Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Fancy blog title

Rule #115: Straw poll
Just as finding a flaw in evolutionary theory doesn't make the Bible's account true, neither does disagreement with Barack Obama mean that one pines for a John McCain presidency. Do I agree with everything Obama's White House does? No. Did I think I would when I voted for him in November? No.

Obama supporters criticize the president when we feel it is necessary and appropriate. I would like to see him release the White House visitors records. He could probably stand to be more forceful on the health care issue, and I wish he'd come around on gay marriage. But I trust that he will. If he doesn't, then it will be time to consider someone else. In the meantime, let the man do his work. One of my favorite aspects of Obama - one that got my attention back in the crowded candidate field of 2007 - is his ability to sell his ideas to those who would resist most. This is often mistaken for capitulation, when in fact it is the exact opposite: it's getting under the skin. A means of bridging the ideology gulf without insisting people are fundamentally wrong. People tend to get defensive otherwise.

There is not one thing Obama has done that has caused me to regret my vote for even a second. Every day under an Obama administration is better than its counterpart in a McCain universe. So when critics (conservatives and liberals alike) bloviate about how this isn't change we can believe in, or that the Messiah is fallible after all, take such rants for what they are - straw men. We elected a human being into the highest office in the land to navigate the complex halls of politics and power. Why act surprised when the results turn out equally complex? And, most importantly, why even pretend that it was a mistake?

Rule #116: Also-rans in Iran
Anyone who still thinks Iran as a whole is a monstrous place need only look at the fallout of the recent presidential election. When even the supreme leader wants a recount, something is fishy. Looking at the photos of the protests, I see normal human beings, many of whom could just as easily be walking our own streets. Yes, there were riots, destruction and bloody clashes, but there were also dissenters aiding battered police officers. And worldwide speculation that a historic moment is on the brink. So, basically, it's like a Lakers celebration with a purpose. Power to the people!

Rule #117: Blindsight is 20/20
The good old days are overrated. This past weekend, I attended a car show, where I saw a 1934 Ford hot rod. A well-maintained, beautiful car. But you couldn't see jack out of the windows. And what little line of sight there was appeared to favor people over 6 feet tall. Sometimes, it's better to just pine for the now.

Rule #118: Catch my drift?
If you're at a crowded swimming pool, it's rude to engage your son in a pool-length game of catch. Especially when you're using what appears to be an actual baseball. The prospect of an errant toss smacking me in the back of the head while I'm swimming is enough to make me wet my pants - and that's a rain delay no one wants.

Rules archive


TJENKINS said...

Lol, Ian, looking through your past posts regarding Bush you did nothing but throw up straw man after straw man..now suddenly when used against GOD KING OBAMA they are totally bad. Can you explain this blatant hypocrisy?

Ian McGibboney said...

I'm pretty sure I never did that, simply because I never needed to. I didn't have to ascribe any false meaning to Bush or his policies because just what he said and did on its face was enough to criticize. But I'd love for you to show we where I'm wrong on this.

TJENKINS said...

Well if you really want an example this gem from 11/2004 is chock full of the most hateful, vile strawmen aimed not only at Bush but people that DARED vote for him: http://ianmcgibboney.blogspot.com/2004/11/there-is-no-god.html

There's others, but we'll start with that one.

Ian McGibboney said...

I was ready to dismiss that blog offhand as my immediate and emotional reaction to an election return that frankly took me completely by surprise, because that's exactly what it was. But although there are some things I could have exaggerated less, I wouldn't say they're entirely inaccurate. And even if those were straw men, that's still fewer than you average comment, Teej.

What else you got?

TJENKINS said...


yes you did, here's an example


I could go through this shit heap and post more instances of you using straw men repeatedly, but why bother, you'll just keep moving the goal posts.

Ian McGibboney said...

Do you even know what a straw man is? It's a superficial example or generalization made for the sole purpose of knocking down. I may have called the electorate ignorant, reactionary and dangerous, but that wasn't a straw man. It would have been if I, for example, have argued that their votes didn't count for that reason. But that would be your logic, not mine.

Does your refusal to cite more examples mean you won't be lurking around here anymore? Shucks.

TJENKINS said...

I don't think you know what straw man means. It's a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponents stance or position used for the purpose of discrediting or mocking that opponent based on that position or stance. You said, specifically, that people voted for things like a military draft and soldiers in the street. I don't know about you but I don't remember that being that being part of the Republican platform in 2004 and I don't remember people in the streets clamoring for a military draft and a police state. So that's what a sane person would call a misrepresentation of a stance or position used for the express purpose of demeaning or shooting down that same opposition.

I refuse to believe someone as dishonest and ignorant as you has aspirations to be a journalist.

TJENKINS said...

Wait, I take that back. Dishonesty and ignorance seems to be the norm with today's journalists, you'll fit right in.

Ian McGibboney said...

Do you have any examples that don't involve very emotional writing I wrote five years ago?

As for careers, I can only hope that you are in no position of power or authority over anyone. Or operate heavy machinery.

TJENKINS said...

Oh so now there are qualifiers to your once strict "NO STRAW MEN" proclamation!

Can't you just admit that you asked for an example of you using straw men and I provided one?

Ian McGibboney said...

I still say that doesn't fit the definition of straw man. It may fit the definition of ad hominem, but I consider that a lapse.

Again, what else you got? Something indefensible? Something strong enough for you to present without your usual abuse?

TJENKINS said...

Look you idiot, I already proved you wrong by throwing your own words back in your face. You can try to redefine your own words or move the goal posts all you want but you asked for an example of you misrepresenting the position of an opponent and I did that.

Now if you can find me some 2004 quotes of Bush voters saying they are voting for Bush because they want a draft or a police state I'll retract and go searching for another instance of your straw man dropping, but I don't think you'll be able to because it's a misrepresentation of their position or stance and never actually happened.

Ian McGibboney said...

Look, I didn't insinuate that Bush voters wanted those things and you know it. I said that voters apparently didn't care that those things were a possibility as long as Bush appealed to their religion and bloodlust. That is not straw man.

But those are just details. All you really care about is insulting and harassing me, and will use any nugget at your disposal, real or imagined, to do so. You treat everyone who comments on this blog the same way. You're not interested in a real discussion, and this exchange is proof of that. Please leave.

TJENKINS said...

"Look, I didn't insinuate that Bush voters wanted those things and you know it."

"everything you declared your belief for last night is going to come back and bite you on the ass. Whether it's the military draft, impossible prescription costs, wars of the week, suppression of free speech, Patriot Acts III through XI, xenophobia, paranoia and troops in the streets, be content in the knowledge that YOU LET THIS HAPPEN."

Ian, when your own words are there and accessible for everyone to see how can you be such a liar? It's amazing really.

I am interested in real discussion Ian, you're just upset that that real discussion involves calling you out on your bullshit.

Ian McGibboney said...

You seem awfully focused on the angry Ian of 2004 and not enough on the real issues of 2009. Why don't you stop your mock outrage and your flawed definitions and talk about something relevant?

In your defense, though, I can see why 2004 is a much better year for you to dwell on than 2009.

TJENKINS said...

I'm "focused" on angry Ian of 2004 because that's where I happened to find a pretty glaring instance of a straw man put forth by you...you know the straw man you DEMANDED I go find, I guess I could look around your 2009 archives and find some more recent instances. Should I just focus on straw men or is any logical fallacy that's dribbled out of your tiny brain OK?

NOLA Progressive said...

You know Ian I'm looking looking at that post from 2004, and your comments there are making want what you think the power ball numbers are going to be. I mean take it point by point.

1. Military draft- well not outright but certainly a backdoor draft through stoploss clause abuse.

2. Do we even have to discuss prescription costs? If its not one of the mainstream prescriptions mass produced then you are talking thousands a month for many people.

3. Just the two wars but they are both still swinging and you know if he would have had another day or two we would have been at war with N korea and/or Iran.

4. Patriot acts- I think FISA pretty much shored that up.

5. Xenophobia- minutemen, hispanic father and daughter murdered in their homes just recently, walls along the border, the Sota Mayor issue; just take a cruise through most of the south or just about anywhere in texas to witness the truth on this one.

Perhaps you didn't bat a thousand but damn good without performance enhancing drugs.

Ian McGibboney said...

Thanks, NOLA, for seeing the nuances in a very emotional piece of writing. I would have been happy to bat .000 on any of them, really, but as it turns out a lot of that wasn't exaggerated rage. And it took no clairvoyance to see that Bush would only step up his right-wing assault in his second term. Now we're deadling with the aftereffects.

NOLA Progressive said...