May 06, 2006
The Words They Use ~ A Study In Misdirection
I love blogging, I love reading blogs, left, right, center it doesn't matter to me. I have blogger friends on the left, on the right and in the center. I have blogger friends who are RINO's and Die Hard Republicans, who are DINO's and Yellow Dog Democrats. I even know a few libertarians.
One of the things I love the most is the use of language. Especially the language of the left, meant as one thing, but really a misdirection. Let me explain. The liberal mind is incapable of saying what they mean. I first came on this phenomenon while reading leftish blogs, in particular, the use of the phrase (since 2004) "Reality Based Community." Why is this a phenomenon? Simply because the word means 1 : an observable fact or event and 2 : an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition. So, lets take a look at what the left means by "Reality Based Community." A Google search yields (today) over three million hits of the term. Acccording to the Wikipedia, the term means:
Reality-based community" is a popular term among Internet bloggers that is an example of political framing. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community," was first used to suggest the blogger's opinions are based more on observation than faith, assumption, or ideology and that others who disagree are unrealistic. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Some bloggers have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole."So those who say that they are members of a so-called (full disclosure: here my use of the term "so called" indicates doubt and derision of the term) reality based communities are saying that they have the power to observe and those that do not adhere to that concept are merely faith based and have nothing to draw on. Oh really?
Yes really! Matthew Yglesias notes:
But now that shrill, Bush-hating libertarian Gene Healy is suggesting "Reality-Based Community" T-shirts it appears that the anti-Bush coalition may at last, thanks to an anonymous White House advisor, have found a unifying theme. We are not merely the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill, which may turn off some of your more mild-mannered Bush opponents, we are, proud members of the Reality-Based Community. On the other side is, well, the other guys."How quaint. Those folk can say that they are not just shrill oppositionalists but actually (according to Wikipedia) people who "believe that solutions emerge from [their] judicious study of discernible reality." Yet, I've yet to see any real "solutions" from the left, mostly carping and caterwauling without proposing anything solid in terms of a solution. One of the most obvious of these is John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry who throughout the 2004 Presidential election cycle said he had a plan to end the war in Iraq, a plan to improve the economy a plan to... Well, insufficient voters believed him and he lost. So, now that he doesn't need to keep his Nixonian plans secret any more, where are they. Can we say of these supporters of Kerry and Kerry himself that a continued silence condems Americans and Iraqi's to ongoing war? Can we say that the economy doesn't need his plan? Of course not, Kerry had no such plan because keeping it "secret" now would be pointless. Unless of course he is planning to run again in 2008 and I don't think even Kerry is that stupid. On the other hand....
But, I digress. Let's go back to the reality based community. They observe and come up with detailed plans whereas we on the oppositie side of the political fence merely have faith that our plans will work, not based on any understanding of human nature or facts, but merely based on, well, nothing. Balderdash! The so called reality based community still doesn't understand, in spite of observations since the 1930's at the minimum that you cannot bow down to terrorism, whether of non-state actors or state actors. Whether they be members of Al Qaeda or of the Government of Iran. Whether they be Hitler wanting to annex the Sudatenland in Czechoslovakia or Osama bin Laden blowing up an American warcraft or planning and carrying out one of the biggest acts of terrorism in the history of the world on September 11, 2001. So much for their "judicious study of discernible reality."
Other words and terms also come to mind. For example the term "Pro-Choice" when of course they don't mean pro choice, they mean pro-abortion. But this is another example of "framing." If you frame the argument as pro abortion vs. pro-life, the pro abortion team loses the argument. However, if you "re-frame" the argument as "pro-choice" then you get to say that those who oppose you do not want women to have a choice in managing their bodies. It seems to me that in very few instances (rape, incest for example) the choice comes from having unprotected recreational sex. Now don't get me wrong, I am all for sex, it just means more if it is in a committed relationship. If not in a committed relationship, and it is unprotected it almost invites pregnancy, disease and other unfortunate consequinces.
Another term used by the left to misdirect is "Tax cuts for the rich." Oh, this one is especially pernicious, and egregious and truly sloppy. Any cursory "judicious study of discernible reality" will tell you rather quickly that the so called rich are paying MORE TAXES than they did before the so called tax cuts for the rich. A true "judicious study of discerniable reality" will show that the percentage of receipts by the government have increased "from the rich." Bruce Bartlett writing in Real Clear Politics last December notes:
...we now have data for Australia from the Australian Taxation Office. In 2003, they show the top 5 percent of taxpayers paying 30.2 percent of all income taxes, the top 10 percent paying 41.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paying 63.8 percent. But the top income tax rate in Australia is 47 percent. Thus we see that the country with the highest top rate also brings in the least amount of total income tax revenue from its richest citizens in percentage terms.At some point, those on the left must decide what really matters to them -- the appearance of soaking the rich by imposing high statutory tax rates that may cause actual tax payments by the wealthy to fall, or lower rates that may bring in more revenue that can pay for government programs to aid the poor? Sadly, the left nearly always votes for appearances over reality, favoring high rates that bring in little revenue even when lower rates would bring in more."
Oh, I'm not even close to being done yet, you'll have to click on the link below to continue reading and see what else I'm going to have to say...
How about this one in a comment from a friends site:
If your point is to be taken at face value, then it's also true that most americans [sic] of this day and age are not acquainted with the brutal comedy of errors that is war, how else could you explain a vast majority of support that turned into a majority opposed over the course of less than 10 years."Wow, the utter nonsense of this and the supposition that it is the "comedy of errors" that caused the change in attitude. It has nothing to do with the MSM's absolute refusal to discuss the positive changes, to call a la Reuters, a terrorist a terrorist or even the decency to call heroes what they are: HEROES. Nope, if it bleads it leads, if it is body count it is important, but if it is easing the terror that the good people of Iraq have suffered for so damn long it is not worth reporting. Nope, it is Blame Bush, morning noon and night. As if no one really thinks war is brutal, nasty and sometimes necessary in the overall interrelationships between nations. Maybe if we had taken care of Hitler at any number of times WWII could have been avoided. Maybe not, but we didn't try did we? Nope, England sent panty waisted Neville Chamberlain in and he came out with "Peace in our time." Riiiight!The misdirection of the left continues with the Wal-Mart fiasco. As George Will noted in an essay in January of this year:
Organized labor, having mightily tried and miserably failed to unionize even one of Wal-Mart’s 3,250 American stores, has turned to organizing state legislators. Maryland was a natural place to begin because it has lopsided Democratic majorities in both houses of its legislature.So, what is the misdirection? Why, universal health care of course. One of the really great things about America and Americans is that we always find a way to get something done. Wal-Mart has a business model that keeps prices low and by doing so has become one of the most successful retailers in the world. In fact, Wal-Mart has become huge, and that may be an understatement. But, because it is successful the "progressives" who think all labor must be unionized to get "goodies" at the expense of the consumer (most of whom are the lower paid folks the progressive says he worries about). Yet, having a "happy" workforce that has consistently refused to unionize cause apoplexy on the left so they went after the... wait for it... a Democratic ruled legislature to do their work. Ahhh, that must have felt good!Labor’s allies include the “progressives” who have made Wal-Mart the left’s devil du jour. Wal-Mart’s supposed sin is this: One way it holds down prices (when it enters a market, retail prices decline 5 percent to 8 percent; nationally, it saves consumers $16 billion annually) is by not being a welfare state. That is, by not offering higher wages and benefits than the labor market requires. Labor’s other allies are Wal-Mart’s unionized competitors, such as, in Maryland, Giant Food, a grocery chain.
These allies are engaging in what economists call rent-seeking — using government to impose disadvantages on competitors with whom they are competing and losing."
Need more? How about the term "tolerance?" I love that word when used by the left, they want you to think they mean inclusiveness, but they really mean anything but that. The left, especially the more "radical" left will consistently and habitually exclude anyone that doesn't toe the leftish line. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this and this blog entry by my dear friend (and progressive) Marc Cooper and look how he is hung out to dry by the very lefties that should support him. Where is their tolerance now? In fact, there has been a major blogbruhaha (did I just coin a word?) over the sexual harassment charge against a librarian by the name of Scott Savage. Mike Adams lays it out fairly well. The point of the whole thing is that Associate Professor JF Buckly file harrassment charges against Savage because he had the temerity to suggest a book for incoming freshmen to read that was counter to Buckly's sexual proclivities. Yeppers, tolerant for sure! Except for the left, tolerance is only offered to those that espouse their particular point of view.
Another misdirection the left uses as a trope is global warming. There has been some global warming, there has been some ice melting (and some ice thickening as well) and there is a slight, but statistically insignificant increase in man made CO2. There are lots and lots of climitologists that subscribe to the Global Warming meme. There are also lots and lots of skeptics over this issue. One thing that is absolutely true is that according to many, only 0.278 % of the green house gases are man made. These gases include C02 (less than 3%) and water vapor which alone accounts for 95+% of the total green house gas. In fact, the two combined account for 99.44% of the total. Interestingly enough, the Department of Energy does not list water vapor as a green house gas even though it is the largest single green house gas. Of course, I will present both sides, there is argument to Hieb here Who is right? Probably a little of both, it is warming a bit, tales of catastrophe belong in the round file cabinet. Skeptics are absolutely correct to be skeptical, it is the scientific principle in research. True believers are people that demand that you see things their way...kind of like lefties huh?
This entry is long enough for a blog post, I'll have to put up a Part II soon. In Part II I will take on other words that are used as smoke and mirrors by the left, keep watching this site for more developments. And if you REALLY want a chuckle, read the lefty comments on this post when (Full Disclosure: and IF) they come around. On the other hand, the bait is well documented as workable. Lefties hate it when you call them on their stuff. Wonder how log it will be before Godwins Law has to be invoked?
I want to give a special thanks to some of my friends in the blogosphere who have contributed ideas to this post. Raven, Ogre, Kender, John Stephenson, John Bambenek, Romeocat and my OLD friend Mustang.
Posted by GM Roper at May 6, 2006 06:45 AM | TrackBack
It's funny they tried to implement the Kerry plan after the fact, but the training is still a bit slow and I don't think the neighbors are adequately involved in the operation as Kerry said they should be. Not going well either is it?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 5, 2006 09:04 PM
Yeah that's a real brain trust you have there Roper. Brought out the big guns for this "analysis." Try this one on for size since you want to wail on Kerry as a hobby-horse.
It would require being able to hold two concepts at once so I don't expect much.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 5, 2006 09:09 PM
And by the way. Go over to realclimate and peddle your thories on GW. You are so wrong it's laughable. So out of your scientific league. Alas, if only you had the intellect to realize it. Your numbers are false.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 5, 2006 09:17 PM
In the last excerpt the same debunked naysayer website, which if one had a clue they could tell it looks like an 8th graders work, and another that contains expert William Connally's work. Roper presents these as "equivalent." in the classic media he sai she said false dichotomy common to journalism. They aren't. One is an amateur who has no status at all, and is making a "false claim" often cited by conservatives. It's the reality based world that excludes false statements. Some people don't know the difference and they are conservatives. There's no debate in the scientific community over global warming. Your claim is a false dilemma; either or and possibly other fallacies. It's quite a reasoning acheivement. You flunked.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 5, 2006 09:46 PM
Liberals who favor citizenship for illegal aliens are "pro criminal."
(Regarding Jake's comments, why do people from the left always refer us to RealClimate, as if the people there were credible? They praise everyone who accepts "global warming," even cartoonists, but reject as quacks all qualified scientists who express doubts about inadequate data and models. Hey, Mark A. York, who is left of the left, is one of their major commenters.)
The left is also anti-education (against vouchers), pro-taxes (never enough), anti-God (faith based), pro-homosexual (gay marriage and adoptions), pro-drugs (recreational, and a lot of them), anti-individuals (government knows best), anti-U.S. (really, does this one need explanation),.... This list could be a mile long.
I think that the only thing that liberals are good at doing is making slogans and labels. They wouldn't have to do that if they were honest about what they want and proud to display their agenda.
Posted by Woody at May 5, 2006 10:07 PM
Y'know, you can almost always tell the quality of a blogger by those who oppose him in the comments. The best bloggers are graced by either the most thoughtful and intelligent dispute, or by the most clueless and faithful members of the soi-disant Reality-Based Community.
Congratulations, Jake, I see that you're a member of the latter.
As for GM's "brain trust," I'm honored and flattered that he mentioned me, but I only offered up one or two tid-bits as examples. George, however, will take those little tid-bits and sculpt them into a masterpiece of precision and eloquence. The fact that you cannot appreciate the logic and information he sets forth shows your bias and intellectual dishonesty.
George, I'm looking forward to the next post - this is going to be a very intriguing series! Bless you for crediting my tiny contribution, my friend; you are always a wonderful example of courtesy and grace.
I hope you and your Lady are still enjoying snuggling together in the quilt, and that your medical treatment is progressing satisfactorily. Love and hugs to you both (plus skritchies for the Purr!)
-- R'cat
CatHouseChat.com
Posted by Romeocat at May 6, 2006 08:09 AM
Thank you, Jake, for stopping by and leaving comments that only completely and totally support GM's statements in the post! All one has to do is read the post, then read Jake's comments, and you can see an exact example of what GM refers to.
Posted by Ogre at May 6, 2006 12:03 PM
Up is down baby! in Lewis Carroll world.
"why do people from the left always refer us to RealClimate, as if the people there were credible?"
Because they are and you and your so-called skeptical experts are not. They are paid shills.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 6, 2006 12:15 PM
Jake you do indeed bring to life GM's point with this post. What you speak of is a perfect example.
Excellent post GM...I never would have thought of PRO CHOICE as being a "frame" but it is...so is Global VORMING.
Posted by Raven at May 6, 2006 12:46 PM
Sorry I'm afraid in the real world where ideas and sources have to be evaluated irrespective of political ideology yours flunk laughably.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 6, 2006 05:46 PM
Jake that made absolutely NO sense at all.
Say that again in English without framing it.
Posted by Raven at May 6, 2006 06:58 PM
Outstanding post, GM!
I recall the impending ice age that the lefty "scientists" warned about in the '70's and '80's. Still waiting for that one.
I'm still waiting for the over-population-everybody-is-going-to-starve-to-death one, also, while I eat better than ever for cheaper.
Remember this classic from the early '70's? Bugs are going to take over the world by the year 2000!
'Nuff said, too much comedy for one post!
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at May 6, 2006 07:22 PM
Well, here's some light reading for you. Even the shills i.e. Ronald Bailey are admitting their errors now. I suppose you guys will hold out here at the Alamo, but remember what happened to them? Pass the ammo. There's no Sam Houston to bail you out now. Crow for dinner?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 6, 2006 08:01 PM
To spell it out for the slow-learners in the class, Roper set up a false analogy between a debunked liar and another using valid sources and science. There's no equivalency. Now go back to cowering in your house in New Hampshire. The Iranians are coming over the hill any minute now.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 6, 2006 08:04 PM
Ah Ben they aren't eating very well in Dafur. Ethiopia? Your assignment is to look up "carrying capacity" and write me 500 words summarizing what you've learned. It will be graded.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 6, 2006 08:08 PM
GM,
What a great article! You've done some serious debunking and exposure of double-speak here.
I might have known that Mustang had some input.
And that's quite a brain trust, but Mustang is the topper for me.
I've yet to see any real "solutions" from the left, mostly carping and caterwauling without proposing anything solid in terms of a solution.
Don't slip into delusionary thinking. ;)
Posted by Always On Watch at May 6, 2006 08:17 PM
GM...
I have read a significantly different explanation for the self-appellation of "reality based" - as applied to the leftist Main Stream Media.
Once upon a while ago, a Bush staffer speaking to the press said something to the effect of "You guys just deal with reality. We creating it."
The lefties, of course, took this to mean that the left was real, and the White House was in the clouds (obviuosly not the intent at all). Since they time, they have used the terminology to mean that *they* have a lock on the truth, and the right are dissemblers (to put it kindsly).
There is another one that has come up more recently that annoys me. Notice how the term "domestic spying" is systematically applied by all of the MSM to the international phone call monitoring by the NSA. Gee, do you think the press is really trying to make things clearer, or ore they reframing the issue for propaganda purposes. Obviuosly, it's the latter.
I used to listen to Communist propaganda fairly frequently, as a ham operator and a Navy radio operator. The North American Broadcasting Service of Radio Moscow was fascinating, while Radio Havana was, and probably still is so unsubtle as to be pathetic. However, the careful appropriation of words to the leftist cause was used by both.
The left seems to naturally turn to reframing by rephrasing in order to distort issues. I suspect it makes less painful the cognitive dissonance between reality and what they want it to be. In other words, not only is it a useful way to confuse non-leftists, but it also comforting to those who are almost certainly in a state of anxiety because of the distance between their intellectual "reality" and what they see with their senses. That's also the reason that they stay carefully inside their cocooned echo chambers.
Of course, there are also folks on the left who do this very consciously in order to frame debates. For that matter, there are some on the right ("Right to Life," for example). But for some reason, the left expropriates a lot more words for their propaganda purposes than the right ever does.
If you ever hang out on Jay Rosen's Pressthink blog, you can watch this happen in real time. Most amusing is when they project their own ways of thinking onto the right. I think this is one reason that the leftish MSM is far more interested in telling you what someone "means" than what they actually said!
Screw 'em all!
Posted by John Moore at May 6, 2006 11:14 PM
Wow, stream of consciousness without enough sleep, and without proff reading, sure results in a lot of mistakes in my postings.
Sigh.
Posted by John Moore at May 6, 2006 11:15 PM
John, your "typographical" mistakes still outshine the lefts lies and obfustications. By Far! :-)
Posted by GM Roper at May 6, 2006 11:53 PM
Jake writes: "Ah Ben they aren't eating very well in Dafur. Ethiopia?"
Ahhh, Jake, you prove my argumjent so well on so many levels. The mark of a true believer. Ben's statement was that the world would be starving "I'm still waiting for the over-population-everybody-is-going-to-starve-to-death one..."
Typical lefty that you are, you reframed it into some people are starving. And that is not what Ben said, nor is it what the outcry was back then. And further, you know it. Your assignment is to write a 500 word essay on why the left can't be honest in their arguments. It will be graded and there will be a test following that.
Posted by GM Roper at May 6, 2006 11:58 PM
we on the oppositie side of the political fence merely have faith that our plans will work, not based on any understanding of human nature or facts, but merely based on, well, nothing.
You look at the so-called 'plan' for the war in Iraq and tell me how reality-based you really think it is. And I'm not saying the Democrats would have done better but it's obvious to the casual observer that Republicans have just royally screwed things up in Iraq. Pin that on your lapel and wear it proudly my dear friends!
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at May 7, 2006 05:25 AM
Jake, get a life dude. Read and learn issues through from both sides of the rainbow. If you clear your head long enough you will see how the left view the end of that rainbow with a pot of gold in every situation. The right see reality and fact.
Leftist framing and policy has led this nation to a slow decline, year after year. The feel good rhetoric of Bill Clinton and his lot have done no good for the survival of America and has left us vulnerable. Like it or not, issues such a Global Vorming just don't cut the science. I take the word of thousands of scientists over a few.
Posted by Raven at May 7, 2006 06:48 AM
Excellent post I've blogged about how the planet has been warming since the last Ice Age. Instapundit pointed out that there as been no global warming since 1998. During the Cretaceous period the planet was much warment than now. Dinosaur farts.
I've also blogged on the tremendous economic boom in the little town of Maysville, KY (pop. slightly less than 10,000 with no significant population change for a long time.) since WalMart first came about 15 years ago. Maysville has become the economic center for a rural region of about 100,000 people. Of course there are other factors but things really took off when WalMart came to town.
Everyone hates WalMart and rich people. I've never understood why so many hate rich people. Almost everyone wants to be one. But in the mean time we'll soak them for taxes. The small town that borders my backyard has a new library thanks to the richest man in the world, furnished with computers, etc. The town, Aberdeen, OH, only has a population of 1,500. But thanks to Bill Gates they have a very nice little library.
One of the aspects of capitalism is that there are always some people that are highly motivated to get rich. But to do this they usually have to provided a service or product that benefits others, employ others, etc. Unless this person is a tyrant, we all benefit. For the liberals is is truly ironic that their great leaders Kennedy and Kerry are rich through no effort of their own (other than sedction on Kerry's part) and Dick Cheney gives over $6 million to charity.
Posted by DADvocate at May 7, 2006 08:09 AM
E. Nonee Moose, you took the quote out of context. Here is the full text: "Let's go back to the reality based community. They observe and come up with detailed plans whereas we on the oppositie side of the political fence merely have faith that our plans will work, not based on any understanding of human nature or facts, but merely based on, well, nothing. Balderdash! "
I'm not saying that the Republicans have done a better job on the war, I'm saying that there is no basis for the claim that the left would have done it right because they are based in reality. Too, if they truly are "reality based" how come they are not the first in line to slap down the egregious violations of human rights as promulgated by the islamofascists? Where are the great "liberals" of today that in times past recognized that you cannot deal with inhuman monsters that set off bombs where kids play, that crash planes full of innocents into buildings full of innocents? Where is the understanding that the islamofascists want to not only kill us, but to destroy our entire way of life.
Fostering a concept of the equality of cultures is not reality based. It is foolishness.
Posted by GM Roper at May 7, 2006 08:10 AM
Moose, the Republicans are in Iraq for the same reasons that the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for military action there. The only difference between the two is that the Republicans stand there and take the heat while the Democrats turn and lie about their original position--undermining our troops and effort there.
Iraq is not a mess, as many claim. You have to look at the claims of failures for propaganda purposes (we can't win, there will never be a vote, etc,) versus what actually occurred and is occurring. The Iraqi people (not terrorist factions) want the freedoms that we bring them.
What many can't measure is that the world would be in a greater mess, now or in the future, if we weren't there.
It's much harder to explain to some the wearing a lapel pin for preventing horrible as-yet uncommitted future crimes than wearing one for bringing to justice someone who has already committed those horrible crimes. The Republicans have done both, and I wouldn't mind wearing that on my lapel.
Posted by Woody at May 7, 2006 09:04 AM
I see and obviously you folks can't.
I don't think anyone ever said the world is starving or would be. That's a nonsensical assertion from some sort of absolutist. That's your problem. Some of the ones you don't care about are indeed starving because of overpopulation, stripped land, and resource mis-allocation. The World is a large entity and if if all people starved there would still be an Earth moving on without people. Since no one credible ever said this overgeneralization fallacy it's a moot statement on my end. You'd have to produce the quote for starters.
"Like it or not, issues such a Global Vorming just don't cut the science. I take the word of thousands of scientists over a few."
No dear your small mind doesn't cut the science or even recognize reality. The small numbers would be your sources and Ropers. Yeah it's a conspiracy against the true believers.
Iraq is the disaster most said it would be. It may work out, it may not. It's expensive in many ways. We know that. Now instead of oil for food building palaces on the sly we are. Nice work. Talk about your naive cheechackos.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 09:23 AM
The idea that a handful of nutballs can "destroy our entire way of life" is stupendously fallacious. Context. There is none in this flawed line of hyperbole. There's your misdirection. I guess what you mean is don't misdirect me with your preponderance of facts. You are the beleiver.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 09:28 AM
Screw you too Moore. Listening to your screeds, it looks like the propaganda techniques have taken full root.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 09:33 AM
More facts: Hunger, Mortality and so on
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 09:48 AM
Concerning the war in Iraq, I had serious reservations mainly centered around what I felt may be our lack of understanding for their culture in that they don't mind fighting and killing for centureis.
Bu to say that Iraq is a disaster is to speak too soon. Our losses have been unprecedentedlyl low. In WWII, 749 U.S. soldiers died practicing for D-Day. While every death is a tragedy, we must, in reality, remember that war is hell but tolerating terrorism and taking the role of appeasement will create an even greater hell.
Posted by DADvocate at May 7, 2006 10:50 AM
Jake says:
"No dear your small mind doesn't cut the science or even recognize reality. The small numbers would be your sources and Ropers. Yeah it's a conspiracy against the true believers. "
Go goof off with yourself. Since weather and all things related to it have only been measured in recent history; since we don't really KNOW how things were back in the ICE AGE; since we have no absolute proof that global warming (or icing depending on what you read) is happening. We have no proof that global warming ISN'T a natural part of the earth's existence. Show me PROOF, with facts and not guesswork and I might be more open to these claims. A theory is just that- theory. It isn't a fact.
Posted by Raven at May 7, 2006 11:12 AM
Jake writes: "The idea that a handful of nutballs can "destroy our entire way of life" is stupendously fallacious."
Jake, Jake, Jake!!! Are you an idiot? Are you brain damaged to the point where you cannot see how you argue? I did not say that the islamofascists could destroy our way of life. I said they want to and in that wanting to, have destroyed the lives of many of our citizens. They have shown their inhumanity time and time again.
Jake, you have two choices: 1) come here and make cogent arguments to support your side of the issues or 2) get lost. My blog, my rules.
Posted by GM Roper at May 7, 2006 12:46 PM
GM lays down the law.
Jake, I would take this advice strongly if I were you.
Posted by Raven at May 7, 2006 12:56 PM
So Roper they "want" to. Well, a wish and a dime won't get you a cup of coffee. Then what's all the fuss about? You appear to legitimatize these marginal efforts as actually have a hope in hell of succeeding. They only way they can succeed is on their home turf by bleeding the treasury to death and killing us a handful at at a time. It's a bad deal for all concerned.
Does factual information have ANY consideration in your so-called arguments? Or is it just weasel-worded winger-speak type avoidance as the modus operandi?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 12:59 PM
Oh yeah a "theory isn't a fact" and other wingerville propaganda false cliches. We know by ice cores for starters. If you take your science news from Roper who resubmits the same debunked lies endlessly as if they were both new and correct it's no wonder you're as ignorant as you sound. I've spread real information here that is true. Avail yourself of it and learn.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 01:03 PM
Perhaps you'll play using the same cited BS article Fred Carter opinion piece from above?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 01:09 PM
Well, a wish and a dime won't get you a cup of coffee.
Jake, you aren't listening buddy. the above comment would greatly offend many of the family members of the 9/11 victims don't you think.
Time to argue your points, or get lost. Last warning dude, I don't tolerate fools on my blog and you are becoming dangerously close to one.
Posted by GM Roper at May 7, 2006 01:24 PM
Is that supposed to be a question? What we have here is old fashioned fear-monguering. 9-11 is a convenient emotional appeal but it's far from a world takeover. It was a stunt. Unfortunately other stunts are still possible due to a lack of focused effort, and a cavalier side excursion to to take over Iraq. I find the reasoning disingenuous.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 01:43 PM
And you, or someone, could address the points I've argued via my ignored links. I haven't seen much yet. Lets' see what you've got in the quivver.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 01:45 PM
Screw you too Moore. Listening to your screeds, it looks like the propaganda techniques have taken full root.
I think he meant 'Moose' and not 'Moore.' My goodness, I never thought I'd see the day I'd be lumped together on the same side with GM and Woody!
Posted by E. Nonee Moose at May 7, 2006 02:25 PM
No I meant John Moore.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 02:27 PM
The day is saved.
Posted by Woody at May 7, 2006 03:40 PM
May I suggest, for the next installment words that are geared to cloud the issue with elementary-level name-calling baloney?
Words like: Repukelican, Leftard, Dundermentalist (though I am no great fan of fundamentalists of ANY variety), and the like.
We all have things in which we believe ladies and gentleman. And we wish for a government to carry out what we believe is the best for its citizens.
HOWEVER, when we resort to name-calling to either
A)cloud the issue
B)make ourselves feel superior
C) intentionally attempt to hurt others or
D)infuriate others to the point of degrading an attempt to have an honest discussion about current national and world issues, then the greatest plan for our nation will never be realized.
And no...as of yet, I have no idea what the greatest plan for our nation is. I'm working on it though. Should be done by Tuesday, right around 7:02 PM, GMT.
Posted by Jennifer at May 7, 2006 04:12 PM
Jake-
When you speak of starvation in places like Darfur, you fail to include the why.
It's not because of lack of food, or money, generously given by both the US and many other contries.
It's because the terrorists in charge take all said donations and destroy or seize all the crops and livestock.
They also kill, rape and maim the people who need it.
Still think terrorists have no impact in the world? Is this simply another "stunt" in your view?
The same thing was happening in Iraq before we set them free.
The only way to ensure that people don't starve to death is to forcefully remove terrorist and tyrannical regimes, so that food, money, medicine and education can reach the people that need it.
The UN, EU, the Arab League, and Russia also need to apply pressure too.
I don't expect China to ever help in this area, unless they get something out of it.
The US can't possibly do this everywhere in the world at once, so it would be nice to see other countries step up to the plate once in awhile. Heck, even once would be a refreshing change.
So, the food and technology is here, to feed everybody, but the UN, and EU and most countries would rather negotiate and debate and talk about it for years, even decades than actually do something about it.
The US, nor the world for that matter, are to blame, but at least the US has actually done more than talk about it in many cases.
Everybody else would rather blame us.
Posted by Ben USN (Ret) at May 7, 2006 06:18 PM
The idea that a westerner can "Save" Africa is a false conclusion. Your aid is woefully short of need to start with. The so-called terrorists are players in Dafur and the government is complicit. Have you looked at the place? It's an ecologically devastated wasteland.
Our aid pe captita is dead last. Try again.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 08:33 PM
The real why is destroyed carrying capacity.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 7, 2006 08:35 PM
Jake, assertions are not arguments. Several of the sites you link to do make some excellent points, which you are evidently trying to piggyback on.
I believe those points are generally answerable. But to enter a discussion with you about it, I would have to have some sense that you have absorbed your own supporting material and could make the argument. Thus far, your contribution has been "You guys are stupid and these other guys prove it." Well, maybe so, and thanks for pointing out some contrary arguments for us to consider. But there is not yet a compelling reason to bring you into the conversation. Them, yes. You, no.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at May 8, 2006 08:24 PM
Is that so? In Interent conversation links support one's postions. Lies were posted here and I countered it with facts and truth as far as we can obtain it. That's a far cry from what's here. Stupid is as stupid does. And says. The links are my positions. You want me to summarize them for you so you can say it's only my opinion and doesn't count? It's an appeal to authority on my part. What are yours?
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 9, 2006 09:36 AM
I guess that being the 56th or more comment means as little as your misdirected blog on misdirection,
Two comments from a centrist democrat: "Pro choice" mean exactly what it says. You should realize that it means a woman can choose abortion or may not choose abortion. That is "Pro-choice" "pro Life" just is a cover for the fact that a woman does NOT have a choice. Is that simple enough?
Second, the "facts about the taxes in Australia. This is what the man said:
30% of the taxes are paid by the richest 5%. The next richest 5% pay only11.2% of the Taxes. The third group or the next 15% of the richest pay 22.0% of the taxes.'
Does that not show that the richest pay the most tax in Australia? Also by the time you get to the third group, you are well into the middle class earners, not the richest. It seems that misdirection is used by more than the "left"
Thee propounder of this fiction also was careful to use the weasel word "may" in his fictional tale of reducing taxes om the rich.
Posted by James Melbert at May 9, 2006 03:13 PM
Would Woody please tell me how he knows that the world is a better place because we are in Iraq? I think that I can name more reasons why the world, (make tha U.S.) would be immeasurably better off if we had actually gone for the terrorists and left Iraq alone. You know that Osama is still out there, and our nation is well on the road to bankruptcy. Pray that China will continue to finance us!
Posted by James Melbert at May 9, 2006 03:32 PM
James Melbert: "That is "Pro-choice" "pro Life" just is a cover for the fact that a woman does NOT have a choice. Is that simple enough?"
Not even close. Pro-choice for all practical purposes means unlimited access to abortion. Pro life means preserving innocent life.
For example, I'm very much pro life except in the cases of incest, perhaps rape (though I know of a number of women who have gone ahead and had that child and either raised it themselves or given it up for adoption) and I'm anti-death penalty. Pro life means pro life. Period. Why is that hard for a lefty to accept?
Your examples of the taxes is as twisted as any on the left. I used it as ONE example, the figures can be argued, the results cannot. High tax rates impoverish economic growth and denying that is stupidity.
Posted by GM Roper at May 9, 2006 08:31 PM
Here's a "pro-choice" alternative that I might accept.
Posted by Woody at May 10, 2006 07:28 AM
You guys are for life as long as it's before birth and after death. In between isn't your territory.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 10, 2006 03:10 PM
Gm: Isn't the current state of the United States "pro-Choice? You say that is essentially access to unlimited abortion. What are you afraid of? aren't there millions of women with unlimited access to abortion centers that choose not to go there?
Don't you believe that there are women who have no business having a baby? The papers are full of stories about the woman and her boyfriend who beat, and torture babies. The babies that die are the fortunate ones. Do you and your cohorts actually approve of that? I know you will deny that youi do, but the fact is your philosophy requires that a certain number of babies will be born to people of that mentality. Is that not true?
Posted by James Melbert at May 10, 2006 05:54 PM
He doesn't want choice. He wants decrees from the public square thinking it will get him into heaven. It ain't happening.
Posted by Jake Elmore at May 11, 2006 09:38 AM
Whew George, that is a long post for a sick man. How could I respond? I love your breathtaking simplification of the facts on global warming debate but I think that responding on that might tire you.
As to the general argument about framing the debate, sloganeering, etc how is one to make sense of that? Surely both sides use these devices but to know who starts it I think it is best to note who benefits from making an issue black and white instead of more nuanced. The good old “call a spade a spade”, “keep it simple” crowd, are the ones that love that tactic.
Let me take one of your dichotomies (gee the spell checker helps with that word), ie that of pro-choice v pro-life. Now I’ll admit you have a trace of subtlety there, but if I may reframe the debate by resorting to parable (I think someone we both respect used this device in debate)?
Let’s imagine you meet a vegetarian. He’s a moralizing leftie who says that HE is pro-life while you are pro-death. He doesn’t kill all those furry animals just to satisfy his taste buds! How to counter his arguments? Well, you say, as would I, well … it is not as simple as that. I know you think that I am on a slippery slope and am going to eat the family pet next, but really I have a moral compass and I don't think I would even stoop to eating a dog that wasn't someone’s pet, nor a horse either. Besides you are not completely pro-life because you eat vegetables and they had life before they passed through YOUR choppers!
So, forgive this little morality lesson. I hope you see that life is more complicated than sloganeers paint it and that being pro-choice might just be a matter of letting other people make their choices, no matter how wrong-headed they be, and how much we would like to shove our morality down their necks.
Posted by Ian at May 13, 2006 07:47 PM
