Friday, October 31, 2008

Senator Obama's Halloween Message

Barak Obama's short 2008 Halloween message*:

America, this is our moment. This is our time. As we celebrate Halloween at this defining moment for our nation we must remember that:

When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody (TRICK on those who earned the money!).

I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success (TREAT for those who didn't earn the wealth!)


TRICK or Treat, America! Now go out and have a safe and Happy Halloween.



*NOTE: The Obama campaign did not actually release this statement. It is, however, a composite of statements made by Senator Obama. References:

"America, this is our moment. This is our time" - "Obama's Nomination Victory Speech In St. Paul," The Huffington Post, June 3, 2008.

"At this defining moment for our nation" - "Obama's Nomination Victory Speech In St. Paul," The Huffington Post, June 3, 2008.

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody" - "Obama fires a 'Robin Hood' Warning Shot", New York Post, October 15, 2008.

"I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success" - "Obama fires a 'Robin Hood' Warning Shot", New York Post, October 15, 2008.

Also see post: Spreading the Wealth

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Pro-Abortion on Humans; Pro-Life On Animals - Part 2

A friend of mine, Don Grant, received an email link from a colleague, Lisa Frost, for a letter to the editor she wrote that was published in the Siskiyou Daily News (Ashland, OR). Following is Mr. Grant’s response to Ms. Frost’s points. The exchange clarifies the opposing sides on the issue of life.

This is Part 2 of a two-part series on their dialogue.
For Part 1, see Pro-Abortion on Humans, Pro-Life on Animals - Part 1


Lisa Frost’s Follow-up:

I'm sorry you have become so right winged minded. Perhaps you have been with your partner(s) too long. I'm referring to your religious spouse and republican business partner.

I am not only pro choice, but pro abortion as a means of birth control. I am also anti-illegal immigration and anti-Palin.

Palin doesn't study or read. She couldn't even name a periodical that she has read in the Couric interview. Research her educational background. Listen to her talk "doggone it." She's an opportunist and anti environmentalist.

"...and you betcha" drilling would only satisfy 3% of our needs anyway. Why destroy the last frontier for this meager amount of oil.

Population growth is the main culprit of the environmental demise. Vote Obama/Badin for change and hope. Sorry to hear you have changed so drastically. We have certainly grown apart in our ideologies.

Lisa



Don Grant’s Follow-up:

Lisa,

You cannot expect to send out a mass e-mailing containing unsupportable liberal dribble without at least one person disagreeing with your ideology and responding to it. As I recall, I wasn’t the only person to respond to your comments. In a democracy, there needs to be a dialogue about political and ideological issues. It’s not just a one-way street. If you expect everyone to agree with you, then the discussion becomes a monologue not a dialogue. It’s simply a “circle jerk” amongst a group of persons who are afraid to dissent or to think and who get off on chatting deceptive slogans: “DRILL, DRILL, DRILL; KILL, KILL, KILL.”

From the e-mails of you and others, I can only assume the following:
  1. Liberals will sleep with Republicans, but will not have dinner with them under, ostensibly, the premises that no political intercourse can occur in the horizontal position;

  2. Liberals do not have an ethical or moral basis for much of their ideology either because
    (A) they refuse to think about morals and ethics;
    (B) they have a relativistic and inconsistent moral and ethical basis for their ideology; or
    (C) they are truly afraid to have their ethical and moral bankruptcy exposed for what it is;

  3. Liberals, despite their claim of “tolerance,” are very narrow-minded people who simply do not tolerate any dissent from their ideology or agendas;

  4. Liberals refuse to debate the issues on the facts, but almost always resort to ad hominen arguments, personal attacks, “red herring” arguments, name calling (instead of debating in an honest and intelligible fashion) which are logical fallacies most people learn to avoid in high school;

  5. Liberals get extremely upset when challenged to support their dribble on intelligible, moral and ethical bases;

  6. Liberals have an overriding ideology which drives which facts they use to support their arguments and, on many issues, which distorts the factual record in a biased manner;

  7. Liberals have a bankrupt moral and ethical basis for their screaming “choice” in opposing the protection of unborn and just born human life, yet decry hunting and killing animals and support the government’s becoming involved in other personal sexual decisions such as polygamy, sex with animals, and sex with minors because apparently liberals want the government involved in our sexual lives, but they want to define the extent of that involvement consistently with their ideology without any moral or ethical basis for this intrusion;

  8. Liberals vow to allow the indiscriminate killing of human life under guise of an ideology which believes that human life is bad for the planet and environment; thus a higher life form (human life) is sacrificed at the sacred alter of radical environmentalism.
Hey, this list could go on and on. I simply urge you to chant “THINK, THINK, THINK” instead of other mindless slogans and to really think about the ethical and moral basis for your liberal views.

I am not interested in receiving future e-mails from you which call me names such as “asshole,” and which suggest that I am influenced by my “religious wife” and “Republican business partner” when you, in fact, are ignorant of their true religious and political views.


Unlike many liberals, I arrive at my opinions after researching the issues and not by osmosis and not by simply copying the “talking points” of organizations.

Pro-Abortion on Humans; Pro-Life On Animals - Part 1

A friend of mine, Don Grant, received an email link from a colleague, Lisa Frost (attorney and member of the Animal Legal Defense Fund), regarding a letter to the editor she wrote that was published in the Siskiyou Daily News (Ashland, OR). Below is the link to Ms. Frost’s letter followed by Mr. Grant’s response.


This is Part 1 of a two-part series on their dialogue.

Lisa Frost’s Letter to the Editor:


Don Grant’s Response:

Hi Lisa:

Thank you for sending me your interesting “op piece” on Sarah Palin. It is fortunate that, in America, we can all express our opinions in public forums such as newspapers and over the Internet. However, I do not share some of the “ideology” of the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and the agenda set forth by similar organizations for a few of the reasons stated in this e-mail. Without necessarily disputing the facts in your “op piece” or knowing your “ideology” (even though I believe that “ideology” often drives our choice of “facts”), I simply offer the following comments:

KILL, KILL, KILL: Our society has an interesting, yet perverted, set of values when we can decry shooting a wolf, yet will smear candidates and anyone else who argues against the killing of millions of unborn and just born babies (human life). I certainly believe that animals should be treated humanely and not indiscriminately killed or used as testing objects, yet I suspect that the NRDC would not raise the same outcry for the slaughter of “human” animals under the slogans of “pro choice” and “constitutional rights.”

Slogans are just that: slogans. However, ethical and moral values must transcend the constitution and the ideologies of these organizations. If not, then our societal “moral” and “ethical” values are simply the function of a majority vote by the people or, as more often occurs, a 5-4 vote of a supreme court.

If the constitution permitted slavery (as it apparently once did because we now have the Thirteenth Amendment), then I doubt that we would be arguing that the “constitution” (or as it is interpreted by the ruling hegemony) embodies our appropriate moral and ethical values as a society and as individual thinkers.

Unfortunately, to the converse, “ideologies,” in our modern society (whether denoted liberal or conservative) too often transcend a careful factual, logical, ethical and moral analysis of many issues. Without a “sourced” moral and ethical basis, then society and, to a large extent, those who shout out their agenda the loudest, are left to a shifting set of values depending on those who have the “will to power” which produces a very parochial and nuanced view of morality and ethics without any analysis of the universal picture. I would be interested in your thoughts on these issues.



[1] Siskiyou Daily News, October 7, 2008, http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x282363330

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Columbian Endorses Obama

The Columbian's (Vancouver, WA) editorial board endorsed Obama last week with the caveat - I kid you not - "Our opinion is only that, refuted by many, carrying no distinguishable impact. Our opinion is offered more to stimulate conversation than to change minds".[1] (emphasis mine)

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, one meaning of endorse is:
"2 a: to approve openly <endorse an idea> ; especially : to express
support or approval of publicly and definitely <endorse a mayoral
candidate> b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation endorsed by a pro basketball player>"[2]
The editorial board of this newspaper doesn't think they will influence anyone within their large circulation audience. If that's the case, why didn't the board say they are not endorsing anyone, list the major advantages and disadvantages of each candidate, and then leave it for discussion.

That's called good, professional, journalistic practice where one just reports the facts. Wait, that's what news articles are supposed to be. Opinion pieces, on the other hand, are where you take those facts and draw a conclusion! After all according to Merriam-Webster, the word opinion "implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute ."[3]

An editorial is done precisely to give one's reasons for their conclusion (in this case the Obama endorsement) that is then available to be disputed. The Columbian editorial board wants to be able to give their opinion without being held accountable for it.

That way, they influence people while brushing aside any criticism by saying "we were just trying to stimulate conversation".

That's intellectually dishonest.


[1] "In Our View: Obama for President", The Columbian, Oct. 16,2008.
http://www.columbian.com/article/20081016/OPINION02/710169982/-1/opinion
[2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endorse
[3] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Spreading the Wealth

Karl Marx[1]:

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."

Barak Obama[2]:

"I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too." (to each, according to his need)

I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
(from each, according to his ability)


[2] For Obama's entire statement, nContx, see the October 16, 2008 online article at the NY Post (nypost.com) http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm