I’m sure as hell not an Abu Ghraib American. Obama seems to be, though.
[Update early Friday evening]
Here are more thoughts from Jennifer Rubin:
One might argue, as many of us here have, that his association with Wright was more than a failure to anticipate public reaction: it was a moral and intellectual failing. (Juan Williams, as he has before, explains this in today’s Wall Street Journal with searing clarity.) Yet she has a point: does Obama lack a “feel” for ordinary voters’ sensibilities?
Well, of course. His life experience is utterly unlike the average voter’s. On his journey from Hawaii to Indonesia to Hawaii to Harvard, he probably ran into a lot of critiques of American culture and not very much bowling. He hasn’t, it looks like, developed an internal compass that warns him when something may be offensive or off-putting to ordinary Americans.
Yup. Like some of my commenters, who will thus be quite shocked when he gets blown out this fall by those same “ordinary Americans.” It’s actually quite amusing how the supposed “party of the people” has become so elitist, and gotten so out of touch.
“Anonymous wrote:
My, that would be quite a geriatric ticket. They would certainly get the hospice vote.”
She is younger than Hillary.
Yes, the choice of Dole will fit the geriatric profile perfectly. It would make voting for the Republicans a near death experience, if not downright necrophilic.
Well, who da thunk she was older than the 3am lady. So why does she look so aged ? Would the American public want to watch a woman age like Elizabeth Dole as Veep?
Then again, why does she look so old? Being on the receiving end of so much Viagra can’t be easy.
Mabey some people don’t want to vote for baby bottom-burp.
> Talking and listening don’t signify agreement and support.
Does giving money count as support? If the answer depends on how much money one gives, what is the threshold.
I ask because Obama gave Wright lots of money.
There are other black churches in Chicago.
“Bob wrote:
the West should use intelligence agencies and law enforcement instead of the military to stop terrorism……it may also be needed against terrorists in other circumstances such as when pin-point strikes were used in Yemen and Somalia”
As no doubt they already are. But to only rely upon that aspect of our capability would represent a serious flaw in asset allocation. In fact your whole point stinks of needlessly tying one hand behind our back just so we can play nice and fair with the bad guys. In fact, Somalia served more so as an example to current military doctrine of what happens when you purposely mire one’s forces in complex rules of engagement. When you drop small forces into a combat zone without proper force protection then people get killed and choppers get shot down. Ask any boxer and they will tell you, to them a perfect match is one where they knock the guy out in the first punch. Sure it ain’t pretty nor fun for those on pay per view, but it gets the job done.
It strikes me as odd that during Korea and Vietnam people always snidely referred to the fact that the current gov’t referred to them as, “A police action, not a war”. Now it seems that this administration has learned the lesson not to mince words and that a war, is a war, is a war. However, the left wants to roll there eyes and say, “No to war, yes to police action”.
Josh,
My reference to Somalia was much more recent. Recently (in 2006, I believe), a Taliban-like group started taking power in Somalia. They had an kind of a cool name, “the Islamic Courts Union” – to my ear, the “Courts Union” part sounds like something out of a science fiction novel – but they weren’t cool at all – they were evil-doers, and were suspected of harboring Al Queda, which triggered intense US interst. Ethiopia invaded to rout the Somalian Taliban (ICU) with support from the U.S. Ethiopia chased a bunch of ICU and suspected Al Queda members to the border with Kenya, but failed to kill or apprehend them (I don’t know the story on this, but I believe it wasn’t for lack of desire.) The United States flew gunships over border area and killed a bunch of Al Queda suspects. The US also apparently killed some civilians.
This sort of strike illustrates an excellent use of the US military. Civilians were harmed, and I don’t think that should be shrugged off, but orders of magnitude fewer civilians were harmed than would have been harmed if we had invaded the Somalian border region. On the other hand, I think there is another hand, the US strikes may only have been possible because the Ethiopians invaded. But maybe not. I think everyone can agree that smaller pin-point strikes should be considered when situation is right for it.
Finally: being nice guys and not killing tons of civilians was only good side effect. No US president wants to get bogged down in Somalia again if it could be avoided. The ultimate question is whether the same good was achieved without an invasion.
I have a question which might seem both political and rude, but I’m asking it sincerely, as I want to be polite, and I’m more passionate about logic than politics. I’m NOT taking a shot at Rand here.
Rand argued that there were many strawman arguments presented in this thread. He is probably right about that, and I’m probably guilty.
Was he guilty of one as well? I honestly can’t decide. When presented with the argument that Wright’s church did a lot of good, Rand said Sure. I know this guy down the street who does a lot of good for the neighborhood, playing with the kids, helping out with the neighbors’ yards, keeping on eye on places and feeding pets when they’re gone. The only problem is that once in a while, he axe murders someone. But it only happens a couple times a year. The rest of the time he’s great. The good he does far outweighs the occasional brutal homicide. Why, we don’t even bother to report him–he probably has his reasons.
Is this a strawman argument? My first thought was no, it isn’t, because it is an analogy, to illustrate the point that even if someone is good most of the time, their bad actions can’t be excused. But I kept thinking about it all weekend. Isn’t the analogy of an axe murderer an strawman? No one can argue for the tradeoffs provided by an axe murderer, but one can argue for the tradeoffs provided by someone who says sometimes says controversial things. The analogy was clear because Rand used an extreme example, but did it recast the argument as one that could only resist an attack as well as a man made of straw?
I use analogies a lot when I argue, and I’m genuinely disappointed with myself when someone can rightly refute my arguments by saying “strawman!”, so I’d be especially interested in an analysis that ignored the merits of Wright and just focused on when extreme analogies are or are not just straw men.
Thanks!
Isn’t the analogy of an axe murderer an strawman?
No. It might be a bad analogy (though I don’t think so), but it’s not a straw man. A straw man is when someone knocks down an argument that wasn’t actually made (e.g., people accusing me of telling them not to vote for Obama because he’s going to lose–something that I never did).
I made the analogy because I got tired of people telling me about all the supposed good works that Wright did, as though that should excuse his occasional bouts of lunacy (assuming for the sake of argument that that’s all they are). Sorry, but for me, it does not, and I’m not going to vote for a presidential candidate for whom it apparently does.
“Is this a strawman argument? My first thought was no, it isn’t, because it is an analogy, to illustrate the point that even if someone is good most of the time, their bad actions can’t be excused. But I kept thinking about it all weekend. Isn’t the analogy of an axe murderer an strawman? ”
No, the technique Rand employed is called: “Reducito ad Absurdum”.
It is an analogy that takes an example to an extreme to point up fundamental flaws in that line of reasoning.
Rand, thanks, and Mike, I agree, it is that.
I was considering whether Rand’s analogy met this definition: “To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position).”
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man