[MD] Imaginings

[John Carl]

Ok, I picked my way back here Arlo, because if you two won't stop bickering
you're both goin' to the would shed.  At this moment in time, it's your
turn.  You've been castigating Platt with excessive rhetoric about
"embarrassing" this forum.  Well I'm not embarrassed except at the lack of
cogent criticism of Platt's tactics.  You say it's here, in this post, so
I'm back here in this old thread looking for it.

[Arlo]
> Let me give you an example.
>
> In this week's Newsweek, in the Verbatim section, is a quote (I had missed
> it
> before) from a Republican Senator about Obama giving a speech to the
> schools.
>
> "This is something you'd expect to see in North Korea or in Saddam
> Hussein's
> Iraq" (Steve Russell, R OK).
>
> Now. Ask yourself. Its COMMON knowledge that Bush gave a similar address in
> 1991. Its COMMON knowledge that Republicans BACKED this speech against some
> Democrat complaints.
>
> Is Russell THAT stupid? Did he make a similar allegation when Bush gave his
> 1991 address to the public schools?
>

Ok Arlo.  In philosophy we use logic and logically speaking, the statement
is accurate.  It is the kind of activity that I'm sure is exhibited by North
Korea, Iraq and (as you point out) Bush's America.  And probably France too.
 I mean, the leader of the country addressing the country's school children
is most likely done everywhere, so a politician blathering about North Korea
and Iraq doing it is pandering to his constituancy with maddeningly
inflammatory rhetoric and logically defensible accuracy.

Its many things, but certainly not "stupid".

I  believe it is the role of intellect to analyse such things and uncover
them.  Just angrily denouncing doesn't do that much good.

 The way you come off when you get so rhetorically inflamed by Platt does
not make your argument seem stronger, it makes it seem weaker. The old
adage, if the facts are on your side, pound the facts if logic is on your
side, pound logic and if neither, pound the table.

When you pound the table so hard, it makes it seem like you must not have
either logic or facts, just anger, vituperation and claims of embarrassment.



>
> This is what my point has always been. Its not about principled,
> intellectual
> dissent. Its about hypocritic pandering to hyperbole and distortions, with
> the
> intent, the SOLE intent, to incite those misinformed voters whom you expect
> will keep YOU in power.
>
>
Ok, here I'm sidling up and thinking that problems with power and self are
tricky to untangle, but you may have some good points.  Platt's motives are
his own.  I can conceive of more than you give him credit for, but hey, I
understand a lot of water has flowed under this bridge we're discussing.
 You've been aggravated by Platt for a long, long time.

Would you honestly prefer an all-liberal forum?  A rainbow gathering of
harmony and good vibrations?  Would you find that entertaining?  Because it
sounds very boring to me.  But as Lu pointed out, the pee wee stuff is
equally boring.

It's not matter of moderation, it's a matter rather of rhetorical combat
along certain lines of Quality.



> Russell could have seized the opportunity to say, "Obama, like Bush, has
> every
> right to address the schools, and doing so is not wrong. But I am
> personally
> making a decision as a parent, because I disagree with Obama, to not send
> my
> child to school during the broadcast. I would also add, that if in the
> future,
> if a Republican president was giving this same address, that Democrat
> parents
> are fully right should they choose to hold their kids at home during that
> broadcast."
>
> THIS is, at the very least, accurate and principled. One could still argue
> exposure, as I would not have held my daughter at home during Bush's
> address.
> But it does not pander to distortive hyperbole. It does not smack entirely
> of
> hypocrisy.
>
> And yet what gets repeated HERE, a forum supposedly dedicated to philosophy
> and
> intellectual pondering, is nothing but the distortive hyperbole, the
> hypocritical and inciting rhetoric that anyone with half a brain cell in
> their
> head should find absolutely and entirely revolting.
>

So verbalize that.  or hey, wordify it.  Cool.  I like that.  Erin McKean
would approve, i think, wordify that half a brain cell into something
scathing and artistic.



>
> Because, getting back to Russell's quote, this appalling, moronic discourse
> sustains the sinking of political dialogue in this country to nothing more
> than
> "who can incite the largest mob". Same with "death panels". It is the
> deliberate subjugation of intellect to an angry, incited mob.
>

I do believe you are being excessive here.  But at the same time, you make a
point that deserves to be made, and being made at all, deserves excessive
caution.

Angry, incited mob is not such a far fetched object as one might think, and
even if the mob stays mainly peaceful, the democratic mob has powers of
political force that create destructive reality.    Its interesting to read
some of what Royce had to say about the early 49ers (Go Niners! sorry, they
won their opener today) and their democratic tendencies to shun outsiders
and subjugate the Chinese to horribly degrading laws and portrayal in media.

Inscrutable bastards have bidded their time and probably have us by the
balls now.  I saw on the Drudge report that Obama is gonna tariff their
tires and they ain't happy about that.  Things could really get interesting
fast if they get so unhappy that they dump dollars in a self-protective AND
punitive way.   Wheelbarrowing dollars to buy bread will no doubt produce a
fair share of angry mobs you envision.

Platt's giving you a chance here to really debate and present your case.  An
important task.  Use it, don't just abuse it.


And that should shame us here. Yeah, I take it too personally. But still,
> its
> downright embarrassing.
>
>

The only embarrassment I suffer is the embarrassment of riches.  So many
words!  So little time.