What Makes Barack Obama Juvenile: Liking Orange Juice, Or Parroting John Rawls?

So immaturity is now synonymous with fairness and I suppose maturity is now synonymous with greed?

 

 

According to Dennis Prager Democrats are synonymous with immaturity and Republicans are synonymous with maturity. I translate that to selflessness is immature and selfishness is mature. Neither of which I believe - and I don't believe in Prager either.

Koffler, what do you think of Greenwald's response?

I agree, of course. Which is why the declined coffee (and the
preferred juice) were mentioned only as an introductory launching point
and the overwhelming majority of the post focused on Obama’s judgment
in vital areas such as foreign policy, taxes, and crisis management.

But does Andrew Sullivan think beverage-talk is off limits for all candidates or only for his candidate? A few weeks back, when Hillary Clinton accepted a shot of whiskey in a Pennsylvania bar, Andrew cited the “cross-eyed boozing on a Saturday night” as evidence that “[h]er campaign has become worse than even I expected”.

There will be no criticism of the master in front of his awestruck disciples. We can overlook Daniel Koffler's apparent willingness to confuse Jewcy with the Barack Obama Admiration Society, but we cannot, under any circumstances, say anything even mildly negative about the Senator in front of Koffler, Sullvan, et al. That could be construed as racist, after all.

If the issues are war (two wars, or one war with two or more fronts?), future wars, and debt--then maybe it's time to talk about solutions. And after that, then see what candidates are saying what.

As I asked the other day, maybe it's time to talk about economics instead of hinting at your views about capital gains taxes--since I believe the common threads linking all of the issues you mentioned are economics and energy.

The political debates and primaries are entertaining theater, but they hardly address anything that is serious--unless you can run an engine on a tankful of rhetoric.

RW, as entertaining as your non-sequiturs always are, I feel compelled to point your attention to the fact that the foregoing argument has nothing to do with the merits or demerits of any particular candidate per se, but rather with certain methods and emphases in covering the campaign. I know I'm waiting anxiously, and I'll bet everybody else is too, to hear your defense of drawing conclusions about the state of a man's intellectual and emotional development from the fact that he had orange juice instead of coffee. Once. (No, not every characterological attack on Obama is racist, though many are; some are just dumb.) 

Incidentally, I know interpreting English words connected syntactically into larger grammatical structures is always a difficult and dangerous thing, but you might observe, as Naftali managed to, that in this post I took a substantive position against Obama. I'm tempted to provide you with links to all the many occasions at Jewcy and elsewhere in which I've directly and harshly criticized Obama, but I feel it would be cruel to deprive you of your harmless fantasy.

As for your decidedly not harmless fantasy that many of the tactics the Clinton campaign, the GOP, and a collection of hack journalists are employing against Obama are not (clearly and flagrantly) designed to stoke racist resentment, I'm afraid I'll spare no effort to deprive you of that.

So, you couldn't have taken another ten minutes of writing to talk economics?

And I'll admit to a rudimentary understanding of economics, which economists would say is no understanding at all. I usually call a friend, who is an economics whiz to get the story. I'm telling you, it would be a sevice to all that is greatly appreciated.

And here's what would happen.  We would begin the discussion, then the real economists just won't be able to hold it in anymore, and they would show up.  Kind of like a pie fight, but with more speculation.

"I usually call a friend, who is an economics whiz to get the story."

What's an economics whiz? Your friend's story will depend upon which theory-soaked camp she subscribes to. "She's an economics whiz" bears only a superficial resemblance to, e.g., "She's an orthopedics whiz".

So, "she knows Robert Pollin like the back of her hand, or, "Michael Chossudovsky's her mentor", or "she works for (fill in mainstream guru here)", but not "she's a whiz", which disregards the centrality of theory in the social sciences. 

You clearly endorse her view, which is fine, but the only way the "whiz" claim is meaningful to us observers is for us to know which flavor KoolAid she sips.  

 

What would be the point of talking about specifics? When Obama points out that the gas tax holiday is foolish and is backed up be every  - EVERY - expert and commentator, Clinton and McCain call him and all the experts elitists and the American people believe them. Could the voting public not handle the facts and the truth? Do they just want to hear how Obama turns down coffee for OJ and how Hillary is going to save them 30cents a day?

I don't believe in economic theories. If someone implements some action based on belief of whatever nature, the action will work as predicted or it won't. My friend began his career as a Wall St. whiz, written up in Fortune--meaning that a very high percentage of the things he predicted actually came through. He can spot trends, he can see where they are going. He can analyze policy and see if it will work--and he is right a lot more than he isn't.

I don't think he subscribes to a particular theory--he can just see where the trend line in going. If there is any theory or part of a theory that he likes, it's only because it fits the raw data that he sees himself.

My point is that maybe we should talk about issues instead of candidates and work from there. And it wouldn't hurt the discussion in the least to actually talk about economics in an amateurish way until the big boys get so frustrated they have to weigh in.

DK's right. The attention paid to non-substantive issues is unseemly. It's perfectly in keeping with American political history, of course, but since we've all been inspired by the Great Obama to move to a higher plane, raise the level of converstaion, be better people etc, we should settle these trivial matters once and for all. DK's offered a way to do this, so let's take him up on it:

a link to his conclusion whether Barack Obama is a fool (for not knowing Wright was a racist demagouge) or a cynic (for knowing exactly that, but sacrificing scruple and exploiting the relationship for political gain in Chicago) should put the matter to rest once and for all.

we should settle these trivial matters

So KB's conclusion that Obama is a fool or a cynic, by his lights, is trivial. I agree. Question-begging produces trivial conclusions. Another option is that it's false.

QX: What does it say about his rivals that a purported fool and/or cynic has a platform vastly preferable to theirs?

It's his thread, so complaining about conclusions such as "vastly superior", etc is pointless. But while DK hints at the possibility of a false opposition, he fails to offer an alternative. One sentence later, arch becomes pitiable when DK adopts the opposition in order to make what he supposes is a devestating point. Whether Obama is a fool or cynic is still an open question. DK? Case closed.

"vastly preferable", of course. Apologies.

No, I simply mapped out the universe of options. The argument for the conclusion that Obama is either a fool or a cynic is either trivially true, as it is on KB's lights, in which case substitute any name for 'Obama' and the argument still works, or it's false. Hence, I agree that by KB's lights, Obama is either a fool or cynic is trivially true (as it is of every possible individual), and I also agree that by reasonable lights, it's false. Neither possibility worries me particularly.

(Actually, the triviality is double-layered: KB's argument has to be a logical triviality to come out true, which means no Obama supporter should care, but also, substantively, he concedes the argument's triviality, which means no Obama supporter has reason to grapple with it anyway. That's a lot of triviality.)

The observation that a politician is either a fool or a cynic is indeed trivial. Banal even. As would be a conclusion one way or the other. Why then DK's reluctance to commit on this particular politician? Notwithstanding DK's technical wizardry, it's a simple proposition. Is the Avatar of Hope as foolish as his rhetoric, or is he a coldly calculating pol? No grappling is required to answer. There's evidence a-plenty. Should we feel sorry for Obama and/or be concerned that a lame brain may be headed to the White House? Or should we grudgingly respect the lengths to which he's willing to compromise his stated principles to get what he wants?

Let's see: Reserving judgment on whether membership in Trinity Church qualifies as foolish or cynical (and that exhausts the disjunction), Obama has of course done foolish or cynical things in his life. If that licenses the inference that Obama is either a fool or cynic, then everyone above the age of majority is a fool or cynic, which is equivalent to: nobody above the age of majority is a fool or cynic. If, alternatively and rather more plausibly, if the triviality that everyone does foolish and cynical things doesn't imply that everyone is a fool or cynic --- because the property of doing something foolish (cynical) ≠ the property of being a fool (a cynic), nor does the former entail the latter --- then the claim that a particular foolish or cynical act demonstrates that the actor is a fool or cynic is simply false. To demonstrate the latter proposition, you'd have to find evidence which, having looked into Obama's case fairly closely, I'm quite certain scarcely matches up to the bulk of counter-evidence.

To knock off the tongue in cheek stuff for a moment and be more general, KB's point is actually quite pernicious in ways that don't have anything to do with Obama. Trivially, everyone above a certain age has done both foolish things and cynical things. If that makes everyone a fool or cynic, then we're left powerless to discriminate among degrees of foolishness or cynicism. (So, add the auxiliary premise that the triviality makes everyone a fool or cynic, and by modus ponens, we're powerless to make such discriminations.) And indeed, reasoning of that sort is a major proximate cause of political sclerosis, and of the election of woefully unqualified leaders. But we're not powerless to discriminate degrees of foolishness and cynicism, even if some people choose not to make use of that ability. Watch me:

For cynicism:

Nixon > George H.W. Bush > Ronald Reagan > Dwight Eisenhower

Hillary Clinton > John Edwards > Barack Obama > Dennis Kucinich

For foolishness:

the Podhoretz family > the Kristol family > the Kagan family

anti-globalization protestors > American lefty Chavistas

----

Let me make my original query specific enough for KB to (have no choice but to) address it: Say, counterfactually for the sake of argument, Obama is either a fool or cynic in some non-trivial sense, or both since they're not incompatible qualities. Clinton and McCain support a gas tax holiday. Obama doesn't. What does that mean?

While every adult has done foolish and cynical things in life, not every adult advertises himself (or allows himself to be advertised) as uniquely opposed to, and uniquely qualified to overcome, American politics' institutional foolishness and cynicism. Hence, a particular instance of Obama's foolishness/cynicism on a matter so important to the American electorate as religious practice/affiliation is properly-- if not justly, in a formal sense-- considered indicative of his overall character. DK wants to maintain our ability to  discriminate between levels of foolishness and cynicism. By all means, let us do so. Where, on the aspiring political leader's scale of foolishness/cynicism, does maintaining a 20 year relationship with a racist demagogue rank? Properly, and in this case justly, very high, I should think.

DK confuses cynicism for paranoia in his rankings, and thus insults Ike. Handling Roosevelt, De Gaulle, Churchill, Patton, and Montgomery--not to mention Nixon, eventually-- required a quality of guile not unfairly characterized as cynical.

 As for foolishness, he insults the Kristols. Surely they're cynics.

 Finally since, Chris Matthews-like, DK wants to change the subject from Obama's relationship w/ Wright to a gas tax holiday, I'll do my best:

Obama's opponents have staked out a particular position, he argues for the opposite. What does this mean?

The sun will rise tomorrow morning.What does this mean?

 

I'll take this as a concession:

Obama's opponents have staked out a particular position, he argues for the opposite.

That's your forfeiture of your right ever to call anyone partisan again without calling the collective laughter of society upon you. And every time, in particular, you suggest that I'm partisan, or deluded by Obama mania, or whatever, I'll refer to the fact that you suggest the gas tax holiday is simply a matter of political opponents taking opposite sides, and you will have lost the argument. Unlike Obama in the Trinity case, Obama's opponents have done something explicable exhaustively in terms of foolishness and/or cynicism --- indeed something orders of magnitude more foolish and/or cynical than anything else that has come up in the campaign thus far. This isn't even a controversial point. Your characterization calls into question at least one of your honesty, education, or sanity (pick!). Indeed, I think we've just detected a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

You can have one chance to take it back and rejoin planet earth. Then it's time to put mockery on steroids.

Politicians pander and dissemble. This comes a a hock only to certain Obama enthusisats who couldn't dream of their great man doing anything so usual.

None of the candidates have the power, even if they're foolish enough to have the inclination, to give American drivers a gas tax break this summer. It's the purest, cheapest pander. Clinton and McCain saw the opportunity in this free, easy, effective and forgettable piece of political theater. Obama didn't and is reduced to making pedantic sermons. Cynics make better leaders than fools. Obama, on the gas tax issue no less than the Wright mess, seems foolish. 

 

And that's the Pravda editorial.

What preposterous, delusional shading and partisanship from Kid Blast. Really, breathtaking, shocking stuff, simultaneously risible and appalling, casting in a stark new light every word he's written on this election.

It's pretty clear, from the standards of interpretive charity he advances, that he is simply a cynical, foolish hack spewing lines of attack against a partisan opponent without any concern for their relationship to reality. As with certain other hacks, every new word of his on the election has to be run through a decoder ring --- his purpose is self-evidently not to offer anything approaching a substantive criticism of Barack Obama, but to use the internet to promulgate whatever lines of attack he feels will be effective in damaging Obama's candidacy. Tell us we've always been at war with Eastasia and insult our readers' intelligence less.

DK appears to take the "gas tax" holiday nonsense seriously, if only to favorably contrast his man against those other crass panderers. He lines up the adjectives in condemnation of this simple observation, then references 1984. As if the uninspired neologism "Obama Derangement Syndrome" wasn't bad enough, DK embraces the gold standard in ersatz-intellectual cliche.

He had some fun w/ Godwin's law while back. Perhaps it's time mentions of 1984 receive similar treatment-- first mention of Big Brother, Newspeak, Room 10, Eastasia, or even the adjective "Orwellian" loses. Call it "kid blast's contribution".

Room 101, of course. Apologies.

My god, Gas Blast Tax Kid is still at it. Isn't he embarrassed yet? Is he capable of embarrassment? I assume so actually, otherwise these posts wouldn't be anonymous.

That's the thing about Godwin's law --- as Mike Godwin himself pointed out in these pages, the point is not to ban Nazi comparisons, but to make people think through them. When such comparisons stand, they stand. Likewise, when you pull Eurasia-Eastasia reversals on similar intellectual standards, you deserve to be called out on them and ridiculed for them.

You lose, however, when in order to step up deranged partisan attacks on one candidate, you defend and minimize the extraordinary foolishness and cynicism his opponents engage in --- the very qualities of which you accuse him out of preposterous partisan hackery --- such foolishness and cynicism vastly outstripping anything that's happened thus far in the campaign.

In order to maintain a delusional, black is white (if you will) assessment of Obama, Kid Gas Tax Blaster defends the dumbest, most cynical, most inept, most gratuitous pander any of us have seen in a long, long time, by a wide margin as "just more politics." He could wet his pants in public and retain more dignity.

 

I believe my description of this particular pander was "purest and cheapest". Curious defense. It might also be worth pointing out that the gas tax repeal is DK's preferred topic, meant apparently as a, uh, distraction from the Right Reverand Wright

Much to DK's chagrin, apparently, I haven't expressed shock and outrage at this most usual turn of events. We're where this began, aren't we? A naif whines about how the game is played, at the unfairness of it all. Rawls' sophomore, furiously disappointed and scolding, careens toward scatology and racism, while Bloom's reader shakes his head at the predictability, but w/ luck not the tragedy, of it all.

The public pants-wetting goes on! Nothing about the Kiddish Gas Tax Blasting is most usual. Blast Gasser Tax Kiddy could say so if he's a) lying or b) ignorant or c) retarded, and that's about it. Sure, it's usual for politicians to advocate unwise policies. Here's an unwise policy: taking a bet on 3-1 odds when the pot offers only 2.9-1. Here's another: playing Russian roulette with all barrels loaded. Yet: their unwisdom is not exactly the same.

And my oh my, how quickly he can declare that we've always been at war with Eurasia. I've written thousands upon thousands of words about Rev. Wright. According to Juvenile Gas Blast, Rev. Wright is all that matters and any discussion of anything else is a distraction. That's not a position one can be furious at, it's a public pratfall. For those paying attention at home: The above piece has nothing to do with Jeremiah Wright. Being a fraudulent hack, GasBlaster Flash takes it upon himself to make the discussion about Jeremiah Wright --- then accuses others of changing the subject. Because that's what fraudulent hacks do.

Also, did a giddy race-baiter just accuse me of racism? I think so. What pseudo-erudite blast of infantilism does the People's Daily editorialist have for us next?

Probably a good call to write this idiocy anonymously.

"careens toward...racism" was not, of course, an accusation of racism. Rather, it was a prediction that such an accusation was likely to follow. Yea and lo...

The piece was about orange juice and its relationship to immature politics. A conspicuous example of Obama's immature politics is his decades long reverance for a racist demagogue. Another is his high dudgeon at an unrealizable piece of political theater-- the summer gas tax holiday. A third might, just might, be the malapert self-righteousness of those who flock to his banner.

Please observe: "careens towards racism" means careens towards racism; "careens towards accusations of racism" means careens towards accusations of racism. The meanings are quite distinct. However, there's no careening left to do; Puerile Tax Blasting Gasbag careened off the first cliff some time ago; likewise, I called him on it long ago.

Immature politics is indeed exemplified by drawing psychological inferences about a man based on orange juice. Immature --- and preposterously blinkered, partisan, dishonest, cynical --- politics is also exemplified by attempting to make any discussion in which Obama comes up a discussion about Jeremiah Wright.

For the Anonymous Blast Of Educationally and Developmentally Arrested Hackery to continue defending the blasted gas tax holiday is unsurprising, as is the fact that he knows not one thing about it. Dozens of gas tax immature rebate blasts have passed state legislatures over the last decade, and this time around, people inside the administration have sent out signs that they're amenable to it. Again, for those watching at home: Notice the constant goal post shifting. Knowing nothing about economics, nothing about oil markets, nothing about the relationship of this proposal to others, Hack Blasted Kid Gas Taxer Blastbag searches for some, any, twig to hold onto to defend idiocy if it will allow him to bring up Jeremiah Wright in any conversation, no matter how completely irrelevant Wright is to the matter at hand. Why even mention facts? None of this is about facts. This is about trolling the web for references to Barack Obama and leaving behind anonymous puerile blasts about Jeremiah Wright.

Isn't there a point at which you pull back, think about what a laughingstock you've made yourself, and just sort of scurry away? Tho' I guess a complete suppression of any sense of shame or embarrassment is a precondition for writing in the manner of Infantile Gassy Tax Blasting Kid Hack.

Well, do yuh?  I know what you're thinking, you're thinkin' this oil rig is the most powerful oil rig in the world and could drill right through the bedrock clean off.  So if we use this oil rig, do you think we'll find oil?  Do you feel luck today, well do yuh?  Punk.

--Ex-Mayor of Carmel CA requesting more oil drilling in the US--