RE:Global warming 'may cut deaths':

So, everyone needs to move to the UK? Because i'm sure the people inbetween the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn don't feel so sure that increased heat is going to be so wonderful.

It's like saying that Las Vegas property values to go up due to sea level rise making new beachfront property.

Contrast the above from Joe Wilson with this from Lawrence Lessig, an Obama supporter:

Both Dems say they are for "change" in Washington. One (the one who believes lobbyists represent "real Americans") is the leading recipient of earmarks. From "day one," business as usual. That's "change" in Washington-speak.

And if winning is our concern...

(Norm has indicated he got that video from about 50 people, but didn't wish to post it.)

Well, that didn't work properly...

try this instead

I'm frankly astonished that Norm and so many of his readers have been sucked into the Obama vs. Clinton charade. Voting Democratic is rather like recycling: It doesn't do that much, but it symbolizes our concern as we flush ourselves down the toilet. Which Democrat we vote for is neither here nor there. The differences are slight, as are the differences between Democrats & Republicans.

Here's another difference:

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Roll call on who voted in favor of the ban:

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Conrad (D-ND) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/saudis-to-execute-a-womann86642.html

Here's another difference:

Not to pick on JoAnn one of my dear friends here at onegoodmove, but It gives me a chance to make a point. I get criticized for criticizing Barack Obama with the caveat that it would be okay if I also criticized Hillary Clinton. But those most ardent in their support of Barack, it seems to me never criticize him, or if they do it is certainly not balanced. That's what's great, you can express your opinion, and I can express mine.

Hillary Clinton progressive action score is 56

Barack Obama progressive action score is 69

The thing that makes cluster bombs so much worse than ordinary bombs is that they have a high failure rate, combined with a high number of small bombs that are spread over large areas of land by the larger bombs in which they are originally obtained. Cluster bombs are designed to kill people, not to damage buildings or roads. Like land mines, they continue to kill people long after the battle in which they were used.

Cluster bombs kill civilians when they are used. Our government knows this, and yet our government continues to manufacture, use and sell cluster bombs to foreign countries.

Senator Feinstein deserves our thanks for introducing the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act to the floor of the Senate. But Senator Clinton has not earned out thanks. She has either dawdled or looked the other way, failing to support this bill and the effort behind it.

LOL Norm! I'm criticizing HIllary Clinton just to balance what you have been posting! :)

If some right winger was criticizing Hillary Clinton, I'd no doubt be busy defending her. ;)

Criticizing Obama? I thought we were still working on Obama Supporters? Have we moved on to Obama Yet?

LOL Norm! I'm criticizing HIllary Clinton just to balance what you have been posting! :)

Exactly and I'm balancing what is posted on most progressive blogs.

And I'll defend Barack against right-wingers who are attacking him.

But we're having a discussion about which Democratic candidate would be best for the country. Neither is ideal in my opinion the question is on balance who is better and about that we can disagree.

Hillary Clinton progressive action score is 56

Barack Obama progressive action score is 69

I'd like to hear more on how it's calculated. Is every issue equally weighted for instance.

P.S. Interview on All Things Considered yesterday with John McCain's Senior Campaign manager Mark McKinnon: "when i came into this race, I informed them that If Obama was the democratic nominee, I would resign.... I've met Obama, and I don't want to run against him. I don't want to be involved in a campaign against Obama"

linky

Exactly and I'm balancing what is posted on most progressive blogs.

Well, I visit for the most part two progressive blogs and both of them, yours and Politics Plus.

The blog owner of Politics Plus is even, gasp!, a believer in God! But he's a wonderful secular progressive.

That said, I visit yours more frequently, and you're both Clinton supporters. And so my two favorite progressive political blogs support Hillary Clinton... hmmm..

Well, I also frequent the blog of a Jesus freak who is very progressive and is very critical of all of the candidates. He has been "vetting" the candidates and when he posted something critical of Edwards some time ago, the Edwards supporters in the blogger community had a fit! ;)

Criticizing Obama? I thought we were still working on Obama Supporters? Have we moved on to Obama Yet?

LOl!

I'd like to hear more on how it's calculated. Is every issue equally weighted for instance.

If you go to the website that I linked to, they discuss every issue in detail

Oh Joe Wilson...

Endorsements from former employees that are currently out of work, if not momentum stopper that Hillary has been looking for.

But, he's right. Obama should have punched McCain in the face and endangered the passing of his bill. What a weeny.

it would be okay if I also criticized Hillary Clinton. But those most ardent in their support of Barack, it seems to me never criticize him, or if they do it is certainly not balanced.

Norm, I disagree. I think it would be ok if you just criticized Obama if you would keep those criticisms in the context of the race and politics in general. Supporters will always defend their candidates but I have yet to see the commenter that will refuse to except a flaw. The argument that you have been unfair stems from the sites recently muted claim that you are just trying to spur discussion, that Obama's failings are fatal flaws without comparing to the behavior of Clinton or politicians in general, and when poorly conceived and insulting analogies to mobs, rubes, and fascists are made.

You are starting to border on delusion with your insistence that Obama's supporters can't see his flaws and are persecuting you for acknowledging them publicly.

In my mind Obama - Flawed Clinton - Somewhat more flawed

McCain - Unhinged Stumble bum trying to lead a movement of extremists

Oh, and I also frequent a Frenchie political blog. The blog owner is pro Obama, but most of the contributers are mixed. They're just hoping that a democrat, any democrat, will win and end the reign of right-wing Republican xenophobic propaganda of anti U.N. and "old europe" bullshit.

contributers

The pedantic in me has to correct this!

"contributors"

And while we're at it, can we please distinguish between "their, they're and there" and "then, than", "no one instead of noone", "loose, lose", "Devine istead of divine", "it's its", "affects effects", and "separation instead of seperation" ?

"Devine istead of divine",

Should have been "divine" instead of "devine"..

Okay, I'll stop! Promise! I realize that ideas are more important than grammar. ;)

How do you do the cool gray quote box?

How do you do the cool gray quote box?

Just precede the quote with a "<"

that should be ">" dyslexics untie.

that should be ">" dyslexics untie.

LOL! Oh shit...

Well, I certainly hope a democrat wins, it's anecdotal I know but I've seen Obama supporters that will not vote for Hillary I have not seen the reverse.

Huh? What about this comment by Lemos?

As an Edwards supporter, yes we are still around and we're not going away, I can only say that I could not under any circumstances support Obama in a general election

JoAnn, those are some interesting blogs- I may check them out ( but I'll always come back to ogm)

I wonder what you think of huffpo? i may be hypercritical of it but it always good to hear from others...

ad hominem appeal to motive.

I was commenting on the clinton campaign not the ambassador with that comment, Does ad Hominem still apply if I am commenting on a third party?

The Second remark was directed at the ambassador.

I don't recall ever saying Obama's failings were a reason not to vote for him against a Republican. Would you like to point out where I did that?

Well, I was speaking to your site and not strictly your personal writings. With that, A reason not to trust and Charles post about the ballot issues both apply as fatal flaw arguments. Frankly, people shouldn't vote for people that are untrustworthy or disqualified from office. I am sure digging around comments would reveal plenty of references to supposed Obama "anti-democratic" (aka authoritarian) tendencies. Being "sorta like a dictator" would qualify as a fatal flaw argument to me.

It was the language that was used even if it was not the intent to make an unfit to serve argument.

The argument that you have been unfair stems from the sites recently muted claim that you are just trying to spur discussion, that Obama's failings are fatal flaws without comparing to the behavior of Clinton or politicians in general, and when poorly conceived and insulting analogies to mobs, rubes, and fascists are made.

Norm, I find it interesting that you only responed to one point.

What do you think the correct response to being called a member of a midless mob, a circus rube, a cultist, following a dictator like charlitan?

Perhaps,"Thank you for opening my eyes to what a stupid person I am?"

While we're calling out logical fallacies, are you ever going to address your approving Charles' weak man argument?

The problem is that you spun my argument into a fallacious one. Rather you spun it into fool's gold. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. That is what you did.

I can point to numerous examples. One that comes to mind was the suggestion was that ALL of Obama supporters were baiters when I said something quite different. And then you had a wholesale disregard for evidence. Someone dismissed Canetti as being a sociologist from the 19th century. He wrote in 1962 and I checked with a professor of Sociology at Stanford. Yup still taught, still valid. And as to the use of language, I merely said that such language has been said before and it doesn't always turn out well and when you couple that with the fact Obama and his supporters clearly have a problem with criticism then I believe it prudent to mention that possibility of authoritarianism. A Democratic Nixon is not a good thing in my mind. An American Blair isn't either.

As for Iraq you need to think of it as a sunk cost. It doesn't matter who did what, voted this way or that way or even who opposed the war and who didn't. It is a sunk cost. What matters is what we will do starting on January 20, 2009. In that regard, Clinton's realism (the theory of politics) is the clearly the best approach. You will not get any movement on Iraq until you get the DC and NY foreign policy establishment to concur that a departure from Iraq will not leave a vacuum in Iraq. Clinton is a consensus builder and will involve both allies and adversaries. She just doesn't lay her cards on the table because that would expose her hand. Obama already did that. He is not foreign policy material. It might be insignificant in the grand scheme of things but his comments on Colombia the other day caused the Colombian government to send a note of protest to the State Department. His misstatements are unbelievable. The Pakistan comments are in my mind worse than McCain's bomb, bomb bomb Iran because Pakistan is an ALLY, however unsavory an ally it is still an ALLY.

Charles Lemos

I thought that I would provide a link to Obama's comments on Latin American policy. He mentioned three countries, Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia. He accused the Colombia government of unspecified human rights violations. Please specify because frankly in Colombia we have had enough of others not understanding the Colombian situation. Uribe holds the highest approval rating of any President in the world at over 70%. And unlike Chavez, Uribe is not seeking to ensconce himself in power for life.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/02/clinton-talks-c.html

"I'm frankly astonished that Norm and so many of his readers have been sucked into the Obama vs. Clinton charade."

I would say there is a bit more that separates Republicans and Democrats than you've suggest, but Democrats (other than Kucinich and Gravel) are closer to their Republican rivals (especially McCain) than where progressive policy dictates they ought to be. The vast majority of the shortcomings of Clinton/Obama are not solved by the other. The standard by which we judge candidates should not be a particular person, but the ideal we hold for progress.

Apologies for the double post, but this concerns the "imagine no religion" ad campaign:

I don't think framing the agnostic/atheistic mindset in this way is going to be productive.

1) Religious folks will have a nearly impossible time accurately imagining no religion, largely because they don't see the motivation for doing away with religion.

2) It comes off as hostile/intolerant. Think about how a "imagine no atheists" ad campaign would feel for you. We have to be better than that. Rather than claiming that our ideas are superior, we need to promote the civil liberty of being able to have their own beliefs, and that anything else is essentially enforcing, for a lack of a better term, thought crime. If we cannot have freedom of thought, then freedom of speech is meaningless.

Norm, you posted a link to the "weak man argument," here

Which leads here

Which references here, but perhaps you didn't read the whole thing before posting... since I recalled getting the term from your site, I was surprised you had to ask me to define it.

It gives the following definition:

"Recently, in a 2006 paper co-authored with Scott F. Aikin, one of us (Talisse) documented a twist on the straw man tactic. In what Talisse dubs a weak man argument, a person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does."

It gives the following example:

"In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.”...O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat: “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The U.S.A. can’t control that country. No nation could.... Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible—and possibly more likely—reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “U.S.A. can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the U.S. government."

You have previously indicated, in another comments thread, that you read Charels' posts, and while you don't necessarily agree with every statement he has made, it is in this sense that I mean you've 'approved' of his arguments-- you vetted the posts, perhaps solicited them.

Now that I look back on how much Charles has written, any accusation that he is attacking the weakest parts of an argument and mischaracterizing it as the central argument will prove fruitless, as it will simply be argued that, somewhere else he makes other points. When I raised that claim, I was specifically referring to his attack of (some) Obama supporters by citing (some) specific quotations and presenting them as representative of a "death cult".

This is, of course, not a weak man argument either. It is swift boating... taking a candidate's strength (in this case, charisma and a broad base of support) and using it against them. Similarly, Charles' frequent comparisons between Obama and a variety of unpopular figures (and my own comparison of Hillary Clinton to Margaret Thatcher) is ad hominem, though I shan't be able to prove it because of the sheer length of what he has written... it is difficult to establish he has labeled him as such in order to avoid making real points.

Perhaps you both should reflect, though, on something else Charles wrote:

"Whatever your personal (and mine) thoughts on Clinton or Obama, it is imperative that the race be fought on the issues and not get sidetracked with personal attacks coming from both sides. Leaders in the Democratic Party sound increasingly alarmed that the longer this contest drags on the greater the risk of losing what has been long perceived an easy election to win."

Obama's followers being a 'death cult,' or accusations of the same, is not logically consistent with that sentiment. So long as you continue to ignore it, I see no reason why others shouldn't follow suit in response.

They're just hoping that a democrat, any democrat, will win and end the reign of right-wing Republican xenophobic propaganda of anti U.N. and "old europe" bullshit.

Here, here. It is so embarrassing to hear a supposedly viable presidential candidate spewing the kind of cheap xenophobic shit that Romney gave in his swan song. I mean, really - how the hell does a president expect to walk into a meeting with the head of friendly government after he has behaved like such a jackass.

that should be ">" dyslexics untie.<

Much appreciated, Norm and Joann, been wondering about that. How does one hyper link in comments? That would come in handy too!

He wrote in 1962 and I checked with a professor of Sociology at Stanford. Yup still taught, still valid.

So far as I know, it is standard practice in the social sciences to teach major historical turning points in a discipline, such as Durkheim, who is still taught in both sociology and anthropology courses, although surely much has changed in both disciplines since the late 19th - early 20th C, including wholesale rejection of his "organicist" theoretical models of society. (For concrete illustration of the way old models such as Durkheim's can be appropriated for contemporary research, David Sloan Wilson in Darwin's Cathedral has a marvelous discussion of the way Durkheim's broadly functionalist treatments of religion have been appropriated by contemporary evolutionary psychologists of religion operating within very different theoretical paradigms). It does not follow from a topic or figure being taught that it's empirical claims are still sound (Freud being a case in point).

And as to the use of language, I merely said that such language has been said before and it doesn't always turn out well and when you couple that with the fact Obama and his supporters clearly have a problem with criticism then I believe it prudent to mention that possibility of authoritarianism.

You have yet to spell out exactly which phrases or kinds of language, and what in particular about their being deployed would justify an analogy. To be fair, you did provide one example

Ronald Reagan in 1980 stated that the United States had “a rendez-vous with destiny.” In 2008, Obama offers us “a date with destiny.”

Surely many presidents have used the phrase, "God bless, America," and many others. I frankly find it implausible that mere repetition of many phrases, by themselves, provides any sound basis whatsoever for an inference to fundamental similarities of character. That depends on the phrase, it's context, and other relevant features of behavior. And that requires analysis and an argument.

"Whatever your personal (and mine) thoughts on Clinton or Obama, it is imperative that the race be fought on the issues and not get sidetracked with personal attacks coming from both sides. Leaders in the Democratic Party sound increasingly alarmed that the longer this contest drags on the greater the risk of losing what has been long perceived an easy election to win."

Obama's followers being a 'death cult,' or accusations of the same, is not logically consistent with that sentiment. So long as you continue to ignore it, I see no reason why others shouldn't follow suit in response.

Do you need a damn YouTube video to understand what he was saying?

YouTube Video

IMO it's fair to ask that question of any candidate's supporter and if they can step back, look at the candidate logically and still support them then great. Instead the majority of what I've seen are a lot of defensive reactions to the question and attacks on Charles and Norm.

Dar,

I think what they are criticizing is the guilt by association fallacy they see in Charles' posts.

She's a Witch!

Dar, You'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't find an excerpt from the Life of Brian to constitute evidence in this context.

As far as I'm concerned, Norm and Charles have earned every bit of scorn they've received. They came out swinging.

Of the candidates who have a remote chance of becoming President, I dislike Obama the least and Hillary only very, very, slightly less than McCain. That, in and of itself, does not a "death cultist" make. I would be -happy- to support Kucinich in the election. I would be -fine- with Edwards being the candidate... but, unfortunately, -neither of them is running any longer.-

Norm and Charles seem to be of the position that, since others have pointed out some bad things about Hillary on other sites, they don't even need to consider them... but in bashing Obama, "who are you actually -promoting-" is a very reasonable question in my view-- they can't be supporting Edwards any longer. I feel those many criticisms of Hillary are valid, though I apparently haven't been reading the same sites they have.

"Tell me why I should vote for Obama without saying anything mean about Hillary... [after many mean things have been said about Obama and his followers]"... is bullshit.

There is what I take to be a generally well informed consensus among progressive that Obama is -slightly- more progressive than Clinton, as evinced by his supporters, his stated positions, and his voting record.

Further, in my opinion, Clinton's stated positions are worthless as a metric to judge her future actions (her votes and interactions with lobbyists on the other hand, are telling). Were she to be elected, her campaign promises would be meaningless... in the FISA vote, she has already demonstrated that. Since she is riding on her husband's reputation, and promising a return to those 'good old days,' -his- frequent compromises when one compares his 1992 promises to what he did in his first term in office should be telling in this regard.

As others have pointed out, the fact that McCain and other mainstream Republicans would prefer Hillary as a candidate ought to be telling.

Democrats voted for Reagan -against their own stated interests- because they liked and trusted him. Obama is asking, and receiving, Republican support on what are essentially those same terms. Hillary, in contrast, will take a position to the Right of the rest of her party and attack it from there.

Unfortunately, they've gotten there first... otherwise, I could suggest that they had formed a secret suicide pact to support McCain... and it would have no more meaning (and would be just as offensive) as their suggestions that Obama's backers have no rational justification for preferring him.

So I was banned from posting at Crook and Liars because I mentioned the Joe Wilson article.

Thank you Onegoodmove for not being a part of the Obama bandwagon.

As far as I'm concerned, Norm and Charles have earned every bit of scorn they've received. They came out swinging.

I don't agree, but then again I'm not adamant about either candidate so I don't get emotional about it.

What do you think the correct response to being called a member of a midless mob, a circus rube, a cultist, following a dictator like charlitan?

Produce the quotations where I called you any of those things or for where for that matter Charles charged you with any of those things.

Norm, Here is the first installment of what you requested.

Cult

"the Obama camp has all the makings of a cult. Honestly you are like Scientologists." - Charles

"That's why I think Obama supporters as demonstrating cult-like qualities." - Charles

Charlatan

"Not to mention that I think him a fraud, more corrupt than the Clintons, naive, insincere, and hypocritical." - Charles

Fascists Authoritarians etc.

"At some point you have to pay attention otherwise say hello to the true Manchurian Candidate." - Charles

"...Richard Nixon, he of the silent majority, were masters of crowd psychology. Obama is no different" - charles

"to see the movement that is Obama and compare it to the founder of the Falange in Spain, Jose Primo de Rivera."- Charles

In 1933, he founded Falange Española ("Spanish Phalanx"), a nationalist party inspired by the Fascist ideology.

Mob

"I think Obama crowds fit well into what Canetti called the baiting crowd phenomenon." - Charles

From the Book Charles references

"Crowds by Prevailing Emotion: BAITING crowd - goal & density, as a killing mob or hunting pack"

"The baiting crowd also fits the psychology of a lynch mob. And if you think no one has been lynched during the course of this campaign ask Bill Clinton"

Examples of baiting crowds I have seen most referenced are crowds at fights, not Lynch mobs. Perhaps if you are still looking for an analogy, the crowd at a boxing match or dog fight might

Circus Rubes

"In my first post, my letter to Norm, I wrote that Obama was the Barnum Effect Candidate. It bears repeating."

The Barnum effeect is a reference to P.T. Barnum and the ability of his circus to rip off the rubes with palm readings and fortune tellings, because they wanted to believe.

That's just the first two posts, I will go through some of the comments and other posts this weekend.

So I was banned from posting at Crook and Liars because I mentioned the Joe Wilson article.

It's pathetic that they would do that. The Wilson article isn't even all that effective.

Thanks to Red Seven for doing that legwork.

Norm,

If you would rather have this convo off line, I am more then happy to do that.

TO answer your immediate question, no.

His statements are not qualified with, "some" and repeated rebukes of the responses to these comments have accused the Obama supporters that responding to them as supporting the "cultist" comparison. A claim that points to the commenters on this site. Do you think the Obama supporters on your site display the cult like behavior? If not, what is your reason for believing they are different from those that Charles, and krugeman are accusing?

Two quick points 1. I have never said that anyone directly called me these things. My question was not in the first person. Reference has been to Obama supporters. A group to which I belong.

1. I never said you (Norm)said all of these things about individuals or groups.

I clarified that earlier in the string.

Well, I was speaking to your site and not strictly your personal writings.

What you have done is posted stories and the comments of charles that have repeatedly used the Cult insult to describe obama supporters in general. You have said that you read charles posts before putting them up and although you don't agree with every point you agree with much of it and at the very least don't find his opinions objectionable.

I am not saying you should stop posting anti obama stuff and I am not even saying you should stop posting things that obama supporters find insulting.

I am just saying it is irrational to think that posting things that insult a group of people would not result with those people responding with offense, self defense, and the occasional counter attack.