She claims to be a feminist, but does she think that only women who’ve had children are entitled to an opinion on military issues, or that a single woman can’t progress into positions of authority in government unless she is also a mother.
To quote Tony Snow:
quote:I don’t know if she was intentionally that tacky, but I do think it’s outrageous. Here you got a professional woman, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Barbara Boxer is sort of throwing little jabs because Condi doesn’t have children, as if that means that she doesn’t understand the concerns of parents. Great leap backward for feminism.
If a Republican had said the same thing, can anyone doubt that, Boxer and other so-called feminists would be outraged? But it’s a Democrat, so the so-called feminists join ranks and try to shift the blame. Just like they did to Bill Clintons sexual assault and harassment victims.
Simply disgusting. Boxer should resign her seat because her attitude towards a black woman in power in intolerable, and apologize to women everywhere, especially Rice. She’s an embarrassment to the Senate and the people of California.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I didn't see where she mentioned her blackness... But, it is frustrating for her to state that a person who is single cannot understand war issues.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ugh, she also insulted all those married women with children who are too old to serve, and new mothers, and the parents of gay children...
I really don't see what the hullaballoo is about. She compared HERSELF to Rice, she didn't single her out. If she dissed Rice, she dissed herself too. How are you ignoring that? And her comments weren't just stuck with women, they work for men above a certain age too, who can't personally serve and who either have no children or whose children are too old or young to serve.
And she didn't say they didn't understand war issues, she said "Who pays the price?" That doesn't mean Rice is stupid, or incapable or understanding, just that she has no flesh and blood in the sand over there, and it suggests that that means something.
I think you're grasping at straws Mig.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you're grasping at straws Mig.
And this is new how, exactly?
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Lyrhawn:
quote:And she didn't say they didn't understand war issues, she said "Who pays the price?" That doesn't mean Rice is stupid, or incapable or understanding, just that she has no flesh and blood in the sand over there, and it suggests that that means something.
What does that statement suggest, if it doesn't suggest that childless women can't have an opinion on military issues.
You can't say that her statement applies to men as well. She directed the question to a women and didn't mention men.
Lyrhawn does make a good point in pointing out that her comments are also insulting to men without children.
But that she was so forceful with a black women, made me wonder whether she's more uncomfortable with the fact that its a black women in power contributing to military and foreign policy decisions. I don't remember that she ever raised the same point with Madlaine Albright, a white woman. Or did she?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Were we engaged in a major ground war in a far away country where a majority of the population was against it and Boxer was opposed to the decisions of the administration being represented by Albright? I think the answer to that is a resounding no, so I'd ask if maybe it has more to do with the Iraq war and less to do with race.
What if she had asked that question of President Bush? Bush has daughters, and they will never go to war, does that mean she's a man hater?
And why are you ignoring the fact that she made the same statement about herself, and compared herself to Rice? How are you getting around that with your argument?
Why should she be AFRAID to be forceful with a black woman? She white people have to tiptoe around them for fear of being painted as racist?
Posted by Zophar (Member # 10063) on :
I think Fox News and various other places I have seen this story today are grasping at straws.
How many members of Congress or other governmental officials who have a say in the US policy in Iraq have children, (siblings, spouse, parents etc) actually serving in Iraq? Or likely to? The last I heard for Congress, I think was one. (please correct me if I am wrong)
I think Barbara Boxer is only stating the obvious. Neither she nor Dr. Rice nor most of our legislators have as close a connection to the potential family impact of this war as many private citizens. Boxer isn't insulting Rice, IMO, and for Rice or Fox to say she is, by slanting the whole thing, is insulting to those members of the American public whose families are or may be paying the price.
My initial, honest (guilty) reaction to this was to be glad I had no "direct" connection. (No kids, only brother is 41 and I don't think he's even a US citizen...we were both born in Canada, I am naturalised, not sure whether he is) But as if that wasn't enough liberal, ex-catholic guilt, I then suddenly remembered, my brother's step-sons are 19 and 16, (his biological children are all girls and I did think earlier: "they're safe"). The boys ARE family, and I forgot to include them in my personal potential reckoning. I think that (me leaving them out) is far worse than anything Barbara Boxer has said.
What real news are they trying to hide by concentrating on this? Why do we have to turn everything into political issue? Isn't this all difficult enough without blowing things up that don't warrant it?
Posted by Zophar (Member # 10063) on :
quote: Mig said: You can't say that her statement applies to men as well. She directed the question to a women and didn't mention men.
She directed the question to the person she was talking to at the time, who happened to be a woman.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
And she was black, too. That clearly makes her racist, right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Must be a slow week for actual dirt on liberals.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I think Barbara Boxer is only stating the obvious. Neither she nor Dr. Rice nor most of our legislators have as close a connection to the potential family impact of this war as many private citizens. Boxer isn't insulting Rice, IMO, and for Rice or Fox to say she is, by slanting the whole thing, is insulting to those members of the American public whose families are or may be paying the price.
Bingo!
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
What she's doing is suggesting that Rice's support for the war is invalid because Rice doesn't have a family member in the armed forces -- that is, it's an ad hominem argument, and it's an irrelevancy (the war is or isn't a good idea no matter how many children Rice has), and it's mean.
It's true what Samprimary says, though -- it would be a slow week for dirt on liberals, if this was the worst thing anyone could catch a Democrat doing.
However, it wasn't a slow news week. Congress just passed a bill requires anyone who asks others to write their representatives to register with the government and report to Congress on what they did.
Of course (!) neither article cited the bill number, but I was able to find out that the Senate version is S2349. Its text is not yet available on thomas.gov. I can't find the House version.
According to http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1614254/posts, the Senate version defines "grassroots lobbying" as "the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same." Now to be regulated, with criminal penalties if you don't report.
If it's not true, we'll know as soon as they post the bill on thomas.gov. (Too late to write your representative -- it's already passed both houses. And this 100-hours idea is a *good* thing?) If it is true, well, it wasn't a slow news week. It was just slow for news that the media cares to report on.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:What she's doing is suggesting that Rice's support for the war is invalid because Rice doesn't have a family member in the armed forces -- that is, it's an ad hominem argument, and it's an irrelevancy (the war is or isn't a good idea no matter how many children Rice has), and it's mean.
Yes, that's what I initially felt -- every once in a while I'll hear the argument that if you don't have any family members overseas, then you really couldn't care less about the welfare of American troops and your feelings about the war must be entirely political.
What I don't understand is how the statement (paraphrased) "Neither of us is paying a personal price" was then interpreted as "I find your lack of kids disturbing."
--j_k
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Rice is also a pianist, and in insulting a pianist, Boxer has gone too far. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm going to be honest here - I do not like Barbara Boxer, and would love to see her embarrassed or called out for being a jerk.
But I dont' think this is one such case. I don't see what she said as all that provocative, really. :shrug:
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Will B: your interpretation is incorrect. Boxer is suggesting that Rice is unable to accurately assess whether or not the war is a good idea, because she is not paying a price for it. She was also suggesting that this means we should listen to the military members and military families that are paying a price for this war (and are, particularly among the National Guard and National Guard families, increasingly against the war).
If she were suggesting Rice's support for the war were invalid, she'd have to be suggesting her own opposition for the war is invalid, which she clearly isn't, therefore your interpretation is untenable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, that was a high-quality bon mot, right there. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Fugu, you're assuming that Boxer's points are logically consistent. But it is not a given that any argument using the ad hominem fallacy is logically consistent! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: was then interpreted as "I find your lack of kids disturbing."
--j_k
Barbara Boxer is Darth Vader?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My explanation also makes a good deal more sense than yours. Boxer underscored her own similar lack to the war; that makes sense if she's both thinking about that and trying to assert a group of people whom don't lack in that regard should be listened to; it doesn't make sense with your explanation. When one explanation of the words of an intelligent person is both more plausible and consistent than another, we should consider it before the other. You interpret her words badly because you do not like her stance (and quite possibly her; it certainly sounds like it), but your interpretation is stretched at best.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Boxer's words were heard by Rice as insulting. She is not the only one who heard them that way. You can parse Boxer's statement anyway you want, but it was widely taken as insulting, and not just by Rice. When a decent person says something that is interpreted as being as insulting, even if not intended that way and even if the person the statement is directed to is the only person who finds it insulting, the classy thing to do is to apologize. But class is not something I expect from Boxer.
Why should Rice's lack of children of any age even be relevant? The ssue wasn't raised when Reno decided to risk the lives of children in Waco, when she decided to sent armed stormtroopers into closets in Miami to take Elian back to the Cuban tyrant. How about to Albright when they were sending troops to Somalia, or droping bombs on Somalia?
As for the race issue. Black conservatives are rare, black women conservatives are even rarer. I've read and heard black conservatives comment on how tough it is to be one. Many liberals like Boxer don't want diversity, and are always the first to attack someone they view as a traitor. Some liberals think they own blacks, and if they aren't towing the liberal party line they are fair game for any kind of personal attack.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: When a decent person says something that is interpreted as being as insulting, even if not intended that way and even if the person the statement is directed to is the only person who finds it insulting, the classy thing to do is to apologize.
So, this is a general rule for you?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Boxer's words were heard by Rice as insulting. She is not the only one who heard them that way. You can parse Boxer's statement anyway you want, but it was widely taken as insulting, and not just by Rice. When a decent person says something that is interpreted as being as insulting, even if not intended that way and even if the person the statement is directed to is the only person who finds it insulting, the classy thing to do is to apologize.
It is the easiest. It is hardly the classiest.
quote:Many liberals like Boxer don't want diversity, and are always the first to attack someone they view as a traitor. Some liberals think they own blacks, and if they aren't towing the liberal party line they are fair game for any kind of personal attack.
This is quite a reach, Mig.
--j_k
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
What Boxer said wasn't racist or an attack on childless women. It was, however, an idiotic, fallacious attempt to knock the secretary of state down a few notches, and she looked foolish saying it.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
If Fox news reports a Democrat saying something like this, they are grasping at straws. If CNN or MSNBC report a Republican saying something like this, its racist, politically incorrect, and an outrage.
Whether Boxer meant the words to be hurtful or not doesn't matter. If Ms. Rice took offense to them, Boxer should apologize.
Example: When I was a teenager one of my sisters friends came over one day, and she asked me if she could have some cake I had made. (I know, Im a domesticated guy) I said "You can have some if you smile for me!" She started to tear up and left the house. I then found out she had muscular dystrophy and could not smile.
Did I mean the comment to be a direct insult? No, but my intentions did not matter. She took offense to it, and I needed to apologize.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What if Ms. Rice's taking offense to it is just political spin and false outrage?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:What she's doing is suggesting that Rice's support for the war is invalid because Rice doesn't have a family member in the armed forces -- that is, it's an ad hominem argument, and it's an irrelevancy (the war is or isn't a good idea no matter how many children Rice has), and it's mean.
Um, no. Wrong. She's saying that someone who doesn't have a family member in the war- and in the case of both her and Rice, couldn't have a family member in the war- doesn't have the same stakes as someone who does. Which is true.
If she were saying Rice's strong views on Iraq were invalid, by the same argument, her own strong views on Iraq would be invalid. She's not, so she isn't. Period.
quote:Boxer's words were heard by Rice as insulting. She is not the only one who heard them that way. You can parse Boxer's statement anyway you want, but it was widely taken as insulting, and not just by Rice.
Ah, yes. By Fox News, and that fine outstanding piece of non-partisan pulp that called the bipartisan Iraq Study Group "Surrender Monkeys". Widely indeed.
quote:When a decent person says something that is interpreted as being as insulting, even if not intended that way and even if the person the statement is directed to is the only person who finds it insulting, the classy thing to do is to apologize.
And when groups that will always, consistently spin anything one says in the least bit contraversial in the worst light possible interpret something as insulting, a sensible person takes their sham indignation with an enormous grain of salt.
quote:As for the race issue. Black conservatives are rare, black women conservatives are even rarer. I've read and heard black conservatives comment on how tough it is to be one. Many liberals like Boxer don't want diversity, and are always the first to attack someone they view as a traitor. Some liberals think they own blacks, and if they aren't towing the liberal party line they are fair game for any kind of personal attack.
And now you're weaving things out of your own biases and thin air.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: If Fox news reports a Democrat saying something like this, they are grasping at straws. If CNN or MSNBC report a Republican saying something like this, its racist, politically incorrect, and an outrage.
Oh, please. Did CNN gloss over when Democratic Representative McKinney struck a police officer and tried to spin it? If CNN or MSNBC doesn't report something like this, it's not because they're partisan, let alone partisan on the level of Fox News. It's because they realize it isn't news.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: As for the race issue. Black conservatives are rare, black women conservatives are even rarer. I've read and heard black conservatives comment on how tough it is to be one. Many liberals like Boxer don't want diversity, and are always the first to attack someone they view as a traitor. Some liberals think they own blacks, and if they aren't towing the liberal party line they are fair game for any kind of personal attack.
gwah?! please tell me you're not serious about somehow relating this statement to the discussion at hand.
It really seems like you're saying that by talking to a black person every issue is automatically racially related... that's just silly.
As for the right to make decisions on the matter, while I don't necessarily support the senator's points, there is a certain amount of logic for her to use her lack of personal impact as a motivator against the war, but not for it.
As someone who bears no direct impact from the war I might feel obligated to work against it, based on the assumption that troops are safer at home and working agaisnt the war will help maximize the safety of the troops. I'm not saying this is even remotely ironclad (you can argue present safety must be sacrificed for future safety, or for a greater good or whatever) but it is somewhat valid reasoning. Basically, not being attached is a negative when you're voting FOR sending troops, but at worst neutral when you're voting AGAINST sending troops...
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: My explanation also makes a good deal more sense than yours. Boxer underscored her own similar lack to the war; that makes sense if she's both thinking about that and trying to assert a group of people whom don't lack in that regard should be listened to; it doesn't make sense with your explanation. When one explanation of the words of an intelligent person is both more plausible and consistent than another, we should consider it before the other. You interpret her words badly because you do not like her stance (and quite possibly her; it certainly sounds like it), but your interpretation is stretched at best.
No -- it's not stretching to recognize ad hominem as ad hominem. Ad hominem is ad hominem.
That was Boxer's use of this particular fallacy. You add your own in explaining the issue on the basis of a theory about whether I like Boxer's stance or her person -- which, of course, has no bearing. Nothing about me could possibly make Boxer right or wrong. (Nothing about Rice could possibly make the war right or wrong, either.)
For the record, although I have heard of Boxer before, I don't dislike her or for that matter know anything about her other than what's in this news story.
I would agree that we should consider arguments in the best light we reasonably can; just not that the ad hominem fallacy is reasonable.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Mig, although you may be right about liberals and conservative blacks sometimes (Garry Trudeau's references ot Rice as "brown sugar" back that up), is there any evidence in this particular case? I don't see it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Under my more plausible interpretation, there was no ad hominem. Arguing someone is not paying a cost for the war (and thus is unable to accurately assess it) is not the same as arguing someone's support for the war is invalid, and is not an ad hominem attack.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I dont agree with what Boxer said. Just because I don not have a child in the war (My wife and I have been married for only 7 months) does not mean that I dont value the lives of our troops. They are better men than I. While I believe myself to be patriotic I simply do not have the guts to put myself in harms way the way they do. They are the bravest among us and deserve our respect.
Many of us may not believe in the war, but we should still support and believe in our troops. They did not choose to start the war.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:CondiAnd you thought Barbara Boxer was anti-single ? By Mickey Kaus Updated Monday, Jan. 15, 2007, at 5:09 AM ET
Did Laura really say that about Condi? Looks like Nora's right--she did:
"Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate [for President], is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job."
Yikes. Single women can't be president! Move over, Barbara. .. P.S.: Does Laura Bush's intra-party sneer get Sen. Barbara Boxer off the hook? Or--by suggesting some powerful subconscious urge of married mothers to condescend to single women--does it make it even clearer that Boxer is guilty? Bush's comment certainly doesn't make the Boxer incident seem like a better episode for feminism. ... 1:04 A.M.
Hrm...
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I dont agree with what Boxer said. Just because I don not have a child in the war (My wife and I have been married for only 7 months) does not mean that I dont value the lives of our troops. They are better men than I. While I believe myself to be patriotic I simply do not have the guts to put myself in harms way the way they do. They are the bravest among us and deserve our respect.
Many of us may not believe in the war, but we should still support and believe in our troops. They did not choose to start the war.
While your point is somewhat valid, there is also some validity to a much greater impact being felt by those who are directly related to the combatants (whether they be sons, daughters, brothers, sisters...) much as I have the utmost respect and care for our fighting men and women I know that I would be much much more emotionally involved if my brother was there or a son or daughter or whathaveyou.
I'm not saying this negates anyones views on the war, and neither do I think that's what the senator was trying to say (though I could be wrong there) but it does put those views in a different light.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rice indeed has no children in the armed forces (or elsewhere). This is true, but irrelevant. That's why ad hominem is a classified as a fallacy of distraction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:She was also suggesting that this means we should listen to the military members and military families that are paying a price for this war (and are, particularly among the National Guard and National Guard families, increasingly against the war).
I agree with this interpretation. I think it's amusing in a bitterly cynical sort of way, because both parties are quick to use this sort of argument when their politics and polling favors it.
Democrats were not heavy on doing what military servicepeople and their families would've been in favor of, say, five, four, or even last year...why do you think that sort of point was not hinted at? Whereas Republicans, of course, billed themselves as the party in touch with what the military thinks and desires.
An example of this was when I was reading Molly Ivins's column in the newspaper today, when she cited a poll stating that only 38% of US servicepeople favored Bush's 'surge'. My memory isn't photographic, but I somehow doubt she was citing many polls with phrases like, "Percentage of armed forces view President Bush favorably," in them until quite recently.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its perfectly relevant to Boxer's point, that Rice doesn't have sufficient stake in the war to accurately evaluate its impact. I'm not saying her point is correct, but given what she was arguing about, there's nothing ad hominem at all about how she was arguing it.
Note that Boxer didn't say Rice's arguments were wrong because she didn't have a stake, or that the war was bad because she didn't have a stake. Either of those would have been invalid, but she didn't say either of those things.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
>Rice doesn't have sufficient stake in the war to accurately evaluate its impact
I do think that is what Boxer was saying. But it's unsound to say that someone cannot accurately evaluate the impact of the something without a sufficient stake in it. Having an intense personal stake in something doesn't make one _better_ able to make objective assessments about it. We don't ask a surgeon to do the diagnosis when her own child comes into the hospital bleeding and dying; we ask a doctor who isn't a relative to do it.
In the case of Rice, though, it's not like comparing a surgeon-parent to a non-surgeon parent. It's like telling the surgeon who evaluates the child, "You don't have any children, so you aren't qualified to give medical advice. Stop talking and we'll listen to the child's mother (a layman) instead."
Ad hominem isn't always mean. "You are right because you have cool quality X" is just as invalid as "you're wrong because you have sucky quality Y." In this case, it wasn't nice to require Rice to attend a hearing, allegedly about the war, and use it to remind her of what she's missed out on in life. It could be just an unbelievable amount of cluelessness rather than genuine nastiness; but whatever the motivation, it was irrelevant. Rice's lack of children does not make her unqualified to evaluate the impact of war.
And if having children in the military is the issue, then the GOP will get to make all the decisions on the military from now on! Since most soldiers go Republican.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Mig: Boxer's words were heard by Rice as insulting. She is not the only one who heard them that way. You can parse Boxer's statement anyway you want, but it was widely taken as insulting, and not just by Rice. When a decent person says something that is interpreted as being as insulting, even if not intended that way and even if the person the statement is directed to is the only person who finds it insulting, the classy thing to do is to apologize.
quote:posted by Mig: As for the race issue. Black conservatives are rare, black women conservatives are even rarer. I've read and heard black conservatives comment on how tough it is to be one. Many liberals like Boxer don't want diversity, and are always the first to attack someone they view as a traitor. Some liberals think they own blacks, and if they aren't towing the liberal party line they are fair game for any kind of personal attack.
I thought these two paragraphs deserved to be juxtaposed (heh) just in case anyone missed it.
The other liberals - assuming any others were insulted - and I will be awaiting your apology, Mig.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Boxer's words were heard by Rice as insulting. She is not the only one who heard them that way. You can parse Boxer's statement anyway you want, but it was widely taken as insulting, and not just by Rice. When a decent person says something that is interpreted as being as insulting, even if not intended that way and even if the person the statement is directed to is the only person who finds it insulting, the classy thing to do is to apologize. But class is not something I expect from Boxer.
And intelligent debate isn't anything we have come to expect from you.
A lot of your political opinions, as expressed in this forum, are offensive on a regular basis....not to mention ignorant, slanted, and spoken with a highly obvious political bias and agenda (which usually fails, thank God), but I have yet to see you ever apologize....
Which makes you every bit as guilty of a lack of class as Boxer, with far less credentials or responsibilities to excuse it.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I think David Bowles has it right.
Let's assume, for the moment, that what Barbara Boxer's point was that some people have a greater stake in the war than others -- and that she used as examples of Americans who have relatively LESS stake in the war herself and Secretary Rice (neither of which has a child of military age).
Proceeding from that premise, her view is that we Americans sort out along one (or more) dimensions that determine how much validity our opinions on the war have.
So far, she's saying exactly what I have had Conservatives tell me over the past few years -- that because I am not IN the military, I shouldn't say what's on my mind about the war.
I thought this opinion was idiotic then, and still think it is idiotic. We as Americans have sent troops to a foreign land. On our behalf, they have removed a government (however illegitimate we believe that government to be), killed a lot of people (many of them civilians), and changed the balance of power in that country and in the region. They have not yet completed the whole mission and we, as Americans, are being asked to commit more to this effort in something called a "surge" that is needed to alter the trajectory of this conflict to be more in favor of stability and safety for the Iraqi people -- thus making it more reasonable for us to remove our troops soon.
To say that Americans don't all have a stake in this decision is horrible for the following reasons:
1) No American is untouched by the American lives lost.
2) The military is acting in our name and we must remember that at all times -- whether we like what they are doing or not -- we sent them their and our taxes (and our borrowing) pay for their efforts.
3) The aftermath, for better or worse, both there and here are our responsibility.
So...Barbara Boxer is wrong. She is just as wrong as the people who claimed that I shouldn't have an opinion on the war. Ever American should.
Now...do some people's opinions matter more than others? Sure. The opinions of the President and members of the Cabinet, and the Senate and House matter a great deal more than my opinion does. Because the decisions they make have a direct impact on what policies are turned into action.
The military leaders opinions matter more than mine because where they point, things happen and people live or die.
But none of that leads to the conclusion that my opinion, or the opinion of ANY American should be shut off.
This other stuff is just a smoke screen, imo.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: My explanation also makes a good deal more sense than yours. Boxer underscored her own similar lack to the war; that makes sense if she's both thinking about that and trying to assert a group of people whom don't lack in that regard should be listened to; it doesn't make sense with your explanation. When one explanation of the words of an intelligent person is both more plausible and consistent than another, we should consider it before the other. You interpret her words badly because you do not like her stance (and quite possibly her; it certainly sounds like it), but your interpretation is stretched at best.
No -- it's not stretching to recognize ad hominem as ad hominem. Ad hominem is ad hominem.
Declaring it is doesn't make it so, though.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
"1) No American is untouched by the American lives lost."
I would argue this point Lavalamp. I don't mean to be callous, or to lessen the sacrifice made for us and for the Iraqui people by our soldiers, but at least so far I have effectively been untouched by american lives lost in this war. I have not known anyone personally involved, none of my immediate or extended relatives are involved, and to the best of my knowledge all my immediate friends/coworkers are similarly unaffected. This means that by-and-large all those casualty lists etc are just that, lists and statistics that do not directly impact me.
This isn't to say that I can't have an opinion on the war (one way or the other), or that I don't have the right to voice that opinion. It does mean (in my mind at least) that my opinion really doesn't mean as much as someone more closely connected and/or better informed.
I'm fine arguing that those who are in positions of greater knowledge have important and valid positions (which Condi falls into) just as do people who may not have much knowledge of the politics etc but do have family members involved etc. They are approaching the issue from different angles, but both (because of their connections to the issues) have valuable insight.
if the Senator wanted to say that neither she nor Ms. Rice have a terribly good backing on the morale associated with the soldiers and their families/friends then I think she has a perfectly valid point.
however, until someone comes up with direct quotes from the interchange where the senator actually says that Rice's opinions are not valid because of her lack of attachment, then we'll have an argument. They certainly are different, and to a certain extent less valid than some others (though they are more valid along the lines of knowledge than most).
as for the doctor analogy, it's true that you don't have a surgeon operating on a loved one, but until that surgeon has experienced, or been close to someone who has experienced whatever life-altering procedure (say an amputation) then their opinion is biased by that. I'm not saying that they don't know what they're doing, nor that their opinion isn't right, but just that their opinion isn't entirely whole. See the interchange between Simon and Juble Early in the last episode of Firefly about how Simon's never been shot or operated on...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought you were talking about this. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: An example of this was when I was reading Molly Ivins's column in the newspaper today, when she cited a poll stating that only 38% of US servicepeople favored Bush's 'surge'. My memory isn't photographic, but I somehow doubt she was citing many polls with phrases like, "Percentage of armed forces view President Bush favorably," in them until quite recently.
My- admittedly largely unreasearched- suspicion is that you usually won't hear active, deployed military speak ill of the commander-in-chief, even if those are their true feelings. And if they do, their feelings are likely to be filtered by official channels or even, on occasion, civilian media. The need and desire to suggest there's a united front at home is slight compared with the need and desire not to suggest disunity or skepticism about the mission amidst the military.
I recently was sent an article by my brother-in-law from a local military paper, the "Desert Anchor", which noted that he and the others interviewed "were happy to be able to serve and help in the fight with terrorism." Given how he seems to feel about his deployment, I have to wonder what he was actually asked.
In short, if that many military servicepeople are expressing doubts, that's both unusual and distressing. It may be that the feelings have been there before, but it's the recent circumstances that are causing people to speak openly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I thought it was in the UCMJ somewhere that active servicepeople weren't allowed to publicy express negative feelings for their CinC. Either that or JAG lied to me.
A lot of what I'm reading on servicepeople is that they feel Americans back at home have zero idea as to what is really going on over there.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Will B: No -- it's not stretching to recognize ad hominem as ad hominem. Ad hominem is ad hominem.
Declaring it is doesn't make it so, though. [/QB]
The art of excerpting one small part of a quote, removing all the supporting evidence, and making it therefore sound like there was no supporting evidence...it's a skill, I recognize it, but it's not one I aspire to.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Some liberals think they own blacks, and if they aren't towing the liberal party line they are fair game for any kind of personal attack.
There is a saying: "Democrats take blacks for granted, and republicans take them for fools."
I have to tell you, Mig, in trying to link Boxer's comment to Rice's race, it makes me wonder how stupid conservatives think black people are. Thankfully, I think you only represent a sliver of the American white conservative mindset.
[ January 16, 2007, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It doesn't matter if its unsound, its pertinent. Note I didn't say I agreed with the point, but that it wasn't ad hominem. Its not ad hominem if its pertinent.
You have a hard time believing my explanation after Boxer's specific and explicit explanation that this applies to her too, and the repeated Democrat rhetoric to listen to the families of the troops? Furthermore, it has nothing in particular to do with Rice's childlessness, given Boxer's statements about it applying to her, too -- it would apply to Rice if she had children who were not affected by the war. Also, you're engaging in rather a lot of exaggeration and misdirection. I rather suspect that a lot of things about the war were discussed in the hearing; furthermore, you're bringing up the trope about this being an attack on Rice's childlessness again.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)