Letters to the Editor
-
Unscientific Criticism
First, let's just note that the study referred to in the article does not even offer itself as a definitive proof. It is full of the word "suggests". It notes "mixed" data. It is only one study, and there is no offering by Mr. Frost that the study has been peer reviewed nor the effects reproduced. So the implication that this is accepted scientific fact is wrong.
Second, let's also note that there's no offering that Obama even knows of the study. So the implication that he is ignoring science is ridiculous. I love science. I studied science in college. But I don't know all of science. What I do know is that if I say something I think is true based on what I know and someone says I'm an idiot because there's a study showing the opposite, that is not a fair debate.
Third, let's notice that the author has not offered evidence that he brought the study to Obama's attention and asked for comment. Rather, he has merely asserted that Obama is wrong and offered an obscure report. That's shoddy journalism.
What we have here is someone who is rushing to debunk a candidate rather than a policy. What has the vague form of an article trying to say "hey, this guy is going to cost us money" actually is an article saying "I don't care if this article costs us a good candidate, as long as I stir up a bunch of readers into a furor for the sake of Salon getting some attention."
Let's just hope that if this article has the apparently intended effect of causing damage to Obama, someone does a one-time study of similar kind on the effect of shoddy journalism on the world, and "suggests" firing the journalist.
There is every evidence that Obama is willing to make hard decisions and stick to his guns while at the same time being willing to reflect on past decisions and admit to the possibility of mistakes. A unique combination we're not seeing in the other two candidates.
That very fact means he'd probably relish discussing this matter if it were brought up in a decent way as a topic for legitimate discussion rather than a trap to get someone the choice of (a) defending his opposition to something he didn't know he opposed or (b) defending his being a flip-flopper.
And, frankly, we need someone with the guts to stand up and say "maybe it's ok if things are more expensive sometimes because we shouldn't be doing them anyway". That wasn't a message he was saying this time, but it's what we need to elect a leader to do, because the problems of peak oil, climate change, and our economic plight really call for it.
If Obama is to fail to get elected, let it be over something real about which there has been a substantive and deliberative debate. This kind of nonsense is beneath Salon and makes me regret my recent decision to subscribe.