Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Psychology and fear
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Altemeyer's work does demostrate that people tend to become more authoritarian and less rational when under emotional stress of fear.
For example, adding a statement like "Terrorists have been reported to have recently attempted to purchase a rogue nuclear device from a former soviet republic." and then asking "Who do you prefer to be president?" would see the Republican gain 5 or 10 points in a poll.
So it is no surprise that the noise machine will try all this again with Obama and McCain. If 2006 and the Il-14 special election are any clue, that dog isn't hunting right now. People have largely regained their rational faculties and the economy is tanking which might make terrorism a far less immediate concern.
So it probably won't work. A steady Obama who rebuts this nonsense without getting flustered or upset by it is probably the best response. Best if he is witty about it.
He already had one memorable exchange with McCain over Al Qaeda in Iraq and the way I saw it on MSNBC and CNN, Obama won that exchange (he got final word and some chuckles from media figures reporting it).
Obama also needs to be vigilant about not creating any "windsurfing" or "tank helmet" photograph moments. I realize this is actually quite difficult, everyone has their less photogenic moments and that we don't see more of those from Republicans is largely a factor of the press around them choosing not to publish them, whereas with Democrats they leap on the opportunities like paparazzi snapping Britney's genitals.
-
gary:
[Read the article: "The guys from the Politico brought my mom flowers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]re: bankrupting shindig
No kidding, and if you read the newsweek account by the tire swing reporter, you'll also learn the press were put up in a fancy hotel too.
John McCain, ordinary American guy, who can afford to invite over his 100 favourite friends and put them up in a 5 star hotel.
Now that has to violate some of their corporate gift-acceptance policies. A meal of ribs and potato salad is one thing, but a night in a posh hotel is a substantive bribe.
-
Memo to lurkers and other newcomers
[Read the article: "The guys from the Politico brought my mom flowers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pardon my conceit.
As one who has commented here a long time, well into 2005 in Glenn's unclaimed Territory obscurity days, I can say with some experience there is no "group think" and no cliquiness to this blog. It stands fairly unique in the mix of commenters it attracts, and if you group it as a "left wing" blog (a label Glenn himself would possibly eschew), it is easily discernable in the commenting from Atrios, Openleft, Firedoglake or the great Orange Satan itself, DailyKos.
Naturally there is much overlap as few blog readers read and comment on only one blog. However for example, I rarely see anyone in the comments of the other blogs I read linking to Reason.com pieces.
It takes several days of persistent glaring stupidity before I'll notice a particular commenter and remember their name enough to give their comments additional scrutiny in future, and likewise it takes several insightful and unique comments over time for me to notice a much more worthy commenter to pay attention to (this is one good reason to avoid using "anonymous" as a handle, if you're smart and cogent, your comments will often get missed because you have no reputation to suggest they are worth reading, everyone skims sometimes!)
I don't know about any other regulars but there's no back channel emails or IM'ing going on for my part, we don't have some hackneyed lingo or inside jokes in use here (I really hate "first!" at Atrios and "Jane!" posts at FDL).
I have also witnessed numerous threads where Glenn's biggest fans take serious issue with what he wrote and some lengthy debates take place. See his posts about Ron Paul or Hate Speech laws for some of this (whatever your opinion of these issues or Glenn's take on them, there is no denying that the commenters did not simply bark like seals to Glenn's tune).
So while I'm biased as a fan of Glenn's I believe I have substantive reason to believe that bias only goes so far and is not totally blinded me and others here to possible flaws in his writing or opinions.
So that said, it would be best if you avoid accusations of bias and groupthink when several people are attacking your comments. It comes off as petulant for one, and it will never produce positive results anyway since if it's true, the groupthink would prevent anyone from acknowledging it, and if it's false, the falsity would similarly prevent anyone from acknowledging it too!
Just deal with the issues calmly is always your best choice. If you lose the argument, you'll lose with some credibility for having kept your cool. Which usually means it will be forgotten and also that others won't start chiming in against you. Make an ass of yourself, and others will remember and bring it up at future disputes.
-
rrheard:
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was going to respond to Bethincary but you did it and better than I had in mind, so I'll just quote you:
God that would be political suicide for the GOP. It has to be about distraction or misdirection or pants wetting or they lose because they don't have anything of substance. Conservativism is a morally and economically bankrupt ideology and if they are forced to defend it on the merits they lose. By necessity they must really on the above, soft reasoning, circular arguments, and fear.
There simply is no defending the true aims of conservative ideology: The recreation of an explicit and calcified class system in a form little different from what the European nobility set up during feudalism.
The dark ages really are the actual policy result of the triumph of conservative ideology in the absence of competing ideas like liberalism. They've been battling the enlightenment since it ended their ideological monopoly.