The Massacre has begun!!

Two Iraqi children have been shot dead by US marines at a checkpoint in Nasiriya, nine other Iraqis were injured, the BBC's Adam Mynott reports.

I just figured it out, "Your a comedian!

"Take a pole" Oh yes, the 70% plus liberal make up of this rag, would make for a very unbiased poll.

You really can't be serious???

My opinion, is that mainstream US media coverage was extremely biased to the left, but as more and more readers started switching from CNN to Fox, the other media stations either jumped on the bandwagon or slipped down to "Rating Hell. (CNN)

As for Asherman's poor defensive skills, We can put Bonds and Cruz out there beside you, to make up for the hole in your glove. Just keep hitting those "Homeruns!"

If this is a "rag" - why patronize it?

Ferrous,



I don't understand, did I miss something? I am more comfortable on the offense than defense. I've found it somewhat unsettling to have to defend America to Americans. The polarization of American political opinion has been growing since the mid-1960's, and that is of great concern to me. The middle ground has become almost uninhabited, and that, I think, is a dangerous thing. The most radical of the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum are shrill and near lunatic in their views. The polarization seems to give these folks undue importance.

Who are Bonds and Cruz?

Barry Bonds and Jose Cruz, Jr. are very successful defensive outfielders and offensive hitters for the San Francisco Giants baseball team.

blatham

When did baseball get cheerleaders?

Seems blatham, is trying some juxtaposed stab at humor, at Asherman's expense. That's why I asked if he was a comedian.

Actually blathams poor attempt at refering to baseball, makes me wonder if he really knows what he's talking about. On the other hand, it is obvious that piffka has a keen knowledge of what she's talking about.

ferrous

Actually, I did do a bit of stand up some years ago.

Re the first point...whether mainstream US media has demonstrated a unique (compared to other country's media) bias...that's not too hard to look into, but one does have to go to the work of reading widely. I'm not sure if you are suggesting US media coverage of the war and other coverage has been without significant difference, though that seems what you leave unstated. If that is your suggestion, then you surely are reading different international sources than the rest of us here. If you are reading broadly, of course.

Your second post (re my response to Asherman) points out that I tossed in some cheerleaders for a game that doesn't have them. You are correct. It doesn't. But it should have some, certainly?

But Asherman understood my point...that he characterized certain positions using an inappropriate example (extremist) which always makes a point logically invalid ('straw man argument', first year logic).

Asherman

I truly don't think you ought to be unsettled that some Americans are in serious disagreement with various policies forwarded by this or any administration. The converse - all in agreement all the time - will surely only happen under a totalitarian regime. Democracy is messy.

Re the mid-sixties and polarization...I understand there are various ideas floating about (eg Bill Bennett) regarding how things went un-American in the sixties (the pill, lots of sex, drugs, mistrust of government, etc) but I think he has a very faulty thesis and I'd be quite willing to take that up in a thread devoted to the topic. But I'll certainly agree that there is a polarization in US politics, and that unhelpful consequences for all result.

First Point "I'm not sure if you are suggesting US media coverage of the war and other coverage has been without significant difference, though that seems what you leave unstated. If that is your suggestion, then you surely are reading different international sources than the rest of us here."

My perspective, is one of a "Liberal Democrat." I have been going toe to toe, with "Good Ole Boy" Republicans, for the last thirty-eight years. For the last ten years, I have come to the understanding, that the present group of "Socialist Democrats" far out weigh the threat, imposed by Conservatives. Thus, I am doing all I can, to make certain that these Socialist Democrats, do not gain in any authority or power.
As for the media, The Washington Post, was the first major media outlet, that dared go after a standing president (Nixon and Watergate.) Since that time, the so called "Investigative Reporters" have been trying so desperately, to uncover dirt on political leaders. I take most of these reports, with a "grain of salt."
It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientists" to determine which political persuasion a news media sides with. The latest disclosure of Eason Jordan from CNN is a most shocking testament, of controlled propaganda. You mentioned Fox News. Another media that wouldn't dare print something that would rile Murdock. Then we have Limbaugh and Savage taking their self inflated egos to unknown heights. I do have to admit, that I enjoy Hannity, and his guests show a wide spectrum of the respect, people have for him, Conservatives and Liberals alike.

In any debate, there are lessons to be learned by hearing both sides, and then weighting the differences. The war is wrong, there is no question about it… All war is wrong. But I would expect our news agencies, give us accurate, unbiased reporting, rather than something they think we should hear. It is up to us, as individuals, to be able to wade through these reams of raw data, rhetoric, and incisive reporting, and come to an understanding, that best meets our need to make some sense out of this chaos.

Second point: "I tossed in some cheerleaders for a game that doesn't have them. You are correct. It doesn't. But it should have some, certainly?

Are you trying to get Americans killed? Any one going to a baseball game, knows perfectly well, to always keep your eye on the ball. A hard, horsehide ball being pitched at over 90 MPH, propelled off the end of a hardwood bat, has the capability to travel at a very fast rate of speed, darn well anywhere in the park. If some foolish fan was dumb enough to take their eyes off the ball for just a moment, to watch some young thing in a short skirt, wiggling her butt, while shaking her pom-poms, then who would be held responsible for the carnage, that could ensue.

I guess Baseball with cheerleaders, could be a televised sport, with the fans in the seats, part of the attraction. Sort of like the Romans filling the seats in the Coliseum with Christians.

Point Three: Straw man Argument.

Definition" "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."

Asherman: "Though those who are against the war, against the current administration, and/or against America are very vocal at the moment, many more quietly understand the necessity for this war, support the administration, and are offended by anti-American sentiment. In these threads we have all sorts from every part of the spectrum. Some I agree with most of the time, others in my estimation would like to see the United States crushed, humiliated, and defeated. I'm sorry that I haven't the eloquence, or the ability to more effectively argue for what I believe is in the best interests of the world, and the United States.

If you post opinions here that don't agree with the most vocal contributors, my advice is to grow a thick skin."

Blatham: "Asherman...with this supposition about anyone here, you are ten miles out in left field and wearing a glove with a great huge hole in it. Arguments and claims of subtlety and sophistication abound in these threads, and nothing has been said by folks from outside the border than have been echoed by Americans like yourself. If you set up your thinking on such an extreme black and white framework, you'll continue to miss getting outs, and the 'other side' will get to continue flirting with the cute cheerleaders.

I don't see it. Asherman sets his argument up; "In these threads we have all sorts from every part of the spectrum." Lays his premise; "Some I agree with most of the time, others in my estimation would like to see the United States crushed, humiliated, and defeated." Makes concessions for his weaknesses in argument, but states his conclusion in; "I'm sorry that I haven't the eloquence, or the ability to more effectively argue for what I believe is in the best interests of the world, and the United States."

I don't see, a weak argument (Straw man) here. I see someone that understands the troubles that are inflicting the world, and wants a solution that will help heal the malaise.

Your attitude, in chastising Asherman for his "weak argumentative skills, seems one of elitism and superior attitude rather understanding. Well. In the laws of "Nature" there will always be an Alpha male (or female) that comes along, to point out your deficiencies.

I would hope that A2K would be a place for caring people to be able to express themselves, and through this sharing of thoughts, come to a better understanding of other peoples concerns, during these troubling times.

Comedy, is usually focused on the misfortunes of others. It has a time and place. If we can laugh at our own mistakes, and learn from them, it usually goes a long ways in making others feel more at heart, to begin expressing their thoughts and desires. We need to support each other, rather that chide and ridicule some of us, who don't supposedly possess these superior argumentative styles or, most important, don't support our own, political attitudes.

To effectivly be able to express oneself can be learned and developed. Putting away all rhetoric and propaganda, goes a long ways, in bridging the gap.

blatham

I agree, baseball could use a little excitement by adding cheerleaders... and soccer, ice hockey, lacross, curling....
and no warm-up suits, those neat mini skirts only. Cheerleaders in mini-skirts ... now there is something that should be mandated by international law!

JM

I was involved, with the Los Angeles Raiders, for several years. During Raiderette tryouts, we always wanted to work, the official weigh-in station. Heck, some of those young lovelies would do "anything" if we shaved a few pounds off of their weight.

LoCosale had the final say, and you can safely bet, that the head Raiderette, definitely was rated on how well she gave it.

Yeah, lets subject more young girls, to that kind of pandering.

ferrous
Well, that's the issue here, isn't it. Is that expectation proven out? But as I mentioned earlier, one needs to read broadly, and to view an adequate representation of media originating from outside of the US to make a valid comparison. One can discount what the international members here are telling us with a 'they are all lefties' ad hominem, of course. Or one can dispose of the editorials and reportage which they (or others) link here with the other popular ad hominem irrelevancy, 'anti-Americanism thrives abroad'.

To 'expect' a lack of bias is a bit like expecting an experiment to turn out a certain way, so not bothering to go to the trouble of doing it. One definitely ought to listen (not to 'both sides', that's an unhelpful framing, I think, and simply forwards the black/white, us/them dichotomies) to as much as one can get hold of.

Re the 'straw man'...I'm afraid you are missing a bit of history between Asherman and I, where I've jumped on him for this previously. Specifically, the portion of Asherman's post I was taking to task was "others in my estimation would like to see the United States crushed, humiliated, and defeated." I have a good sense of the posters/posts Asherman refers to here, and no one has advanced what he suggests in that sentence. By framing his sentence in this way, he implies the arguments are extreme, knee-jerk anti-American, and consequentially destructive. Pretty easy to attack that, but it was never what was said. The arguments advanced have most often been diverse and sophisticated. It is in this manner that the straw man fallacy applies here.

This isn't a matter of political stance. Political stance, different from my own, carefully thought out and argued, is invigorating and inspiring.. But logical fallacies such as the above are a matter of lazy thinking, of easily falling back on cliches rather than wading into the often complex and contradictory issues at hand. I confess I have little patience for such (particularly in the context of 'pre-emptive' war). Whatever 'truth' is available to us is going to come out of careful thought, clear-sighted honesty, and questioning our own comfortable assumptions.

Ferrous,

I was under the impression that participating even in professional cheerleading, as well as Mr. Universe body building contests and the Chip N Dales, was voluntary. If concerned enough for these young women, and if you haven't already, you might direct some of your concerns towards them. Perhaps you might even change their minds on their wayward paths. However, others might point to the young ladies' right to self-determination and their inherent free will.

Respectfully,

JM

Getting Past Cliches and Rhetoric
"To 'expect' a lack of bias is a bit like expecting an experiment to turn out a certain way, so not bothering to go to the trouble of doing it. One definitely ought to listen (not to 'both sides', that's an unhelpful framing, I think, and simply forwards the black/white, us/them dichotomies) to as much as one can get hold of."

Our own moral judgments, will filter out these ad hominem attacks, pre-dictated rhetoric, and biased articles. Yes, one must get outside of the United States, to get a better feeling of how the world views us. But it seems to me, that this American bashing, was orchestrated.

I have just read an article concerning French magazines. Most, bitterly opposed this war. Early headlines of Le Figaro, Le Monde, and Le Point, blistered Bush, and ran a streaming collage of Iraqi civilian casualties and scenes of suffering.

" Le Point featured an American soldier on its cover under the headline, "The Tragedy." Le Monde, showed an American soldier trudging through the mud beneath the question : Iraq- A New Vietnam?"

Now, it seems, that like CNN (who happens to be running a banner stating "News you can trust",) are aimed squarely at the fallen Saddam.

" The dictator who terrorized Iraq." Was the title of a two page spread in Le Monde.

What has change? Why the sudden shift from American Bashing to Saddam Bashing?

Was the US war in Iraq to remove Saddam a proper, civilized reaction… No!

Was there any other means available, to remove this tyrant… No! (The difference between a Rattlesnake and a Water Moccasin)

Was the US justified in waging this action against Saddam?… Yes! No question, in my mind. (Again, the difference between a Rattlesnake and a Water Moccasin)

Should we demand that "our news agencies, give us accurate, unbiased reporting, rather than something they think we should hear."… Absolutely!

Will history white wash this whole affair?…The victors have always dictated what is written in the history books. That's why we grew up reading about US Cavalry actions as either victories if they won, and massacres if the Indians won. "Burying My Heart at Wounded Knee" was probably one of the first major articles written, debunking the Cavalry as "Good", and "Injuns" as bad, pap we were spoon fed since it happened.

I find it usually the case, that if a news agency, leanings and editorials, look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, then it is a safe assumption, that they are a duck. In that case, I take most of what they say, as highly unlikely that they are giving me an unbiased report of the events at hand. Either case, I still read both sides of the argument, and try to make some rational sense of what is happening. I never take, that which is written, at face value, as fact.

As for the Straw man response, I am going to defer further comment. If there is a history, that I am unaware of, I see no reason of putting my foot in my mouth.

I do have a passion for baseball, and your analogy of poor defensive skills aren't that much of a problem. Defense is not as important in baseball, as it is in football. Pitching is the critical point in baseball. Heck, if Asherman's defensive skills got that bad, he could always go over to the American league and become a DH.

Again, I point out, in baseball, that if you go to a game, keep your eye on the ball, and not some young things, cute rear end.

Last point:

"This isn't a matter of political stance. Political stance, different from my own, carefully thought out and argued, is invigorating and inspiring.. But logical fallacies such as the above are a matter of lazy thinking, of easily falling back on cliches rather than wading into the often complex and contradictory issues at hand. I confess I have little patience for such (particularly in the context of 'pre-emptive' war). Whatever 'truth' is available to us is going to come out of careful thought, clear-sighted honesty, and questioning our own comfortable assumptions."

Snood wonders why I "just don't leave this Liberal Rag?" Once we get past the clichés and rhetoric, there are new ideas and thoughts, that help us all learn to become better citizens, not just of our own countries and political parties, but as inhabitants of this fragile planet.

ferrous I'm afraid I disagree with you. I think our moral positions are likely to filter out (or categorize) only propositions which involve those moral positions. In fact, our moral positions probably ought to involve themselves specifically with such questions only.

For example, one can read a newsletter from NAMBLA and various moral notions will come into play. But on the other hand, a NAMBLA member's advices on how to replace brake pads in a 78 Dodge ought not (logically) to be any more suspect than a Rotarian's advices on the subject.

An appreciation of fallacious moves in rhetoric or in argumentation help one as a listener, but they are particularly valuable to one as a thinker/speaker. If one doesn't let oneself take the unreflective move of just using cliches, one is forced to get a bit more clear on one's own ideas and assumptions. When that happens, that individual becomes a hell of a lot more engaging in conversation.

"Paralysis through analysis" a Nixonian dictum resulted in a disgraced America.

Too much damned thinking! It's un-American.

I'm afraid, that my moral values and pre-reflective disposition, would somewhat take my concentration away from the narrative of installing the break pads.

For the MAMBA member, in the back of my mind, I probably would be thinking, "I hope the bastard forgets to put the keeper clip in right, and his breaks fail on his way to molest some young boy.", and hopefully killing just himself.
As for the Rotarian, I might be thinking that, Gee, I sure hope he doesn't think that I'm a poor business man and environmental insensitive person for driving such an old polluting heap.

Sorry, but our moral judgments on character, does get in the way. I was once told at work, by one, weak individual, that "people not knowing me, would take one look at me, and think that I was a Sociopathic killer.
In our looks, actions, and words, we are always defining ourselves. Listeners, watchers, readers can usually pick up that nuance of a speaker or writer, that gives a clearer picture into that persons inner makeup. Sometimes, we are wrong, but then again, it's just that much easier, when they can't seem to express themselves, without the use of clichés, rhetoric, and personal attacks.

ferrous

Yes, my impression also is that you are a sociopathic killer, though competent with brake repairs.

Likely, if Asherman and I sat down for a beer, we'd get on just fine. I doubt very much he is wanting in character. I'd probably also get on fine working shoulder to shoulder, say, patching a broken dike with someone who fights against the teaching of Darwin in schools.

Character, and claims that character makes, are conflated at our peril. If Mother Teresa were to have said, "Those who argue against the Pope, wishing women ordained, really want to see the Church destroyed," we'd be foolish to accept her word for this.

Surely, they will not. Fox News does not stage non-existing news. They leave this to Syrian TV. Or, maybe, to TF1.
The results of the war in Iraq prove that Iraqis got fed up with Saddam and really perceived Allied Forces as libreators. The only criticism and threats were uttered by some Arab tribal chiefs: they are afraid for their personal power...