What a compilation of lies and distortions...

I'm at work so I'll have to provide the exact citations that refute your interpretation of the statements you copied later, but you clearly went to the website with an eye to finding things to criticize and low and behold, you think you found some.

by Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1389 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM
 

I'm looking forward to your refuting

Of my article.

by Kevin Gosztola (210 articles, 113 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 809 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM
 

Exploring Obama and other stuff

While this comment relates to your invitation to further explore your answers to questions I raised in the article previous to this one, because a significant proportion of your answers related to Obama, I thought it appropriate to insert this exploration of those issues as a comment on this article.

Kevin says: In my statements, I separate the two because primarily I believe that this country is divided by the Ruling Class (politicians, policymakers, CEOs, shareholders, etc.) and then the People (all the others who are seen as subordinates to those in the Ruling Class). I do not qualify it entirely as something that is an issue of income. I think it's very much about status. It's very much about whether you are black or brown skinned. And I think it has even more to do today with whether you speak English or not.

In this, as in many of your statements, it seems as though you reduce many extremely complex matters into what is, at least as you have written about them, a kind of reductionist, binary framework. In your "status" classification system, you leave out the millions who are professionals, academics, artists, self-employed entrepreneurs, and mid-level corporate managers.

I would agree that there is a significant segment of our society which lives in poverty, or are disabled in a variety of ways, and have little or no power to improve their lives. Yet, even in the most enlightened and humane societies (like Norway and much of Scandinavia), this continuum exists, except the gap between bottom and top is much narrower. Only in the most totalitarian of regimes, like North Korea, would we be likely to find this complete dichotomy between the ruled and the rulers.

Kevin says: Now the Ruling Class will always be unified in wanting to preserve the status quo or make things work they way they do without interruptions by insurrections or revolts spawned by the people.

But, that is biology. It exists not only in human beings, but throughout the animal kingdom. Whether you are competing for a job, or admission to college, or the attention of the girl of your dreams, you will win some, and lose some. The winners will inevitably seek to retain what they have (and get more of it), while the losers will continue to try and recover what they have lost. Is that what you are trying to change?

Kevin says: I call him a "fake populist" because I believe that based on what I have read we want to be out of Iraq a lot faster than he is willing to make plans for, we want a single payer health care system that he is unwilling to support, we want to repeal NAFTA when he does not, and we want somebody to take on the corporations whose actions in the globalization of our world economy have led to problems with food, energy resources, etc.

I see two fundamental problems here. The first is the treatment of each of these problems as being simple to solve. There are a number of strategies for withdrawing from Iraq – each having far reaching consequences. To give but one example: If the order is given to begin total withdrawal, what happens to all of our physical and diplomatic (human) assets in the Green Zone? Who protects the thousands of contractors rebuilding the infra-structure, and the humanitarian volunteers? What precisely does "out of Iraq a lot faster than he is willing to make plans for...," do you have in mind?

The other problem is that there must be consensus reached among a lot of people. It is not so simple as the President telling his Secretary of Defense, "Move 'em out!" When Bill Clinton took office, he tried to issue an order to the Joint Chiefs to completely end discrimination against gays in the Military. To this day, his settling for "Don't ask, don't tell," remains unchanged. Witness the discharge of almost all of our expert and essential Arabic translators, merely because they were gay.

This complexity is equally true for each of the issues you list. NAFTA is certainly an example of mixed results. Texas has largely benefited from it, while Ohio suffers. If, as Obama suggested in the recent debate, the treaty is renegotiated, it still requires the ratification by Congress.

Even more puzzling is your desire for someone who can/will "... take on the corporations whose actions in the globalization of our world economy." What would this "battle" look like? Even more problematic is you linking "problems with food, energy resources, etc.," in a casual relationship with the behavior of unnamed corporations, presumably to the exclusion of all other possible causes.

Is there someone you have in mind who can win the presidency, and then can and will accomplish all or most of what you are asking for?

Kevin says: I call him a "fake populist" too because I believe that as much as he wants to be a man of the people he is already self-censoring himself. People in Illinois who know him speak of remarkable differences between Obama before the Illinois State Senate and Obama who is running for president. Obama's integrity has been compromised whether he cares to admit it or not. And that fact that he has been censoring himself all along makes me think that if he gets the nomination and runs against McCain, he will go on the defensive and censor himself even further.

What is your definition of the term, "self-censoring?" After definition, it would be helpful if you can provide some examples or instances of this behavior.

Kevin says: I think the issues people really care about, the ones that are on the people's minds that are not apathetic or are not just people who go along with what's said and do as their told, are: the Iraq war, the economy, security, health care, gas prices, jobs & NAFTA, the corporate media, global warming, civil liberties, immigration, and even more so now than ever, the Constitution.

While this listing of problems, (albeit with the priority ranking somewhat mixed up), you have introduced nothing new or surprising, with but one exception – The Constitution. I find myself dubious that this is a major source of concern, especially to those "oppressed" people to which your concern is directed. I particularly doubt this focus of concern, in view of your recent report that you have just recently familiarized yourself with the Constitution. (Just for fun, without opening the document, what was the thrust of the 21st amendment to the Constitution?)

Kevin says: Now, I have no way to prove it except for the fact that I have just sat through six months of an election and have an idea from those months what people care about and what people do not care about.

People just want to know that everything is going to be alright. And people like me who pay attention have a duty to inform them on what can be done to make things be alright. Unfortunately, they are given false dichotomies and half truths and omissions and distortions so often that it's tough to tell what exactly people think the solutions should be for these issues.

Therein lies what I find to be the central problem with what you seek to achieve. You seek solutions to what may or may not be real problems. You tell us all that you find to be wrong, in terms which are expressions of your personal assessments, rather than having been tested through the of offering proof or evidence for these beliefs. Lacking that evidence, your reader must take on faith the accuracy of your statements.

Even were we to accept each and every one of these conclusions based on our faith in your unerring assessments, you offer not a single strategy for correcting any of these problems. Rather, you express your discontent with the failure of others to solve the problems to which you offer no solutions. Such solutions will remain evasive until you can define them with precision and accuracy.

by Sherwin Steffin (15 articles, 24 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 91 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM
 

As you said, assuming he is correct in his attacks, and he

is not. But, as I said, more later...

by Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1389 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 12:38:13 PM
 

I am not unerring by any means

I’m just passionate in my arguments.

In this, as in many of your statements, it seems as though you reduce many extremely complex matters into what is, at least as you have written about them, a kind of reductionist, binary framework. In your "status" classification system, you leave out the millions who are professionals, academics, artists, self-employed entrepreneurs, and mid-level corporate managers.

The millions who are professionals, academics, artists, self-employed entrepreneurs, and mid-level corporate managers would be subordinates. They would not be part of the Ruling Class and therefore, they would be part of the other group, The People. What they do is determined by what the Ruling Class will allow them to do. If they overstep boundaries, they are halted or fought with so that they will not try to overtake the Ruling Class.

I would agree that there is a significant segment of our society which lives in poverty, or are disabled in a variety of ways, and have little or no power to improve their lives. Yet, even in the most enlightened and humane societies (like Norway and much of Scandinavia), this continuum exists, except the gap between bottom and top is much narrower. Only in the most totalitarian of regimes, like North Korea, would we be likely to find this complete dichotomy between the ruled and the rulers

It may be a false dichotomy and it may be too reductive of the makeup of America but I do not think it’s wrong to point out this divide. How else would you assess a society whose richest 1% holds control of all the avenues of power in America? I may be offering an oversimplification but how can you fault a person for coming to the conclusion that I have come to in my four years of paying attention to American politics and current affairs?

But, that is biology. It exists not only in human beings, but throughout the animal kingdom. Whether you are competing for a job, or admission to college, or the attention of the girl of your dreams, you will win some, and lose some. The winners will inevitably seek to retain what they have (and get more of it), while the losers will continue to try and recover what they have lost. Is that what you are trying to change?

Biology implies that there is something scientific about the way people are divided into classes. While I do believe biologically humans are rigged to fight for power, I do not believe that we are rigged to uphold classes. And I do believe we can be taught to constrain power in the same way we are taught to fear people like Nazis, communists, Muslims, etc. In the education of Americans, we can shift our minds to thinking in a newly reformed way. Whether we will do it or not (since I expect that to be an issue you will raise) is unimportant to me. We should even if the system is not setup for it to happen.

I see two fundamental problems here. The first is the treatment of each of these problems as being simple to solve. There are a number of strategies for withdrawing from Iraq – each having far reaching consequences. To give but one example: If the order is given to begin total withdrawal, what happens to all of our physical and diplomatic (human) assets in the Green Zone? Who protects the thousands of contractors rebuilding the infra-structure, and the humanitarian volunteers? What precisely does "out of Iraq a lot faster than he is willing to make plans for...," do you have in mind?

How do I treat these problems as easy to solve? I never suggested that. But H.R. 1234 by Kucinich does lead me to believe that we could get out of Iraq faster than politicians would like us to think. And if you read H.R. 1234 I think you will find some answers to your questions about the safety of people who might be left behind when troops withdraw.

The other problem is that there must be consensus reached among a lot of people. It is not so simple as the President telling his Secretary of Defense, "Move 'em out!" When Bill Clinton took office, he tried to issue an order to the Joint Chiefs to completely end discrimination against gays in the Military. To this day, his settling for "Don't ask, don't tell," remains unchanged. Witness the discharge of almost all of our expert and essential Arabic translators, merely because they were gay.

This complexity is equally true for each of the issues you list. NAFTA is certainly an example of mixed results. Texas has largely benefited from it, while Ohio suffers. If, as Obama suggested in the recent debate, the treaty is renegotiated, it still requires the ratification by Congress.

Right. I agree. But you have provided a false dichotomy because NAFTA isn’t about choosing between Texas and Ohio. It’s about choosing what’s best for America and let’s say I remove my opinion from the discussion of NAFTA, an opinion influenced by Kucinich and Public Citizen.org, etc. The polls show http://www.americans-world.org/digest/global_issues/intertrade/nafta.cfm that it is time to reexamine NAFTA and at least put the option of repeal on the table for consideration.

Even more puzzling is your desire for someone who can/will "... take on the corporations whose actions in the globalization of our world economy." What would this "battle" look like? Even more problematic is you linking "problems with food, energy resources, etc.," in a casual relationship with the behavior of unnamed corporations, presumably to the exclusion of all other possible causes.

Is there someone you have in mind who can win the presidency, and then can and will accomplish all or most of what you are asking for?

Well that’s a loaded question because you use the word “can.” So, if I answer Ralph Nader, you will retort, “But he can’t win.” So, I refuse to answer your question. Under your criteria, I cannot give a presidential candidate that would convince you I am right in my beliefs to support that candidate.

What is your definition of the term, "self-censoring?" After definition, it would be helpful if you can provide some examples or instances of this behavior.

Examples--- corporate crime, fraud and abuse against pensions, against workers, against small investors; on the labor laws that are obstructing workers from
organizing; on the need to have a foreign policy that isn't
militaristic; on the need to have an efficient military budget, where
he said he wants to enlarge and modernize the military, which is
already absorbing half of the federal government's operating
expenditures; on the need to direct taxpayer money to the necessities
of the American people and not to pour them into corporate subsidies,
handouts, giveaways, bailouts, which we call corporate welfare; on the
need to protect consumers, especially in the inner city, from the
rapacious practices of lender. And if you wish to see what I mean, listen to his speeches. He does not go deep into any of these issues.

While this listing of problems, (albeit with the priority ranking somewhat mixed up), you have introduced nothing new or surprising, with but one exception – The Constitution. I find myself dubious that this is a major source of concern, especially to those "oppressed" people to which your concern is directed. I particularly doubt this focus of concern, in view of your recent report that you have just recently familiarized yourself with the Constitution. (Just for fun, without opening the document, what was the thrust of the 21st amendment to the Constitution?)

How are you going to know that I didn’t open up the Constitution and find Amendment XXI? Well, that amendment repealed the prohibition of alcohol. Anyways, back to the issues of oversimplification in my writing…

The Constitution is a huge concern because of what Bush and Cheney has done to the rule of law in America. Dennis Kucinich brought loads of attention to this especially by caring around his pocket constitution to debates, which he later sold to supporters so that he could raise money for his campaign. Ron Paul ran on a pro-Constitution platform in this election. To anyone who wants to live on in this country the way our Founding Fathers intended, we must worry and care about the Constitution.

My priority ranking may be mixed up but the number one priority in this nation should be impeachment. Everything else doesn’t matter. I left that out because Democrats have taken that issue off the table but it should be in my somewhat mixed up list .

Therein lies what I find to be the central problem with what you seek to achieve. You seek solutions to what may or may not be real problems. You tell us all that you find to be wrong, in terms which are expressions of your personal assessments, rather than having been tested through the of offering proof or evidence for these beliefs. Lacking that evidence, your reader must take on faith the accuracy of your statements.

Even were we to accept each and every one of these conclusions based on our faith in your unerring assessments, you offer not a single strategy for correcting any of these problems. Rather, you express your discontent with the failure of others to solve the problems to which you offer no solutions. Such solutions will remain evasive until you can define them with precision and accuracy.

Few have challenged the lack of proof or evidence in my articles. I am thinking you and Steven Leser are the only two who have ever challenged me to justify what I say. In any case, you raise a good point because there is a need to make sure the editorializing that I do does not overpower the facts and citations in my article to the point where it seems like I am making inferences that should not be made.

I will watch what I write and make an effort to not make assertions that could be deemed false.

I do not offer unerring assessments. I just offer assessments to promote conversation. I have offered some strategy so I challenge you to prove that in my writing I have never proposed alternatives to just being cynical and reductive of issues.

Thank you for pushing me to think. The last thing I can do is let my views stand as they are. To prove I do reexamine my thinking constantly, note that I viewed antiwar groups a lot differently in 2007 than I do now. Also, I viewed elections a lot differently in 2006 and 2007 than I do now. 

Solutions do need to be provided with precision and accuracy. You, like few on OpEdNews, have expressed the importance of doing that. And I will always strive to precisely and accurately define what I say as best as I can.

I will not offer solutions in all my articles because in some cases, I like many who write on OpEdNews will just be raising an issue or pointing out a fallacy. But, I will publish more articles offering solutions or strategies to attacking the problems of the world similar to what was said in my article giving tips to the peace movement.

These solutions will be not for simply Change We Can Believe In but for Change We Should Believe In.

by Kevin Gosztola (210 articles, 113 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 809 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 1:42:51 PM
 

self-censoring

“I don't want to send another generation of American children to failing schools. I don't want that future for my daughters. I don't want that future for your sons. I do not want that future for America.”

— Barack Obama, Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Des Moines, Iowa, November 10, 2007

And I will fix this by?  Privatizing schools?  Paying teachers more?  Reducing military spending and diverting the funds to public education?  Rubbing my magic lamp? 

“The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. . . . If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in the U.S. Senate, March 13, 2006

Kinda sounds like the guy with the sub-prime loan and foreclosure knocking at the door saying "I gotta a problem here".

The problems are pretty evident and none of the candidates are talking solutions. 

by Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 176 comments) on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 4:30:25 PM