dagblog - Comments for "Obama's Bogus Explanation For Troubles: Too Much Regulation "

You're the type that

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:21:31 +0000

In reply to Look, Sleeping, for crying

You're the type that apparently likes to debate for fun...

For fun? Not necessarily so. But I do believe it is important to participate in a "marketplace of ideas" as the currency of democracy. It's a time-honored tradition founded upon the Socratic Method and advanced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mills, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, among many other avid participants.

Holmes described this "marketplace" as fundamental to our governance when he explained that people "may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas...that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."

...because you have your mind all made up, everything all figured out, and are not going to change it

I arrive at my opinions through due diligence. This includes using The Google (Yes, even us commoners have access to outside resources, even many that exist outside of the reading list provided by our resident librarian without comment or "AGENDA." ;O) If I present a link to an article, it is offered in support of the argument I am presenting. And I am willing to defend and discuss its relevance.

My opinions are therefore quite firmly held, but they are not immutable. I can show many instances - even here at dagblog - where previously held convictions were at least modified as a function of participating in this contest of ideas.

As one example, I would show the way in which I was firmly committed to the Obama candidacy in 2008 - even during the primary. I think it's quite obvious that my opinion has shifted greatly in this regard. Yet, I can read the advocacy I wrote on his behalf back in the day and follow a quite logical progression of the changes in my opinion that cause me to arrive at my present despair that we have suffered the election of simply one more in a line of "DLC-Style 'Progressives'" who sell us out when the chips are down.

As another example, I point to my present position (stated above) that we need to "primary the sonofabitch." It's not an opinion I arrive at lightly. In fact, it is one which I cringe upon making, knowing all the negative ramifications of such a course of action. Yet, it is my reasoned opinion that little is left to us by way of actually gaining a voice in Washington who effectively speaks for the Dem constituency in opposition to the oligarchs. I write such an opinion as a "jumping-off point," with a sincere desire that someone can apply reason and logic in opposition to my opinion and successfully talk me away from such a desperate conclusion.

To me, THAT'S what a marketplace of ideas is all about.

I post articles to share what they might add to topic, that is all. I just don't have the same kind of ideological agenda like you do, and I find that kind of debate a waste of time I could spend educating myself more on topic which I also enjoy much more.
{snip}
As far as I'm concerned, no one text is "the truth," the more reading the better.

Ok, so you post articles. And then what? Where does all this reading and enlightenment lead to if not the creation of an opinion, or a personal grasp of the "truth?"

You sniff derisively at those who construct and promote an "ideological agenda." Yet, what is the point otherwise? In committing all the reading while purposefully avoiding any conclusions, are you not like the gourmet chef who assembles and prepares all the ingredients for a magnificent feast who then withholds the results from the assembled diners? What is the purpose of such a supposed pursuit of "truth" if the exercise is predicated by an insistence that an "ideological agenda" is out-of-bounds in civil society?

I would agree that no one text is the "truth." I further agree that the more reading, the better. I will even stipulate that no one person can ever have an exclusive hold on "the truth," and that only the fool or the demagogue will not remain vigilant for opportunities to alter his or her worldview in response to new ideas and perspectives.

But it seems obvious to me that you cannot change a perspective or alter an idea if you don't first stake a position that is reasonably considered and defended. You are otherwise adrift at sea without compass or sextant. It is the due diligence that is undertaken in the creation of an "ideological agenda" that allows us to participate in the marketplace of ideas in the first place. And it is in the sincerity and the passion with which participants genuinely seek "the truth" that we can ensure the success of the effort. Democracy depends upon it.

And so, ultimately, I welcome the opportunity to debate with you and all others who take the time to become educated on the issues. And I will stipulate that I will always be quite forceful in promoting my version of "the truth." But I will further state that there is no real joy in being deemed "right," nor is it the objective of the exercise to beat others into submission. Instead, the real pleasure of the exercise arises from those times when you can see perspectives and ideas shifting into a new version of perceived reality, regardless of whether they are those held by others or those you have so closely held yourself as "the truth."

I welcome your participation in the marketplace of ideas, artappraiser. Come on in! The water's fine!

WOW, is that the replacement

Resistance — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:58:10 +0000

In reply to I found a link to offer in

WOW, is that the replacement for Dick and Jane? No wonder the kids are packing.

I found a link to offer in

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:41:10 +0000

In reply to Look, Sleeping, for crying

I found a link to offer in response. I'm not supporting the argument made or suggesting that it's the "truth" or anything. I just googled it and figured it was worth your consideration. The more the better!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ZeWcXhlRE&feature=related

I fully stand by the premise

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:33:15 +0000

In reply to I'm was never really arguing

I fully stand by the premise of my response, which you mis-characterize after apparently failing to read past the first few words.

We really don't even need to read the editorial to understand what priorities are being set - and what message is being promoted - in the lead-up to the SOTU.

My complaint is about the priorities being established and the message being promoted. I go on to provide substantiation of that message as reproduced by NPR and Eric Cantor. It ain't just me hearing the dog-whistle as Obama chooses to substantiate GOP Talking Points and curry favor with the Chamber of Commerce to the exclusion of a whole list of Democrat priorities and messages that need to be offered in opposition to the GOP and its constituent oligarchs.

You and Trope and Atheist and others would seemingly have us engage this story on the merits of the regulatory reform discussion. Yet, even here you allow for the fact that Obama offers no real policy directive in this op-ed but is instead all over the map in his comments. And so it becomes apparent that it wasn't even Obama's intent here to embark on some landmark policy initiative. No, it is apparent on the face of it that this is nothing more than "one more step in the Obama White House's effort to improve its relationship with the business community and stake out positions in the political center."

It is that message and that choice of priority that drew my attention and my commentary. And it isn't necessary to parse the particulars of the op-ed to see it for what it is. That was my point.

This is indeed an "unfinished story," as you say. But so is that train bearing down on you an unfinished story, right up until the very second it takes you right out of your shoes. We've seen this kind of activity from Obama enough these last two years to see the trend; to recognize the train and the tracks upon which we stand. Insisting that we just all stand around to see what happens next is not a wise approach, IMHO. Time to try something different instead, while we still have our feet under us.

This was one of the most

artappraiser — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 07:01:47 +0000

In reply to Stone Soup is what’s cooking,

This was one of the most memorable books that I read on my own from the library after learning to read; thank you for reminding me of it. I have forgotten most of what Dick and Jane did, but I always remembered that story (it is actually an old folk tale in several cultures.)

Stone Soup is what’s cooking,

Resistance — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 06:34:44 +0000

In reply to Look, Sleeping, for crying

Stone Soup is what’s cooking, .......Thanks for sharing

It’s a potluck event; everyone brings something to the table. ........It’s a smorgasbord, help yourself to whatever you like.

Stone soups Moral: By working together, with everyone contributing what they can, a greater good is achieved.

Look, Sleeping, for crying

artappraiser — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:18:49 +0000

In reply to The last paragraph in your

Look, Sleeping, for crying out loud, I just posted it as a news link and I took the beginning of the article as a paste for a teaser. NOTHING MORE! NO AGENDA on my part except that I saw the article and thought I'd share it on the related thread instead of hogging another space on the news links.

I'm really not interested in debate with you. You're the type that apparently likes to debate for fun because you have your mind all made up, everything all figured out, and are not going to change it. You're looking to rumble with some one, not to change your mind or learn anything more on topic. I'm just not interested in doing that, sorry. I post articles to share what they might add to topic, that is all. I just don't have the same kind of ideological agenda like you do, and I find that kind of debate a waste of time I could spend educating myself more on topic which I also enjoy much more.

If you want to rant about an article I post and how you think it's wrong, go right ahead. Just don't expect me to defend the article or even respond, especially if you're trying to make it a Manichean situation. I'm usually not interested in doing that. As far as I'm concerned, no one text is "the truth," the more reading the better.

I'm was never really arguing

artappraiser — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:17:52 +0000

In reply to I'm confused - it seems like

I'm was never really arguing with him about the issue, just his manner in starting out with "why bother reading it?". He apparently thinks I am arguing with him. I'm really not at all interested in taking a stand on anything here yet, I'm interested in learning what is actually going to happen with this. I don't think listening to one op-ed writer or another''s conclusions (including Sleeping Jeezus) is going to help me get there.

This is an unfinished story. No one knows what's going to happen with it. Predictions are just predictions.

One thing I am very opinionated about though, is people not wanting to go to original texts to interpret them for themselves, and instead just taking a second hand opinion on that text as to what it says. Which Sleeping Jeezus did at the start by saying no one should bother to read Obama's op-ed.

I'm confused - it seems like

Atheist — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 03:15:42 +0000

In reply to The last paragraph in your

I'm confused - it seems like both you and AA are 100% against Obama's move here, but yet you think y'all are on different sides of the coin.

As for me, I see both sides of this particular coin, and I think that dog whistles can serve more than one purpose. Dog catchers use dog whistles too, you know…

I'm not saying that Obama's right, but until I see the actions behind the words on this one, I'm not going to say he's wrong. Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what you (or AA) are getting at, though.

The last paragraph in your

SleepinJeezus — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 03:09:11 +0000

In reply to Obama Is Latest to Hunt for

The last paragraph in your citation is a classic strawman argument, particularly in its mischaracterization of the criticism leveled against Obama's choice of priorities and his messaging. Appelbaum and Wyatt (and apparently you, as well) would conveniently have us believe that the opposition from the left disagrees on the merits of regulatory review and revision as needed. It's almost laughable in its absurdity, especially when measured against the earlier statement that opines "It has become an article of faith in Washington that the government’s extensive rulebook is riddled with burdensome requirements that are unnecessary, contradictory or, to borrow a phrase from the president, 'just plain dumb.'"

Which is it? I'm surprised that the vaunted editors at the Grey Lady would allow such a ham-handed contradiction to slip into print.

This is the best you can do? Get back to your Google, artie. Show me a single instance where the criticism of Obama's step into the "guvmint's the problem" GOP Talking Points arena has produced anything like the opposition saying "there are few rules so dumb, duplicative or outdated that everyone can agree they serve no purpose." They didn't bother to substantiate this with any examples, and I think the reason is obvious.

You and the NYT apologists for Obama conveniently miss the point. As I pointed out earlier, NPR (in its news coverage, as opposed to the NYT editorial spin) and even Eric Cantor himself quite fully understand what this dog-whistling is all about.

It's been two days since you've been personally encouraged to respond directly to the actual and specific substance of the "dog-whistle" argument made by myself and others. I got crickets in attempting to engage you as a follow up to your drive-by snark and your drop of a similar link that was about equally as irrelevant as this one. That you choose to continue with this irresponsible promotion of your strawman argument while purposefully avoiding any opportunity to actually explore the issue is really quite remarkable. It says a lot. Really, it does. About you and the integrity you bring to the discussion. Unfortunately, however, it contributes nothing of actual value to the discussion of the issue at hand.

You're welcome to join in the discussion if you so choose. Come on in! Anytime! The water's fine!

I look forward to your response - on topic, dealing with substance, of course.