It's been since January that anyone has brought up to me the notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim. While there are likely many people still holding on to that idea, no one I'm aware of is still actively advancing that position. That may say something about my circle and sources of information, but it's what I have to go on.
Apparently some are convinced that the effort to promote Sen. Obama's presidential campaign justifies promoting false information about Gov. Palin. The record is clear on her involvement, or better, lack of involvement, with the Alaska Independance Party. The attempts to lead people to believe she was a member of the party or supported its ideas rely on consiously altering the record to change the meaning of what Gov. Palin said.
Willful falsification implies one has given up on making a positive case for one's own candidate. In the case of people supporting Sen. Obama's campaign, it also shows they don't believe in what he has said he promotes, e.g., change from typical political behavior. They must be supporting him for some other reason. It would be interesting to see if there might be evidence for what that reason or those reasons might be.
9/27/08
9/26/08
Presidential debates
I like how Jim Lehrer is handling this event tonight, trying to get the candidates to answer his questions, even though for the most part they are focused on getting their talking points in.
Both of these two are on the record with many votes, John McCain especially, of course. Barack Obama's record is shorter, but still useful. It seems to me that a lot of their claims and counter-claims should be subject to checking. I'm surprised they haven't been more specific about their votes or bills, or the opponent's. I would find that persuasive, rather than the general claims, "I did this," "You believe that."
Both of these two are on the record with many votes, John McCain especially, of course. Barack Obama's record is shorter, but still useful. It seems to me that a lot of their claims and counter-claims should be subject to checking. I'm surprised they haven't been more specific about their votes or bills, or the opponent's. I would find that persuasive, rather than the general claims, "I did this," "You believe that."
Can we talk, seriously?
It's the silly season in the United States (i.e., presidential politics), but there are a lot of issues that need to be discussed with some seriousness rather than the nonsense that seems to be popular.
When I read letters to the editor or listen to comments on the radio my first reaction too often is, "You cannot be serious." I’m not as concerned about the positions taken as I am they way they are being “supported.”
It seems to me that being loud and obnoxious is overwhelming clarity and evidence in too much of our discussion. Winning support for a position should take evidence and persuasion. Here’s a setting to evaluate what passes for evidence and argument, and hopefully to add to clarity.
When I read letters to the editor or listen to comments on the radio my first reaction too often is, "You cannot be serious." I’m not as concerned about the positions taken as I am they way they are being “supported.”
It seems to me that being loud and obnoxious is overwhelming clarity and evidence in too much of our discussion. Winning support for a position should take evidence and persuasion. Here’s a setting to evaluate what passes for evidence and argument, and hopefully to add to clarity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)