The People Surrounding Obama

[Zarathustra]

What is up with Obama's hand-picked people being Mao admirers?

First, there was White House Communications Director Anita Dunn:

And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say “why not.” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.

But here’s the deal — these are your choices. They are no one else’s. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?” And Mao Tse Tung said, “You know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.”

This was advice given to high school children.

That's kind of like saying, "Kids, you know what I like about my favorite political philospher--Hitler? That guy knew how to get shit done! His go-get-'em attitude is exactly the frame of mind I use to monitor Glen Beck's show."

And now there is Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom saying:

"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money cause their convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that its an adults only no limit game. We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog."

Aside from the bizarre Mao praise . . . the manufacturing Czar thinks the free market is a joke and the whole point is to game the system??? WTF? So how are they planning to game it, is the question I'd like to ask this Czar.

[Holsety]

School shootings, while attention-grabbing, are one of the rarest forms of crime in our culture. Given that whites out-number minorities by very large margin, it shouldn’t be surprising to find that statistically whites outnumber minorities for this particular, rare type of crime. In fact, whites out-number all racial groups in sheer numbers of criminals—because whites are the majority of our population. To use this statistical truism to make a racial, universal argument against whites, or as indicative of a white problem, is a heinous example of race-baiting.

Actually, the problem at the root of the fact that white people commit most of the crimes in this country is that there are too many white people in this country.

In the past, we have seen Barack Obama and his supporters attempt to chill any sort of scrutiny or criticism of him. Many of his records - whether they are transcripts from Occidental or Columbia - have not been released. He lost his senior thesis (on Soviet nuclear disarmament) from Columbia University (how likely was that to happen, given that he felt his own life was important enough to write an autobiography in his young 20s), and his records from his time in the Illinois state senate were "lost".

Have a bit of an issue with this part. On the one hand, it implies that Obama was shaping his image in his young 20s; on the other hand, it implies he has "something to hide" in things such as his senior thesis, which would probably be part of the image he was crafting for himself at that time.

The stuff on Susstein's view of the net was pretty disturbing to me. However, I thought a bill similar to the one being proposed was already in place (the main difference being that it only allowed action against people posting anonymously).

I don't agree that govt should fix it.

My mental image of the gov't fixing the internet doesn't have the tenor of a repairman coming to fix something so much as a conman "fixing" a sporting event.

How about they come out and be honest for once, about why they don't spend a lot of energy on stories putting their patron saints in a bad light? Jim Edwards was only a short while ago, when is the NYT going to say, look we only do the news that serves our agenda, we wash our hands of complete coverage because we think that should be handled by people of opposing agendas?

If you have such a problem with the US time only serving one agenda, why not support...CASS SUSSTEIN!

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

And then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa, not often coupled together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say “why not.” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before.

But here’s the deal — these are your choices. They are no one else’s. In 1947, when Mao Tse Tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai Shek and the nationalist Chinese held the cities that had the army. They had the airport. They had everything on their side, and people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all the odds against you?” And Mao Tse Tung said, “You know, you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.”

And when peopple said "how can you push China from an agrarian society into an industrial society", Mao made similarly monumental choices that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese.

Being decisive is not inherently desirable...

Spoiler

[Cybrweez]

Quite a few Dems are singing praises of worthy political dictators. We can add Watson to the list w/her praise of Castro.

[Plissken]

Since the two political philosophers Dunn mentioned were Mother Theresa and Mao, and that the topic she was speaking to the schoolchildren was Choice, and that the Theresa story concluded with Theresa saying, "Get your own Calcutta," while the Moa story concluded with Mao's: "You fight your war, I'll fight mine," I'd say she does a pretty fair job of comparing and contrasting to illustrate her point.

(Hint: Her point was that, when faced with a problem, you can either choose to build or destroy. To serve or to kill. You might try explaining that to Beck and his "Fair and Balanced" news network that worked so hard to report to you the whole truth in it's unvarnished and unedited wholeness - that being what a real news network does.)

[Avatar]

*shrug* Like Snoopy, I quote the truth wherever I find it. So I'm not likely to object to others doing so. There are lessons to be learned from dictators. Just because they did something terrible is no reason to neglect potentially positive (or inspirational) things they said or did too. Is it?

--A

[Zarathustra]

(Hint: Her point was that, when faced with a problem, you can either choose to build or destroy. To serve or to kill. You might try explaining that to Beck and his "Fair and Balanced" news network that worked so hard to report to you the whole truth in it's unvarnished and unedited wholeness - that being what a real news network does.)

Actually, Bill O'Rielly made exactly that point. You'd know that if you actually watched the network you are critizing, instead of relying on your own biased caricature of them.

[sindatur]

Since the two political philosophers Dunn mentioned were Mother Theresa and Mao, and that the topic she was speaking to the schoolchildren was Choice, and that the Theresa story concluded with Theresa saying, "Get your own Calcutta," while the Moa story concluded with Mao's: "You fight your war, I'll fight mine," I'd say she does a pretty fair job of comparing and contrasting to illustrate her point.

(Hint: Her point was that, when faced with a problem, you can either choose to build or destroy. To serve or to kill. You might try explaining that to Beck and his "Fair and Balanced" news network that worked so hard to report to you the whole truth in it's unvarnished and unedited wholeness - that being what a real news network does.)

But, wouldn't she have been better served, and promoting a far more deserving philosophy in using Churchill or a former US President, than one of the most ruthless dictators in recorded history? Why would he be the first name that came to her mind?

[Zarathustra]

Sind, exactly. Mao is not the only person in history who did what it takes to get things done. Our Founding Fathers would have been some good examples of people who overcame great odds and went their own way. Why are American Founding Fathers no longer the "favorite political philosophesrs" of our American leaders? Why must we look to mass murdering dictators to find "favorite political philosophers?" As other have been fond of saying lately, this doesn't pass the BS test. Yes, I understand the way her point is rationalized and justified (with belittling, condescending, "you don't know the whole context because you watch Fox News"), but the same exact rationalization and justification could be used with Hitler. The only difference is that enough high school students are familiar with Hitler's mass murdering to understand that he's not a particularly good man to make a positive point, or to hold up as a "favorite political philosopher."

Hell, Bill Gates and Sam Walton would have been good examples of people who went their own way and fought against odds. But I suppose children might get the mistaken impression that capitalism is good if you gave those examples. [Resisting temptation to use eyeroll . . . ]

[Edit: it's also curious that her defense of this comment was first, "I was just joking," and then "I borrowed the example from a conservative." Yeah, whatever. Mao jokes are just hilarious, aren't they?]

[Cagliostro]

Well, I'm sure Mao had his good points. Otherwise, why would they invoke his name so often throughout the song "Surfin' Bird"?

[sindatur]

Well, I'm sure Mao had his good points. Otherwise, why would they invoke his name so often throughout the song "Surfin' Bird"?

You ain't gonna get anywhere carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao.

[Cybrweez]

Yes, I understand the way her point is rationalized and justified (with belittling, condescending, "you don't know the whole context because you don't watch Fox News"), but the same exact rationalization and justification could be used with Hitler. The only difference is that enough high school students are familiar with Hitler's mass murdering to understand that he's not a particularly good man to make a positive point, or to hold up as a "favorite political philosopher."

Yep. She can get away w/it, and people will defend her, b/c Mao's mass destruction of people is little known.

[Zarathustra]

Woops, that bit you quoted was supposed to say, ". . . because you watch Fox News." Not, ". . . don't watch . . ."

Corrected in my original post.

[Plissken]

(Hint: Her point was that, when faced with a problem, you can either choose to build or destroy. To serve or to kill. You might try explaining that to Beck and his "Fair and Balanced" news network that worked so hard to report to you the whole truth in it's unvarnished and unedited wholeness - that being what a real news network does.)

Actually, Bill O'Rielly made exactly that point. You'd know that if you actually watched the network you are critizing, instead of relying on your own biased caricature of them.

Actually, I was responding to your post - which I now see is clearly an attempt to promote a biased caricature of what is clearly a network that is doing it's very best to inform you before you run off and post carefully edited misinformation all willy-nilly... And that you'd rather just post it anyway.

[Zarathustra]

Pliss, I didn't post any misinformation. I posted a direct quote from one of Obama's employees. You responded with a conspiracy theory that Fox News was giving out misinformation about the quote, without a shred of evidence to back up your accusation. And then when I mentioned evidence that directly contradicted your fabrication, you have the gall to accuse me of presenting a biased caricature? What caricature would that be, exactly?

I didn't do anything "willie nillie." I didn't carefully edit anything. There is absolutely nothing improper about posting direct quotes of Obama's underlings and then discussing their possible meanings (as opposed to, say, making up an accusation that Fox is reporting the quote incorrectly without even bothering to see if that's true--that is willie nillie).

Personally, I thought Bill was too generous and "fair" with Anita Dunn. I think the fact that she doesn't hesitate to put Mao and Mother Teresa in the same example shows a staggering lack of judgment, and a heaping helpin' of moral equivalency. Do you have evidence to back up your interpretation of her quote? Have you heard her say a single word about Mao's actions being morally wrong? She has defended her use of the Mao example *twice,* and never once mentioned that Mao's actions were worse than Mother Teresa's. Her first defense was that the comment was a joke, if you can believe that (I don't). Her second defense was the she borrowed the example from a conservative. So her own justification of her comment seems to contradict your interpretation. In fact, her justification is some of the lamest crap I've ever heard.

I notice that you didn't have any comments about the Manufacturing Czar's Mao point: "We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." Does that mean you don't have some snarky way to excuse that one?

[Plissken]

Okay, I really don't think you need this explained to you, but:

When comparing and contrasting, the point is made clearer when the motives and results of the two people are on opposing ends of the moral spectrum. Thus, when comparing the choice to serve made by Mother Theresa, the contrast within the choice to destroy and kill is made clearer when her opposite is Mao and not Churchill.

Did Churchill get alot of destruction done? Yes, but the motivations for his choices - and their results - leave the contrast between his choices and Mother Theresa's quite a bit murkier than the contrast between Mother Theresa and Mao.

Now, a full reading of her speech makes her intent and message quite clear. I assumed you were misinformed and had only been given partial access to her speech by your news source. You corrected me, and said that you had been given full and complete information by one of your news source's OpEd contributors, which leads me to believe that you chose to present an edited down quote which gives an incomplete representation to the rest of us here of your own volition.

If both of those options are wrong, you're going to have to explain the new option in this scenario.

[Avatar]

"We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

Uh...it does. And I'm pretty sure I've seen you make exactly the same point.

--A

[Zarathustra]

"We kinda agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."

Uh...it does. And I'm pretty sure I've seen you make exactly the same point.

--A

There is an undeniable power that comes from guns. I've never had a problem with the U.S. being strong enough to defend itself. I don't believe I've ever connected this with political power, as if that's a good thing, or even an inevitable thing (political power also comes from charisma, persuasion, inspiration, reason, emotion, etc.). In fact, my entire political philosophy is an alternative to physical force backing up my idea of a "perfect" society, because I'm the one who wants the government to do much less than it's currently doing. I'm the one wanting to take power away from the government, and give it back to the people. I've said repeatedly that all our laws are in the end backed up with a gun . . . and this is the reason why we need to be careful what we make into a law. For instance, the difference between welfare and charity. The reason I'm a Libertarian is because I DISAGREE with Mao that tasks (helping people, in this instance) should be accomplished by force (a law + guys with guns to enforce the law). Since laws are backed up with guns, we should be far more hesitant to write laws on the basis of "good intentions." No intention--besides self-defense and the protection of freedom--can be good when it's backed up with guns. If it's not these two things, defense and freedom, it's enforcing your will upon others. Which is why, unlike Obama's Manufacturing Czar, I explicitly disagree with Mao and reject his view, even while I admit the pragmatic truth that the world is governed by the use of force. The key is how you use it: self-defense or coercion. A distinct difference I don't believe either of these two Obama appointees made.

Now, a full reading of her speech makes her intent and message quite clear. I assumed you were misinformed and had only been given partial access to her speech by your news source.

You still haven't provided any direct evidence to back up your interpretation. You seem to imply that you're familiar with her full speech. Did you hear the full speech on NPR? Which new source carried the entire speech? Typically, when presenting a story, news organizations provide sound bites as opposed to full speeches. This is a common, universal methodology of the entire news industry, and not something unique to Fox News or talk radio.

When comparing and contrasting, the point is made clearer when the motives and results of the two people are on opposing ends of the moral spectrum. Thus, when comparing the choice to serve made by Mother Theresa, the contrast within the choice to destroy and kill is made clearer when her opposite is Mao and not Churchill.

If that was her point, then I have no objection to her comparing and contrasting. (Feel free to back up that with an actual quote.) But if this contrast isn't made crystal clear, then all we're left with is comparison. And in that case, the distinction is far from clarified, it is obfuscated.

[Avatar]

All power, political and otherwise, comes from the barrel of a gun. At least at some remove. Power lies in the ability to hurt somebody. That's about as far as it goes.

--A

[Zarathustra]

January 18, 2010 10:34 AM EST by John Stossel

Stealth Propaganda
An obscure 2008 academic article gained traction with bloggers over the weekend. The article was written by the head of Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein. He’s a good friend of the president and the promoter the contradictory idea: "libertarian paternalism". In the article, he muses about what government can do to combat "conspiracy" theories:

...we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies ... will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.

That's right. Obama's Regulation Czar is so concerned about citizens thinking the wrong way that he proposed sending government agents to "infiltrate" these groups and manipulate them. This reads like an Onion article: Powerful government official proposes to combat paranoid conspiracy groups that believe the government is out to get them...by proving that they really are out to get them. Did nothing of what Sunstein was writing strike him as...I don't know...crazy? "Cognitive infiltration" of extremist groups by government agents? "Stylized facts"? Was "truthiness" too pedantic?

Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald explains why this you should be disturbed by this:

This was written 18 months ago, at a time when the ascendancy of Sunstein's close friend to the Presidency looked likely, in exactly the area he now oversees. Additionally, the government-controlled messaging that Sunstein desires has been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions over the last decade, including in some recently revealed practices of the current administration, and the mindset in which it is grounded explains a great deal about our political class.

... What is most odious and revealing about Sunstein's worldview is his condescending, self-loving belief that "false conspiracy theories" are largely the province of fringe, ignorant Internet masses and the Muslim world.

It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power: namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption.

It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.

link

[Avatar]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

--A