may not be able to be rebutted.
I will address a few of your more interesting points.
Rove did what he did and works for Fox now, yet he somehow has credibility? Maybe he's just having fun slapping McCain some more. For someone who is reputed to have no moral compass this is not inconcievable. But I don't think so, and don't like ads that twist the facts any more than you do. However, the actual text of SB 99 does state, "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." Yes, there could be age appropriate judgement exercise, but still.
Truth is both candidates feel they know better than one another and roughly half of the voting public. In that sense they both could be considered elitist. But it isn't going to impress voters for Obama to go around saying he is among the elite.
Regarding religion and science, I believe you are using the word proof in a way that is unscientific. There is no one who believes prayer heals people (even if that's how they sometimes say it). They believe that your God (which I will continue to call him for as long as you call him a myth-- which assertion cannot be demonstrated, btw)may heal people in response to prayer depending on a number of factors including the state of the prayer's relationship with Him as well as the broader goals of His will. I would like to see a study that "proves" that false.
I disagree that faith disqualifies one from participating in policy decisions having to due with science. By saying so you are elminating a whole group of people for whom revelation from your God is a basis of practical morality. That, if legislated, would be a violation of the 1st amendment--of course voters can make up their own mind on the candidates and use religious beliefs as a basis.
And of course I understand that personal religious beliefs will effect policy beliefs even in matters of science. Your spirituality (which I have heard you expound on at least a little-- sort of the church of Human Logic, no?) advises your beliefs on morality and therefore would influence your policy if you were president. You simply disdain the basis of Palin's of the morality with which she believes science ought to be practiced.
I didn't criticize Obama's pastor, but Hagee isn't McCain's pastor, at least not in the way that Wright was Obamas. I do, however, criticize Black Liberation Theology as being as much or more of a political movement as it is a theological one. I am glad to say I can't say the same about my own brand of Christianity.
I don't draw an equal sign between possible reasons people DO get elected and reasons they SHOULD get elected (i.e qualifications), do you?
Also, teaching constitutional law does not equal understanding and (certainly not) respecting the Constitution. Alito, Scalia and Roberts are as acquainted or more with the Constitution that Senator Obama, yet many would question their knowledge/respect of it.
Oh, and your athiest running the church analogy is apples and oranges. There is no official dogma of the US other than the constitution.
Fair enough.
My point on religion was that if you reject the scientific method - which you have to do to be a young Earth creationist - you have no right judging scientific matters. Beyond that, you're likely to fall for anything since you either don't understand, or don't respect, logic and reason (the scientific method is nothing more than a logical framework for evaluating and testing evidence and theories).
Obviously personal views and morality are going to have an effect, but as I said I'm OK with that. Most faiths are more similar than they are different, and that includes Humanism (which most atheists ascribe to). You'll notice that my argument above was based solely on an individual's ability to accept and understand scientific evidence, regardless of faith (or lack there-of).
You are right though, I was mis-using the word "proof". "Evidence" is a better word. I'll try to be more careful, especially given how annoyed I am when someone misused another scientific word, "theory".
As for prayer healing, in every double-blinded study that's been conducted, patients who were prayed for (by believers, clergy or nuns in some cases) showed a statistically equal rate of recovery as those for whom prayer was not offered. As soon as you "unblind" the study, ie let the patients in on it, the numbers change. This suggests that there is a strong psychological effect at work, much like the placebo effect. That's not "proof" that prayer doesn't work, but it's strong "evidence".
Here's a good place to start for more info:
http://skepdic.com/essays/healingprayer1.html
As an aside, I'm not saying that God is a myth. I'm not actually an atheist in the strict sense, but I am a devout agnostic (as in I'm absolutely certain that I don't know). My use of the word mythology to describe Christian beliefs is to remove them from their lauded place.
There's a tendency in western culture, even among atheists and agnostics, to create the false dicotomy of Christian teachings vs. there is no God. That's simply not true. It's really Christianity vs. Islam vs. Taoism vs. Jainism vs. Satanism vs. Wicca vs. Judaism vs. atheism vs. Greek Myth vs. Buddhism vs. Hinduism vs. (and so on, and so on, there are hundreds of religions in the worlds, and countless sects and off-shoots, not to mention cults). Every belief system has been believed in absolutely by some culture at some point, and each one has believed jsut as strongly as any young Earth creationist that their belief is the only correct one. In the grand scheme, they're all "mythology" by any definition of that word.
"The word mythology refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."
-taken from Wikipedia
It's not a judgement on my part that God doesn't exist, it's a judgement that Christianity isn't special in its belief.
Why do you feel a need to remove Christianity from a place of laud? Doesn't that require a judgement of it's worthiness of such a place, either on its own or in relation to to other religions? How can a person who is sure he cannot know there is a God judge which belief system about Him might be worth or unworthy of laud?
There you go with the false dichotomy again. As I explained above, no single belief system deserves to be held above any other, ESPECIALLY if I recognise the fact that I'm not in a position to know. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING makes Christianity any more plausible or worthy of lauding than any other faith, unless you already think it's right.
Are you purposely being obtuse?
Let me ask you this: Why do you feel a need to remove Hinduism from a place of laud?
Remember, I only disbelieve one more organized religion than you do. The way you feel about the rest of them is how I feel about Christianity. Why is this so hard for believers to grasp?
Not being obtuse, at least not on purpose. I apparently skipped a paragraph of your previous response somehow.
But I may also have missed the part where I created my 'first' false dichotomy. Although I did see where you described how many people create one, I don't see where I created that anywhere above.
I also don't remember singling out Hinduism. Nor, by the way, do I casually refer to their beliefs as mythology in their presence.
I'm not sure you really understand how I feel (or better put, what I believe) about unblievers, be they athiest, agnostic, Hindu, or otherwise.
It interests me to see that you seem to consider Humanism a 'faith'. Is that faith also equal with all others in its unlaudability?
By "how you feel" I meant simply that you don't think their beliefs are correct. I only used Hinduism as an example because it seemed less loaded that using Islam, and it was the next one that came to mind.
The false dichotomy you're working under is that there either is a God, and therefore Christianity is correct, or there isn't one. First off, there are actually three possibilities in the question of God's existence: There is a God, there is no God, and there are many Gods. If either the first or last are correct, the question then becomes, which God(s)? The Christian God? The Muslim God? The Norse Gods? And so on.
From the point of view of someone who has not decided that one in particular is correct, they are all equally valid options.
As for humanism being a faith, that's how it is often spoken of. For example:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/new_humanism/
Yes, I know that this gets into some thorny semantics, but my intent was only to make the point that non-belief is just as valid as belief, from an agnostic viewpoint. I'm not the best one to debate the merits of Humanism itself.
Finally, I am aware that in some ways I single out Christian beliefs when trying to "level the field", as it were. That's simply because I get hit ovet the head with Christian beliefs every day. No one needs to take Shinto, or Buddhism, or whatever off a pedestal here because they aren't on one to begin with.
It's not as if I go around disparaging others' beliefs though (I live in Georgia now, I'd have no time for anything else if I did that). It's all about leveling the field, and only when it's needed (for example, when debating with someone who is trying to defend or push a particular belief, and then only with the intent of reminding them that there's more than one option).
"The false dichotomy you're working under is that there either is a God, and therefore Christianity is correct, or there isn't one."
This is not my thesis, and I fail to see what I said above the requires it to be my thesis. No big deal though.
Also, I am curious to know why you are not as outraged at Obama/Biden's deceptive advertisements and statements.
A fair question.
I guess I haven't seen anything from Obama that crosses the line into character assassination. It's one thing to exagerate an opponent's claims or actions, that's just politics and they all do it. It's something else entirely to outright make stuff up.
Plus, and I'm sure this is what you're getting at, I have a not so secret bias.
My bias comes from having looked at them both and making up my mind though, not simply a pre-disposition towards liberalism. I actually have (or had) a great amount of respect for McCain (I've written about that elsewhere before). If, for example, it were McCain or Kerry back in 2004, I would have voted for McCain (Kerry was not a great choice, it's just that Bush was worse).
Since McCain turned his back on most of what he stood for in order to win the nomination, and once he started launching negative ads against Obama, when Obama was still running positive ads, I had to re-examine my views.
Calling McCain one of Limbaugh's buddies isn't character assasination? :)
Yeah, maybe that one was a bit harsh.
Post a Comment