Political & Elections

Frankly, even if it did, the point would have been more or less the same, so it doesn't matter other than your obsession to try to prove me wrong. 

I have no interest in proving you wrong Bogney.  My only interest with regard to you would be to wish you were generally less mean-spirited and to see the vaunted humor and wit you are so famous for.  But I don't think that's going to happen.  It's still clear that you made a statement that you couldn't support, and since you can't do so, there's no point in the circular argument.

Keeping in mind that this particular question isn't one about the the justice or significance of Bogney's claim, but rather its logical structure and extension--you are incorrect. 

But it wouldn't have been true if the statement had been that "creaturely" had killed.  See the difference?  If Bogney had wanted to talk about right-wing rhetoric, he could have gotten away with it, but that's not what he did. 

It could indeed have been true IF I was an Alaskan hunter, exterminator, Salmon fisher or a large-scale polluter.  (Or, I suppose, if I was a member of an invasive species.)  Which is to say that the logic of the claim is sound; you are simply pointing out that I don't belong to one of the named classes of actors.  That is, it wouldn't have been true if the statement had been that "creaturely had killed etc", because I have never hunted at all, have never exterminated mice in Alaska (though I have had mice exterminated elsewhere), nor have I (alas) ever fished for Salmon in Alaska, though I'd like to, very much.  Of course, that wasn't the claim-- it didn't involve me as a term at all.

In Bogney's statement, "Palin" occupies the logically equivalent place of "human hunters," and there is no question that "Palin" belongs to the class "Palin."  If it is true that Palin attacked any ONE of the named parties [Barack Obama, Michelle Obama or the Obama children] AND it is true that the other named parties were attacked by her Fox colleagues, then Bogney's statement is true. 

Now, it is true that Bogney's claim is made more complicated in that it involves normative terms that are not pure matters of fact.  It is a judgment call whether a criticism constitutes "an attack," and even more so, whether that attack is "vicious."  Just to lay my normative cards on the table, I think that some of Palin's criticisms of Barack Obama (her questioning of his patriotism, her accusation that he actively seeks to divide the country, her rhetorical exclusion of Obama from the class of people who see America like "you and I see it", etc) constitute attacks that I would call vicious.  And I also think it uncontroversially true to claim that some of Palin's colleagues at Fox have made attacks on the other members of the Obama family that are vicious.  Given these premises, I would have to find Bogney's claim true-- if infelicitously worded.

My daughter's boyfreind was one of the invited speakers at his "No Labels" conference. Though I doubt he --or she-- would vote for him in an election.

Poetsheart, I'm sorry to hear about all you have been going through.  I'd been wondering where you had been.  I'll keep you in my thoughts and hope things improve very quickly.  Please take care of yourself.

Zooser:  my statement was correct, you did not interpret it correctly, and you owe me an apology for railing at me due to your own ignorance.  I don't expect to see it, but you were flat out wrong
No.  I wasn't wrong.  But everyone can see that.  Your words here and on the thread are exactly what they are and no spin you place on them can change that.  I knew there was a reason I ignored you on CC.

Poetsheart,

I am especially sorry to hear of your recent episode. As I have not really had an online conversation with you in some years, I thought I would mention to you an episode I went through last year.

I was going through a minor medical procedure and as it began my heart started to slow and loose blood pressure. The procedure was stopped and I was rushed to an emergency room. After a two day stay, visit from a cardiologist and a determination that this was just a vasovagal event, I was condescendingly sent on my way. This was in February of 2009. I was 50.
The same year, the day before Thanksgiving, I had a massive heart attack. It turns out that there was something more than a vasovagal event. My heart was in terrible shape. I had three heart attacks within 2 hours. The last was the killer. A friend found me and called 911. By the time I was in the emergency room, it was 3 hours since my first heart attack. It was assumed by all that I would not make it –apparently 9 out of 10 do not survive that sort of heart attack. They call it the widow-maker. After 8 operations and 5 weeks of hospitalization I went home the day before New Years with a much reduced heart.

Cardiology is as much art as science. My first cardiologist sucked. Almost cost me my life. Get second opinions. If not for yourself, for your family and your children.

Best of luck to you!

poetsheart, is what you had happen to you what they consider an "event"? I think that is what the doctors call it. Where it is purely a stress related incident, has nothing to do with your overall state of health, but a one time event? If that is so, I hope you find a good way to relax and destress, because at our age, that can be dangerous!! If you don't think this is a one time incident, I hope you get a very, very detailed workup of your heart. Like a stress test and all the extras.

18 years ago, when my husband was merely 30, we were going through a very stressful time. Young child, baby on the way, dual job loss, etc....and we were sitting at the table talking about all these tough issues, and he suddenly went blind. It was terrifying. Didn't last more than a few minutes, but EKG's, detailed physicals found nothing wrong. It was just extreme stress. Which is probably the most dangerous factor in all of our lives.

Bogney, is your stepdad still suffering brain bleeds? Do they know what's causing them? Can they stop them? Is he still hospitalized? The illness of a beloved parent is very distressing (not to mention physically and mentally draining), isn't it? You and he are in my thoughts and prayers.

Sorry about your father poet, my stepfather has been very ill since an intercranial bleed right before my son's highschool graduation.  Went to the hospital instead of on a plane, and has been very poor health ever since.  I hope that you and he are on the mend. 

But that was essentially the same as voting for or against one of the major party candidates because Perot had no chance to win.  Also, even though he couldn't win, Perot was bigger than marginal to me because votes for him could swing the election.

Soccerguy, everyone is pretty much agreed that it was a good speech.  No one has criticized it.  I had the unmitigated audacity to suggest that it be contrasted with Palin's speech, and chaos ensued.  However, civility has returned.  By the way, I have heard that "The King's Speech" is a great movie and someone on point with this thread - leader needing to make a speech to bring the nation together.

I'll probably return to my reading in a day or two and take another hiatus so that order can be restored.

well, this thread went downhill quickly. lol

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Thursday 13th of January 2011 09:02:00 PM

I didn't get the impression that Woody is saying he wouldn't vote at all...but that between those two choices, neither would earn his trust.

Woodwork, then your political point of view is of even less practical consequence than that of those who actually vote - which is minimal indeed. However, I understand the sentiment and am tempted to abstain at times as well. I try to vote even with bad choices because it is one of the very few times we actually participate in this democratic government, so if we skip it we are not participating at all.

I love you all.

I write reasonably carefully, though I do make more than my share of typos.  If I am going to be criticized, at least let it be by someone who reads reasonably carefully -but good Lord, Creaturely, please do not critique my posts for style!    I harbor deep phobias of strict grammarians, or is that grammartitions, grammaritions - see now look what you've done! 

The post that started this exchange was "Now, contrast that (Obama's speech) to Palin's."  That was no snarling attack by the left wing fringe, was it?   That wasn't tying Palin to the shooter, was it? 

So, Woodwork, let's be clear.  Between Obama and Palin, who would you pick?  It sounds like you like Obama's style better, but Palin's substance better - smart people generally vote for substance over style.  Hillary and McConnell may be the choices next time, but probably not.  If they are, which one of those two would you pick.  Hillary was also for health care and not much separated her position from Obama's in the primaries.   While I agree that Palin is not qualified, the Constitution only requires that she be over 35, a citizen, and that she receive the majority of electoral votes to be qualified for the presidency. 

Pretending to be objective does not make you objective, and I don't believe that anyone is truly objective.  If you are not leaning one direction or another you either aren't listening, or are too indecisive or apathetic to matter much.  Since you participate on this blog, I doubt that you are either apathetic or indecisive.

Zooser:  "Palin is not [the president] and never will be."  We argree on the first part, and I fervently hope that you are right about the second part.  However, I am less confident in my ability to predict the future than you are.  Stating a strong prediction confidently does not mean it will come true.  

-- Edited by Bogney on Thursday 13th of January 2011 06:28:55 PM

I heard the speech. Was that a memorial service or a political pep rally?

Oh come on, you two. Is this really the best thing you can fight about, a triviality about predicate logic and semantics? Yes, if you claim Michelle and the kids have been attacked by a combination of Palin and her Fox colleagues, that's technically true if the Fox colleagues, not Palin, were the ones attacking the Obama girls. But it's also misleading.

Neither of you like Palin. How about finding something more interesting to squabble about?

Zooser:  my statement was correct, you did not interpret it correctly, and you owe me an apology for railing at me due to your own ignorance.  I don't expect to see it, but you were flat out wrong, or is Creaturely now the enemy too?

She is a rabble rouser
This is a term that I would use myself and I think it's spot-on and absolutely evocative.

See, Bogney, the issue isn't whether Palin should be spared the excesses of her employer.  In the present context, the issue is that you made a statement of fact that you can't support.  Maybe it was simply a poor choice of words on your part, but you said something that isn't true and you are now muddying the waters to avoid the consequences of having to say "I was mistaken."  Which you were. 

Obama has shown how a leader should act.  Palin has not.

Mr. Obama is the President of the United States. Full stop.  Mrs. Palin is not and never will be.

You keep saying that you don't have common cause, don't support, etc. - except that everything you write appears to support Palin, Beck, etc. 
He's not supporting Palin or Beck.  He's disputing your unsupportable contentions, as I am.  The principle here is that neither Woody nor I are the natural constituency for those folks, but we know dishonesty and unfairness when we see it, and call it out even (maybe especially) when we don't agree with the target.

Fishing is harder than predicate logic, in my experience, though fishing is more fun. 

The answer to your question is yes, she would have had to contributed to an attack on at least one of the Obamas to be included, but she would not have had to attack all of them.

-- Edited by creaturely on Thursday 13th of January 2011 01:37:24 PM

Its a straightforward matter of the English language and elementary predicate logic, zoosermom.  Here's the initial claim:

Obama, Michelle, and their children have been viciously attacked by a combination of Palin and her Fox colleagues over the last couple of years

The sentence works like this one: "Alaskan Mouse, Caribou, and Salmon populations have been dramatically depleted by a combination of human hunters, pollution, and invasive animal predators over the last couple of years."

That sentence would still be true even if no human hunter had ever killed a mouse, and even if invasive species were confined to land and had no effect on salmon populations.

-- Edited by creaturely on Thursday 13th of January 2011 01:15:57 PM

I don't have much common cause with Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck isn't my cup of tea, but when is criticizing the president of the USA or the first lady over policy or diplomatic gestures an attack or beyond the pale?

I'm not even sure it's personal, but if it were that's normal at least for the last 225 years of the Republic. In fact, we may be living in the most polite period of the Republic. So this is all a bit curious to me.

Harry Reed, amongst many other Democrats have leveled extremely personal criticism of the last Republican president. All things considered this is beginning to sound a bit whiny.

As for the Obama's children, I can honestly say I have never heard either an attack or critique of them...the Palin kids on the other hand, well, it needs no repeating. Maybe there has been an attack on the Obama kids, but I can't imagine that it amounted to, as they say, "all that" or I'm pretty sure someone here would have referred to it, and it would have been hotter than a firecracker in the MSM when it happened.



As far as I can tell, we are living in one of the most politically civil periods in our nation's history. By comparrison, it is nearly bland.

Vicious means:  "having the nature of vice; evil, immoral, or depraved. 2. Given to vice, immorality, or depravity. 3. Spiteful; malicious"

Zooser:   I am sorry, but I consider "smarmy, obnoxious, inappropriate, and disgusting" (to use your words) comments about a political opponent's children to be "a vicious attack" by that political opponent.   It has the nature of vice or malice.   It is mean spirited.  Given your posts about child victims, I  thought that you would agree, but you draw a curious distinction probably because I posted it, and you clearly have a problem with me.  Your posts to me are mean spirited.

People have been mean to Palin's children.  I have not been cruel to them and don't care that "the other side does it" because I don't.  I have focused on Palin, not her family.  You assume that I do everything the "other side " does, but I don't.    I also consider gratuitous attacks on a political opponent's spouse, even if politely phrased, to be vicious conduct.  Fox has been ridiculous, going after her clothes (bare arms), whether she touched the queen, and probably others.  Other spouses have been attacked, but that doesn't make it right.  If a spouse or child of a politician does something politically or publicly embarassing, then the door is opened - but in my view the Obamas have not opened the door. 

I didn't say that Beck and Palin were one.  They do share a political ideology and a channel for expressing it, and Beck apparently shared his sympathies with Palin in a email recently according to news headlines, but they are indisputably different persons.

I didn't say that Palin made the attack on Obama's children, I said that the attacks on all of the Obamas have been made "by a combination of Palin and Fox colleagues over the past couple of year."  That is a true statement.  A combination of Palin and her Fox colleagues have attacked all of the Obamas - with the possible exception of the youngest child, I might have been wrong about that.  Most recently, Palin has gone after Michelle Obama for promoting weightloss in the schools. 

I do consider Fox and Palin to have a symbiotic relationship.  Fox is in the business of promoting a right wing agenda, just as the NYT is in the business of promoting a left wing agenda.  Fox has been a forum for Palin to promote her political views, tout her political favorites, without serious opposition.  The Fox commentators champion her views for the most part.  So, if a Fox commentator attacks the Obamas, and then Palin, herself a Fox commentator and/or regular guest of other Fox commentators, lets it go, then Palin has tacitly approved of the attack - at least until she makes some effort to distance herself from it.    

I think the point is that Obama gave the speech he would have given even if he were a private citizen. 

When I first started out in business, they told me to always dress for the position I want, not the position I have.  That works in life, too - to always speak as if we were the kind of person we want to be.