"Blizzard of Lies," by Paul Krugman in today's NY Times:Did you hear about how Barack Obama wants to have sex education in kindergarten, and called Sarah Palin a pig? Did you hear about how Ms. Palin told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks” when it wanted to buy Alaska a Bridge to Nowhere?
These stories have two things in common: they’re all claims recently made by the McCain campaign — and they’re all out-and-out lies...
But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful — you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again...
Click here for the rest: Paul Krugman, Blizzard of Lies.
25 comments:
Her answers to the silly questions by Gibson last night were helpfully revelatory. He had to define for her the heroic "Bush Doctrine" because she did not recognize the actual term. But, of course, being proudly ignorant and lacking in historical and civic literacy is EXACTLY why she is the candidate. That and the religious stuff. Apparently, God told her that the pipeline was His desire.
I like this line from Krugman:
"Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they’re probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being “balanced” at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn’t say that he’s wrong, it reports that “some Democrats say” that he’s wrong."
And how about McCain's claim that Obama's income tax plan will raise taxes? It's true, of course, for the top 0.1%. But it's not true for the rest of us.
It's the New York Times - what can you expect?
Remember the Sophists: "Truth is what the majority believes." Not quite how they meant it, but . . . .
McCain has no shame. None of them do.
The pattern on DtB often goes like this: initial article, followed by supportive comments, mixed with a few unsophisticated negative comments.
So far, so good for the average reader. She gets a nice article that she agrees with; she gets some agreeable, supportive comments (helps with her sense of belonging to the "progressive" community). The vicious "right wing" comments even serve their purpose because they allow the reader to perceive her own superiority to the uneducated, illiterate "right wing."
Everything is well, so far, in the natural leftist "soul kitchen" of DtB. (One wonders whether DtB is a place for reason and dialogue, or some kind of on-line leftist support group.)
But then someone comes in, and makes a decent point contrary to the dominant tendency of the main article and the rah rah comments. This new voice also seems to be a "right winger," but he or she can spell, and is not obviously crazy.
So one of the smarter DtB crowd steps up, and stoops to indulge the new dissident voice with a decent, rational response...initially. (Roy plays this role sometimes.) That often is sufficient to expose or quiet the troublesome new voice, especially if he or she has goofed, or left an opening for criticism. But not always.
What happens next is the really interesting thing. If the dissident "conservative" voice persists, refuses to be silenced, starts to appear intelligent and plausible, then the claws of the DtB crowd come out. The assumption that someone can rationally disagree with the dominant leftist POV is withdrawn, and then it's all ad hominem: accusations of bigotry, irrationality, stupidity.
Why exactly? Well now we get to stare deep into the abyss of DtB; here follows the "bottom line" about DtB.
Even though DtB purports to be an "academic blog," and so maintains the pretense of holding academic and intellectual values, it is often just a site for low-level political polemics.
So, what is polemicism? It is the denial that one's opponent can possibly be (all of) rational, fair, and intelligent. Polemicism, sooner than later, turns to personal attacks. The polemicist makes it clear that he thinks that his opponent must be either irrational, dishonest, or stupid.
After all, the opponent is messing up the comforting solidarity of the nice, virtual, leftist support group. He must be an a**hole to do that. We are all trying to have a nice leftist virtual "party," and he comes in and "throws turds in the punchbowl." He is most unsociable, and really, he is even betraying us, and not only us, but all "progressive" values. After all, "all decent people are on the left." (That means us.) No wonder we are forced to adopt an "angry" and belligerent rhetorical style!
We want to be "tolerant," of course, but if they disagree with us, they must be "intolerant." Why should we tolerate their intolerance? Don't they know that we keep the moral high ground unconditionally, no matter what? No matter who really has the stronger argument? (Reason is, after all, only a tool to support our side. If it doesn't do that, the hell with it.)
But then the effort to attack and marginalize the "right wing" voice sometimes doesn't work out. It's not always possible to show that the opponent is dishonest or irrational or stupid.
Well, then, we just have to wait for the "troll" to go away, withdraw into our leftist solipsism for a while and lick our wounds. We are, after all, victims, right? Victims of right- wingers, victims of Republicans, victims of the Universe itself.
Pretty soon, though, we will return, and resume our self-righteous, arrogant, belligerent stance, and just wish that Roy or Reb or someone could "do something" about some of these "negative" comments. (A little leftist-style censorship would be nice, wouldn't it?)
Well, after the revolution, these right-wingers will see. We know what to do with the likes of them. We will make them wish that they had only been censored. We--or at least leftists of the past--have done it before, many times.
Why did I take it there, see it as going that far? Because if you really think that those who oppose you must ultimately be dishonest or irrational or stupid, the next step is to use violence against them. As someone says once in a while on this blog, "Read your history."
Now if I am right about all of this regarding DtB, there is a simple cure: Stop the Polemics, which means that you must maintain respect for your opponent, and leave open the possibility that, even if she challenges your deepest values or most strongly held positions, she may still be fair-minded and intelligent and rational.
Then, and only then, will you be able to learn from someone that you have a serious disagreement with. Then and only then will you have the right to see DtB as an "academic blog" that maintains the intellectual values of courage, fairness, honesty, and respect for others, even those with whom you disagree. (Then and only then will you be qualified to teach your own students these very basic academic values.)
Then your interlocutors can learn from you, and you can learn from them, without the name-calling and intimidation that is so often perpetrated here. Then DtB will be worth reading all of the time, instead of only some of the time.
3:30 AM... Thanks.
I've also been put off by how the purpose of DtB has morphed from being a vehicle to move Goo and his cronies off the public stage to being a left wing screed.
I am attracted to DtB because they share the frustrations I did with MY college's leadership. Certainly the insane OC politics have interestingly enough overlapped into SOCCCD politics. Witness the Corona saga as of late. But an an example of over reaching would be misplaced criticism directed at the recent Saddleback Church debate affair. Chunk couldn't get free tickets? Plueeease! If that event had been in NYC would it have been noted on DtB? I think not.
SOCCCD needs relief from its politicized leaders. There is a college that needs to be run, not an agenda. Colleges are supposed to be about what is best for students, not what is best for Goo. DtB is at its best when it is trying to purge the college of its worst elements and at its worst when it is trying to change the world.
There is an election 50 some days out. DtB should be wall to wall on their District candidates and the local issues. There is a real opportunity to actually change the SOCCCD landscape. Stick to the knitting and win.
That's right - tell DTB what to do - otherwise, you aren't gonna pay them, right?
No one makes you come here fellas.
Anonymous 7:49 is right.
So what if DTB is a "leftist support group"? Goodness knows, progressive folks in the OC need one.
If you don't like it, start your own blog.
--100 miles down the road
9:34 I give cogent notice to the lefties on how their war with the looney right wing zealots is going and you suggest "start your own blog"?
Some months ago I noted in a DtB comment that I had a suspicion that DtB really didn't want to win the Goo war. DtB NEEDS the Goo war to validate itself perhaps? I'm getting the idea that if there wasn't a Goo one would be invented.
I know about bad college Presidents. I helped fight one. I helped win that fight. It took three long years and we had a right wing Board to contend with too. About 70% of the county votes Republican up here. You win on the merits of your argument, not hyperbole. You can't run around with some stupid slogan [change we can believe in! vomit] and get change. You need to have a clearly articulated position AND a slate of candidates. I haven't seen either here. This Blog is an excellent repository of FACTS that need be drawn together into a political position articulated by viable candidates aimed at toppling SOCCCD's existing leadership. Convince the voters that you are the answer to the Districts woes and you will win. Fail to articulate to them the reasons why you are the answer and they will stay with the same miserable "leaders" they already have. You have 53 days.
Naturally, DtB cannot control who writes to the blog and what they say. Some writers are leftists and some are rightists and some are something else. Academics tend to be leftists or progressives, and so no one should be surprised that such people often write to this blog.
As for the authors of DtB: it is not my purpose to "support" leftist (or progressive) ideas or leftist thinkers. It is my purpose to present information and commentary in the most honest way possible, albeit with the usual complications deriving from attempted satire and humor. When I respond to a reader's comments, I always seek to take their arguments and positions seriously and to deal with them honestly (i.e., sans "agenda"), although things get a little tricky when (1) commenters are simply offensive or [this appears to be almost entirely a right-wing phenomenon] (2) they have no points or arguments to offer, or (3) they are so narcissitic, solopsistic, or obsessive that they threaten to turn our blog into an unattractive lump of UGLY.
Those readers who are insensible to the manifest efforts of this blog to be fair (which, naturally, does not preclude its authors' presenting their perspective and views--neither fairness nor objectivity entail neutrality), then I urge them to go read other blogs more to their liking.
Having said all that, I do think that things are going rather well for this blog. Those who are interested in more philosophical discussions are urged to go to my OC Blue Philosopher. And for the local literary scene, visit the Reb's acclaimed The Mark on the Wall.
One of the things I LIKE about DtB is that is IS about more that just the college district.
I think it's odd for readers to make demands of the creators of the blog who maintain it as they can.
TB, you really can be an ass sometimes. You spent three years fighting bad guys in your district, did you? My word!
You should understand that some of us here in the SOCCCD (a very small group, I'm afraid) have been fully involved in a fight against our particular Dark Forces since 1996. In 1997, Wendy G and I initiated successful litigation against the board when it violated the Brown Act. (There were two suits, citing numerous violations.) Students (assisted by my First Amendment lawyer, Carol S, and Wendy--and the usual worker bees) initiated and prevailed with regard to a series of First Amendment suits against our freedom-hating board and its ruthless functionaries. When Mathur and the board sought to shut down Dissent by trumping up charges against me, I spent years in court--and I prevailed. When Mathur sued me personally for Dissent reporting of his misdeeds, I counter-sued and prevailed. When Mathur and the board violated a state statute by greatly reducing faculty authority and involvement in determining hiring policies, Wendy (and the usual crew of workers) once again took bold and difficult steps (over a period of years) to take the district to task, ultimately winning a crucial victory for faculty whose effects will be felt throughout the state for many years. (I could go on, but I'll leave it at that.)
So when it comes to fighting the usual evil forces of college districts, we're the old hands. You, my friend, are a piker.
With regard to the trustees elections, that must be pursued by the faculty union, and we at Dissent cannot control what occurs there (and must be circumspect in our remarks). (I should mention, however, that the two key Dissenters have certainly done more than their share in trustee campaigns since 1997).
There is only so much we can do. In the end, we confront the usual vices of faculty and voters, namely, that they pursue cluelessness and free-riding as though it were a virtue.
Trust me, TB. We at DtB did not just fall off the turnip wagon. Given our record as writers and as faculty, your absurd speculations regarding our "need" for Mathur is manifestly insulting and stupid. The number of soldiers in this particular war can be counted on one hand. From a distance, and without knowledge, you have decided to point at two of them and to suggest that we are in bad faith.
Move on, my friend. Just move on.
On Polemicism:
Well said September 13, 2008 3:30:00 AM. And now well confirmed by Chunk himself, September 13, 2008 11:15:00 AM. Because TB disagrees, he's now an "ass" and he's "stupid"
Please.
TB's stupid assiness has been on display here for sometime.
No one makes ya'll drop by, so like Chunk says, feel free to move on.
I do think droppin' by and telling people what they should write about and how they should write about it is, rather, out of line.
Of course, TB and the few others (and it is only a few) COULD host their own blogs and write about whet they wish - but hey, they're not that committed to any cause and frankly are too lazy to devote themselves. It is easier to come here and wank off.
DtB can't be all things to all people but it's enough for most of us, thanks.
(and if you guys even knew what a marginal character TB really is - ever wonder why he doesn't tell you who is is? I don't. I know. Pay no attention to teh little man behind the curtain, guys. No one up here does - and for good reason too. Believe me.)
Note the mixture of relevant response to TB's arguments with irrelevant ad hominem attack. The personal attacks detract from the discussion, once again, and that's what some of us are talking about.
I don't see why Roy's noble and long-fought opposition to Goo has to involve a bunch of unnecessary rhetorical and/or leftist crap, especially when DtB periodically makes pretense to "clear thinking," and other sound academic values.
I know little about TB, but I've sure seen him take some vicious personal hits on this blog. That does take some moral courage, or at least a thick skin.
I appreciate that he keeps weighing in with actual arguments, even when he often gets s**t in response. More times than not, he elevates the discussion, well above what it would be without him.
If everyone like TB goes away, DtB will be the poorer. Be careful what you wish for.
Honestly, without the "leftist crap," this blog would be awfully boring. I love that our handful of faculty are taking on Goo, and it's truly important that they are doing so. But frankly, there is more to life than Goo, and a blog devoted solely to him would be just plain sad.
ToraBOREa has demonstrated that he is a windbag.
I forgot! It's IS TB's blog! He tells us what we should write about and how! Oops!
It's a small world, indeed.
There is some delicious irony in that dissenting on Dissent causes dissension on the part of Dissenters.
The Dissenters are pretty united, TB.
Move along, por favor.
Roy writes, "Those readers who are insensible to the manifest efforts of this blog to be fair (which, naturally, does not preclude its authors' presenting their perspective and views--neither fairness nor objectivity entail neutrality), then I urge them to go read other blogs more to their liking."
Well, I was wondering when that would come.
I am sensible both to your efforts to be fair, but also to your other efforts to get attention by radicalizing yourselves and taking cheap shots. I am "sensible" to your efforts to beat down much well-reasoned opposition to your POV by--again--denying, implicitly or explicitly, that any stubborn, "obsessive" opponent of yours can be rational and intelligent and honest. I am also "sensible" to your continual resort to accusations of dishonesty, irrationality, and "stupidity." (Your conduct on the "I guess she's extra smart" page, for example, some of the accusations you made against your opponents there, shows how unbalanced you can be.)
And I am not talking about your opposition to Goo, the SOCCCD Board majority, or Mike Carona. Your opposition to that sort has long been recognized, appreciated, and admired, even if you haven't received the support you deserve from your fellow faculty and OC citizens. Your efforts in court, your efforts most especially at the risk of your academic careers at IVC, your efforts over all these years, and your fortitude in all such matters, have indeed been noble, courageous, heroic.
You don't need the likes of me to tell you that, either, I know. But your courage and heroics on those matters ought not be used to justify yourselves regarding a bunch of polemical BS about other issues.
If you want to talk about national politics, great, but your rightness, legitimacy, and moral authority from your efforts in SOCCCD and OC doesn't somehow automatically "carry over" to there. You haven't earned the right to talk down to anyone on those issues.
Tell you what, Roy. I have known you for quite awhile, and have been reading _Dissent_ since it was a newspaper. But if you ever respond to any of my comments, including this one, with a request that I never again darken the doorway of DtB, then I will then stay away, and you will be deprived of my comments, my "services," such as they are.
You know who I am, that I have been to a significant degree "obsessed" with DtB. I am drawn here for the interpersonal connection and (when I find it) the reasoned discussion. I have posted a lot of comments; that is because I have long thought that DtB, you and its other editors and readers, were worth thinking about.
I hope that "ToraBora" will stay, and continue to serve you by irritating you. But you may indeed be more comfortable, surrounding yourself as much as possible with people who are more likely to agree with you. Just say the word.
whoa: "your other efforts to get attention by radicalizing yourselves and taking cheap shots."
I don't think you really know Roy or the others as well as you may think. Their motivation is not "to get attention" - and certainly not by "radicalizing themselves" - uh, if you knew them, you'd know.
9:00, you say that I attempt to “get attention by radicalizing” myself. You are talking about my motives, which you claim to know. You obviously don’t know me well. All of the “radicalness” I exhibit is the real thing. And I certainly do not crave attention.
I take cheap shots? Well, that’s easy to say. Please specify which shots are the cheap ones and why they are cheap. Among reasonable people, if A accuses B of misconduct, A is obliged to explain himself/herself to B.
I have “beat down much well-reasoned opposition” to my POV? Well, whatever I have done, unlike you, I have signed my name to it. So it will be easy for you to identify and specify the occasions in question.
I won’t hold my breath.
I provide “polemical BS” about “other issues”? This is our blog, and we’ll write about what we want to write about, thank you very much. You people are unbelievable. You visit someone’s blog and have the temerity to tell him which issues he may discuss!
Were you born in a barn? Will you next visit my home and shit upon my living room floor?
I will continue to write about exactly what I want to write about, and so will Reb. If you don’t like what I or Reb have to say, then you know what to do. It's not complicated.
As always, if I have something to say about “national politics” or anything else, I will say it; I will present a position and I will argue for it. You say I “talk down.” Well, I’m a philosopher and I’m trained in logic. If people make logical errors, I will point it out. That is what philosophers do. If you think that philosophers ipso facto “talk down” to people, then, well, again, you know what to do. Cease visiting philosophers or their blogs, for they are bound to make you unhappy.
Do you imagine that I care that you’ve been reading Dissent “since it was a newspaper”? I do not produce Dissent to make you happy or to maintain some sort of readership. Trust me, if my readership decides to pick up its little ball and go home, I will be more than happy to show them the way.
This is our blog. It will continue to be precisely the blog we want it to be.
Post a Comment