Throughout the history of political rhetoric it has been a common practice to not merely settle with claiming that one’s opponents are mistaken. These miscreants must also be cast as hating all that is good. This tradition continues with the claim that Obama hates (or more moderately, dislikes) America.
The claim that the President hates (or dislikes) America is a strong charge and, as such, requires equally strong evidence. Of course, what folks regard as suitable evidence varies based on their political views. For example, those who are vehemently opposed to Obama will tend to infer that he hates America because he does not act in accord with their political views. After all, they might ‘reason’, anyone who thinks differently from those who truly love America must truly hate her. While this line of pseudo-reasoning has considerable emotional appeal, the fact that someone disagrees with those who profess to love America hardly counts as evidence for a hatred (or even a dislike) of America.
I suspect that the reasoning used by some folks involves the classic fallacy of straw man. In this logical error, someone ignores an opponent’s actual position and presents in its place a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of that position. This is a fallacy because attacking a distorted version of a position does nothing to criticize the actual position.
Interestingly, this fallacy often involves reliance on what is referred to as an unknown fact. Typically, this involves claiming to know the “real reason” behind a view when such knowledge is actually lacking. For example, someone might commit the fallacy using such an unknown ‘fact’: “The Republicans oppose national health care because they value money more than people and want to ensure that their friends in the big insurance companies keep making fat profits. Even if this means letting people die. So, it is safe to say that their opposition is mistaken.”
In the case of Obama, people often refer to the unknown ‘fact’ that he hates (or at least dislikes )America and this is why he plans on having death panels, on forcing Americans into socialism and so on. Of course, he intends to do none of these things-these are but straw men and hyperbole.
The error people make could also be cast as the assumption of wicked intent. That is, the logical error of inferring that because a person disagrees with you it follows that she must harbor a wicked intent. For example, suppose that Jane supports same sex marriage and is arguing about this with Sally, who is against it. Imagine that Jane says “Well, you are against same sex marriage because you hate gays. You are a classic case of homophobia!” While this might be true of Sally, it might not. After all, a person could oppose same sex marriage on other grounds-such as religion or even a general opposition to marriage itself. Likewise, when people infer that Obama must dislike America because he says things they disagree with, they might be making this error. Of course, if they have evidence that he does hate America and make the inference based on this evidence, then they are not making this error.
Of course, a factor that makes determining whether Obama hates America or not is defining what this would mean. If someone asks me if I like Peanut Butter cups, I can say “yes”, for this is a simple matter. But, if someone asks me if I like candy, I’ll need to qualify my answer because there are some candies I like and some I do not. Now, if someone asks me if I like America, I would ask them to be more specific. Am I being asked if I like all the laws? The traditions? The people? The land? The political views? The Republican agenda? In these cases, my answer would be that I like some and dislike some. For example, I rather like my friends but I dislike the Americans who are rapists and murderers. Now, if someone simply refused to be specific and said “Damn you philosophers! Do you love America? You know, the America that Glenn Beck cries about!” I’d still have to say that I like some of it and dislike some of it. I’m sure Beck actually feels the same way. After all, Obama is part of America and Beck doesn’t seem to fond of him.
Being a logical person, I am open to evidence that Obama dislikes America. Just begin by defining “America” and then show that Obama does not like that.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Check this out for starters.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html
Obama’s women reveal his secret
“Cherchez la femme,” advised Alexander Dumas in: “When you want to uncover an unspecified secret, look for the woman.” In the case of Barack Obama, we have two: his late mother, the went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham, and his rancorous wife Michelle. Obama’s women reveal his secret: he hates America.
We know less about Senator Obama than about any prospective president in American history. His uplifting rhetoric is empty, as Hillary Clinton helplessly protests. His career bears no trace of his own character, not an article for the Harvard Law Review he edited, or a single piece of legislation. He appears to be an empty vessel filled with the wishful thinking of those around him. But there is a real Barack Obama. No man – least of all one abandoned in infancy by his father – can conceal the imprint of an impassioned mother, or the influence of a brilliant wife.
I saw that, but it struck me as a parody…
I thought so, too. In fact, the two or three quotations from the article T.J. references and that I provide in my 5:56 post could almost convince a reader that parody is the intent.
Then I discovered that the author is David P. Goldman. His conservative political leanings support a conclusion that the piece in question is definitely not a parody. For what it’s worth, he probably means what he says.
David Goldman is indeed an interesting guy.
http://seekingalpha.com/author/david-goldman?source=search_general&s=david-goldman
David P. Goldman was global head of debt research for Banc of America Securities and earlier global head of credit strategy at Credit Suisse. He was until July 2008 the strategist for a credit hedge fund, Asteri Capital, one of the few credit funds to show a profit between July 2007 and July 2008. He is now Associate Editor of First Things (http://www.firstthings.com) and a columnist (under the byline “Spengler”) for Asia Times Online.
From the wikipedia article about Goldman:
“In 1976 he joined the LaRouche movement. Together with Konstandinos Kalimtgis and Jeffrey Steinberg, called a “U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team”, Goldman co-authored Dope, Inc.[2] The book, first published by the LaRouche publishing firm of “New Benjamin Franklin House”, went through three printings, the last in 1992, when it was subtitled, “the book that drove Henry Kissenger crazy”.[3] It was also translated into Spanish, and published under the title Narcotrafico SA. He coauthored a book with Larouche in 1980 (The Ugly Truth About Milton Friedman[4]) and served as the economics editor of Larouche’s publications.
“Goldman was also a Reagan supporter, making a break with Larouche “inevitable.” According to Goldman, by 1982 his interest in the movement was waning, but he nevertheless studied music at the organization’s Schiller Institute until 1986. Goldman says that Larouche fired him for endorsing Reagan’s economic policies.”
The “Spengler” article, for what it’s worth, is likely not a parody, though in its extremes it is quite parody-like.
I confess I don’t know much about LaRouche. This from Wikipedia surprised me. Apparently he is a Democrat!
LaRouche himself has been a candidate for U.S. president eight times, standing in every presidential election from 1976 to 2004. The first was with his own party, the U.S. Labor Party. In the next seven campaigns he campaigned for the Democratic Party nomination.
Of course he hates America. Just read T.J.’s post. There’s all the proof a person should need: unsubstantiated inferences based on judgments like “went-native anthropologist Ann Dunham” and “his rancorous wife, Michelle”. The remainder of the article follows the same pattern.
From that article: “The probable next president of the United States is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.” Using the same kind of thinking exhibited in the article, let’s extend that thought to its ‘logical’ conclusion. Is it possible that even at conception his mother knew he’d be the POTUS? That there truly was a plot conceived to fake a birth certificate and birth announcements? That less than three years later the grooming of Michelle for her position as the future First Lady began? Etc.?
Let’s take a different approach.
One of America’s distinguishing characteristics, and also enshrined in her Constitution, is the belief in the principle of freedom of speech.
I would argue that if one desires to weaken or eliminate freedom of speech that is attacking the very idea of America, and is about the most anti-American thing one can do.
Yet this is precisely what Obama is doing:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html
Just say no to blasphemy laws
Perhaps in an effort to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion.
By Jonathan Turley
Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
Hmm, “negative racial and religious stereotyping” is rather vague. While I think that courtesy and decency provide good grounds for a person to hold his tongue at times, imposing such a vague rule seems morally problematic. After all, criticism of a religion could be interpreted as religious stereotyping. Of course, those who have claimed that Christianity is under attack might find this law appealing. After all, it would serve to protect Christian sects as well.
“Though it has no direct enforcement (*and is weaker than earlier versions!*), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.”
Holy naked Mother of Jesus Christ on a slippery pogo stick!*# What’s this world coming to? Now we’re getting our panties all in a twist over something that’s got no enforcement and is weaker than any versions that came before it? Pretty soon we’ll be afraid to get out of our beds for fear our first steps will put us on a slippery slope to the end of the world. In case you haven’t heard (hell, it’s become such a commonplace it’s even played in my local grocery store), “It’s [already] the end of the world as we know it and I [for one] feel fine.”
*# Does that qualify as blasphemy? If not, give me a hint where I’ve gone wrong, and I’ll try to dish up the real thing the next time.
Oh, by the way– no offense intended. . .
Obama does not like a lot about America. He takes a neo-liberal stance: America has brought many of its problems with the rest of the world upon itself.
I reserve the term “hate” for al-Qaeda and Iran. But Van Jones was a self-ascribed America hater–and he was put in place by Obama. He wasn’t ousted until Beck started talking abut him.
And if we are to term it hatred, then it’s the kind of “hate-lite” that Sean Penn displays: They say all kinds of things, pander to our enemies and point out America’s short comings–but unfortunately they never leave.
All we have to do is look at the people that have surrounded him his whole life: Radicals, hate-mongers, black surpemecists, leftist combines. Birds of a feather…It’s amazing to me the thrall that Obama has over people. The ability to do one thing and say another and have people only believe and define him by what he says. Truly amazing. He swept from America’s memory in extraordinarily quick fashion, all of the extremists that sprouted up during his campaign. His days of hanging with anarchists seems meaningless now. One would think Obama’s walked the Damascus Road. He saw the light and discovered that words have incredble power, and that if you can only attenuate your speeech to the correct frequency, you can say anything and people will hear what they want to hear.
And TJ Babson has it right: People don’t marry their political, ideaological, polar opposites and stay mrried for long periods of time, appearing in public spouting the same rhetoric.
In the end, I think Obama is a naive, self-absorbed person. And still no one really knows that much about him. There isn’t that much to know. Next president, please.
Obama wrote two autobiographies and has been extensively followed and covered by the media. A documentary just appeared on HBO detailing his campaign. Much ink has been spilled and many electrons spun about him. What remains to be known that must be known?
“And still no one really knows that much about him. There isn’t that much to know.”
Well, that seems to solve the problem. If there is not that much to know about him and that it known, then we know all about him. No mystery remains. Are you saying that he is merely a shallow person with no depth and no real content of character and views?
I’m saying that he never had to prove himself because so many people fell in love with him, instead of requiring that he pay his dues. I simply don’t know if he’s shallow or not. I do think he’s self absorbed–how could he not be after everyone told him he was a god.
You can’t possibly think a conservative like myself would like Obama’s policies. I won’t go to the level of the anti-Bush people, but Obama’s way of thinking is not what made America the greatest nation and history. Gring government to gargantuan perportions, beyond all precedence.
The numbers and results at the end will be what matter. Inflation at Reagan’s end were half what they were under Carter, unemployment was reduced a lot (something like 7.5% to 5.5) the military was strong, Communism collapsed. And Reagan believed the opposite of Obama when itcame to the role of government.
On the other hand, maybe I know all I need to know.
I’m not convinced that he is self-absorbed. While ego-stroking can be infectious, people can resist it. Maybe he has someone walk behind him to whisper “remember you’re only a mortal.”
In “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama writes: “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
Mike, what do you think Obama means by this statement? Could Ronald Reagan have made a similar statement?
Even the Huffington Post is catching on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obama-says-he-has-fulfill_b_344259.html
Obama Says He Has Fulfilled Campaign’s Vague Catchphrases
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – Marking the one-year anniversary of his historic election to the presidency, Barack Obama delivered a major speech today in which he said he had “fulfilled the vague and diffuse catchphrases laid out in my campaign.”
Underscoring his point, Mr. Obama said, “When I was running for President, no one knew exactly what ‘Change You Can Believe In’ meant. One year later, I am proud to say that that is still the case.”
The President said he was particularly proud of the way in which he had delivered on his “Yes, we can” slogan.
“One year later, can we say that we have change we can believe in?” he said. “Yes we can.”
Mr. Obama, however, reminded his audience that much work still remained to be done, particularly in delivering on his ill-defined “fired up, ready to go” catchphrase.
“I have not yet accomplished that one because I do not fully know what it means,” he said. “But let’s be clear: I am fired up and ready to go.”
boingboing.net is waking up, too.
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/03/secret-copyright-tre.html
Secret copyright treaty leaks. It’s bad. Very bad.
The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama’s administration refused to disclose due to “national security” concerns, has leaked. It’s bad. It says:
* That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn’t infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.
* That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet — and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living — if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.
* That the whole world must adopt US-style “notice-and-takedown” rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused — again, without evidence or trial — of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.
* Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)
The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
Actually, much of that sounds like current and past practice. What is new here? Of course, this is not to say that this is good, just that it seems to express how things have been done already.
Michael LaBossiere wrote “Obama wrote two autobiographies…”.
Are you so sure Michael? Here is an interested tid-bit that has been circulating.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25466-DC-Independent-Examiner~y2009m10d6-Bill-Ayers-admits-writing-Dreams-to-conservative-blogger
Although my view is that ghost writing is lame, even if this is true, what does it entail?
He was an average candidate who will be an average president.
Oh, yes, this is by a man he said he barely knew. Just somebody in his neghborhood.
Yes, kernunos, that is indeed an “interesting tidbit that has been circulating.” 🙂
“It is possible that we have now gotten direct confirmation of this from Bill Ayers himself.” This is particularly definitive. 🙂
I think it’s possible that we’ve gotten direct confirmation from Dick Cheney that little green men are threatening to take over the world.
Feel free to repeat this attack when you have something worthwhile.
My apologies for the “anonymous” posts recently. I’m at a different location, using a friend’s computer, and unfortunately I forget to double-check the name and e-mail sections before I click the submit button.
No problem Biomass, it happens. I was just throwing the rumor out there but I think it is a little more believable than a little green men scenario. It would be interesting to see if the writing styles are similar but I don’t know if I can get myself to read either of their books.
Not much more believable at all, unfortunately.
Once we enter the realm of something that “has been circulating” and is merely “possible” the concept of comparative believability hardly applies any more.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY5uJe0MlC8&hl=en&fs=1&]
it makes me want to move to Canada just knowing there were enough dumb fucks to elect him.
he just another lazy nigger, people that believe in equality dont have to guard the prisons that are all over 50% black.
Your shift is over for the day. Why don’t you go burn a cross on the White House lawn?
Obama is a liberal’s wet dream. The problem is that the policies flowing from that ideology have failed time and time again.
I think the fundamental problem is that liberals reject science. We live in a diverse, low-trust society, and need to tailor policies based on this underlying truth.
Actually, many liberals have been displeased with his policies. One example is that the anti-gun folks have been very displeased with his handling of gun control (namely that his main change was allowing people to bring guns into parks).
Liberals don’t seem to reject science, nor do most conservatives. People do, however, tend to reject the parts they dislike.
“People do, however, tend to reject the parts they dislike.”
I would argue that both sides therefore reject science. Except that rejecting evolution has no impact on our lives, whereas rejecting nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and the sociological research of Robert Putnam has a big impact, not to mention the blind unfounded faith in Keynesian economics which will likely lead to the undoing of our republic.
There seems to be a distinction between rejecting parts of something and rejecting the whole. To use an analogy, the fact that I reject Tofurky does not entail that I reject food.
I would, however, admit that they tend not to get science and by rejecting parts of it, they do lean towards rejection of the overall methodology.
Canada is right there, my man. Of course, Canadians are not known for their racism.
To paraphrase: The problem is that the policies flowing from Bush II’s ‘ideology’ failed time and time again.
I’m particularly fond of Medicare Part D, the unfunded program passed by the Rep. Senate and the Rep. House– including ‘yeas’ from some guys you may recognize like Santorum, Toomey, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell,–and signed by Bush. Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, were as willing and able as any liberal ever was to make a mess and wait around for the other guy to clean it up. I’m sure the Tea Partiers will change all that.
“I think the fundamental problem is that liberals reject science.”
So, the “fundamental” problem is that liberals reject evolutionary theory for creation ‘science’? They reject the current real state of climate change science (preferring to snipe away at human error in the process in favor of “saving human progress from those dangerous ole libruls”)?Or is that the other guys?
As we know, most areas of scientific study are in constant flux, as science progresses. In that light, I don’t think a statement like “liberals reject science” is very fruitful.
Getting at the “underlying truth” ^is^ an honorable goal. We may live in a “diverse, low-trust society”, but it’s likely the trust level between races and religions and classes is going to change as diversity continues to increase (note, for ex.the constant increase in # of bi-racial marriages in US) This change will occur, unless, of course, we can get these pesky brown non-Christians out of the country or drive them all into the prison system. My ‘faith’ is that, under the pressures of a real, working Constitution, this diversity will work its way through the system and when it comes out the other side, the product will be an American nation that continues despite periods of immigration, war, and financial catastrophe–and low-trust (read “fear” or “hatred”?).
Choose your path to the underlying truth. I doubt living in a “diverse, low-trust society” is the only one Is the path science? Faith? Luck? When you’ve reached the goal ,tell me how you got there and how you know you’re right
.
As of the end of year 2008, the average annual per beneficiary cost spending for Part D, reported by the Department of Health and Human Services, was $1,517,[18] making the total expenditures of the program for 2008 $49.3 (billions).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D
OK, Medicare Part B was a 49 billion dollar per year mistake. Go ahead and deduct 150 billion from the 5 trillion dollars in red ink Obama has run up in the last 3 years.