Jim Stillman
Nevar
Talking without knowledge
May 18th 2008 12:46
I have been busy making a list of phrases and clichés that many use to explain a political or social position but which actually demonstrate a woeful inability to address real issues. These expressions appear to me, on the Left side of the Middle, to be used mostly by the Right and supporters of this Administration – but that may be unjust.
There are many examples. For example, my fellow writer, SL, uses “shorthand” expressions such as “dem/libs” or “Billary” or referring to Senator Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama”; others find it clever to add a fictitious additional middle name, Mohammed, for the Senator. Another writer helpfully points out that the Bible speaks of “Adam and Eve” and not “Adam and Steve”. Cute? Certainly but not very helpful to a debate on the rights of gays to marry.
Political arguments have engendered more pejorative expressions: “cut and run”, “tax and spend” and the latest “appeaser”. In a speech to the Israeli parliament a few days ago, President breached several long-standing rules of domestic political policy. First, American politics and criticism of opposing political positions used to be understood as subjects that stopped at the waters’ edge; an American President or candidate ought not use a foreign locale to berate the opposition. Second, the 60th anniversary of Israel’s formation and survival should have been an occasion of celebration, not the place to equate a political opponent with a supporter of Adolph Hitler in the late 1930’s.
Actually the reference was to then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who, in 1938, agreed to allow Nazi Germany to grab part of Czechoslovakia. Ironically, the reasoning behind Chamberlain’s decision, admittedly wrong in hindsight, was very similar to that of President Bush.
But first, all too often, talking points are repeated by political supporters with no comprehension of what is being said (or read)! At issue in the following clip is the use of the word “appeaser” or “appeasement” without the most meager knowledge of historical background.
In 1938, Chamberlain ignored the German threat because he was obsessed with the idea that the real enemy was Soviet Russia. So he directed his attention to Russia and ignored Germany.
After the attack on the United States in 2001, by al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan with impunity, George Bush, obsessed by Iraq, was determined to focus our military might on attacking Hussein. The more dangerous forces to be taken on, the Taliban regime and al Qaeda were placed in a secondary role. We have been engaged in a war in Iraq and to what end? Iraq has become a recruiting resource for terrorists; al Qaeda is stronger than before; the Taliban is staging a come-back; Iraqi government is divided and unable to secure its borders and internal affairs; in the vacuum, Iran has become a potentially dangerous and irrational nuclear power, and on and on.
The point is that “talking points “and name-calling slogans are no substitute for rational thinking and a bit of knowledge.
There are many examples. For example, my fellow writer, SL, uses “shorthand” expressions such as “dem/libs” or “Billary” or referring to Senator Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama”; others find it clever to add a fictitious additional middle name, Mohammed, for the Senator. Another writer helpfully points out that the Bible speaks of “Adam and Eve” and not “Adam and Steve”. Cute? Certainly but not very helpful to a debate on the rights of gays to marry.
Political arguments have engendered more pejorative expressions: “cut and run”, “tax and spend” and the latest “appeaser”. In a speech to the Israeli parliament a few days ago, President breached several long-standing rules of domestic political policy. First, American politics and criticism of opposing political positions used to be understood as subjects that stopped at the waters’ edge; an American President or candidate ought not use a foreign locale to berate the opposition. Second, the 60th anniversary of Israel’s formation and survival should have been an occasion of celebration, not the place to equate a political opponent with a supporter of Adolph Hitler in the late 1930’s.
Actually the reference was to then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who, in 1938, agreed to allow Nazi Germany to grab part of Czechoslovakia. Ironically, the reasoning behind Chamberlain’s decision, admittedly wrong in hindsight, was very similar to that of President Bush.
But first, all too often, talking points are repeated by political supporters with no comprehension of what is being said (or read)! At issue in the following clip is the use of the word “appeaser” or “appeasement” without the most meager knowledge of historical background.
In 1938, Chamberlain ignored the German threat because he was obsessed with the idea that the real enemy was Soviet Russia. So he directed his attention to Russia and ignored Germany.
After the attack on the United States in 2001, by al Qaeda, operating out of Afghanistan with impunity, George Bush, obsessed by Iraq, was determined to focus our military might on attacking Hussein. The more dangerous forces to be taken on, the Taliban regime and al Qaeda were placed in a secondary role. We have been engaged in a war in Iraq and to what end? Iraq has become a recruiting resource for terrorists; al Qaeda is stronger than before; the Taliban is staging a come-back; Iraqi government is divided and unable to secure its borders and internal affairs; in the vacuum, Iran has become a potentially dangerous and irrational nuclear power, and on and on.
The point is that “talking points “and name-calling slogans are no substitute for rational thinking and a bit of knowledge.
| 164 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
To point the finger a President Bush for simply telling the truth on foreign soil is having a double standard, of which the Dems do have.
I am sure if you can think hard enough there will be some dems that will pop into your mind let me help get you started, Jimmy Carter for one and I sure you can think of more.
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
But like Lester above, I doubt that Kevin James has taken away anything from that encounter.
Maybe he'll just try screaming louder next time?
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
why didnt he just say "i dont know" rather than yelling for so long . . . what a silly duffa
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty
The Kevin Jameses of the world, including notable and extremely popular, conservative writers on this site, will watch the video and then make fun of “Bill the Zipper” or will equate concerns about Senator McCain’s age with the age of Senators Byrd and Kennedy, neither of whom are running for President. Others see no difference with President Bush’s introduction of domestic political issues at the Israeli Knesset with former President Carter’s discussions with foreign leaders.
By the way, four hours before President Bush dismissed any discussions with Iran, his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."!
Winston Churchill made a comment that is worth remembering. He said we should always talk and negotiate – “jaw-jaw” is better than “war-war”. And with whom should we negotiate? Our friends?
Thank you all for your comments and I’m glad I introduced some of you to Chris Matthews.
Comment by Damo
He missed his calling.
Should have been a used car salesman.
No this car has never been in accident.
No those are not weld marks.
Yes the roadworthy is genuine.
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Thats a campaign strength you can't buy.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I love the word "duffa"
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Comment by Mountain Fog
what really gauls me is, here we are, the pontificating West being bellicose about human rights abuses and terrorism, yet we are among the biggest abusers of human rights in history.
Australia, thanks to the ex PM Howard, blindly went along with the unfounded (and still unproved) Whitehouse statements, that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as supporter, were responsible for the 911 attacks in America. The truth is, Hussein was an enemy of fundamentalist groups like the rag bag group Al Qaeda, which was initially encouraged by the CIA, as a means to counter the Russian influence, as was the Taliban also.
However, in regards to the events of 911, in watching the actual CBS footage, slowed down and analysed, there seems to be serious inconsistencies with the official explanations of the events, for much of what is claimed, goes against physics and previosu knowledge of air accidents, for example.
That being said, the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan has, as you state, created more terrorism than before, and this of course suits the military industrial complex, as they need war to run their businesses.
Also, Afghanistan is now growing more opium poppy than before the Taliban had outlawed it, which makes one wonder whether another pact has been created between American secret services and drug lords, (remember the Vietnam War days of the Golden Triangle, and the cocaine shipments by military aircraft of recent times?).
Nothing, it seems, is ever as it is presented, especially in today's world, where the media is in fewer hands, and supports government policy as if it is a dogma, no matter how many innocent people die.
If we are to get to the truth of our society and how it impacts the world and us, we need to be ruthlessly honest, and examine all the facts of 911, without fear or favour.
Obama may very well be the only hope America, and by default the rest of the West, has of attaining the truth, and if so, (for I do not know really what Obama will do once in office), if he does win office and wants to have the events of 911 properly analysed, (which to date have not been), he better not go on any open car parades, especially in Dallas....
cheers
fog
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Brenton
Dr Spin
Tales From The Other Side
Blip Blog
Gadget Museum
Bush: SOME PEOPLE think we should talk to our enemies. but THOSE people are daft because talking = appeasement etc, like Chamberlain in WW2.
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
isn't A definition of talking without knowledge, blogging!!!
good to see you, cheers
Louie
Comment by Jim Stillman
Political Certainty