Now, what's the difference between Kerry and Bush in the areas of
1)Education 2)Environment 3)Social Security
There's been a lot of talk recently about how bad the two candidates are, or how one is so much worse than the other. Well,why do you think so? Do you really know where the two candidates stand on these issues? I'll bet you don't. I didn't. So, why don't you?
I think journalism these days sucks. I think you have an overabundance of people with bias who engage in blatantly partisan writing in an attempt to *shape* opinion, like OSC, and a serious lack of , god help us, actual journalists who have a committment to presenting information in an unbiased fashion so people can decide for themselves where they stand.
I know this isn't exactly news to anyone, but for me there's a difference between actually feeling that way and then seeing the facts shoved in your face.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
actually what is far more disturbing to me are the number of people who read an article or two and act as if they now are fully equipped to critique the weightiest decisions being made in the world today... especially when the text of their rant makes it clear to people who *do* know a little about the subject at hand that the person has absolutely no clue as to what they are discussing.
and there is, disappointingly, a TON of that here at hatrack...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a candidate. I do have a definite "no" vote that I plan on excercising, but sadly, it means I have to pick someone else, and there is no one I want.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
TAK -- this is hardly surprising (and I realize I have been guilty of it at times, though I strive to pass above it) as it is the President's position that all decisions can be made in this way -- by listening to short summaries from trusted aides and then proceeding based solely on those summaries. For instance, given the most comprehensive intelligence assessment on Iraq's capabilities, Bush didn't read it all, and neither did Rice!
They then released excerpts from it that did not contain the qualifiers present throughout the document, making the case for Iraq seem stronger than it was. The really shocking part is that they may have believed it was stronger than it was because many of the qualifiers may have been in parts they neglected to read.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
As great as the man is, OSC is not a journalist. He is a columnist. Sometimes columnists get their opinions printed in the paper. Usually it goes on an 'opinion' page that is labeled as such.
I wouldn't think for a second that Card proclaims himself to be a journalist. He is a columnist, and like all columnists he gets paid to present his opinion, which is not necessarily the view of the newspaper. When it is the view of the newspaper, it's then labeled as such, away from the news, on a special page that pronounces that it is the newspaper's opinion that.... blah blah blah.
Now, I will not dispute for one second that there are 'reporters' out there that bias their coverage through leaving out important points, or playing up not so important points, or what have you. I would agree that these people suck, even though the newspaper I work for is guilty of it from time to time.
But a columnist is not one of these people. A columnist present his/her opinion with all his/her biases because the newspaper/internet site or other publication feels it will increase readership.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take issue with OSC's assertion that any black republican candidate would be labelled with an "epithet" akin to Uncle Tom. I heard only praise when Colin Powell was nominated for his cabinet position. Sure, there were a few papers that saw it as perhaps a crass attempt to deflect criticism of future dismantling of programs like affirmative action (a less offensive version of the old "I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black!" rigamarole), but there was certainly no critical mass of opinion like what OSC implies... You would think that if it was a concerted effort by a group called the "PC Left", and whom OSC implies has considerable power in the political landscape, it would have been more apparent at the time.
I am not sure what you found so disappointing. Can you elaborate? I got from the article that blacks are hurt the most from the dissolution of marriage.
That is easy to understand if you believe that the black community has the greatest percentage of absentee fathers. I believe that phenomenon is true, and I also believe that it contributes to the crime in low income black communities.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on where my interpretation is wrong. It seems so obvious to you why that is dissapointing. I will be the first to admit that I am not an authority on the black community and there is no sarcasm in my request.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The implicit assumption, Alexa, is that easier divorces are the cause of said behavior, as opposed to something else, like, say, general poverty, or a cultural phenomenon that can be traced back to slavery days, where, due to the cheapening of life in general, and the possibility of being sold off away from your children, less importance was placed on the father's presence (this is purely conjecture, and I don't believe this is the case, but it is plausible).
It isn't "wrong", except that the way it is written the premise is taken for granted ahead of time, to the apparent exclusion of any other factor (or, if there were/are other factors, they are small in effect in comparison to the marriage theory).
To some, OSC's assumption seems more like confusing correlation with causation.
posted
Pat, That was a very calm, reasoned reply. I appreciate it.
I guess my thought is that even though it is clear to you what the difference between a journalist and a 'columnist' is, I think it's probably not so clear to a lot of people, nor to the columnists/journalists themselves. I think the problem is that people are made to feel good about identifying with a certain outlook. They buy into the whole duality of good and evil, and when things are phrased in terms of family/anti-family, and morality/immorality, and freedom/communism, all objectivity and the ability to think goes out the window. I don't care how many other periodicals you read that have opposing view points, you'll just filter them through an outlook that paints the opposing opinion as diabolical and end up thinking that 'they' are out to get you and the only defense against 'them' is to band together with other plucky freedom fighters and fight the good fight.
I thank Bob for Hatrack. It's only through regularly conversing with people who hold opinions other than mine that I've been able to break out of the paradigm of us versus them. Perhaps breaking out is the wrong word, because the pull of identifying with a movement or group and, subsequently, to demonize another group is very strong. So, it's something that I have to fight against constantly. If anyone can spend any length of time on Hatrack and still buy into the whole fiction of 'us versus them', then I think there is something very wrong.
The core of my frustration with OSC isn't the opinions that he has, but the way he dresses them up such that he dehumanizes liberals into caricatures of their worst qualities. The world doesn't need more of this way of thinking, this kind of writing. There's already an overabundance of Anne Coulters and Michael Moores.
Calling OSC a columnist doesn't excuse him of engaging in the worst kind of partisan silliness. He doesn't have to be that way. There are a ton of conservative writers out there who can state their case with an eye to what the other side believes, rather than stating your case and dismissing what the other side has to say as anti-family, etc.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the smug arrogance behind his repeated assertion that society's ills are the result of "our disastrous national experiment with the destruction of marriage". Excuse me? National experiment? To destroy marriage? Does anyone actually buy that there are a group of people, either those damn homos or that evil liberal elite, that WANT to DESTROY marriage? That are actually TRYING to destroy it?
Oh my god, my vision actually blacked out for a brief second as I thought about that. Or redded out, more accurately. I always thought "blinded with rage" was a metaphor.
Society is changing, as it always has and always will, and the role of marriage is currently part of that change. To paint this natural progression as the result of some damned conspiracy by those OSC disagrees with just disgusts me. The honesty and search for truth that drew me to his earlier works is gone, replaced with vile and close-minded rhetoric.
posted
I don't mind OSC as a columnist, to be honest. It's when he acts like a pundit that I get tired of him; he's not a very GOOD pundit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things that OSC knows as a writer, but does not know as a columnist, is that the way to persuade people, or to present a strong argument, is to attack the strongest argument your opponent makes. In order to do this, you need to understand the position your opponent holds, and why. OSC appears to fail the test of understanding his opposition, in almost all cases of his war watch column. THere have only been 2 or 3 war watch columns I've been able to read to the end, because LONG before the end in most of them, I get fed up and go "Wow what an idiot." Of course, I don't think he's writing for anyone who has an opinion that isn't his. He's writing for people who don't know anything, and people who are already firmly on his side. Thats great, but its the type of political debate that makes American politics a waste of time.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have learned not to read anymore of his War Watch articles. They leave me feeling disillusioned and depressed. I honestly shouldn't have read his one against Gay marriage.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I do understand your frustrations. The only reason I brought out my point is because I am constantly telling readers that it's a columnist's job to have an opinion, even if it doesn't jive with yours (or the readers).
We once had a columnist here who wrote about how anyone in a band is a loser, and how the parents of those kids are even bigger losers. You can imagine the phone calls, hate mail, etc. Actually, you can't. He was threatened with his life. It was amazing. But people just couldn't understand that a column represents an opinion of someone and while their opinion may be a little more pronounced than others, it's still just that... it's far from truth, or fact.
So, it comes down to the filter in which we choose to look at OSC's columns. For me, I read em, take what I can use, then jettison the rest. Sometimes I appreciate his insights and opinions, other times I don't.
Anyways, I don't think this will help you any, but I just thought I'd write back and tell you that if anything, I do understand your frustrations with him.
posted
I remember when I wrote a column for a local paper about how frustrated I was becoming by the apathy of my generation, and how the best thing we could do was repudiate the policies of the "old" -- including programs like Social Security, which were basically scams being run by the elderly that would wind up bankrupt well before we'd ever see a penny.
It was deliberately inflammatory, produced a fair bit of press, and actually made me persona non grata in one of my favorite diners for a while; the old folks gathered there for their free coffee, and I'll never forget being whacked in the knees from behind by an elderly woman who told me, as I whirled around, that whippersnappers like me needed to learn more respect for the people who brought them into the world. *laugh*
quote:I take issue with OSC's assertion that any black republican candidate would be labelled with an "epithet" akin to Uncle Tom. I heard only praise when Colin Powell was nominated for his cabinet position. Sure, there were a few papers that saw it as perhaps a crass attempt to deflect criticism of future dismantling of programs like affirmative action (a less offensive version of the old "I can't be racist, some of my best friends are black!" rigamarole), but there was certainly no critical mass of opinion like what OSC implies... You would think that if it was a concerted effort by a group called the "PC Left", and whom OSC implies has considerable power in the political landscape, it would have been more apparent at the time.
Harry Belafonte called Powell a "house slave." There's is definitely a critical mass in popular culture, if not serious journalism, that treats both Powell and Rice in this fashion. Clarence Thomas has been putting up with it for years. The phenomenom definitely exists.
posted
What's ironic is that, IIRC, Belafonte called Powell an "Uncle Tom" precisely because he thought Powell represented a cynical sop to the African-American community, and was willing to let himself be used in this way -- and, as far as I can tell, OSC is SPECIFICALLY suggesting that Republicans use Powell, Rice, and Watts in this way.
posted
Yes, and Harry Belafonte was seen as a loony by most people, including many.most on the left. Or have we finally figured out that Harry Belafonte is the infamous PC Left?
I'm not saying no one does it, and I'm sure within certain parts of the African-American community this persists still. But the PC Left is presumably a bit larger than that, isn't it? I don't see the Condoleeza Rice or Powell being attacked as such in the popular media, though I'm sure it's out there.
Ultimately though, given that a few disparate folks occassionally, not regularly, do this sort thing, does that constitute the claim that some amorphous and powerful group that can be called the PC Left is responsible? To me, and presumably many others, the PC Left has more extensive connotations than what seems to be the actual case. OSC in the article is going FURTHER than saying some amount of people from the black community will raise this opinion; OSC uses the term "the Left". That seems to imply a more widespread effort than has been going on recently, which leaves the inevitability of the epithet to be used to be highly questionable.
posted
I support my candidate because of his astounding degree of insightfulness that gives him the ability to understand and rectify the various social problems that plague our nation, while still having the shrewd accumen for financial problems and adriot political maneuvers. Also, he's very funny.
That's right. I am voting for Dave Barry.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, for the record, that was not directed at any *one* in particular, but more me venting my frustration at a particular aspect of this board of the last few months...
Fugu, not to pick on you, but that's precisely an example of what I'm talking about: you make declarative statements about how the president is irresponsibly folloiwng the advice of his advisors (as if that wasn't what they were there for) and not doing a comprehensive personal study of every decision he has to make (as if all the other presidents have) based on a link which I can't read because it's blocked from my work. Reading something on the internet does not make you an expert in process, someone putting something in a blog doesn't make it true (no matter who it is) and while you have the right to shout your opinions from the rooftops, I think a little more humility and respect would make your point more persuasive. (Imagine *me* lecturing on humility! at myself)
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Fugu, I love you, man! Please don't think I'm trying to bag on you specifically either...
I have some blowfish sushi here for you, and I'll even take the first bite to prove it was properly prepared Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case it was the excerpt from a news article by MSNBC emebedded in the blog which was interesting , and included the facts of interest with primary sources. Also, given that the pretty much all the political analysts,his complimentors and his detractors, seem to agree on it, I find it highly likely it actually is his management style:
for his complimentors (at least in part, note that the caveat has largely come to pass).
and any interview with O'Neill for one of Bush's most major detractors to tell you that his management style is based on executive summaries.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, I happen to like working for people who handle things that way and am a big fan of decentralized authority. I feel it empowers and respects the true workers where the rubber meets the road. Our military has worked that way for years and for a long time it was considered a major advantage (and one of the primary lessons learned from the Vietnam War). I can't, obviously, comment on the articles I haven't read, but the very fact that they label his style would seem to indicate that it's a pefectly normal one-- and it is.
What I object to is that someone told you this was bad, it sounded good to you, and so suddenly Fugu knows better than the President of the US and his whole cabinet how to run the country.
quote:It is rational to attack the police; nay, it is glorious. But [this is like]attack[ing] the police without ever having heard of burglars.
if you can't understand the good of something it's likely that you are premature in condemning it... though you may not be wrong in so doing.
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:actually what is far more disturbing to me are the number of people who read an article or two and act as if they now are fully equipped to critique the weightiest decisions being made in the world today
You say you don't like it, then say you do. Anyone who follows an executive summary style of management does not personally become an expert in an issue, he reads/listens to a few articles of sorts by people he trusts as experts and then makes a decision.
Why is Bush allowed to do it but other people are not? I've probably read more in depth by acknowledged experts on at least a few of the subjects Bush has had to make decisions on based on executive summaries from people around him. Doubtless Bush is a people person, but why is he qualified to pick between these expert opinions (if he gets all the expert opinions) when he is definitely not an expert in them himself? Perhaps he is a people person, but what happens when the people who are most personally persuasive are the wrong ones?
And frankly, I don't like it as an exclusionary leadership style in a president. He is making major decisions about millions upon millions of lives, and he better read the whole report (that was the executive summary, even, and he didn't read it all) when he makes such decisions.
Do I know better than the President of the US and his cabinet how to make all the decisions they make? No. Do I know the style of decision making I have liked in Presidents past and the style of decision making I feel has led to a large number of wrong and harmful decisions? Heck yeah I do. This isn't about making the decisions for them, this is about how they make the decisions, an unsubtle distinction.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well for all the family values OSC touts he forgets one very very important thing about Colin Powell.
The man will not run for president or be vice president because he promised his wife he won't. She is afraid that the instant he does that he will be assasinated (not character assasinated,assasinated as in dead), and the fears are not unfounded.
Condolezza Rice has my respect.
Everyone in Oklahoma knows that the only reason J.C. Watts got elected is because he is a football legend. If Barry Switzer wanted to run for public office he would win too despite his drugging players scams and everything bad that happened in football while he was at OU. He won so he is God. And people will bend over backwards to kiss his rear, I have observed it in person.
While many people in Norman, Oklahoma have a Switzer story, I had the opportunity of having a short conversation once (we were discusssed the NCAA wrestler that broke the unbeaten record while our significant others rolled their eyes)and dining in the same locale with him several times (It was the best little Italian place in town) The way notable townspeople groveled before him was unbelievable.
The exact same thing is true with J.C. Watts. The man may be intelligent and articulate (though not according to my former roomate who served as a staffer to another Oklahoma congressperson) But truly only reason why he got elected in a white district is because he was a football hero.
posted
Fugu, the difference is that you are arguing a point while I am expressing irritation at an attitude. It is not your point I am concerned with rebuffing here, it's the way this particular forum seems to reward people who jump in and assert that they know [X], and particularly if they can link it...
The practice of supporting yourself with links is great and documentation is a wonderful thing, but I think way too much credit is given, and taken, in a lot of these instances.
And I assert that I know that.
[ March 29, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a little surprised that he would suggest Condoleeza Rice. She may very well be qualified--I would need to look into it. But I don't believe for a second that she's electable. A black candidate might be. A female candidate might be. A black female candidate? We'll need at least another decade. In my mind, for her to be nominated would be tokenism, pure and simple. Of course, OSC may not see it that way.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, Perchance was that Italian restaurant Othello’s? I love that place, and Barry Switzer is in there all the time. Also, J.C. Watts is neither intelligent nor articulate and is an extreme example of tokenism. (Not to be confused with Tolkienism, in which case we’d have Gimli as a representative.)
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WA, I'd prefer a Faramir/Elrond ticket. Faramir has plenty of loyalty and self assurance while Elrond would bring better intel than the CIA. Plus, Eowyn would easily be the best First Lady ever.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wussy, glad you backed me up on the JC Watts thing. OF course living in Oklahoma for a while does give you a different perspective. I'm still recovering from my football fanaticism <grin>
If you've ever been to a game, I ran the huge grill out in front of the engineering buildings that served the burgers every game. I was the first girl to be first vice president of the enginners club, since none other had been willing to tackle the job. I also got myself kicked out of LKOT (if you've ever heard of it)
I strongly reccommend it, it has really weird hours though. THe people run some sort of ministry as well, and they just use it to suppor themselves. It is better than Victorio or Othello's.
posted
To be honest, I love Othello’s more for the atmosphere than anything else. Plus I get to see Barry Switzer. I have yet to find any really good Italian food anywhere in Oklahoma. I’ll check Marco's out. Also, don't bother trying to outgrow football fanaticism. Sooner pride is terminal. Sooner born, bred, dead and all that.
[ March 29, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
at myself)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
