WTH is this guy thinking about?
Submitted by donjo on July 17, 2008 - 5:29pm.
http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/07/is-obama-calling-for-national-civilian.html
He's reading a prepared speech in the above video and it's quite clear what he is advocating.
This is some scary stuff that needs to be clarified, like, right now.
Can you say, "Hello President McCain?"
"Colorado Springs, CO - July 2, 2008
Obama: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
TN's Blue Collar Muse wants to know what that means, and says the MSM has not fleshed out the details from Obama.
BCM: The questions are legion and the implications of such an organization are staggering! What would it do? According to the title, it's a civilian force so how would it go about discharging "national security" issues? What are the Constitutional implications for such a group? How is this to be paid for? Is this accounted for in some of Obama's currently proposed tax increases or will we need more taxes to fund this enterprise? The statement was made in the context of youth service. Is this an organization for just the youth or are adults going to participate? How does one get away from the specter of other such "youth" organizations from Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union when talking about it?
Joe Farah has, so far, been unsuccessful in getting any information out of the Obama camp on this. No MSM outlet is asking about it and the blogosphere is just ramping up. I'd like to see the rest of us get involved and get some clarity on exactly what Barack is proposing. At the least, it would seem a major expense that would have to be paid for. The 'at worst' options are pretty terrifying to contemplate. I've put in a request to the Obama campaign for some amplification and clarification. We'll see what they have to say."
There are lots of right-wing nuts in Colorado Springs.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Is there reason to believe Obama was misquoted or taken out of context?
For that matter, do you have any reason to believe the source is one of those right-wing nuts other than being from Colorado Springs?
Well, I thought that what Obama is quoted as saying in the original was something the blogger/writer made up. I sure hope so.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Since he had a prepared speech, he wasn't stuttering and stammering.
http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/07/is-obama-calling-for-national-civilian.html
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Sounds like some kind of paid vigilantism(sp?).
He really needs to clarify.
explains it pretty well IMHO.
Obama repeated his pledge to boost the size of the active military. But he said the nation's future and safety depends on more than just additional service members.
"It also depends on the teacher in East L.A., or the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans, the Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, the Foreign Service officer in Indonesia," he said.
Obama had outlined many of the proposals offered Wednesday during appearances in Iowa last December.
Goals set for students
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," he said Wednesday. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-national-servicejul03,0,5754842.story
It looks to me like he, like Wes, feels there's a lot more to "national security and safety" than people with guns.
Of course every rightwing blog, rag and broadcast station in the country seems to have pounced on the word "force" and will drag that around without anything that was said before like a dog with a moldy favorite bone.
He's talking about a civilian national security force; not some boy scout camps. Welcome to STASI or the KGB.
http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/07/is-obama-calling-for-national-civilian.html
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
out here in the boonies.
I'll just have to take your word for it that he's Stalin, Hitler & Mao reincarnate and cast my vote for McCain I guess.
;p
you'll have to take somebody's word. The quote in my blog above are the exact words he used. If you like what he said, well....
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
...what he said just after the 17 seconds in your link, to get some context.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
why his campaign hasn't put out any "WORM."
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
how many other alphabetsoup orgs for this? Does he really think we need yet another? Or is the plan to disolve these instead and use his shiny new one?
I'm not gettin' a warm fuzzy feeling about this.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
"Americans stepping up..." Obama, referencing FDR, JFK and Americore. "The American people aren't the problem, they are the answer." Obama talking about civilian service just as Wes did in '04.
here you go...the full 26 minute speech
Barack Obama: Call to Service in Colorado Springs, CO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
See how that beats a 17 second super-special sound-bite designed to create suspicion for the sole purpose of discrediting the Democratic nominee?
Simple. If you look at the screen shot on the page of that oh-so-reputable Puma-pac site that you put your trust in, you can see the title of the original 26 minute speech on youtube. And then you can search youtube for that title and Bingo! You can then watch Obama's full 26 minute speech in Colorado Springs for the full context rather than posting a full blog based on 17 select seconds of ignorant BS. Unless of course, that was your intent.
Donjo is the master of BS when it comes to all things Obama. Never a kind word in the bunch. Obama could take off from the ground and fly self propelled and donjo would have something nasty to say about it.
by your words. Sorry, but I can't say kind words about a lying fraud that I have NO RESPECT FOR.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
When you only pass around a clip taken out of context without even trying to give the entire thing, you don't make the person you're opposing look bad
You made yourself look bad. Yourself and the ideals you're claiming to support.
You don't like Sen. Obama, fine, you make that clear with every letter you write. But you do NOT do yourself or your side any favours when you stoop to playing "out of context theatre". What would be so wrong with presenting the entire thing and letting people make up their own minds what was said and/or implied????
What context would make that sentence acceptable? Do you have one or just making up the standard o defense in your head. I don't make videos nor do I selectively edit them; I just posted what was available. You're shooting the messenger, per usual. Read the sentence again and listen to his words; if they don't scare you, then I'll assume you'll be happy living in a police state. He said what he said and I don't see how "context" will change the meaning. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded"
As I said, this needs clarification - quickly. Like most of his fuzzy statements that need additional WORM.
As for me not liking Obama, you got that right. We've had 8 years of a lying, duplicitous, flip-flopping, spineless, cheating bully in the WH and I don't think our country can stand another 4 years of it. If you want to put up with this, that's your problem, but I don't want to make it mine or the rest of our population's.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
It was easy to find the complete video. You could have posted the link to that, and then said something "WTH, look at this. At 2:05 (or whatever portion), he's not saying or implying what I think he's saying, is he?"
That way, you could have brought this to people's attention while keeping the video in context. Which would have made you look stronger in your beliefs by being willing to show the ENTIRE thing, rather than an edited out of context clip.
And I don't care what you think about my beliefs. He said what he said and it's making the rounds. If he didn't mean them, then they should NOT have been spoken. You can't deny that he makes too many statements that have to be "clarified" as soon as someone realizes what he just said.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
at the WAPO. I think perhaps he's cornered a pretty big section of the not great things to say about O market and he is a psychiatrist, so when he calls someone a narcissist, he knows exactly what he's saying. I'm not a fan of Krauthammer's, but be sure that people will take notice of what he's said in this column.
There are people out there who have so let themselves be blinded by hatred that if Sen. Obama announced a cure for cancer, they would spin it as "Obambi denies chemotherapy to cancer patients!"
Blind hatred towards someone - be it Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton - does nobody any good. Least of all the ideals and person one claims to support.
No no! Eyes wide open here.
Most of us didn't start out disliking BO, we developed that from watching teh Awesome One over the course of the primaries.
Hillary haters started out that way, having bought into the RW propaganda that's been thrown at her for 15+ years.
But I have far more respect for someone who can show that dislike in a fair and reasonable manner.
Sound Bites, Out of Context theatre, and spinning things to make them sound worse than they are may be part of politics now, but if someone has to resort to them to argue their point, they do nobody any favours. Least of all the person they claim to support.
And I would say the same thing for a supporter of Sen. Obama who was doing the exact same thing against Sen. Clinton.
Both sides can do well without this blind hatred towards either Sen. Obama OR Sen. Clinton
and realizing that the Clinton campaign is over for this election cycle. It was bad enough when she went negative, almost bad enough to push me into the Obama camp (I remained neutral until the race was over) but it's beyond that when some of her supporters are still going negative on Obama.
I can relate to their problem, though, because I have had trouble realizing that General Clark's Vice Presidential campaign probably is just as over. I would say that he took himself out, since his remarks weren't coordinated with the Obama campaign, but blaming Clark, or even Obama (though his handling of the affair was as "inartful" as Clark's comment), would be blaming the victim. We really have to blame the right wing smear machine that perpetrated the smear. This diary is just more of the same kind of smear that General Clark just suffered, twisting words out of context to make someone say something they didn't. It no more belongs on this site than the Faux News smears of General Clark belong here. This diary can not even be considered a pro-Hillary smear for the primary campaign. It is a Republican smear for the general election. It should be taken down.
What's next? News that Obama is a secret jihadi Muslim trained in a Pakistani Madrasa, who swore his Senatorial oath on the Qur'an?
Thank you Patrick, for your excellent comment here. If someone can convince donjo to take this diary down, I'd thank them too.
Why is it with you guys that think that anything, ANYTHING, that is not high praise of the great one, is somehow subversive to this country. Virtually everything he has done in this campaign tells me that he is no friend of the citizens of the United States. It's all about him. I hope this gets sorted out before it's too late.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
As a matter of fact I do criticize Obama, not least for the way he handled the smear of General Clark. After all the big Republican smear machine is going to go after Obama the same way, and soon. In fact, you're part of that smear machine, whether you realize it or not.
Your troll diary here is no different than what was just done to General Clark. Take it down, now.
Is that Donjo is smearing Sen. Obama in the same ways that the right wing smeared Sen. Clinton AND Gen. Clark.
Yet it's somehow seen as okay if it's directed towards Sen. Obama.
*shakes head sadly*
What it is I can't really say on this blog.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Your hatred of Obama, donjo, is clouding your reason. It's amazing how when others talked about not caring for Hillary, you railed on about how General Clark knows more than we do and we should follow his lead. Same as Arky Sue.
Now that he is supporting Obama, like it or not, does that no longer apply? There's a word for that and it rhymes with blipocrite.
I don't know what Obama did to you when you were a child, but your criticism is clearly beyond what is reasonable and whatever bias you have is evident in every post you put up. I don't know if it's a race thing, a jealousy thing or a perception thing, but it's obvious you have no clue how to get past it.
The cancer cure line hits it right on the head. There is nothing that will dispel your hatred towards him...and that's what it is, pure, unabashed hatred. It's pathetic.
It's getting tiresome. It seems you have become what for years, you've been trying to fight here. It's just plain sad.
As for me...I'm doing what I can to make sure John McCain is not our next president. THAT'S what is important.
I've seen some of the anti-Obama sites pretty much make that claim about him. Or worse, (I've seen some that seriously compared Obama to Hitler. How much more over the top can one get??)
Sometimes people develop such a distorted view of someone that when presented with anything that opposes that view, they absolutely refuse to look at it. That's what I see here - someone who is so blinded what they believe someone to be that they cannot and will not look at anything that might challenge that viewpoint.
Ultimately it hurts them. And hurts the person they claim to support. I see no reason to take the diary down though - I'd rather they finally see what their hatred is doing to themselves and their cause.
that's up to the poster and the site management. I'm a First Amendment fundamentalist, but that doesn't mean I think every thing that can be said should be, or that I should have to read it, or that it should be said on someone else's site.
The posters on this CCN site have often disagreed with General Clark. The example that sticks most strongly in my mind is the Dubai Ports controversy, when most of us had misgivings, but the General was all in favor of letting it proceed. I suppose if donjo doesn't see that he is doing the same thing to Obama that the rest of us criticized the media for doing to General Clark, and if the site management won't pull his diary, it could remain as a warning to anyone who takes donjo seriously.
It's important to provide people all the information, not just an edited clip intended to distort and mislead.
I was able to use that clip to answer and address other people's concerns. It won't change the minds of those in the "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" camp, but for those on either side who want all the information, not just bits and bites, it was very useful and helpful
I've now seen the whole 26-minute video, and I have two points to make.
Obama's choice of the word "force" in the 17-second snippet was unfortunate. He was not talking about an armed force. Some other collective word for a large number of people dedicated to a mission would have been better. Unfortunately, the only words I can come up with right now are also subject to a military connotation, such as "cadre" or "corps."
Second, the 17-second snippet in question immediately follows mentions of doubling the Peace Corps and increasing the number of Foreign Service Officers to staff our embassies and consulates fully. And just before that, he mentioned expanding the AmeriCorps to 250,000 positions.
What he was saying is that these civilian "forces" must be as robust and fully-funded as the military is. His use of "powerful" here doesn't mean the wielding of armed power. It means the power of demonstrating what America is to the world.
Much of what I just wrote aren't exactly Obama's words. But that's what he was saying -- the same things Gen. Clark said in his Civilian Reserve program in 2003.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Obama's speech and Wes's Civilian Reserve program are similar only philosophically. Wes's plan was much more robust and targeted differently.
I have no doubt that as President Wes would have beefed up the programs Obama listed. But Wes's program would have done so much more. Obama's speech only advocated more of things that already exist. There was nothing really new.
Wes's program would have included accountants and financiers (to create effective banking/capital/business systems and facilitating the flow of money into and out of developing nations), engineers (to build/rebuild infrastructure), bureaucrats (to help build the institutions of a developing governments), and several other skills and sets of knowledge.
People who enlisted in the Civilian Reserve would have documented their skills and experiences and could be "called up" as needed for up to six months of "active duty." They would have deployed when a government changed fundamentally (from a revolution?) or in the time of natural or man-inflicted crises. They would have been guaranteed a return to their former positions after their "active duty" ended.
Clark proposed so much more than Obama did. That's not to say that beefing up the traditional civilian "forces" (for lack of a better word) isn't a good idea. It's just that there's so much more that could be done.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
I think I'll take donjo's advice and trust someone...namely you.
What you said you heard by listening to the whole thing confirms the impression I got from the piece I linked to above. And it was the only non-rightwingnut site that I found in over 50 Google hits on the subject.
The right wing blogs are afire with the 17 seconds it seems.
In the quote above, Obama calls it a "civilian national security force."
So you can assume that his use of the word "force" was inartful, so to speak, but how do you explain away that he wants a whole bunch of civilians, whatever you want to call them, being used to provide national security? Remember, these civilians will be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the US military... will they have tanks? Fighter aircraft? Maybe nuclear weapons? Seriously, and more importantly, what will he have them (us?) do? Spy on other Americans? Patrol the borders? Deploy overseas?
I'm really serious about that. Exactly what national security function is this civilian whatever supposed to perform?
This is a LONG way from General Clark's Civilian Corps, which iirc was been designed to perform infrastructure repairs, react to natural disasters, work on environmental clean-up projects, and other CIVILIAN activities.
As far as I can see, this idea of Obama's reflects one of two things. Either he is proposing a modern brown-shirt army, or he's just so totally ignorant of national security policy, history, structure, etc, that he's talking out of his ass and doesn't realize what he's said. I strongly suspect it's the latter, but I'm not sure I'm willing to bet on it.
hf jai, but even that isn't enough. At last someone who sees what I've been trying (poorly, I guess) to get across.
This is truly scary stuff and if that's not what he really meant, then he needs to personally clarify it, not some internet apologists.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
But I would guess the odds are about 50 to one that Obama is evoking national security in a loose sense, including things like economic strength, a good infra structure, advanced education, public health, energy conservation etc. In other words all types of things that will make America stronger and more competitive in the world and thus able to look after the interests of our citizens.
Yes I am assuming, and again it should be clarified, but I assumne Obama is evoking the theme of our money can be better spent at home than on overseas cowboy military adventures, and America will be more safe and more secure if we do. We will be more secure if we conserve energy and are less dependent on mid east oil. We will be more secure if we don't allow our infra structure to crumble. That type of thing.
In other words I suspect it updates old progrqm ideas like VISTA and newer ones like forgiveness of college loans in return for community service. I suspect it's about making America strong by making Americans stronger, by making America work better, by funding our real priorities, and mobilizing the pent up human resourses of our citizens who are willing to participate in an effort to improve America if given government encouragement and support and back up.
I think the speech wording is a rhetorical play; akin in a way to Denis Kucinich wanting a Department of Peace that evokes a counterbalence to the Pentagon. I think Obama is reaching back for echoes of the New Deal and a "we can do" American psychology. He is trying to counter Republicans at their supposed strong card; national security, by redefining what national security involves.
Wes Clark was much more artful in 2004 regarding all of this, with his call for a "New American Patriotism". And Clark trail blazed by redefining environmental problems and health epidemics as national security issues.
So yeah I'm guessing, but this to me is a significantly more likely explanation for what Obama wanted to communicagte than to think that Barack Obama wants to create new citizen militias or an American version of the Chinese "Red Guards". Personally I think it is pretty foolish to get carried away now with worst case speculation of what Obama meant here. Better to just ask his campaign for a clarification.
That's what I've been saying all day. Everyone is ASSUMING what he meant; I learned long ago never to assume anything. I think too many people have forgotten the days of the Brown Shirts in Germany and similar "civilian national security forces" in places like Russia and Argentina. If I've learned anything in my old age, it's that this is nothing to toy around with. By themselves, those words bring back too many terrifying memories to too many people. As I said before, What the Hell was he thinking? That's all, but it's more fun to rip the messenger and rise up in righteous anger at someone who dares to criticize.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
I could accept that Obama is using the words national security loosely, referring to a whole host of problems we need to solve to make our nation stronger. But he didn't just say national security. He said a "civilian national security force." That means enlisting people to perform some national security function.
For example, you can say that health care is a national security issue and I might agree, but how do you put together a group of people to do something about it... what have you got? What do they do?
I think you have to take a pretty big leap to go from the sort of vague and all-encompassing definition of what it means to be "secure" to putting together a LARGE group of people to do the securing.
And don't forget that he means to see this "force" bigger and stronger than the US military. Perhaps that was just a rhetorical flourish... but perhaps he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Or rather, hasn't given much thought to what he really means.
When General Clark talks about global climate change as a national security issue, he is talking about a very specific threat to our national interests, and possibly to our nation itself, due to rising ocean levels, drought, food shortages, etc, causing massive population shifts and resulting instability almost certain to lead to war and quite possibly a US military involvement. It's more than just some vague idea of what might make the nation weaker at some time in the future.
You make a good case. At the same time, I still think that to interpret his "national security force" comment so literally would mean that that one sentence was wildly incongruent with the rest of his remarks.
Hey, I'm one of the most literal people you'll ever meet, but in this case I don't think he meant a paramilitary organization, given the tone of the rest of his speech.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
have civilian organizations that do national security tasks. If he's planning on beefing those up, providing better funding, better training, better recruitment, that's one thing - but if he's planning something along the lines of what you've just detailed, then we'd all better be paying a hell of a lot more attention to every word that comes out of his mouth between now and Denver, because, if his thought process/policies do indeed continue in this veign, then you all are only going to get one shot at fielding another candidate to emerge from the convention. (and I say "you all" because I'm not registered with a party).
I'm absolutely serious. We can talk all we want about WORM, and make snarky remarks - but let's face it - none of us wants another president who is either incapable or unwilling to say what he/she means the first time.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
But he's not a Nazi fercripessake. He's not much more than a gifted orator, but he's a hell of a lot better than McCain.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
what the response would be if he uttered these words during his forthcoming speech in Germany. He said what he said; if he didn't mean it, then he needs a different speech writer that can make simple declarative sentences. Or even better, he ought to think about what he's reading before he says it. You just don't stick these words into the middle of any speech, unless, of course, you have an apologist following you around making up "contextual connections."
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
...for my "context" comment, the only thing I'm an apoligist for is the truth.
I think if I said, "I don't want to kill Joe Blow," you'd quote me as "I want to kill Joe blow." I would have used those words, but you would have eliminated a rather important word I also used.
We must minimize the whole "sound bite politics" practice. You didn't like it when people snipped out a sound bite when Wes Clark was on "Face the Nation." Yet you've become a master at it yourself.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
you are an Obama apologist. And now you're adding fuel to the fire by more or less calling me a liar. You can keep on thinking what you want and I'll do the same. I spent all night going over his speech to make that sound bite???? Sorry, I couldn't stand to listen to that guy for more than 10 seconds at a time.
You're comparing apples to orange, with this comment and Wes's. This one smacks of something very scary; Wes was merely speaking the truth.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
...knows that I'm anything but an Obama apologist. I don't like the guy. But what I dislike even more is the use of illogic, distortion of the truth, and deception in the interest of making a political point. If some proponent can't make a point without resorting to deception, the point shouldn't be made. And when I say the truth, I mean the whole truth, not selective, convenient truth. The inconvenient truth in what Obama said is that he wasn't talking about an armed civilian "force." Period.
Have a good afternoon. I'll be out for several hours.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
and I know that he is definitely NOT an Obama apologist. That is a false accusation!
Stan in my opinion is one of the most credible people who I know when it comes to being able to separate fact vs. opinion and when it comes to dealing with the issues!
to post links, but Stan has certainly fallen into this category every now and then. Just his nature to be an appeaser, I guess, which is no crime. However, when he more or less calls me a liar or "distorter of the truth," the gloves are off. I posted what I did because that's how I got it; it scared the crap out of me and, whether he "meant" it or not, in ANY CONTEXT, it should never have been said in those words. If anyone needs to apoligize for anything, it's the great one, but don't hold your breath.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
And neither is Tom. Or me.
I think it can be summed up this way:
Obama's remarks were inartful.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
someone who refuses to believe the b.s.? (See the blue lettered comment by Wes below.)
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
If they think they are gifted with a vastly superior to their peers ability to catagorically define what is bullshit and what is truth, and then judge others intelligence and/or character based on whether others are in agreement with their own perception of what is truth and what is bullshit.
I think almost all of us here refuse to believe b.s. We don't always see eye to eye on what qualifies though and why.
But I would most likely call it "insightful." Some of the "arrogant" people, who do the right things behind the scenes, may actually have a reason to believe they are; others just seem to be that way naturally. However arrogance often equates with how one feels about oneself and has little to do with reality. I would say someone who is insightful does their independent research, questions the "common" thought, rethinks old thoughts, talks to others, trusts in their own final judgment and as Wes said, are not being afraid to state those opinions that may go against the grain. There has to be one factual "truth" that may evade many or most of those who are searching for it. Particularly these days, when there's such a vast overload of information and it's damn near impossible to tell opinion from fact.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
One of the truths that has shifted a little bit with age for me however is an acceptance that sometimes people of equal inteelligence, of equally independent spirit, who take their research equally seriously, who are equally sincere and who pursue the truth with an equally open mind can sometimes come to very different conclusions while viewing a common reality. And each is virtually if not totally convinced that they are the one in that case who is most insightful.
It's never that clear cut in reality since virtually nothing is ever completely equal, but I think you get my point. For a long time I had trouble accepting that such a dynamic could be true. I believed truth could be established with sufficient diligence, and if I used enough diligence in arriving at it, whoever disagreed with me could not have used equal diligence and therefor, essentially, was wrong.
But over the years I've had to accept that fundemental differences in perception can be difficult if not impossible in some cases to objectively sort by right and wrong. Obviously not in all cases. Often it is clear cut, but the type of divisions we in this community are experienceing in how we perceive this Presidential election is a good case in point for me about how elusive truth can sometimes be to establish.
Some people who I have great respect for now hold wildly differeing opinions on some matters that I thought we would all see eye to eye on. And all who are involved strongly believe that they have the facts needed to back up their opinions.
When this happens now it no longer completely befuddles me like it used to. Now I just think to myself; "it's happening again" and continue on with the mystery of life as we humans know it.
I think the one thing we've overlooked that affects the search for the "truth" more than most anything else, is the life experiences, background, environment, genetic make-up, etc. etc. of the "truth-seeker." None of us can avoid this, no matter how impartial or biased we may try to be; it's part of the meal that each of us is forced to eat.
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
One of the precepts of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is that we operate not on/in the world, but on our unique, individual models of the world. That model is shaped by the things you mention -- life experiences, background, environment, genetic make-up, etc.
That model can be either effective or ineffective depending on the context. For example, a roadmap is a model. "The map isn't the territory." But it's useful or effective for driving from place to place. It's totally useless and ineffective for hiking and backpacking. For that you need a different model, probably a topo map.
We take all the sensory input to us and make a model of the overwhelming amount of data constantaly bombarding us. The NLPers identify three modeling process -- omission, generalization, and distortion. Thus our models of the world are inescapably incomplete, generalized, and distorted in various ways. Thus the line "the world as you know it has never existed."
When two people argue about the same thing, it's usually because their models are different. They've omitted different details, generalized in different ways, and distorted in different ways. When those two people discover the differences in their uniqe models of the world (if they can -- it sometimes takes an impartial and trained third person to explore them), then they can exlplore ways to understand each other better.
End of lesson. This comment comes from my study of early NLP stuff, vintage about 1978-82, but I still find their early material particularly useful.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
There is a difference between being a "supporter" and being an "apologist". If anyone here is being an "apologist" for their cause, it's you.
Do I agree with Sen. Obama 100% Hell no!
Do I think he's the better choice for president? Yes.
See the difference? An apologist would uncritically and unthinkingly support their side without thinking. A supporter recognizes that you can support someone without always agreeing with them. A supporter thinks about the reasons why they support someone. A apologist just goes rah-rah and justifies their support for someone after the fact.
You of late have become an apologist. Not for Sen. Clinton, since she's not only thrown her support to Sen. Obama but has started to denounce certain of the PUMA community. No, you're an apologist for PUMA, and an apologist for your own bias and hatred
Patrick, to spread your sanctimonious fertilizer over other people's comments. Who the hell do you think you are? I haven't been anyone's buttkisser, but I have been logging comments, links, etc. that tend to upset people, like you, who seem to think O is the next thing to Jesus. While you're at it, why don't you fall back on the obama standard rhetoric and call me a racist? Get it out there; maybe that will make you feel better. BTW, I've never mentioned PUMA, although I certainly agree with much of what they're doing, which may not surprise you, but that is my right.
Keep swallowing. Is your favorite grape or cherry?
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Your reply basically boils down to: "I know you are but what am I?"
Is that the best you can do?
Or are you just upset that someone posted the entire video and showed that the part you were swearing up and down was taken completely out of context?
Wow. Someone drank the koolaid, but it sure as hell wasn't me.
So supporter automatically = "thinks someone is the next best thing to Jesus" in your world? Wow. How very sad.
Someone's acting like a cultist here. It's not me.
I feel very sad for you.
long enough, read this. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation or your nasty comments. Talk about cultish behavior, you can't seem to let ANY comment that doesn't praise your Messiah pass without a retort. (Can't disturb the King, you know.)
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16104#comment-316412
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Read it, tended more to agree with this one
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16104#comment-31642
Actually I let most of the negative comments slide. It's the deliberate distortions I tend to touch on. Such as the short clip you posted.
And I have said things critical of Sen. Obama. Such as:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16038
I don't drink koolaid. I think for myself.
And yes, I downrated your comment. I didn't feel you added anything to the debate, and have fallen into the politics of personal attack. I'm not your enemy. Hell, Sen. Obama isn't your enemy. Your enemy should be the forces that are destroying our economy, our society, and our country.
tend to think that you precisely described obama: "Your enemy should be the forces that are destroying our economy, our society, and our country."
In times of war or peace, democracy requires dialogue, disagreement, and the courage to speak out. And those who do it should not be condemned but be praised." WKC
Tend to think that it doesn't describe him.
Obviously you can't see that our feelings and belief are just as valid as yours.
So be it
Seems the only one here with a messiah complex is you, donjo.
I haven't seen a single instance of Obama worship here.
It seems your hatred is so extreme to one side, that anything even relatively complimentary or supportive of Obama is the result of brainwashing and everyone thinking Obama is the second coming.
You really want it both ways, don't you?
Seems eerily reminiscent..."If you're not with us...you're against us."
And by the way...I haven't had any kool-aid since I was 5.
I also haven't seen anyone say you were a racist. I've questioned whether or not you might be...but I'm just looking for a reason to understand your irrational hatred?
If it's not color, donjo, what is it?
Whatever it is, it's pathetic.
~And there's a political scientist, Drew Westen, who has done some very important research down at Emory University, and he's shown that once people get firm, fixed political ideas in their heads, they stop processing information as information because it conflicts with their ideas and they process it emotionally as a sort of accept or reject. And I think that's sadly the case with a lot of political dialog today. It degenerates into name calling, personality spats, accusations of lack of parenthood in some cases. And as a great nation, we can do so much better than this.~
He is so on the mark with that.
And thought-provoking. It explains why certain myths (case in point, the oft-cited one that Gore claimed to have invented the Internet), keep getting promoted.
As the saying goes, you repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Or to use the above concept, you repeat a lie often enough to the point it gets fixed in the head, any further data gets rejected no matter now accurate it is.
In a political arena that gets dominated by "gotchas" and sound-bites, were facts and the truth often take second or third place to the spin.
Something that catches my attention to that is wondering if that blinds people to the effect that fixed political idea has. Case in point - the 2004 GOP convention, and those damned offensive "purple heart" band-aids. The people wearing them had so bought into the swift-boat liars myths and falsehoods that they could only see the idea as a way to make fun of Kerry - and either didn't realize or didn't care how badly they defamed everyone who ever was awarded a purple heart.
So when one gets that fixed political idea in their head, not only do they reject more data due to internal conflict, but does it also cause a form of perceptual blindness that causes them not to consider the results of their actions.
Would explain why some people keep voting against their interests.
He is trying to counter Republicans at their supposed strong card; national security, by redefining what national security involves
I believe it was Tom who wrote this a ton of posts earlier in this topic. I would argue that Senator Obama's "new" usage of the phrase "national security" rolls back much of the hard work Wes has done to get the Democrats accepted on an equal footing with the Republicans on the question of national security.
Sestak did the same thing and it wasn't at odds with Wes in any way. I think it's a good thing to say that national security isn't about guns. It's about people. Of course, Sestak isn't the "great orator" that Obama is, yet, thanks to his gravitas, he comes across much stronger when he says the same thing. I wish I had Sestak's words on paper. He relied much more on those kind of stories when he was running the first time. Now he focusses more on what's happening in Congress and his ideas for getting things done rather than on his ideas for how things should be. But it was along the lines of:
We can't be strong, we can't be safe, unless we meet the education, health, energy, and economic prerequisites, so national security is about all those things. The military is just a group of people out of the community, so in order to be strong, we all have to be strong.
Or something like that anyway.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.q
...What Obama Really Meant. This is just the newest edition with some here serving as surrogates offering What Obama Really Meant. Why the hell can't this Harvard-educated English-speaking man say what he means the first time?
What if I'm not in just the right spot the hear/read the re-do of What Obama Really Meant? Then I must go on believing the words that originally came out of his mouth. The argument in this thread seems to boil down to either I can believe what he says when he says it (Obama 1.1) or I can't and have to wait for the new and improved version (Obama 1.2).
There is no denying he said, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
These are heavy-duty words, and strung together like this, they have heavy duty meaning, even within the context he used. Words have power. Words have consequences.
He is responsible for the misinterpretation, not me. I took him at his word. Kinda like I did about FISA.
I expect someone who was trained as an orator, by one of the best educational institutions in the country, to speak accurately, unless he/she is purposely trying not to.
And there's the rub...the study of law is not just the study of law, and of interpretations of it, and factual recitations and understanding of it , but it is also the study of practicing how to obfuscate it without actually violating it.
What I'm saying is that he has been trained how to be both precise - and purposely imprecise - as have most attorneys. This is one of the reasons lawyers are both admired when on your side, and distrusted when not.
Unfortunately, there are a great many attorneys who are of the opinion (and I'm not saying Obama thinks this necessarily - but his behavior is far from encouraging) that they are, frankly, smarter than everyone else. Consequently, they assume if they say a sow's ear is a silk purse with just the right words, and in just the right voice, we'll all believe them.
They're not the only profession to suffer from such delusions, of course.
"Our public servants work for us - we don't work for them. We have an obligation, as citizens of this country, to always remember that - and to never let them forget it." - DeadMessengers
July 2, 2008 - Colorado Springs, CO
excerpt from transcript of speech:
[...] "As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem – they are the answer.
We're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We’ll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we’ll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
We need to use technology to connect people to service. We’ll expand USA Freedom Corps to create online networks where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You’ll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you’ll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities. This will empower more Americans to craft their own service agenda, and make their own change from the bottom up." [...]
Or better yet, watch the entire speech:
General Wesley K. Clark
New York, NY
October 14, 2003
[...] "...But in times of emergency, first responders should not have to be the only responders.
Therefore, to form this Civilian Reserve, I will challenge every American to be prepared to serve their country in times of need.
Here's how it would work: Every American age 18 or over will have the opportunity to register for the civilian reserve. If you register, you'll be asked to list your abilities and the types of service that interest you.
By registering, you commit that those skills can be called on at any time - domestically or internationally -- for the next five years. Every five years thereafter, you will be given the opportunity to re-register.
Should something happen during your five-year commitment that demands your skills, you can be offered the opportunity to serve for a period of up to six months.
Your service could be here in the United States, in the aftermath of an earthquake, a forest fire or a severe storm. Or you could also serve in distant lands, where the struggle for social justice and equality demands our immediate aid. As a village struggles to overcome isolation and hardship, a tribe works to preserve its ancestral territory, or a nation tries to piece together a government of laws.
You could be biologist, a truck driver, or an accountant. Under this program, you'll be offered the opportunity to get involved when your skill set is needed, working with professional staff, lending your talents to the task at hand, making a difference.
For example, members of the Civilian Reserves could be deployed to help to fight forest fires.
Members of the Civilian Reserves could also aid overseas in response to our ambassador's calls for assistance in helping nations deal with environmental disasters, political and legal development, and economic growth." ...[...]
[...] "This "Civilian Reserve" will be a powerful representation of A New American Patriotism. A spirit that that goes beyond waving the flag and guarding our borders. A spirit that celebrates America, by doing that which is distinctly American - standing ready to serve our nation and our fellow citizens.
The Civil Reserve is a gateway -- an entry port into a new world of public service opportunities. Imagine the skills and talents of millions of Americans who've volunteered, and offered to us, the possible gift of their services. And imagine that gift multiplied 10, a 100, or a 1000 times. These are the gifts that we could bring to our country and our world. They need only a spark of courage to begin."[...] "
Read the rest:
http://www.clark04.com/speeches/005/
...but you can go on believing it is, if you so choose. "National Security" is a buzz phrase for "fear" and creates different cerebral and emotive responses than "Civilian Reserve" which conjures up "service." Both men probably chose their words deliberately and purposefully. I'll take Clark's as they evoke no fear.
Presumtuous to think I didn't watch the tape--or read each and every comment given in this thread describing the tape.
And, by the way, seeing these two statements side by side serves to underscore that Mr. Obama has appropriated another's ideas, alters and rearranges some words, and fails to attribute its source. Not the first time, and probably won't be the last.
No, I'm not a PUMA. I just hoped our likely Democratic nominee would have proved to have the caliber of character closer to Clark's, and every day there is a new batch of disappointment.
I agree. But it is the same concept.
"It's not about winning or losing. It's about getting your policies adopted." -- Wes Clark
None of the '08 candidates was of Wes Clark's caliber. But then I never had the unrealistic expectation that any of them would be.
"National Security" may be your buzz phrase for fear. But it's a subject that Wes Clark discusses frequently, and it's a discussion that he believes it's imperative for Democrats to have.
...be called 'brown shirts'
civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
scares the ever luvin' chit outta me.
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
A Blackwater team on every street corner?