Full disclosure: I respect you, but I hate your political writing because you use the same tactics that pundits use. You bite and claw, and I know you're capable of more.
You're a businessman. You know that an enormous part of executive office involves meeting and greeting corporate lobbyists, who make or break politicians. You know the effect of rising oil prices on industry.
Use your intelligence--convince me why McCain is a better candidate than Obama without stooping to pundit tactics. Seriously.
First of all, I don't understand what your points about businessmen or oil are in reference to. I don't think I mentioned lobbying or oil in anything I've written on this blog. So, I'm going to have to ask for some clarity on what you are talking about here.
Second, I'd like you to identify what you believe to be "pundit" tactics before I offer a response. I have to confess I have found that accusing somebody of "pundit" tactics is, often, a tactic in itself meant to divert attention from what has been said because it is inconvenient for one's beliefs.
But I will offer this observation. I don't owe you anything. This blog is a lark for me, not an attempt to sway you into voting for McCain. He's not my ideal candidate by a long shot, but I do know that Obama and his total lack of experience scare the daylights out of me. And what scares me even more is the pass he gets for errors that would have raised huge red flags for any other candidate.
Perhaps the most terrifying thing about his candidacy all this hope and change rhetoric is masking what is essentially the discredited Democratic Party platform of 1976. Taxing the shit out of me (see his recent proposals to raise the cap on Social Security payroll taxes) isn't going to make the economy better. I'm already taxed to death in this country. There's something pathetic about having my friends in Europe laugh at how they pay less tax than I do.
It's a political campaign. I am allowed to point out that the emperor has no clothes. I am allowed to point out, humorously, that Jimmy Carter, who is now telling the world the Obama is the savior of mankind, thought he wasn't ready to be President just a few months ago.
Of course you're allowed to make your opinions known. But once you blog about them, I'm allowed to tear them down.
It's true you haven't mentioned anything about lobbying in your posts, which to me reflects a naivete about Presidential politics. No President in our day and times can affect the landscape of our country without the say-so of corporate interests. I haven't seen any indication on your blog that you acknowledge this enormous influence on the political process.
I would argue that your post about Obama's SS plan is exactly what you define as 'pundit tactics', in that you argue very specifically how they would affect you and one of your company's investors.
And I will counter with this observation--I'm not asking you to change your writing. I'm asking you to expand on your thought process (which you've done very thoughtfully in a more recent post). And I admit--I get pissed. But as long as you enter your political opinions into the blogosphere, where I disagree, I will disagree vehemently.
I am kind of at a loss at what to do about your complaint about "pundit tactics." I posted an argument against Obama's proposal with my specific reasons for opposition. Of course I am arguing against it because of the way it affects me! That's why I get to vote!
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that I should be paying for the retirements of other people when there is already a system in place for them and where I derive no additional benefit. And I further see danger in slowly turning what is NOT a welfare program into a welfare program. I already pay taxes on all my income that go towards welfare programs, among other things.
Honestly, Mike, I don't really know what it is you are looking for. You aren't "tearing down" my arguments. You are just getting on here and whining that you don't like what I am saying. Or you throw up some straw man about something I am NOT mentioning. I'm not hosting a AmGov 101 class here, I'm mostly just linking to articles I find interesting.
If you want to hear about the effect of corporate lobbyists, write it on your blog. But it's a little ridiculous to get on here and complain I haven't addressed the issue.
First of all, I've never seen anyone (except for you) outwrite the commenters on your blog. It comes off as extremely defensive. Do you want to generate discussion? Or do you want to be right? If it's the latter, cool. I'll stop commenting.
Second: Accusing you of punditry is my opinion. You can agree or disagree. Yet you respond that I'm employing cheap pundit tactics. Do you really consider me a pundit? Or are you just trying to win an argument?
Finally, you write that "writing this blog is a lark for me". Dave, commenting on this blog is a lark for me. So be it. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to give visceral reactions to what you write here. If you don't want me to, tell me.
Mike, I respond because you wanted a dialogue and I am happy to oblige. Also, I like discussing things with people on my blog. I am sorry I don't meet your standardized definition of blog operation.
Calling me defensive because I actually respond to you doesn't really advance the ball or create the dialogue you claim you want.
(And, might I add, with what is now mounting into a lot of frustration with you, calling somebody defensive is, again, a cheap ad hominem tactic.)
The human rights thing was an example of the ridiculous logic you were using to call me "naive" about Presidential politics. If you are taking this all so seriously that you missed that, I am sorry. I thought you would understand that it was a reductio ad absurdum designed to point out the fallacy of your logic. My bad.
If you planned this whole exchange just to get a rise out of me by basically arguing incoherently and constantly shifting ground, then that says more about you than it does about me. It seems a bit uncool to trade on the fact that I am going to respond seriously because you are a friend and I know you aren't a crank.
8 comments:
Full disclosure: I respect you, but I hate your political writing because you use the same tactics that pundits use. You bite and claw, and I know you're capable of more.
You're a businessman. You know that an enormous part of executive office involves meeting and greeting corporate lobbyists, who make or break politicians. You know the effect of rising oil prices on industry.
Use your intelligence--convince me why McCain is a better candidate than Obama without stooping to pundit tactics. Seriously.
Mike -
First of all, I don't understand what your points about businessmen or oil are in reference to. I don't think I mentioned lobbying or oil in anything I've written on this blog. So, I'm going to have to ask for some clarity on what you are talking about here.
Second, I'd like you to identify what you believe to be "pundit" tactics before I offer a response. I have to confess I have found that accusing somebody of "pundit" tactics is, often, a tactic in itself meant to divert attention from what has been said because it is inconvenient for one's beliefs.
But I will offer this observation. I don't owe you anything. This blog is a lark for me, not an attempt to sway you into voting for McCain. He's not my ideal candidate by a long shot, but I do know that Obama and his total lack of experience scare the daylights out of me. And what scares me even more is the pass he gets for errors that would have raised huge red flags for any other candidate.
Perhaps the most terrifying thing about his candidacy all this hope and change rhetoric is masking what is essentially the discredited Democratic Party platform of 1976. Taxing the shit out of me (see his recent proposals to raise the cap on Social Security payroll taxes) isn't going to make the economy better. I'm already taxed to death in this country. There's something pathetic about having my friends in Europe laugh at how they pay less tax than I do.
It's a political campaign. I am allowed to point out that the emperor has no clothes. I am allowed to point out, humorously, that Jimmy Carter, who is now telling the world the Obama is the savior of mankind, thought he wasn't ready to be President just a few months ago.
Dave--
Of course you're allowed to make your opinions known. But once you blog about them, I'm allowed to tear them down.
It's true you haven't mentioned anything about lobbying in your posts, which to me reflects a naivete about Presidential politics. No President in our day and times can affect the landscape of our country without the say-so of corporate interests. I haven't seen any indication on your blog that you acknowledge this enormous influence on the political process.
I would argue that your post about Obama's SS plan is exactly what you define as 'pundit tactics', in that you argue very specifically how they would affect you and one of your company's investors.
And I will counter with this observation--I'm not asking you to change your writing. I'm asking you to expand on your thought process (which you've done very thoughtfully in a more recent post). And I admit--I get pissed. But as long as you enter your political opinions into the blogosphere, where I disagree, I will disagree vehemently.
Mike -
I am kind of at a loss at what to do about your complaint about "pundit tactics." I posted an argument against Obama's proposal with my specific reasons for opposition. Of course I am arguing against it because of the way it affects me! That's why I get to vote!
I see absolutely no reason whatsoever that I should be paying for the retirements of other people when there is already a system in place for them and where I derive no additional benefit. And I further see danger in slowly turning what is NOT a welfare program into a welfare program. I already pay taxes on all my income that go towards welfare programs, among other things.
Honestly, Mike, I don't really know what it is you are looking for. You aren't "tearing down" my arguments. You are just getting on here and whining that you don't like what I am saying. Or you throw up some straw man about something I am NOT mentioning. I'm not hosting a AmGov 101 class here, I'm mostly just linking to articles I find interesting.
If you want to hear about the effect of corporate lobbyists, write it on your blog. But it's a little ridiculous to get on here and complain I haven't addressed the issue.
Also, I find it strange that you are complaining to me about tactics when you use the following argument
1) You haven't written anything about lobbying
2) Lobby is a powerful influence
3) Therefore, you are naive about Presidential politics
How is that at all an argument?
Mike, you haven't written about the importance of human rights on your blog. You are obviously against human rights.
First of all, I've never seen anyone (except for you) outwrite the commenters on your blog. It comes off as extremely defensive. Do you want to generate discussion? Or do you want to be right? If it's the latter, cool. I'll stop commenting.
Second: Accusing you of punditry is my opinion. You can agree or disagree. Yet you respond that I'm employing cheap pundit tactics. Do you really consider me a pundit? Or are you just trying to win an argument?
Finally, you write that "writing this blog is a lark for me". Dave, commenting on this blog is a lark for me. So be it. I'm not here to debate, I'm here to give visceral reactions to what you write here. If you don't want me to, tell me.
Can you believe we're seeing Polvo in 24 hours?
"You're obviously against human rights."
Btw, what an asshole thing to say.
Mike, I respond because you wanted a dialogue and I am happy to oblige. Also, I like discussing things with people on my blog. I am sorry I don't meet your standardized definition of blog operation.
Calling me defensive because I actually respond to you doesn't really advance the ball or create the dialogue you claim you want.
(And, might I add, with what is now mounting into a lot of frustration with you, calling somebody defensive is, again, a cheap ad hominem tactic.)
The human rights thing was an example of the ridiculous logic you were using to call me "naive" about Presidential politics. If you are taking this all so seriously that you missed that, I am sorry. I thought you would understand that it was a reductio ad absurdum designed to point out the fallacy of your logic. My bad.
If you planned this whole exchange just to get a rise out of me by basically arguing incoherently and constantly shifting ground, then that says more about you than it does about me. It seems a bit uncool to trade on the fact that I am going to respond seriously because you are a friend and I know you aren't a crank.
Post a Comment