[Updated] Are Some People Really This … Misunderstood?
Within the last month or so, we had a string of comments and even a few posts wherein labels like “stupid” were attached to one or another derided group or individual. As the so-called “managing editor” of this blog, I sent a friendly reminder to our contributing writers that we (at the very least) should not contribute to the careless proliferation of such labels.
I won’t flaunt that rule, since I’m generally expected to practice what I preach, but I really, really wanted to flaunt it after reading this item from Roll Call, courtesy Chris Bodenner:
LeRoy Schaffer, a St. Francis city council member, dressed in a tuxedo and top hat for the occasion. Shaffer got visibly emotional asking [Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele] Bachmann about the future of health care and the role of special interests in Washington.
“I’ll be danged if I am going to give up my Social Security because of socialism,” Schaffer said …
And then, a funny thing happened on the way to questioning Mr. Schaffer’s intelligence:
The Minneapolis Star Tribune quoted more of Schaffer’s words and it turns out he was defending Social Security. “I’m on Social Security and I’ve got Medicare,” said Schaffer, 70, before entering the auditorium. “I have socialized medicine. I wouldn’t give it up for anything in the world.”
Thanks to Kathy K. for the update.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
42 Responses to “[Updated] Are Some People Really This … Misunderstood?”
Non-thinking, to say the least. (I'm sure you were amused as well, Pete, about whom he addressed. Perfect caricature as well as fortified straw-person material when it comes to describing all concern.)
Just like “Leave my Medicare alone” in that superficial sense (see below), or with Steele's stumbling.
Side notes (as most of the public isn't like this guy):
1. Already Medicare is being looted to expand the scope of what Washington is doing, while that program is not reformed. Nobody can claim with a straight face they're confidently certain Social Security won't be at risk of also being looted, while not reformed, to pay also for fed expansionism.
2. Just wait until the Crunch comes, within 20+ years but probably earlier. Not only will there be conflicts between many more beneficiaries of much costlier programs like Social Security and like Medicare, and the ever-more-taxed taxpayers, but between the various programs and associated bureaucracies, as they are forced to compete with each other and face similar cannibalization or threats of it among themselves as well as to undertake anything new still (or pay down debt, etc.).
3. May I add regarding today that so far (as of noon Easter when I got back on the road), someone like this (inside the church) or outside it hasn't tried to distrupt or protest (cruelly?) Teddy K's funeral.
(1770s patriot costume, musket with tea bag hanging from the muzzle, optional)
DLS, Medicare was looted to provide tax breaks for the rich. The cost was $1.6 trillion. Medicare funds also went to war and over the years to military spending. As far as I'm concerned, Medicare hasn't cost anything until everything workers paid in is spent, the revenues stolen from the program reincluded in the revenue neutrality of Medicare, plus interest from the day it was spent for something else.
As for “the Crunch,” when there really is a conflict between paying for Medicare and other “priorities” like fat rewards for fat cats (10-80 years from now depending on who you read) I'll bet there are far more old people than rich people. Medicare will not be allowed to fail, nor will Social Security. The rich will simply not have the votes to keep the will of the (old) people from forcing the government to honor its commitment to our elders, who have faithfully kept up their end of the bargain.
As for fixing the deficit, I'd eliminate the $85,000 cap on FICA and Medicare tax. Why excuse the MOST able to pay from their share of a program that benefits THEIR parents today and themselves tomorrow.
the social security trust fund has already been looted. why do you think its in such dire straights? of course, it doesn't help matters that its a total ponzi scheme … the system started paying out before it had accrued any actual funds. but the thing is full of IOUs that will never be paid back, courtesy of your duly elected representatives over the years …
“May I add regarding today that so far (as of noon Easter when I got back on the road), someone like this (inside the church) or outside it hasn't tried to distrupt or protest (cruelly?) Teddy K's funeral”
Wow! I guess we should be eternally thankful for that touch of human decency.
WHY?
why should we refrain from using labels like stupid and idiot and the like? while i certainly agree that they should not be casually tossed about … there are many many times when they're entirely appropriate! people often toss out “idiot” or “stupid” when they encounter someone who has committed the grave sin of disagreeing with one's stated position or opinion and that is certainly not sufficient to qualify for such a label. on the other hand when an individual stands up and decries the shame of socialism while in the same breath proclaiming his steadfast refusal to part with his social security what else are we to infer aside from his blatant stupidity and out-right idiocy? at the very least he is a practiced hypocrite and should be painted as such. at best he hasn't given the situation any of the consideration its due but has still elected to publicly state an untenable opinion. that in and of itself isn't very bright. after all the social security system is the very epitome of socialism, is it not? for better or for worse we are taking from the masses and giving to the individual. this 'gentleman' is an idiot and is behaving stupidly. admitting that the labels are proper is in no way careless or inappropriate. at worst it may be impolite.
charlton heston once said that political correctness is nothing more than polite tyranny; i have no idea if he was quoting someone else or if he originated that correlation but i heartily agree. we're entirely too polite at the most inappropriate of instances and yet fail to offer even a modicum of respect when its most needed. one need look no further than the driving habits of so many of us in and around our metropolitan areas to see that last point proven time and time again.
it is blatantly idiotic for an unwed teenaged girl without the means to support herself or her child to become pregnant. i would go so far as to say it is stupid not to point that out to her. there was a time when such an event was shameful; it was hidden and whispered about. now? not so much. it isn't polite to point out that she has made a huge and likely irrevocable mistake. had she been taught by the adults in her life [if any] what the consequences of unprotected sex were and just how to go about avoiding unwanted pregnancies things might be different. but, oh no, we don't want to talk about these things, other than promoting abstinence. and yet when a girl does become pregnant in this situation we reinforce and encourage the behavior by not point out to her just how stupid she was. we worry that if we talk to our kids about sex and how to go about it properly and safely we're condoning that which life is actually all about. but we'd rather condone unwanted pregnancies, which is one of the more significant outcomes of such behavior. just how stupid is that??
kids walking down the street with their pants hanging off of their rear end isn't stylish; its idiotic of them to be emulating inmates of the federal prison system which is where, i understand, this trend originated. and yet we don't point that out to them. its accepted because it would be impolite to point out that they're acting stupidly. and so we encourage the behavior.
invading a sovereign nation on the false pretext of said nation developing weapons of mass destruction is hugely and blatantly idiotic … just because the one being so stupid is the president of the united states is no reason to shy away from making the point. in fact it is the duty of every american to stand up and oppose such idiocy. since we did/do not … we become accomplices after the fact.
the reappointment as chairman of the FOMC the man who had a huge role in the acceleration of the global economic meltdown is unwise and its blatantly stupid to cheer the event when he [indirectly] proclaims his success at avoiding a worse recession or depression. when we don't oppose this sort of stupidity we have lent our approval and encouragement to the ongoing looting of the middle and lower classes by the elitists for whom the US gov't has become a wholly owned and operated subsidiary.
it is unbelievably stupid for any constituency to decry the evils of socialism while enjoying the benefits of state-based military protection, police protection, fire protection, libraries, social security benefits, public roads and highways, air traffic control systems, FDIC insurance, unemployment insurance … and so on.
i agree … the careless issuance of these labels is entirely inappropriate. but there are many many times when they are far more than appropriate; circumstances demand we stand up and at the top of our lungs repeatedly shout-out, “THAT IS STUPID!” we should have the courage to stand up in public, peer into the emperors face, and observe that his attire is less than appropriate. frankly, it would be stupid not to.
“Medicare was looted to provide tax breaks for the rich”
Medicare was specifically looted (planned $500 B transfer first and foremost, which makes the cram-down on providers, with more to come, dimunitive and often ignored — when not also evaded) as part of the sloppy scramble to pay for the current health care effort.
Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable in their current form. (Yes, Social Security also has been looted — the “trust funds” have been tapped and treated as typical general revenues.) And these programs will fail and affect us in only a few years (actually, Medicare already has run a deficit, i.e., it has failed). Deficits require transfer of revenue from elsewhere or new revenue to pay benefits in full; the “trust fund” bonds have no value other than as claims on revenue. Their own actual worth is zero.
It's not a surprise that our current Dems not only are not reforming them as “promised” [snicker] but even have removed relevent details and concerns about the future of federal finances related to these programs from the latest Trustees Reports (that the size of entitlements and of the federal government are set to reach unprecedented proportions of GDP; it's not surprising if they not only want to conceal what would concern the public about their current fiscal behavior this year, and concern about the programs they aren't reforming, but that they actually want entitlements and Washington to reach such proportions).
“As for fixing the deficit, I'd eliminate the $85,000 cap on FICA and Medicare tax.”
Shouldn't this be directed instead toward Social Security and Medicare reform? (Logically, yes.)
And for Social Security, would those who pay more get an increase in benefits (the moral choice)?
And do you know that either with or without raising benefits, Social Security failure is delayed only by a few years? (From the teen years next decade into the start of the following decade, the Twenties.)
And do you know that whether you raise benefits as well as eliminate the payroll tax cap (the moral choice), or you don't, the difference in years is trivial, and the delay of program failure in either case is only postponed a handful of years?
(The SSA memorandum in the news a few years ago is here. Annual Balance is what counts here.)
http://www.centristpolicynetwork.org/legislativ…
Now you know. There is no “tax the rich” Social Security magic. (Medicare is similar, and worse.)
“Medicare will not be allowed to fail, nor will Social Security.”
It's not going to be guaranteed to offer as much as it offers people now, either. Aside from overdue reforms including raising the retirement age beyond seventy by that time, it's going to be battle not only between these programs and everything else Washington is “asked” to pay for, but between the beneficiaries and the taxpayers. (And have you seen the future support ratio statistics? And the future labor shortage? And the bear market in assets at the same time we could see inflation? And so on…)
Honestly, I think this paints a very clear picture of what's wrong with the way the Republican message has been delivered.
“Socialism” is a bad word that conjures up images of Nazis and Soviets. After all, we all know what USSR stood for. But people are confused in that they don't realize that point A does not necessarily automatically get you to point Z, and a lot of the government services that they enjoy and would not give up are in fact a socialized service. Police protection, fire protection, road work, parks, Medicare, and Social Security (even having the word “social” in there) are all a form of socialism. And yet we can still say that we enjoy a free state.
I'm willing to be that more than a few people would have looked at that last sentence and actually agreed with Mr. Schaffer– seeing no problem with the sentence itself.
Michael, I'd say that the reason we should refrain as much as we can restrain ourselves to do so is because in the end it makes our argument as a whole look weaker. (Rather than posing a valid counter-argument, we have to reduce ourselves to name-calling.) I've been guilty of doing it myself, but in the end, it really does hurt your argument. It has nothing to do with being p.c.
” I guess we should be eternally thankful”
I assumed and expecting nothing bad to happen. But given that he was controversial, you never know.
“total ponzi scheme”
Of course. And pay-as-you-go retirement programs in Europe face much worse demographics and economic and social future-related problems there.
“why should we refrain from using labels”
Especially when and where they, and other preferably plain instead of fancy language is appropriate or better? Because the objects of same (who frequently misuse such labels) hypocritically resent it.
(The PC and related double standard is alive and well and highly fueled among the highly emotional proponents of the health care effort currently, for example.)
Pete Abel writes, in part, “…labels like 'stupid' were attached to one or another derided group…we…should not contribute to the careless proliferation of such labels.”
Fortunate you qualify with “careless” in your writings, else I would chastise you for suggesting censorship, even if self-imposed. I agree we should not be careless with our words rather should be careful, but not for reasons readers might assume.
Before my “careful” comment is misconstrued, I am an English professor. I am an American Indian truth speaker. I am a red skinned girl with an attitude. Inherently, I fiercely oppose censorship and more fiercely oppose political correctness. Some censorship must be imposed in blogs and similar for very obvious reasons of which all readers are aware, but very limited censorship.
Should a person behave “stupidly” as Obama did recently, I will label this person “stupid”. This is writing to truth. Should a person behave “idiotically” as Holder is recently, I will label this person “idiot”. This is writing to truth. Some will scream “Political correctness!” I will write, “Mule manure!”
Amongst the greatest harms our nations suffers today is political correctness and deceit. Political correctness has us speaking and writing deceitfully; we change our words, we change our context, to be politically correct. This is deceit.
Today, around the blogs, I read one liar after another. Very rarely do I come across bloggers who are not engaging in deceit to effect some personal agenda or some political agenda. This angers me. I do not much cotton to people who so easily and so quickly lie to America.
This seems our America has become a nation of politically correct sissies and malicious liars.
My use of “careful” up there is to be viewed we are to be careful to deliver our words with truth and with power. There are no words more powerful than truthful words.
I do not read many powerful truthful words these days. This makes this English professor right cranky.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
“it is blatantly idiotic for an unwed teenaged girl without the means to support herself or her child to become pregnant.”
A book from several years ago, by a Democrat, that discusses the failure of government social programs and cultural issues underlying the problems they address and the related politics, includes mention of this, as part of a cultural issue we've seen since the 1960s in regarding to personal behavior as well as culture. It's politically incorrect and many are unwilling to acknowledge or to admit, as the author says, what's obvious among non-PC or still-moral people, that, for example, a sixteen-year-old boy (gangbanger or, say, rural kid) who has gotten his fourteen-year-old girlfriend pregnant have chosen to engage in irresponsible behavior. It's not PC, but obvious to normal people that the public would resent having to pay for it or even to accept it (much less defend if not approve of it).
But it's verboten to raise such issues as “right” and (worse!) “wrong” (that means No!) when it comes to things like personal behavior.
The author stresses that (as well as the foregoing example in modern times) government cannot be expected to be a substitute for a family.
http://books.google.com/books?id=gxYdofJnAmkC&d…
“And yet we can still say that we enjoy a free state.”
True. (Or technically, partially so. There never is anarchism, anyway.)
But what causes concern is when there is unintentional displacement of private for public when it is not needed or justified. Aside from what we would think of those who want government to run things (especially what those in government think), there is the problem of the often bad consequences.
Consider the 1970s Britain (a debilitated nation) as an example things going too far, if not the more unpleasant examples of problems we've encountered here in the USA.
The retired have drunk the nutrition-free libertarian kool-aid heartily – Social security and medicare provided by the government? Nonsense! I would never have agreed to such a system – my friend Reagan would never have let anything like that happen to me! Begone with government, and make doubly sure that my handouts aren't affected by the socialist desires of American families and people with their whole lives ahead of them! Gots mine!
Here is an example of this significant harm caused to our nation by political correctness and deceit.
My comments up there, rather clear I work at writing at a professional but powerful level. I choose my words carefully to impart powerful truth. I avoid vulgarity and personal insult as a rule. At my own political blog, I write freely, sometimes use mild vulgarity and well directed mild insults. However, this is at my blog. Elsewhere, I display respect; I write with higher professionalism.
Over at the Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor, my comments are automatically rejected by software; I am on their hit lists. I take pride in this, I wear this as a badge of honor. This informs me my articles are of such a powerful nature those folks piddle their pants when I write. This is further evidenced by my being one of the very few banished from the Obama campaign web site last year. I like this; I learn of truth.
This harm done is this type of censorship, or sissified politically correct “moderation”, this harm is diversity in opinion is either suppressed or eliminated. This type of censorship renders our various media sources nothing more than political propaganda machines which serve only to deceive America. In turn, this leads to people shouting, “fascist socialism” and those people shouting are quite correct, but should or could do better than just shouting silly bumper sticker rhetoric.
Returning to Pete Abel and his “careless” notion, with which I agree, this careless notion cuts in both directions. When we are careless with our words, limited censorship might be warranted. When we are careless about censorship, this causes harm. In this case of Obama banishing me from his campaign web site last year, the boy was careless with censorship even if effected by one of his lackeys. This banishment warrants my writing critiques of Obama for his suppression of freedom of speech and this banishment lends truth to my words. In this sense, Obama harms our nation through censorship and, cutting in the other direction, I have justified and truthful reason to critique him. This banishment causes harm to America and causes harm to Obama by creating an adamant political foe of a red skinned girl, with a bad attitude.
Obama behaved stupidly. Obama is stupid.
Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, other media and Obama, I write truthfully when I label those folks “stupid”. This exemplifies a distinct line between “careless words” and “careful words.”
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Okpulot Taha uses words for power, “I choose my words carefully to impart powerful truth.”
The fewer words available the less power good writers will have.
I assume that Pete Abel is a proponent of powerful writing. How odd, that an editor would imply censorship. Aren't journalists the first to defend free speech?
Just my two cents worth as a TMV columnist and assistant editor here, I understood Pete Abel's, our managing editor, encouragement to us about this matter of language, was merely encouragment to aim toward language that is clear but not lazy shorthand.
Abel's encouragement to TMV journalists has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or clipping of style or being politically correct. None.
Just to offer some humor: Trying to get TMV journos to be 'politically correct' would be about as likely as getting cats to beg to swim in the ocean.
If one were to imagine the writers or the core of regular commenters here are easily led, or that their kindness or peacefulness– or oneryness– or their debate style or teaching stances are signs of weakness, rather than signs of considerable first-person-witness and often massive street creds… and huge restraint, that would be projecting one's own fluffy or angry fantasy over the actual hard and gritty reality carried in the heart of the writers and core commenters here.
And as an aside, close friends and colleagues, Sherman Alexie, Joseph Marshall, and the late Vine de Loria, draw on their heritages and use humor and honor to state their truths to others. They were/ are welcome everywhere because they hold language to a high rather than low level, stating their viewpoints clearly, and cherished by many from within the tribes and from without.
dr.e
Pete,
Think Progress had a post about that guy, and they had the same reaction as you, until they read an article in one of the Minneapolis papers (the Star-Tribune? I think) that gave a fuller quote for what the guy actually said. He was not being critical of Social Security or Medicare. Here is their update:
and then
okpulot_taha, The first thing my writing (and speaking) instructors taught me was that if no one's listening to my “professional but powerful” words… they don't mean a thing!
If both “the Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor” have shut you out… AND, if you really want to be heard by others you might consider rereading (revising?) your lesson plan.
Before writing a reply to you comments in this thread I googled “okpulot taha” both to get a feel of how you write elsewhere (and quite honestly find out if “okpulot taha” is a name or a phrase with meaning in your language
).
In my wanderings I came across article you replied to in The Independent.co.uk regarding Health Care…
All sides of the debate might learn something by reading this perspective… It's NOT an anti-right, anti-Republican rant. The writers 'opinion' questions all of us and how WE (right / left / center) are seen as a country on this and other topics.
in the event i missed something [easy to do these days], what idiocy did holder [presumably eric holder] perpetrate recently?
the not-so-great reagan started us down the path that led to our current economic collapse. presidents clinton and bush [43] greatly accelerated the damage he and his administration inflicted
point up for you
[as an aside ... disqus has really changed their point system]
1 – “kathykattenburg” posted an … alternate … quote for mr. schaffer. presuming hers is more accurate [more gooder?] then clearly his statement was completely misrepresented by mr. abel's original article and, if so, a correction should be forthcoming. in light of this revision schaffer's statement would be entirely sensible and acceptable.
2 – i would reiterate my use of the word 'casual'. i wouldn't be so hasty as to apply such terminology to anyone without due cause and consideration. by the same token i don't think we should be reluctant to apply the appropriate labels at the proper time.
people say plenty of stupid things. i see no reason whatsoever to be kind or reserved when they are so clearly deserving of ridicule. you might think of this as a verbal equivalent of evolution. faulty mutations aren't successful and, if they are significant enough, may result in death. likewise, blatant public stupidity should be labeled as such … that reduces the likelihood that it will be repeated. a lovely example is that after phil gramm so bitterly complained about the US whining itself into a recession. that was a blatantly stupid thing to say, he was brutally lambasted for it, and has largely fallen out of the public sphere which is as it should be. unfortunately it doesn't work if folks aren't willing to stand up, point the finger, and bestow the label of stupidity. if they had, we wouldn't have had to listen to the idiocy of george w. bush for eight long years and the world would be a much better place than it is today.
the update was done. By kattenberg.
Acumen deficient?
Actually, I think the proper, and reasonably neutral adjective is “clueless.” It's not necessarily pejorative, just accurate.
Steve K comments, “If both “the Los Angeles Times and the Christian Science Monitor” have shut you out… AND, if you really want your opinions to be heard by others you might consider revising your lesson plan.”
No! This is self imposed censorship. Nonetheless, I have tried different approaches with those publications and others. No luck. What is really happening is most, perhaps almost all of our mainstream media is left liberal leaning and much in awe of Obama, or once in awe of him. Rather challenging to display respect for Obama these days, with truth being known or coming to be known.
Problem I encounter is writing truthful powerful articles which are difficult to defeat, articles which are typically not supportive of Obama. For the most part, our mainstream media has a left liberal agenda to both effect and support. When this agenda is questioned intelligently and powerfully, articles are simply not published. This is less true today but remains a major annoyance.
This is a case of our mainstream media inflicting harm upon America by not being truthful.
Michael D asks, “what idiocy did holder [presumably eric holder] perpetrate recently?”
Going after the CIA. This is a lose-lose position for both Holder and Obama. Much damage is already inflicted upon the credibility of both. This is a case of both acting “stupidly”. Both are stupid boys.
In this case, beyond Holder and Obama proving themselves stupid, both are seriously weakening our national security by going after those charged with a responsibility of keeping us safe.
Am I allowed in these politically correct times to refer to those two as “boys”?
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Steve K comments about finding me elsewhere, “Mary Dejevsky: A mean streak in the US mainstream”
Oh yes! I enjoyed a right good time over there getting at those English boys. I know the British fairly well through a decade and more of dialog and debate on English language usage. Most often this ends up a debate on cultural differences. I suspect the British are still “wee-weed” up about our kicking their butts out of America. Those Brits are pretty good boys save for being a tad bit anal retentive and arrogant.
I suspect what really annoys them is my knowledge of their own idiomatic usage of English which I learned from years of studying under a rather rebellious English woman, an English professor much like myself. Bugs them when you speak their own brand of English.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Nation
Archangel writes, “Just my two cents worth as a TMV columnist and assistant editor here, I understood Pete Abel's, our managing editor, encouragement to us about this matter of language, was merely encouragment to aim toward language that is clear but not lazy shorthand.”
There is a need for me to be sure you, Pete Abel and readers know I am not critiquing Pete. I understand he is using sarcasm to introduce his main topic of Shaffer and how referring to Shaffer as an “idiot” is certainly appropriate!
I am an English professor. I zeroed in on Pete's preamble about Ad Hominem and self-imposed censorship. I elected to steal away a bit of his topic, then address this problem of censorship and how censorship relates to justified usage of mildly degrading commentary.
Hey! If a boy is an idiot, call him an idiot! Simple truth, nothing more.
Again, I agree with and support Pete's notion on “careless” words. We are to avoid being careless with words because this robs us of power in dialog. Pete made use of high level sarcasm never suspecting a person, namely me, would grab his sarcasm and render this a serious topic.
Oh yes, Archangel, your “lazy shorthand” comment, I label this “Lazy Tongue” – people who are lazy about language usage. Those who text message, I would smash their fingers with a ball-peen hammer, the rest of Lazy Tongue people I would simply jerk their tongues out with a pair of pliers.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Finally, to close my ranting, Sylvia Soyara comments, “The fewer words available the less power good writers will have.”
This is why political correctness has me spitting 16 penny nails clean through a 4 by 4. My career is based upon language and, today, all those politically correct sissified stringless yo-yos out there tell me I have to watch my language, have to bite my tongue.
Most often those sissy girls and sissy boys walk away with a 16 penny nail buried in each of their foreheads; they are easier to tolerate once lobotomized.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
“Problem I encounter is writing truthful powerful articles which are difficult to defeat,”
I hope that your comments are not examples of such, because they are neither powerful nor difficult to defeat…
D. E.Rodriguez writes, “….neither powerful nor difficult to defeat….”
Is that so! I have tossed out a number of topics, pick a topic then defeat me with words.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
“Is that so! I have tossed out a number of topics, pick a topic then defeat me with words.”
Let's start with “going after the CIA” being a case of “acting stupidly.”
This is not a “powerful truth.” It is an opinion. I know that you will be able to provide a dissertation to support your opinions, but it is still an opinion–it is by no means a “powerful truth.” There are many just as intelectually powerful people as you who have their own “powerful truths” on this subject—yet, probably also opinions. Brilliant opinions, but opinions nevertheless.
The same with “stupid” Obama…
D.E. Rodriguez makes a mistake of accepting my challenge then defeats himself with his own words, “I know that you will be able to provide a dissertation to support your opinions….”
Dissertation, now you are talking my language! I certainly did not earn my doctorate through fakery!
A dissertation is based upon research, facts and well accepted truths. Eventual outcome is logical conclusions which are challenged by a committee, defended by a researcher, then judged to be either acceptable or unacceptable. Very rare a properly concluded dissertation is ruled unacceptable.
You do not want me to provide a post-graduate level dissertation on this. Besides, this challenge is for you to defeat me with your words. So far, I only read you working at weaseling your way out this challenge! You have dismissed my thoughts on “going after the CIA” as mere opinion but provide no substantive facts to support your, oh my, to support your _opinion_ which is precisely what you using to effect verbal fisticuffs! You accuse me of opinion while presenting nothing more than your own opinion!
Well, duh!
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
give it a rest okpu. you're way off topic.
There are many powerful approaches to this torture issue. Right off, I would establish a risk-reward ratio for pursuing prosecution of those involved in this torture issue.
Risk are, in order of importance to our nation:
1. Weakening national security.
2. Disrupting the internal workings of the CIA.
3. Demoralizing CIA employees and losing CIA employees.
4. Loss of a trust relationship between the Oval Office and the CIA.
5. Political backlash against the Oval Office.
Rewards are:
1. Proving a moralistic point.
2. Dissuasion of future similar events.
So, D.E. Rodriguez, you personally assign points to risks and to rewards then inform readers of the risk-reward ratio.
My next approach would be from a legal standpoint. There are clear problems. A previous investigation was conducted of this very issue. There are three generalized results of this prior investigation.
1. Those investigated were exonerated of wrong doing.
2. There is insufficient evidence to prosecute.
3. Where there is evidence the legal case is too weak to prosecute.
This begs a question, “Why is Holder investigating while knowing those facts?”
Oh my, this is an open invitation to rip Holder to pieces in many different ways. Kinda suggests a political witch hunt rubber stamped by Obama. Uh oh, now Obama is culpable! He lied to America about looking forward rather than looking backwards!
There is a humorous notion, “Why are Holder and Obama only going after the little boys instead of going after the big boys, like Bush and Cheney?” Perhaps this is Holder and Obama are picking on the weakest targets to assure a school yard bully victory? Strikes me Holder and Obama are sissy boys.
Something of great importance is this torture investigation will rip our nation apart, will further polarize our nation and will render Obama a lame duck president less than a year into his presidency. Maybe, not so important; Obama has already rendered himself a lame duck president.
No good will come of this investigation. Both Holder and Obama enjoyed an option of simply keeping their mouths shut and moving on to more pressing issues such as America being bankrupt. Both boys made freewill choices to pursue this torture issue. This belongs all to them, no blaming Bush for this.
This terror investigation is lose-lose situation for our nation. This will only cause harm.
There you are D.E. Rodriguez, I have provided you with talking points to use against me. You claim I have no power in words, claim I am easy to defeat. Do so.
Pete Abel up there makes a very good point about “careless” words. I like this!
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Stellarjay comments, “give it a rest okpu. you're way off topic.”
You are suggesting censorship, yes?
What of others who are engaging in this topic and appear to enjoy this topic? What of others who are clearly much farther off topic with their comments?
Why are you not making targets of those folks? This suggests discrimination, yes? I certainly hope you are not making a target of me because I am an American Indian.
What you write suggests diversity in opinion is not welcomed at The Moderate Voice. I am skeptical. This seems a web site which encourages intelligent discussion and intelligent debate.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics
Hi there Okpulot
This is just a friendly head's up: You are way off topic here, and have been for many of your messages as others have noted. Please read TMV rules which are at the top of the page. Among others, this is not an open thread site. Comments are to be pertinent to the article without provocation toward or attacks on writers or other commenters. Editorial admin here will enforce the rules of civility and pertinence of comments.
Thanks.
Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés
Assistant Editor, The Moderate Voice
Archangel writes, “This is just a friendly head's up….”
Thank you. I note you practice censorship. You did write, “Abel's encouragement to TMV journalists has nothing whatsoever to do with censorship or clipping of style or being politically correct. None.”
My presumption was you welcome intelligent diversity in opinion. My presumption was mistaken. I was unaware this is a left liberal web site. I will save you the trouble of banishing me to maintain your purity of thinking here at The Moderate Voice. I am not one who enjoys rigidity in thinking nor discriminatory censorship. I will take my talents to a more welcoming environment. This will relieve you of this burden of having an independent critical thinking American Indian around.
While we are slinging fancy titles around,
Dr. Kiralynne Schilitubi
Professor of English
University of California
Administrator Puma Politics
Don't worry Pete I got you covered, what LeRoy Schaffer was stupid. I mean his social security benefits are socialist already, definately no Einstein there.
Hope that makes you feel better.
However, be prepared to give up care if a public option appears, just look at 1 million people in the UK who got 'Cruel and neglectful' care at the hands of socialized medicine
'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed
One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/60…
I wish the dog and pony show would end and we'd pass W-B.
Leonidas, I'm curious. You never look for cruel and neglectful health horror stories INSIDE the United States. Why is that?
okpulot_taha –
–[My presumption was you welcome intelligent diversity in opinion]–
Let me help you, Ms professor of english; “My presumption was THAT you welcome intelligent diversity in opinion.
You're welcome.
“We are to avoid being careless with words because this robs us of power in dialog.”
BTW
Idiot is a measurement of IQ, Ignorant is a may appropriate word. An idiot would be unable to intellectually construct the sentence as that quoted. The ignorant would fail to see the lack of logical cohesion within that sentence.
If you wish to criticize, consider appropriate word usage to show how masterful you can criticize. You'll at least begin to look more powerful.
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
Oh my! Dr. Pinky has let loose her attack dogs.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Puma Politics