The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Newt Gingrich was on the Today show this morning saying it was a good speech and all kids should listen/read it.

Wow....I didn't realize you were such a Newt fan.

And uh, I think I just posted that I saw nothing in the speech objectionable. Did you read that?

With this kind of stuff - and I suppose if I have to I'll post other links to blatant bias - I can't imagine why I'd be paranoid.

Anecdotal? Certainly. Could you perhaps find links with a conservative bent? I'm sure (I did say there could be bias either way).

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Wow....I didn't realize you were such a Newt fan.

I'm not a Newt fan, nor is he an Obama fan. Which is my point. Someone who is such a prominent figure in the Republican party is saying that the speech is good and should be heard.

And uh, I think I just posted that I saw nothing in the speech objectionable. Did you read that?

You may have said nothing in the speech was objectionable but now you're worried about teachers putting a bias on their lesson plans.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

. My concern now is the political spin that will be obvious (both directions, though I suspect that most teachers do lean left) in the lessons surrounding the speech.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

You may have said nothing in the speech was objectionable but now you're worried about teachers putting a bias on their lesson plans.

Not now. I believe the lesson plans that accompanied it were part of my original problems and was stated as such. Having read the speech, I am fine with it (though I think it is long winded and rather boring and students are going to tune out). This part of my objection stands.

I do realize that I said "now" in what you quoted, and I realize that was misleading in making it seem as if it has only just become a part of my concern. Sorry for the confusion.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For full disclosure, I did get this link off of the Drudge report. I guess politics gets played on both sides of the aisle, with Dems even holding hearings into GHW Bush's speech to students.

I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread (can't remember if it was here or at another board) that there'd been protests from Democratic leadership in response to the 1991 speech. I believe the phrase I used was "they were douchebags too."

Absolutely politics gets played by all sides seeking advantage, and that tends to result in a douchebaggery. But I do think there is a substantive difference between "it is outrageous that the president would use Department of Education funds in a ploy to boost his political popularity, even if the content is innocuous, at the beginning of a presidential campaign" and "the president can't be trusted to speak to our nation's children because he'll probably try to brainwash them with his socialist agenda; we ascared of him!" I have yet to see any indication of protest against Bush's speech (or Reagan's) that they were harmful to children.

If the charge had simply been "Obama is giving this speech because he wants to make children like him and therefore subtly influence the political landscape" I'd probably agree that such is an added motivation. "Oh my god! He's using the same methods as Stalin and Hitler!" just, in my opinion, renders the speaker irrelevant to me.

Which reminds me:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Nor is focus on the outrageous claims (both by those that mke them and those who focus on them) reason to ignore the real problems.

No, that is true. When people say really stupid things or completely fabricate things and sprinkle it among reasonably valid concerns the untruths do not diminish the valid concerns.

However, they do eliminate much of the desire to engage in discussion with such people. They also instill a increased level of initial skepticism about any claims while simultaneously reducing the seriousness with which I view that person so that my desire to investigate is blunted. When the BS ratio reaches a certain level, when faced with uncertain additional statements I'm going to assume they're BS until I can determine otherwise whereas with a generally honest debater I will assume the information presented is generally correct and take it as such until given reason to believe otherwise.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

No, that is true. When people say really stupid things or completely fabricate things and sprinkle it among reasonably valid concerns the untruths do not diminish the valid concerns.

However, they do eliminate much of the desire to engage in discussion with such people.

Agreed. I would figure politics is full of spreading disinformation when you are a supportor of something in an effort to distract criticism from what are real problems, giving the opportunity to discredit those who offer valid criticism as simply being part of the kooks.

[BarTopDancer]

I agree, I think it is long winded and students will tune out. I tuned out half-way through reading it and had to go back and finish it later.

But I don't think students tuning out is related to the speaker. Speeches are just boring when you're in school.

[Alex]

That last confuses me. Are you saying that Obama started the stories of death panels, Nazi-ism, Kenyan citizenship, etc., so that he'd be able to discount Glenn Beck et al. as kooks?

Or are you saying that they're just focusing on the kooks so that they can ignore the non-kooks? I'm willing to meet you halfway on that one. Kooks make for better TV so they will get more than their share of coverage. That said, conservatives (at this moment, liberals last year) can't expect to much pity over being represented by morons in the media when millions of conservatives put them in that position of leadership. If they really don't want to be represented by Rush Limbaugh (best of the bunch), O'Reilly, or Beck, then it would be easy to jetison them. But if Obama was friendly with terrorists simply because he was once on a committee with Ayers then certainly the same guilt by association must exist when 15 million people a day (made up number, don't want to look it up) consume the rantings of the mentioned three.

And generally, all it would take is a little bit of vetting on your part to filter out most of the BS you end up passing on that then makes it so much harder to take you seriously sometimes.

I try to be equal opportunity in this regard (and do spend a lot of time actually looking things up, but I enjoy that anyway)

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

That last confuses me. Are you saying that Obama started the stories of death panels, Nazi-ism, Kenyan citizenship, etc., so that he'd be able to discount Glenn Beck et al. as kooks?

I'm saying I put nothing past politicians on both sides of the aisle. Of course, I have no evidence that anything of the sort has happened and do not claim to. Merely putting forth that it would not be a bad strategy if executed properly.

[Alex]

Yes, I know you're saying both sides do it.

But what it seems to me you're saying they might be doing makes no sense. Unless I am misreading you, you said "I wouldn't put it past them to tell lies about what they support so that when people respond to those lies they can be called kooks."

I may be misunderstanding you, though. But if not, could you give an example of how that might apply to the current situation in the debate over health care.

[scaeagles]

I am saying just that...sort of. I think i understand what I didn't explain well. Let's look at one aspect, being the "death panels".

All hypothetical, please understand. I am not saying that they did this.

The Obama admin knows there are problems with budget overruns and deficits, and knowing that the federal deficit is already projected at 1.6 trillion this year, they can't have this discussed in relation to the health care plans. So to distract, they start a rumor that there are death panels and old people will be denied scarce treatment resources because they have nothing left to offer society. They have some operatives spread this anonymously, gullible people pick up on it, and it becomes the point of discussion rather than the legitimate budgetary concerns. They perhaps do this with several different points.

What happens then is two fold. The loudness over the death panels, etc, drowns out the concerns over cost. Since theses ares the loudest points of protestation, and the shouters can be called kooks, it then becomes relatively easy to label all who don't want this as kooks.

I think what I didn't make clear is that the strategy involves anonymity in who starts the rumors. It could not be Obama or a representative getting up and saying "we have death panels". They have to maintain their distance from that so that they can then say those who object are kooks.