for the Clintonites

[fluffhead]

I absolutely agree that we should hear from both sides in a conflict. I don't agree that we should engage in dialogue with this particular group which employs tactics normally not viewed as civilized.
In any case, I certainly support the church's right to reprint whatever it wants, and 100% support the Obamas' right to give charity to whomever they choose. And I even believe that most of the church's budget is probably given over to positive forces.
My issue is that Obama declares himself to be a strong supporter of Israel to gain a certain demographic sector's votes, while at the same time refusing to distance himself from, and even giving great support to, an organization and leader who says that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness", and things like

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs.

Look, I'm not trying to tell anybody else what to do - I'm just explaining my own discomfort with Obama's supposed platforms, and the apparent inconsistency with the way he's led his private life.

Re: for the Clintonites

I don't agree that we should engage in dialogue with this particular group which employs tactics normally not viewed as civilized.

Many would say that tactics currently employed by the US are not civilized, either.

I see no harm in talking. Talking does not equate giving, dealing, or agreeing.

[Momo]

Re: for the Clintonites

I don't agree that we should engage in dialogue with this particular group which employs tactics normally not viewed as civilized.

Many would say that tactics currently employed by the US are not civilized, either.

I see no harm in talking. Talking does not equate giving, dealing, or agreeing.

I see no harm in talking OR READING Talking/READING does not equate giving, dealing, or agreeing.

[fluffhead]

Re: for the Clintonites

I don't agree that we should engage in dialogue with this particular group which employs tactics normally not viewed as civilized.

Many would say that tactics currently employed by the US are not civilized, either.

I see no harm in talking. Talking does not equate giving, dealing, or agreeing.

I see no harm in talking OR READING Talking/READING does not equate giving, dealing, or agreeing.

I'd propose that reprinting implies concurrence.
I also see no harm in reading, as long as you have a balanced supply of reading material.

[Momo]

Re: for the Clintonites

I'd propose that reprinting implies concurrence.
I also see no harm in reading, as long as you have a balanced supply of reading material.

Do you honestly think America is lacking in sources that lay out the Israeli and American government's position on the conflict??
Honestly you and I both know that there is plenty of pro Israeli media & print coverage.

[fluffhead]

Re: for the Clintonites

Honestly you and I both know that there is plenty of pro Israeli media & print coverage.

I actually disagree with that. A loyal reader of the NY Times, a viewer of CNN, or a listener of BBC consistently sees pro-Arab slants on middle eastern coverage. The NY Times has misrepresented photos showing IDF troops helping terror victims as soldiers beating up Palestinians. The BBC recently took stock footage of a home being destroyed and told viewers that it was the IDF blowing up the home of the attacker at the Jerusalem yeshiva last month (his house was not destroyed - it had hamas and hezbollah flags hanging from it the next day). And CNN has historically preseneted a very one-sided view of the conflict.
http://www.netreach.net/~zoa/Cnn/cri...ay01/pTool.htm

In addition, people are generally exposed to a pretty narrow wavelength of media. If you lean left, you're exposed to liberal press. If you lean right, you watch Fox news. You need to make a concerted effort to get balanced coverage of world events. That was my point.

[Rapunzel]

Re: for the Clintonites

I'm all for researching both sides of an issue, but I have to go with Fluff's opinion that reprinting that in a church bulletin, when the pastor is already leaning in that direction, is more than a little suspect. THAT SAID I am working under the understanding that there was not a counterpoint to the article. If there was, I would feel better about it.

I agree with Lily.

If it was presented in a debate style with a countering essay/editorial/letter then it would count as "dialogue".

Otherwise, it is just printing the propaganda of a group with which this pastor agreed and/or supported.

As an aside, I found a superb critical thinking program that teaches all of the many forms of propaganda (in advertising, politics, etc.):

It's called Critical Thinking and it is published by Critical Thinking Press (which primarily produces logic curriculum)

http://www.criticalthinking.com/getProd ... p&id=01201

http://www.criticalthinking.com/getProd ... p&id=01203

Good stuff!

[Rapunzel]

Re: for the Clintonites

I don't agree that we should engage in dialogue with this particular group which employs tactics normally not viewed as civilized.

Many would say that tactics currently employed by the US are not civilized, either.

Still on my tangent....

For example, the above argument falls under "Other Things Are Worse" in Book Two of Critical Thinking (page 101):

excerpt:

People sometimes try to prove something is acceptable by saying, "This is OK, because something else is worse." We'll call this the "other things are worse" technique.
Example 1:
Becher: "I'm not getting enough for the work I do. Everyone else who has the same kind of job gets at least $2 more an hour than I get."
Lerner: "You're lucky to have a job at all. A lot of people are out of work now."
(Lerner's comment may be true, but it has no connection with whether or not Becker is, in fact, paid less than she should be for the work she does.)

That's the first part of lesson 4.4.

I think it is a really cool textbook series! I'm going to have fun learning from it right along with my kids. (OK, I'm a big nerd. :P )

[Momo]

Re: for the Clintonites

Can we have an admin move the "Church editorial part" to it's own thread...I doubt DCJENN had this in mind when she entitled her post
"For the Clintonites"

[Rapunzel]

Re: for the Clintonites

Is it possible to split a thread off and make it into its own thread when tangents like this take over a topic?

I think that this particular tangent definitely qualifies for its own thread.

Searching through the news and the mention of Louis Farrakhan brought me to this Slate blog from last week:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailh ... about.aspx

*
The Obama Endorsement You Haven't Heard About

By Christopher Beam

This election cycle has seen its share of kooky endorsers whose support the candidates would rather not have. But the latest celebrity to support Obama makes Louis Farrakhan look like Ted Kennedy.

The hugely popular Egyptian pop singer Shaaban Abdel Rahim, best known for his controversial political songs and outrageous style, will soon release a new track celebrating the end of Bush's presidency—and endorsing Obama. In an interview last week with Dar Al-Hayat, Rahim said that Obama is (roughly translated) “a good man, kindhearted, and better than Bush.”

Rahim, also known by his nickname “Shaabolla,” gained international notoriety in 2000 when he released the song “I Hate Israel.” (The song’s subtitle, “But I love Amr Moussa,” refers to Egypt's former foreign minister and head of the Arab League.) Since then, he’s had a rocky relationship with Egypt’s censors. They allowed “Israel” to be broadcast but banned his follow-up tune praising Osama Bin Laden. (Its chorus: "Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Bin Laden.") Other songs he has rolled out include “Hey People, It Was Only a Tower” after 9/11, “Don't Hit Iraq” in 2003, and “We Are All Out of Patience” about the Mohammed cartoon controversy in 2006.

His new song, titled “Bye-Bye Bush,” doesn’t come out till next week, but Rahim provided the lyrics to the first verse to Dar Al-Hayat:

Before leaving, Bush wants to turn the world into a mess,
Since he is a bad omen, as if he was born in a fight,
Cursing you, Bush, or your father doesn't suffice,
It was a disastrous, black day when you were elected …

Back in 2003, Slate’s Lee Smith argued that popular music is “the most powerful form of expression” in the Arab world, which is why governments use it so often for propaganda. Pop songs have played a critical role during events like the 1919 revolution, the coup of 1952, the 1973 war with Israel, and President Mubarak’s “election” in 2005. In the past few years, Rahim has become synonymous with this kind of “engaged”—or politically conscious—music. In other words, a lot of people are going to hear this song. (We'll try to post a copy of the song once it's available.)

Some commentators, most notably Andrew Sullivan, have made the case that a President Obama would change the way the world looks at America. The corollary to that, however, is that Obama would also draw a lot of supporters whose views he and most Americans consider abhorrent. Jeremiah Wright, for all his disturbing remarks, never said, “It was only a tower.” Then again, Barack Obama has probably never heard of Shabaan Abdel Rahim.

With Mohamed Gamal Beshir
Published Thursday, March 20, 2008 4:57 PM
Filed under: Barack Obama, Shaaban Abdel Rahim

About Christopher Beam

* Christopher Beam is a Slate political reporter.

Re: for the Clintonites

Is it possible to split a thread off and make it into its own thread when tangents like this take over a topic?

Yes, of course it is. They've done it lots of times. I don't have access in this room, but Jenn, Sally, Luanne, or Kelly could do it. Nellie is out of town, and I think Kris is otherwise occupied.

As to the "Other Things Are Worse" idea - of course I know and understand that concept. I'm simply saying that the US cannot hold itself up as a paragon of virtue and criticize the tactics of other nation, when we have some of our own people acting like thugs.

[Meenah]

Re: for the Clintonites

I'm trying to split this, so forgive me if I screw it up!!!!

[Meenah]

Re: for the Clintonites

OK, I split it but forgot to rename it. I'll try.

[Rapunzel]

Re: for the Clintonites

As to the "Other Things Are Worse" idea - of course I know and understand that concept. I'm simply saying that the US cannot hold itself up as a paragon of virtue and criticize the tactics of other nation, when we have some of our own people acting like thugs.

Good people in the US can criticize the tactics of terrorist organizations - even though there are obviously bad people in the US.

[Rapunzel]

Re: for the Clintonites

So, realclearpolitics has a piece that touches on Obama's campaign's insistance that he doesn't really think like his spiritual advisor:

Excerpt:

It is painful to watch defenders of Barack Obama tying themselves into knots trying to evade the obvious.

Some are saying that Senator Obama cannot be held responsible for what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, said. In their version of events, Barack Obama just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time -- and a bunch of mean-spirited people are trying to make something out of it.

It makes a good story, but it won't stand up under scrutiny.

Barack Obama's own account of his life shows that he consciously sought out people on the far left fringe. In college, "I chose my friends carefully," he said in his first book, "Dreams From My Father."

These friends included "Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets" -- in Obama's own words -- as well as the "more politically active black students." He later visited a former member of the terrorist Weatherman underground, who endorsed him when he ran for state senator.

Obama didn't just happen to encounter Jeremiah Wright, who just happened to say some way out things. Jeremiah Wright is in the same mold as the kinds of people Barack Obama began seeking out in college -- members of the left, anti-American counter-culture.

To read the rest:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... st_25.html