Okay, I admit, this cartoon pisses me off
Sep. 13th, 2007 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thatcrazycajun| ...because of its cartoonist's clear implication that the organization to which I belong, MoveOn.org, has stooped or will stoop to unscrupulous, sleazy or unfair public statements in its campaign for liberal/Democratic candidates and policies. But the trouble with the format is that it does not lend itself to Ms. Benson's providing specific examples of such alleged behavior on MoveOn's part, in the way a written commentary would. If this is a reaction to the group's recent full-page newspaper ad regarding the Congressional report of Gen. David Petraeus on the Iraq troop surge (I personally found the ad's tone a bit shrill, even though I do believe that Petraeus and his report are being used as propaganda tools by the Bush Regime), it would have been nice of her to say so in some fashion. What do you think? Is she right? Absent concrete proof of any untoward statements/actions, I think she's letting her partisanship get in the way of fact. On the other hand, it may well be an indication that MoveOn is doing a fair-to-good job of its mission—i.e., giving voice to and mobilizing liberal Dems like me—if a right-winger is made angry enough at them to come up with something like this. |
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Wow!
Date: 2007-09-13 03:27 pm (UTC)Re: Wow!
Date: 2007-09-13 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 03:51 pm (UTC)Frankly, I'm rather shocked there hasn't been more left-wing name-calling, what with the leaders of the right having names (like "Betray-Us", "Snow-Job", and "Biggus Dickus", not to mention the beloved "Turd[blossom]") that fit.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 05:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 05:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-15 06:00 pm (UTC)Name calling
Date: 2007-09-13 06:06 pm (UTC)Frankly, I'm rather shocked there hasn't been more left-wing name-calling, what with the leaders of the right having names (like "Betray-Us", "Snow-Job", and "Biggus Dickus", not to mention the beloved "Turd[blossom]") that fit.
====================================
Name calling against pundits right or left, who themselves name-call, is fair game even if it pisses off the partisans whose views they most closely represent. Baselessly calling a man who has served us faithfully for a third of his life a traitor is dispicable and on par with calling him four-eyes. It was part of an attempt to preempt what moveon considers a political blow to its agenda.
It begs to be ridiculed, and the problem you find with the cartoon's non-verbal message is its real power. It says what it means without a lot of arguable rhetoric.
I said once, half kidding, that George Soros might have a position for you. I had no idea that you were already in his employ.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-13 06:50 pm (UTC)And yes, Soros has funded it in the past, but it does not make me a "paid employee" of his for us to both be offering either money and/or service to the same group. Does he have an agenda? Doubtless, and some elements of it may even be identical to ones on mine, or on the group's. Does that automatically invalidate the message, even if they sometimes let their rhetoric run away with them? Hardly. MoveOn is no more heinous than groups on your side such as GOPAC or Focus on the Family, in that they are all openly partisan, quite legal groups with a stated agenda. (And ones on your side have been at least as guilty of hyperbolic, intemperate rhetoric and attacks on patriotism on occasion; witness the Lou Sheldon Traditional Values Coalition and the so-called "swift boaters" who attacked John Kerry. That rustling and clucking is your own side's chickens coming home to roost.)
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-13 07:43 pm (UTC)Let me clarify my intent. If you are a member of moveon, you are lending your support, and they are paying you by defending your political stance. I doubt that you make the inference that a Yankees fan receives a check from George Steinbrenner.
If you do his work, even through one of his proxy orgs (there are around seven of them interconnected behind the scenes) then you are metaphorically speaking, in his employ, which is all I meant.
Just as a quick aside, although it wasn't my original intent, you're reacting to the feeling of being unjustly accused of something you believe to be untrue, in the relative privacy of a personal blog. How do you think that applies to the General being called a traitor in an international public forum, before he has even given his testimony?
=======================================
-Does he have an agenda? Doubtless, and some elements of it may even be identical to ones on mine, or on the group's.
With all respect, if you can say "some elements might coincide with mine", then you should look into what Mr. Soros long term agenda has been. If you really want to know, I can point you to them offline so as not to hijack your blog. He is an enemy of America, and he's using the Democratic party to undermine her.
=======================================
-MoveOn is no more heinous than groups on your side such as GOPAC or Focus on the Family...
I'm unfamiliar with any of those groups, but as you may be catching on to by now, I will unreservedly stipulate the likely truth of your observation. I hate the vicious rhetoric of both sides. It gets in the way of reasoned discourse by drawing up sides in the debate, rather than bringing in tables and chairs for the conversations necessary.
I like to take my model from the example of the founding fathers, who often ridiculed and heatedly debated one another, but did it with erudition and intelligence, not schoolyard histrionics.
Mind you, I am only agreeing concerning their public face. Their private agenda is incomparable to those you named since those others are not, as Soros has publicly declared himself to be, against the American way of government.
=======================================
-...in that they are all openly partisan, quite legal groups with a stated agenda.
The stated agenda is the part I disagree with. Soros has an agenda quite apart from the Democrats or Liberals, and once again, if you'd really like to know I'll be glad to point you to the resources offline.
=======================================
-...That rustling and clucking is your own side's chickens coming home to roost.
I don't give a hoot (get it? hoot? clucking... hoot? I Kill me, Ha!) who started it or if both sides are committing the same foolishness. And don't keep trying to paint me as part of the crowd. I don't belong to a crowd and don't deserve the accusation. They are most decidedly not my chickens, no matter who else holds some of MY viewpoints.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-13 10:17 pm (UTC)I hate the vicious rhetoric of both sides.
Your first statement appears to contradict your second statement.
I'll be glad to point you to the resources offline
Please email me at my livejournal address with information on your sources.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 01:39 am (UTC)I did not criticize moveon or its membership any more than I did all the entities Matt named, and for all the same reasons. I did not declare Soros America's enemy; Soros did.
=========================================
The system is deeply flawed. As long as capitalism remains triumphant, the pursuit of money overrides all other social considerations.
(George Soros speaking of the global capitalist system in his book, "The Crisis of Global Capitalism", 1998, pg.102)
=========================================
So if capitalism is the enemy, isn't socialism the answer?
When you finish checking up on the validity of this quote and my inference from it, let me know if you find any evidence that I'm making it up. Reading the context of the chapter it's in strengthens the point, so go read it and then we'll talk some more.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 01:50 am (UTC)Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 02:48 am (UTC)BTW, "who harbors deep antipathy to liberalism and/or socialism". You're not a very good shrink. I keep repeating to you that the thing I am taking issue with is the uninformed bomb-throwing. If you won't look in Soros' book then at least look back over your own blog and see if that's a disingenuous statement.
To directly address your accusation; I believe socialism is the plague of the earth. Liberalism, however, as practiced by moderates and those open to reasonable suggestions and compromise, is just as valid as middle road conservatism. Insofar as Democratic and Republican ideology goes, I lean right, but don't think that the public face of either in the media, is helping. Also, the bomb-throwing pundits don't speak for the truly rational on either side. They are pundits. The point of their existence is to stir up emotions and sell books. That makes them polarizing forces and absolutely guarantees that they are agenda driven, Otherwise they'd lose the fan base that buys their books and who will they get to replace it. Certainly not those they had bashed up 'til their reformation.
General Patreus is a good man. The ad did him undeserved dirt. The cartoon you took issue with was a response to that, and a well-crafted one at that. Does the cartoon express my point of view? I haven't answered that one way or the other, although you'd think from the attacks I've taken here, that I'd written the damn thing.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 02:58 am (UTC)socialism v Christianity
Date: 2007-09-14 04:22 am (UTC)Re: socialism v Christianity
Date: 2007-09-14 04:27 am (UTC)Re: socialism v Christianity
Date: 2007-09-15 03:05 am (UTC)I'm referencing the Bible's Book of Acts, chapter 2. (I've included the whole paragraph for context, but I'm specifically referring to verses 44 & 45):
The Fellowship of the Believers
(42) And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (43) And awe [or fear] came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. (44) And all who believed were together and had all things in common. (45) And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (46) And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, (47) praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved. (ESV translation, to avoid any copyright issues.)
"all . . .were together and had all things in common."
"they were selling their (things) and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need."
Textbook definition of the Platonic Ideal of socialism.
Whether socialism works for good or ill is largely a matter of the number of people participating. Its minimum is the non-dysfunctional family unit, and its upper limit is whatever quantity of people can consider each other kith and kin. If that number gets exceeded, then the system is ripe for exploitation, and you end up with the kind of hell that was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But within its limits, it's actually the Biblical example of how people should live together.
How many people was this? The paragraghs immediately preceeding this one were about the Pentecost and Peter's multilingual sermon that drew about 3000 new converts.
Re: socialism v Christianity
Date: 2007-09-15 01:48 pm (UTC)41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.
====================================
Socialism , on the other hand proceeds directly from the denial of God
......................................................................
---It is evident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends on whether the true recognized life of the people manifests itself more in consciousness or in the external world – is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction.---
Private Property and Communism
-Karl Marx 1844-
from his economic and philosophical manuscripts
......................................................................
This is not as straightforward as it might appear at first glance. Marx did not begin with denial of God, as we understand atheism today. He began, rather, with a very Luciferian question -- "Why do we have to assume God exists to be denied in the first place?" This is important because it points up the depth of the philosophy. Marx considered not whether the question had been answered, but instead, what malfunction of man allowed him to consider such irrationality in the first place. He doesn't just deny God; he places God in the position of being anathema to man's well-being.
================================================
Organized religion is something I think creates distance between man and God, whereas true Christianity, with Christ as our only intercessor brings us into direct contact with our Father.
Marxism, it's descendant socialism, and the corruption of the two(as if they could be corrupted further) communism, all are based on the premise that the very idea of God is pariah.
There is no comparison to be made between Christianity and socialism, even in socialism's "theoretically purest" form. The former is God reaching through Christ to man, the latter is Satan denying God through man. With God removed from the center, it matters not how few nor how many they are; evil persons will eventually rule.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 05:18 am (UTC)I will look for the book you cite in the library. I may purchase one of his more recent books.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-13 11:28 pm (UTC)Also, that your argument, hinging as it does on the word "baselessly", is clearly not valid, when there is a legitimate reason to call Gen. Petraeus a traitor. After all, his oath, as all military oaths are, is to preserve the Constitution and represent it and America's best interests; his actions are arguably (note: not certainly, as neither I nor you can say for certain, but there are valid arguments in both directions) harming America's interests and weakening the Constitution far more than otherwise.
If you want ridicule, then deal with this image: The war as a store, raising its prices (the surge) in the first panel, and then advertising a big sale (the pullback) with pre-inflated prices in its second. That's the con that the Administration and its people (the General and the Ambassador, particularly) are trying to run on the American people this week.
And please lay off the ad hominem attacks against folks not directly involved; all it does is make you look foolish.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 02:20 am (UTC)-
Frankly, I'm rather shocked there hasn't been more left-wing name-calling, what with the leaders of the right having names (like "Betray-Us", "Snow-Job", and "Biggus Dickus", not to mention the beloved "Turd[blossom]") that fit.
-
I always think it's funny when someone tries to mock another and ends up making the oppositions point by committing the offense they've just been accused of. Turd(blossom) indeed.
==========================================
...his actions are arguably (note: not certainly, as neither I nor you can say for certain...
...and which stands up to a fact check...
So something which is uncertain is also something that 'stands up to fact checking? I was on the wrong debate team. Our rules said that facts, by definition, had to be certain.
==========================================
As for his being a traitor; I'd like to see you stand face to face, look him in the eyes, and repeat that. He is a patriot and doesn't kowtow to the administration. But just for argument sake, if he did, he would still not be guilty of treason any more than you are guilty of libel, just because you make baseless accusations about somebody you never met, simply because it's politically expedient from your point of view.
If he is indeed a traitor, then let charges be brought in open court. They won't be, not because he has political cover from the administration, but because if one is not just spouting vitriolic rhetoric,then
THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE,
and not to be bandied about by the ill-informed at the behest of the agenda makers, and to the detriment of those who protect our freedom and lives with their own.
============================================
If you want ridicule, ...are trying to run on the American people this week.
a). I ridiculed no one. I said the caption at the link I pointed to (you did follow the link before attacking my view of it, right?) begged to be ridiculed.
b). I did not take any stance on the report, or the surge in this particular thread. All I said is that General Patreus deserved serious respect, and I linked to the Political Ad in response to Matt's saying, "But without specific grievances against statements or actions by MoveOn, it is, as you say, still vague."
I was merely pointing to the Ad to indicate a "specific grievance"
============================================
Speaking of a lack of specific grievance, who were you referring to as the "folks not directly involved" when you said, "And please lay off the ad hominem attacks against folks not directly involved; all it does is make you look foolish.", and isn't the portion where you say, "all it does is make you look foolish.", just such an ad hominem attack? And since it is (I was being rhetorical when I asked if it is) doesn't that make you look foo...
Ah never mind.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-14 12:19 pm (UTC)Perhaps you'd like to go back and read again. I was specifically citing the instances in which it would be easy for left-wing writers to hand derogatory nicknames on members of the right, but which are NOT in general use. ("Turdblossom" is in fact a favorable name, hung by GWB, referring to a flower that blooms in the stuff.) If you go back and look at my own writing, you'll find that I avoid such naming (I may have yielded to temptation once or twice, but not as a general rule).
*****
You're either confused or conflating two items. I'm stating that while Gen. Petraeus' actions can be argued, legitimately on both sides, as to whether they're treasonous (yes, it's possible to recognize arguments on both sides of an issue as having some merit), the MoveOn ad itself stands up to a fact check in terms of what it asserts as fact.
You bet I'll look the political operative (for so he is, as demonstrated repeatedly) in the eye and tell him he's kissing George in the nethers. Since the Administration's policy is ONLY to provide jobs (particularly high-level ones) to people who value personal loyalty above conviction, many of whom (though not, I think, the General) are also incompetent, I would repeat that statement about virtually any person you could name in the Executive Branch whose name gets into the news.
As to his being a traitor, I believe that if he takes an oath to defend the Constitution and knowingly acts in a way that harms the Constitution (e.g., pursuing an imperialistic war based on untruths and greed, unnecessarily wasting American lives and health and tax dollars), then, yes, there's a case to be made.
*****
As to ridicule, you claim "[the ad] begs to be ridiculed." How so? It makes clear and honest points, which have been borne out by the General's testimony in which he carried water for this most venal and incompetent (in the sense of fulfilling their jobs; nobody questions their ability to accumulate power and wealth) Administration in our country's history. His predictable -- in fact, predicted in the ad -- testimony, reiterated by GWB in another attempt to force the Big Lie down the throats of an unbelieving America, places a pretty clear window of truth in MoveOn's favor. If you wish to object to the monicker "Betray-Us", you may. The evidence provides a pretty good argument for its accuracy.
Re: Name calling
Date: 2007-09-16 03:20 am (UTC)And doing so in the process.
=========================================
-I'm stating that while Gen. Petraeus' actions can be argued, legitimately on both sides, as to whether they're treasonous...-
And I say that calling a faithful, long-persevering servant of our country a traitor is beneath contempt.
=========================================
-the MoveOn ad itself stands up to a fact check in terms of what it asserts as fact.-
Hardly.
Care to quote some sources which are not headline mills?
==========================================
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treason
trea·son (ˈtrizən')
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
...................................................
-As to his being a traitor, I believe that if he takes an oath to defend the Constitution and knowingly acts in a way that harms the Constitution (e.g., pursuing an imperialistic war based on untruths and greed, unnecessarily wasting American lives and health and tax dollars), then, yes, there's a case to be made.-
So you think that he should what? Stage a coup?
The man said that the report was his own work, and that he didn't vet it with anyone, so even if he is mistaken about everything, out of respect for his obviously honorable service, he deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning his intentions, motivations, and actions.
==================================================
-You bet I'll look the political operative (for so he is, as demonstrated repeatedly) in the eye and tell him he's kissing George in the nethers.-
I said, "As for his being a traitor; I'd like to see you stand face to face, look him in the eyes, and repeat that." Not the convoluted backpeddaling way that you state it here. Just simply, "You are a traitor." And before you come back saying I'm playing semantics, let me point out that, short of actually doing it, your protestations of willingness will always lack some credibility.
=========================================
-As to his being a traitor, I believe that if he takes an oath to defend the Constitution and knowingly acts in a way that harms the Constitution (e.g., pursuing an imperialistic war based on untruths and greed, unnecessarily wasting American lives and health and tax dollars), then, yes, there's a case to be made.-
So then let someone, with actual power to do it, bring the charge. Maybe you could write your congressman and demand that he do it; not gonna hold my breath on either count though.
============================================
-His predictable -- in fact, predicted in the ad... -
The testimony of an honest man, concerning matters which can be publicly investigated are always predictable. How could it be otherwise where he is telling the truth.
.................................
-The evidence provides a pretty good argument for its accuracy.-
The ad takes the predictable truth, and does its best to call it a lie. It accomplishes its purpose through misstatement and spin, and it does so through the expediency of not being submitted under oath as real testimony and proof need to be.
It was the same vicious punditry that I've already denounced from both sides. It's very easy to tell half-truths, rumors, gossip, and lies when there's no one holding you accountable for perjury.
General Patreus delivered his testimony, and the evidence that he used to inform his opinion, under oath.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-13 06:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-09-14 05:52 am (UTC)The humor in a political cartoon is in the analogy it makes. If the analogy bends the point to the point of being unrecognizable, nobody will get it and the attempt at humor fails.
Like in both examples:
In the first one, it's barely obvious its a manhole cover. And Fax machines are plugged into sewers all the time...????
And in the plane flying into the building one, the point would be that the courts are full of terrorists? Even if true, what's the joke?
If a political cartoon has something like Dubya being Cheney's Ventriloquist Dummy, or Terrorists lining up Iraqi Civillians while a hook labeled "Congress" dragged off American Troops, then you'd get what the joke was, and you wouldn't be offended even if you disagreed with the point.
This is just lame. I'm not sure something can be satirical if you don't know what it's satiring.