From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 08:42:13 MDT
On Sunday, August 31, 2003, at 05:44 AM, Greg Burch wrote:
Greg:
Not meaning to be bothersome, but doesn't it strike you that your use
of language is interesting, I mean:
> The *tone* of the original piece
> in this thread was grossly partisan.
Notice here that the content of the original piece is not judged for
its veracity, just the "tone". As for it's being "grossly partisan",
just consider the other options:
"pleasantly partisan"
"commendably partisan"
"absolutely true"
"well thought-out"
> waaay over the top in ascribing problems
Again, here, without going into the details of the actual facts of the
matter (6.4% unemployment increase month after month for the duration
of the Bush administration, exactly mirroring the negative unemployment
from the previous administration). The term "waaay over the top" is
well, "waaaay over the top".
So far that's "waaay over the top, grossly partisan" for the substance
of your post.
> fairly left-leaning NPR
Here again "fairly-left-leaning" is a meaningless adjective. What is
"fairly left leaning" in detail? Is it like a color-ascription? From
my point of view, NPR is a state-run apology machine for the
liberal/conservative dichotomy which is itself just a propaganda
technique for oligarchical control.
You may mean, as people often do, by "left-leaning" people who care
about politics from the point of view of the citizenry and who attempt
to explain the observed behaviour of politicans and political figures
objectively in terms of their material grounds. In that case, NPR is
surely NOT left-leaning.
In any case, that's "fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly
partisan".
> Bush fiscal policies that the kind of rhetoric in the original
> piece was just silly.
Here again, we have a combination of half-truths "The recession was
well under way" as if "the recession" is something objective, some
single state of affairs that happened like a firestorm when it gets too
hot. "The Recession" if anything is the continuing lack of investment
of capital in new ventures in the American Economy coupled with an
unbearable tax burden and talent/resources drain of a war. The lack of
investment of capital in new ventures can be directly correlated to the
perceived weakness in corporate debt which can be directly correlated
to the terrifying failures on the part of the regulatory committees to
keep the thieves in line. The Banks simply don't want to pay for any
more Ken Lay's and so they've redirected their debt portfolio to
low-interest real-estate backed consumer loans. This strategy is
outlined in a Federal Reserve Bank circular which can be found at the
new york Fed site.
Now we have "silly, rhetorical, fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the
top, grossly partisan".
> silly rhetoric is
> offensive and sets off partisan alarm bells.
Who knows? I think people appreciate just hearing the facts, the
rhetoric is mostly transparent on both sides. There's no doubt that
people find Republicans offensive, whether or not they find knowing
that there's a month-after-month increase in unemployment of more than
6% shouldn't be offensive, people have a right to simply know. Drawing
conclusions from those facts isn't necessarily a partisan issue.
Economists generally look at the Material Basis for political impact.
If you just do THAT nowadays, you get the "partisan alarm bells".
Well, people need to be able to analyze their economic and political
situation.
Now we have "offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan".
> To extreme partisans on both sides, it doesn't seem possible that a
> reasonable person of good will could disagree.
The keyword being "extreme".
Now we have "extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan".
> have any kind of meaningful dialogue between the extremes on these
> issues.
Maybe. Why not try? Let's start by not calling each other extremists.
> (As an indication of where meaningful dialogue *is* possible, I give
> as an
> example a group of my close personal friends who maintain a mailing
> list.
> The list includes newspaper publishers, academics, state officials and
> many
> lawyers.
You mean where the well-educated nice "lefties" hang out, as opposed to
us mean-spirited, silly, fairly-left-leaning extremists?
> There's been
> disagreement, but no lack of civility.
Civility is simply what the people in control want. You have to ask
yourself why the people who are NOT in control don't want civility.
When you have a genuinely open forum, it gets ugly and useless
sometimes, but civility is just not an issue. People should learn that
debate of genuinely important issues is both - important, necessary and
civil IN ITSELF and that sometimes it gets ugly. The other option -
silence - is simply unacceptable as it is just a transparent rhetorical
tool equivalent to plugging your ears and saying you won't listen.
In any case, it's now:
"un-civil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan".
> the majority of the
> left-leaning Democrats on that list wholeheartedly supported
Now:
"minority, un-civil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan".
opposite for wholeheartedly, half-hearted?
"half-hearted, minority, un-civil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly,
rhetorical, fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan".
> What I've never seen on that list of extremely well-informed people are
> accusations of "Nazism" against the Bush administration, despite some
> pretty
> powerful unhappiness about the 2000 election.)
Well, this other "dream-list" of well-informed civil democrats who
uniformly and wholeheartedly supported the Afghan conflict sound like a
bunch of (insert wimpy expletive here).
They're the "Good Left" as opposed to us "extremist, ignorant,
fairly-left-leaning, un-civil, minority".
"un-informed, un-happy, half-hearted, minority, un-civil, extreme,
offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical, fairly-left-leaning, waaay over
the top, grossly partisan".
> The bottom line is that I
> thought the original post was so extremely partisan that it *began* the
> discussion in a way that discouraged civility.
"obstructionist, un-informed, un-happy, half-hearted, minority,
un-civil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical,
fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan"
> derives
> from a failure to distinguish between the civil rights of citizens
> versus
> those of non-citizens.
Make that "non-discriminate, obstructionist, un-informed, un-happy,
half-hearted, minority, un-civil, extreme, offensive, alarming, silly,
rhetorical, fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top, grossly partisan"
left-leaning, extremist, etc."
BTW - Jose Padilla is an American Citizen.
> In responding to your post, I was trying to
> determine to what extent opponents of the law were arguing that the
> full
"contentious, opponents of the law, obstructionist, un-informed,
un-happy, half-hearted, minority, un-civil, extreme, offensive,
alarming, silly, rhetorical, fairly-left-leaning, waaay over the top,
grossly partisan"
Now these are the bad-words you've used in this one post to describe
people who don't agree with you.
The question you should ask yourself is WHO is responsible for the
"extreme, offensive, alarming, silly, rhetorical, contentious,
obstructionism, waaay over the top, grossly partisan dialogue."
That said, if you'd like to discuss the FACTS of the matter, we might
have a place to begin.
Genuinely not meant contentiously,
Robbie Lindauer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 08:54:45 MDT