[luke warm]

i know this is from a speech while he was running for president, but obamba did say that this would be a central part of his presidency... do you think he meant it and is it a good idea, a bad idea, or a scary idea (or maybe something else)?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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... People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

if just as well funded, that would mean about half a trillion dollars...

[kenrexford]

I think the man whips out of his backside whatever sounds good at the moment, without any relationship to reality.

What? We're going to send over hundreds of thousands of Tom Tuttles to fix the problem? Brilliant!

[jdonn]

If we were not relying on our military to achieve the national security objectives that we've set, then I doubt we would need to fund them as much as half a trillion dollars (or whatever we fund them now.)

[kenberg]

I had not heard that before. I can't say I understand it. I suspect that if I understood it I wouldn't like it. At it's worst interpretation, it sounds positively scary. A bunch of busybodies looking into my basement to see if I am building bombs.

If politicians were required to think before they spoke it would produce a great silence. But this one seems bizarre. You have a reference?

[hanp]

Agree that this looks like a bad idea. I would also like to see the context.

[luke warm]

he just wants a national security force made up of civilians to handle whatever nat'l security tasks he feels are necessary at the time... people will volunteer for these positions, presumably be trained in their duties, armed, and sent to do whatever he feels is in the nat'l security interests of america

[hrothgar]

Its really dangerous to try to any meaningful conclusions when you start by extracting isolated sentences from a long speech and present them without any context.

It makes it look as if you have a rather biased agenda... Like you're trying to do a hack job rather than engage in meaningful discourse.

More specifically, I think that the following quote from the speech provides a lot of context:

Quote

Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July.  Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger...  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.

Its also worth noting that the quote in question doesn't appear in the official transcript that was release prior to the speech. Instead, you see the following line:

Quote

We'll 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. 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.

My guess:

Obama made an extemporaneous change to his speech and didn't express himself particularly well.

Jimmy stumbled onto the the quote off at whatever wingnut web site he's parroting this week and, once more, has gotten his panties all twisted up in a bunch...

[ASkolnick]

Speaking as a Republican, I have actually liked many of Obama's ideas. More than I thought I would have. However, the one thing that does worry me is his approach to national security. I do not believe that the public community always has the "right to know" everything. The problem is what winds up happening is people hear only pieces, and as stated before, takes things out of context or possibly there is more to the story that should not be revealed.

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

Jimmy stumbled onto the the quote off at whatever wingnut web site

Yes, I googled the whole quote as soon as I noticed it to determine its validity and/or context. Google gave me six results, all of the wingnut web site variety, and all of them attempting to impose some sinister meaning.

[kenrexford]

I'm surprised no one remembers Obama saying this. This was not taken out of context in any way that makes his words misleading, IMO. The basic idea was simple -- to expand something like a Peace Corps or a civilian group of volunteers to make the world a better place in which to live, with love and songs and the like. Maybe hands across the globe.

If someone is reading some sort of innuendo of something like brown shirts, that's off base.

If someone is seeing this as $$$$$$$$$$$, that seems about right.

An underlying idea to all of this cracks me up. College costs a bunch of money. People don't have enough to pay for it. So, if these people do volunteer work, then the money will just appear, because hard work merits pay.

It's kind of like going to a restaurant and ordering a steak. If the steak comes back burned to a crisp, I ain't paying for it simply because the chef spent a long time making it for me.

[PassedOut]

ASkolnick, on Mar 6 2009, 09:43 AM, said:

Speaking as a Republican, I have actually liked many of Obama's ideas. More than I thought I would have. However, the one thing that does worry me is his approach to national security. I do not believe that the public community always has the "right to know" everything. The problem is what winds up happening is people hear only pieces, and as stated before, takes things out of context or possibly there is more to the story that should not be revealed.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I don't see that Obama advocates releasing information that puts our security at risk, nor do I believe that he would do so.

This is in contrast to the previous administration, which was quite willing to sacrifice national security for political gains.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 6 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

Jimmy stumbled onto the the quote off at whatever wingnut web site

Yes, I googled the whole quote as soon as I noticed it to determine its validity and/or context. Google gave me six results, all of the wingnut web site variety, and all of them attempting to impose some sinister meaning.

you and richard both make the same mistake repeatedly... you attack the messenger (or website) but not the message... if he did say the above, why does it matter where i found it? and if he did say the above, and meant what he said, what do you think about it? as for the portion richard quoted about peace corps, etc, what has that got to do with a well-funded, well-armed civilian force for nat'l security?

he either said it or he didn't... he's had little trouble expressing himself that i've seen, i doubt this is an example of such an oversight

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 6 2009, 02:05 PM, said:

This is in contrast to the previous administration, which was quite willing to sacrifice national security for political gains.

I generally view this one the other way 'round.

[blackshoe]

When I first read this alleged quote I wondered what the hell national security objectives he was talking about, and whether he meant to institute some kind of national police force, and whether he was saying we don't need or want the military. Then I asked myself if someone as smart as Obama appears to be would try to do that second thing, or believe the third. N'uh-uh. Not gonna happen. I'd still like to know what "national security objectives" we're talking about here, though.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 6 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 6 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

Jimmy stumbled onto the the quote off at whatever wingnut web site

Yes, I googled the whole quote as soon as I noticed it to determine its validity and/or context. Google gave me six results, all of the wingnut web site variety, and all of them attempting to impose some sinister meaning.

you and richard both make the same mistake repeatedly... you attack the messenger (or website) but not the message... if he did say the above, why does it matter where i found it?

It's not a mistake. If the messenger approaches the issue with a partisan predisposition then validity is lost. The only predispositions should be along the lines of intellectual curiosity, not wanting to make Obama look bad.

It's the same reason that (good) scientists ask themselves "why is that so?" then try to find the answer. They don't say "I think this is why that is so" and then try to prove themselves correct, because that leads to biased methodology and untrustable results.

In other words, I agree with them 100%. The fact this all comes from wingnut websites (and make no mistake, that's what those websites are) is enough reason to dismiss the discussion as invalid.

luke warm, on Mar 6 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

and if he did say the above, and meant what he said, what do you think about it?

I concur with Richard, who expressed himself very well:

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

My guess:

Obama made an extemporaneous change to his speech and didn't express himself particularly well.

But that it doesn't matter because

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 06:48 AM, said:

Its really dangerous to try to any meaningful conclusions when you start by extracting isolated sentences from a long speech and present them without any context.

[ASkolnick]

But almost every news story or discussion starts with a pre-disposition. Most media tends to be slanted on the Liberal side, but it is slanted none-the-less. I can tell you about articles written in the paper about the nuclear power plant near us which don't have any validity, but some do. So to ignore it because of where it comes out of is silly. I am not saying you shouldn't try to validate the facts or figure it out the appropriate context, but to say "can't be because it was said by X" is wrong.

So even if it comes out of a Right Wing nut job, it does not necessarily mean its false. Just like if it comes out of a Left Wing nut job, it does not mean its false.

One of the biggest jerks in baseball was Jose Canseco. When he wrote about steroids, I am sure all he wanted was the money. People mocked him and thought he had an agenda and he was lying. Now, over time, almost everything he said has turned out to be true. So, just because the source may be an idiot, it does not mean its not valid.

Even scientists would have to make some assumptions and as soon as you do, your tests are biased.

Assume I believe Hypothesis X is true. To prove it, I am already assuming Hypothesis X is true, so there may be much more of a bias to try and prove Hypothesis X than try to disprove Hypothesis X.

[blackshoe]

ASkolnick, on Mar 6 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Assume I believe Hypothesis X is true. To prove it, I am already assuming Hypothesis X is true, so there may be much more of a bias to try and prove Hypothesis X than try to disprove Hypothesis X.

That ain't the way it works. Well, not if "it" is science, and the person involved is a scientist (rather than somebody who just wants to be right). The scientist will form an hypothesis, and then attempt to disprove it. Bias may show up in the ways in which he chooses to make the attempt — that's why he will also invite others to attempt to disprove it.

That said, I agree that one's opinion of the source of an assertion is not a one hundred percent certain guide to the validity or accuracy of the assertion — but it's certainly an indicator.

[jdonn]

ASkolnick, on Mar 6 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

But almost every news story or discussion starts with a pre-disposition.  Most media tends to be slanted on the Liberal side, but it is slanted none-the-less.  I can tell you about articles written in the paper about the nuclear power plant near us which don't have any validity, but some do. So to ignore it because of where it comes out of is silly.  I am not saying you shouldn't try to validate the facts or figure it out the appropriate context, but to say "can't be because it was said by X" is wrong.

So even if it comes out of a Right Wing nut job, it does not necessarily mean its false.  Just like if it comes out of a Left Wing nut job, it does not mean its false.

One of the biggest jerks in baseball was Jose Canseco.  When he wrote about steroids, I am sure all he wanted was the money.  People mocked him and thought he had an agenda and he was lying.  Now, over time, almost everything he said has turned out to be true.  So, just because the source may be an idiot, it does not mean its not valid.

Even scientists would have to make some assumptions and as soon as you do, your tests are biased.

Assume I believe Hypothesis X is true.  To prove it, I am already assuming Hypothesis X is true, so there may be much more of a bias to try and prove Hypothesis X than try to disprove Hypothesis X.

1. There is a difference between "tends to be slanted" and "nut job" (both your terms).
2. No one said "can't be", I just said the discussion is invalid. Something that is not valid could still accidentally be true.
3. The Jose Canseco argument is the exact same argument people make when they make a stupid claim, everyone calls them stupid, and they say "everyone called Isaac Newton / Alfred Einstein / Christopher Columbus stupid too!." In other words, one random case means nothing.
4. In your last sentence, when you say "to prove it" you are erring. You can believe hypothesis X to be true, but you don't set out to prove it, you set out test it. When you say "prove it" you are letting in personal bias. It seems like you think there would be two potential tests, one to prove it and one to disprove it, and that someone would only choose to perform the first test.

[Lobowolf]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2009, 04:54 PM, said:

That ain't the way it works. Well, not if "it" is science, and the person involved is a scientist (rather than somebody who just wants to be right). The scientist will form an hypothesis, and then attempt to disprove it. Bias may show up in the ways in which he chooses to make the attempt — that's why he will also invite others to attempt to disprove it.

That said, I agree that one's opinion of the source of an assertion is not a one hundred percent certain guide to the validity or accuracy of the assertion — but it's certainly an indicator.

Yes, but there's a distinction between a theory and a quotation. Unless the contention is that the nutjob websites can't be trusted to provide an accurate quotation.

[hrothgar]

ASkolnick, on Mar 7 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

But almost every news story or discussion starts with a pre-disposition.  Most media tends to be slanted on the Liberal side, but it is slanted none-the-less.  I can tell you about articles written in the paper about the nuclear power plant near us which don't have any validity, but some do. So to ignore it because of where it comes out of is silly.  I am not saying you shouldn't try to validate the facts or figure it out the appropriate context, but to say "can't be because it was said by X" is wrong.

So even if it comes out of a Right Wing nut job, it does not necessarily mean its false.  Just like if it comes out of a Left Wing nut job, it does not mean its false.

One of the biggest jerks in baseball was Jose Canseco.  When he wrote about steroids, I am sure all he wanted was the money.  People mocked him and thought he had an agenda and he was lying.  Now, over time, almost everything he said has turned out to be true.  So, just because the source may be an idiot, it does not mean its not valid.

Even scientists would have to make some assumptions and as soon as you do, your tests are biased.

Assume I believe Hypothesis X is true.  To prove it, I am already assuming Hypothesis X is true, so there may be much more of a bias to try and prove Hypothesis X than try to disprove Hypothesis X.

I think that you are misinterpreting the critique. I don't have a problem with news sources that have a know pre-disposition, even when said pre-disposition is opposed to my own.

I do have an issue when people or organizations pollute discussions by injecting large amounts of noise.

Let me try to provide an analogy:

I read The Economist fairly regularly. I used to read the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung with some frequency. I don't agree with the editorial slant of either magazine. If we turn to the online world, I read Andrew Sullivan quite frequently despite the fact that I disagree with a lot of what he has to say. I do so because I believe that these are credible sources for news and analysis. Even if I don't agree with all their conclusion, I trust their intentions and their basic process.

I have nothing but contempt for Fox News (Let me take that back... I have to sort of admire the sheer audacity of the using "Fair & Balanced" as a slogan). Fox's raison d'état is to poison political discourse by injecting noise...

I consider Jimmy to be the Fox News of the BBO forums.

Now, there are a few different ways to deal with organizations like Fox.

I believe that the correct point of action is to forcefully indicate whenever they a spewing crap. Jimmy continually claims that this is ad hominem attack. The real purpose is to document a pattern of behavior.