Center of Attention
Oct 12th, 2007 | 23 responses
A round up of recent posts by various bloggers who either attempt to strike a balanced note on heated debates and controversial issues, or improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.
Libby Spencer revisits the potential value of tossing everyone out of Washington and starting over. Money quote from her concluding paragraph:
“We can fix it but not until we realize that the battle isn’t between Democrats and Republicans but is rather between all of us, the people, against the politicians who have become far too comfortable in their self-designed perpetual incumbency.”
(Can I get an “Amen”?)
Dennis Sanders longs for something in between Ron Paul’s “all is well” and George Bush’s “all is hell” views on foreign policy.
Was Graeme Frost “smeared”? Rick Moran thinks not.
Brian McLaren channels Bruce Springsteen on the subject of … torture? Yep, and chillingly so.
Patrick Joubert Conlon spotlights the loophole in Reagan’s 11th commandment.
Amba ponders the import of Craig Venter’s latest effort to “[throw] a monkey wrench into evolution.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
23 Responses to “Center of Attention”
Rick Moran is slicing it mighty thin, I think.
The smear was directed against the entire Frost family.
I don’t expect somebody like Moran to know any better, let alone to do any better.
But you, Pete, are a different story.
Aren’t you?
Rick Moran analyzes smearing – by not talking about it. Smearing is not debate or criticism. Smearing (like Swifboating) involves the dissemination of false information, which is exactly what happened.
Interesting, too, how he intuits the motivation (it is base, of course) of the Democrats. His talent with
ESP are not really relevant, though.
There was, and I hope still is) a rational way to examine SCHIP. the apprearance ot the Frost boy in the public eye, fact finding re the Frosts and the firestorm that ensued. Tjat cam mpt be dpme bu ignoring a huge chunk of what is happening.
Libby Spencer’s locating the battlefront is a bit off course, IMO,
Her description of politicians is spot on.
The battle, however, is not only between ‘us’ and politicians. It is equally between one part of us against another part of us. If you look at how any issue at all is discussed (and I use the word ‘discussed’ loosely), it bexomes appatent that ‘us’ is driving Washinton politicians to be exactly what they are.
Reform and compromise are only for the other side, and what ‘us’ wants is to win at all costs and take no prisoners. If that involces ‘our’ policians winking at principles, so be it.
If we truly want to save the system, we should all look in the mirror to find the starting point.
[...] Clark Center of Attention » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
George,
Don’t put me to far up on the pedestal of knowing better; I’ll probably disappoint you.
Seriously, I think everyone has mud in this. The Dems for trotting out a 12-year old. The family for allowing themselves to be thus exposed. The R’s for not fact-checking better and forgetting that we’re dealing with real people here — and frankly, for not coming up with their own fresh examples of the potential abuse rather than simply (once again) attacking the Dems talking point.
The whole thing’s a bloody sad mess.
Finally, while I personally think S-CHIP is a great program and probably could/should be expanded, I also think handouts to people making $60-80K annually (that’s more than Frosts, obviously, but still allowed under the vetoed bill, I think) — is a step too far. A little compromise here would be a good (no, great) thing.
Which is precisely why I zeroed in on Libby’s post today, domajot’s comments notwithstanding.
[...] I had a time machine and could wind back the clock to the point when I was compiling today’s CoA installment, I’d add just one more post to the list, for our readers’ collective consideration, [...]
The Nobel Peace Prize is a joke once more.
Pete-
“domajot’s comments notwithstanding”
Another outrage!! I will not be ignored!!
PS I disagree with you about the Frost debacle, but
I acknowledge you right to be wrong. .:)
Hahahaha
Need has a million human faces.
One of them belonged to Graeme Frost. And ironically enough, one of them belonged to Michelle Malkin!
I suppose that post by Rick Moran was the best you could do, once you decided you had to make excuses for the mudslinging.
I don’t see the big sin in putting a human face on the problem. It doesn’t justify in any way stalking the kid and his family, or issuing false information about their ‘wealth’. It demonstrates how mean-spirited some conservatives have become.
Well, George, I tried to respond to your last comment (#9), but something glitched on me. So if for some reason you get two responses from me, I apologize.
Net: Please know I’m NOT trying to make excuses for the mudslinging. I think the Republicans could find a much more effective and decent way to make their case than attacking the Frosts and questioning their finances. My decision to include Moran’s post was quite simple: Part of the basis for the CoA feature, as it says up top, is to “improve our ability to find our own sense of balance by exposing us to new information and different points-of-view.” Multiples posts at TMV over the last 24-plus hours defended the Frosts and lambasted the R’s. That’s fine, and many of the R’s deserve it. But in every argument there is another side, and perhaps we could all learn something by considering that other side. Moran took a bold counter-position and was relatively decent and calm in constructing it, so I thought it was worth adding. That’s all really.
And again, if you want to know where I personally stand in all of this, it’s pretty simple.
SCHIP is a great program and should be enhanced, but the vetoed bill was not the best way to do it. Unfortrunately, republicans have no credibility on spending issues after the last six years. Despite that lack of credibility, they should have found another way to make their case on S-CHIP rather than going after the Frosts. I also think the Democrats should have found another to defend their position than sticking a 12-year-old boy on the air. The tactic is trite and though it’s not mean-spirited, it is exploitative.
Judge,speaking to Britney Spears, “I have good news and bad news for you. The bad news is I’ve taken away your custody of your children. The good news is that they now qualify for healthcare assistance under the expanded S CHIP.”
Thanks for lightening the mood, casualobserver. I, for one, chuckled.
“Finally, while I personally think S-CHIP is a great program and probably could/should be expanded, I also think handouts to people making $60-80K annually (that’s more than Frosts, obviously, but still allowed under the vetoed bill, I think) — is a step too far.”
This is of course the problem with your claim that the Republicans have a case. You’ve bought into the White House lie about what the bill really does. Do more research, Pete. Including about the cost of living in New York, the only place that applied for a waiver to cover some people up to that level.
The arguments about how terrible it is to let people see someone like the Frost childen seems to be that we must always keep the debate about abstract notions, we must never ever actually put a face on those who suffer and die because of notions of the appropriate role of government that are based on what our society was in the past, not where we and our economy stand now.
Rick Moran —-
“What is this air that everyone talks about and thinks is so important? I just don’t see it.”
Jim — Point taken. I did not know that detail and assuming you’re correct (and I have no reason to believe you aren’t), and similar resolve is applied elsewhere in the bill, I stand humbled by my lack of information and will further revisit this subject, as you suggest. See: the search for balance works!
Yeah, I actually followed a couple of links last week and read most of the actual bill.
I also followed the link to Rightwing Nuthouse. It really is rightwing nuthouse. The first thing that I noticed is that while he might be right about Graeme Frost himself not being smeared, isn’t it smearing his family to basically accuse them of willfully choosing the situation they’re in? I love the implication that everyone can find a good-paying job that has health insurance. This of course means that over 40 million Americans have made that choice. Somehow I just don’t consider that a reasonable viewpoint. Then I saw Rick Moran’s take on Al Gore, his Nobel Prize and the subject of global warming in general. Rightwing Nuthouse, indeed.
About Amba’s post on the genetic research, she’s against it just because its creating a new life? I’m not sure I got that one but I always thought she was a bit more open minded about things.
Jim,
You’d probably find Rick Moran quite reasonable on certain topics. He’s pro gay-union, as I recall, and he thoroughly lashed the crop of GOP White House contenders for missing the ethnic-sponsored debates. He doesn’t drink all of the Kool Aid, not by a long shot. In fact, he’s reasonable enough on many issues that the “Nuthouse” in the title of his blog is something of a wink and a nod, I think.
That said, he did tow the line on SCHIP (and apparently global warming).
So like you, I’ve started to read even more on SCHIP. Found out this morning, for instance, that not only did my Democratic US Senator vote for the vetoed bill, so did my Republican US Senator. Net, I’m inclined when I’m in Washington next week to meet with their staff to learn more about their reasons for supporting the bill and their views on the W.H. talking points. I might also try to get time with some of the other offices (especially R’s) that supported the
vetoed bill, like Hatch, Roberts, Collins, Smith (Oregon), et. al.
Much more to be researched and reported here; stay tuned.
Thanks for the link Pete. And Domajot, I think it’s the other way around. I think we’ve been conditioned by the politcians to treat each other as adversaries instead of fellow Americans who simply disagree. That accrues to their benefit. As long as we’re fighting with each other, we won’t be paying as much attention to what they’re doing behind our backs.
You’re right that we need to look in a mirror first, but then we need to look at each other and realize that disagreeing doesn’t make any of us bad people. We’re really not as different as the politicians tell us we are. We’re mostly good people doing the best we can with what we have to work with.
Libby-
RE:
“II think we’ve been conditioned by the politcians to treat each other as adversaries instead of fellow Americans ”
Then why do we keep re-electing the worst offenders? Why do we keep re-elcting those that bring home the most portk why complaining about pork in budgets?
I will grant you that thee is a question of leadership here and the direction in which publlic
figures lead us. It’s dangerous, though, to point the finger at Washinton and say that ‘they’ are to blame, and we are all just innocent victims.
I would much prefer that you were right than for me to be right. But my devil’s advocate postion is necessary for clear vision, I think.
It’s mush like the Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh influence. We all denounce them, but we all enable them by tuning in to be infulenced by them.
It’s a vicious circle, but at least one finger of blame has to pointed straogjt bacl at is/
[...] against it. And then … the factors that prompted me to change my position were challenged by certain astute TMV readers in the back-and-forth comments attached to the October 12 “Center of Attention” [...]
[...] against it. And then … the factors that prompted me to change my position were challenged by certain astute TMV readers in the back-and-forth comments attached to the October 12 “Center of Attention” [...]