Search Results
Washington Post: McCain tax ads “just plain false”
Sens. Obama and McCain
So the Post blisters Sen. McCain’s most recent ads on tax plans, saying no one “should get to outright lie.” Coming from the Post— more conservative in editorial content than most—it’s an important indictment.
The editorial (“Continuing Deception: Mr. McCain’s ads on taxes are just plain false,” h/t True Conservative) advocates debate on tax policy, then laments: “Instead, the McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama’s plan,” condemning “the phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest debate that the McCain campaign has been waging — most recently with a television ad.”
Perhaps you’ve seen it:
The ad opens with the Obama-as-celebrity theme — “Celebrities don’t have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do,” says the female announcer. “We’re paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement.” Then she sticks it to him: “Obama’s solution? Higher taxes, called ‘a recipe for economic disaster.’ He’s ready to raise your taxes…”
In fact, most of us would pay less under the Obama plan (which the Post calls “the wiser and more fiscally responsible), than with McCain’s.
|
The Post concludes: Read the rest of this entry »
Why “Islamic terrorism” is more insulting that we realize
Cross-cultural communication is tough. I’m told that when GM first began selling cars in Europe, the then-omnipresent “Body by Fisher” seal in the door sill was mistranslated to read “Corpse by Fisher.” I doubt it helped GM get what it was after.
Juan Cole, U of Michigan’s brilliant Middle East scholar, wrote a valuable Salon article offering cross-cultural insight into the difference between Islamic and Muslim.
|
“Islamic” has to do with the religion founded by the prophet Mohammed. We speak of Islamic ethics … or Islamic art, as things that derive from the religion. “Muslim,” on the contrary, describes the believer. It would be perfectly all right to talk about Muslim terrorists, but calling them Islamic terrorists or Islamic fascists implies that the religion of Islam is somehow essentially connected to those extremist movements.
Get it? Islamic means from the religion. Muslim describes a person.
I’m not too bothered by calling Timothy McVeigh a “Christian terrorist,” given that Christian can describe either the faith or a person. But I would be troubled if McVeigh were labeled a “Biblical terrorist;” that would suggest that terrorism would derive from following Jesus. And I’d want to oppose that idea everywhere it arose.
So it may be, a bit, with Islamic and Muslim.
Now, the argument could be made that it’s a free country and people can say whatever they want. 
That’s true, but it isn’t the point. If we want to seriously communicate with people of languages or faiths other than our own, we have some homework to do. Or we’ll find ourselves saying things we didn’t intend. Our communication won’t work very well. We won’t get what we’re after (indeed, this is part of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s problem: he has not understood what his words mean in western culture; journalists and politicians have failed to work hard at accurately translating the intent behind his words, opting for the simpler route of calling him crazy. Corpse by Fisher).
What do we want, then, from interaction with others? Those of us who see a part of our faith as becoming peace-makers, what do we want from communication?
Can we afford the shallowness of understanding only our own views, or talking in only our own way? Will it get us what we’re after?
Tags: translation, language, Islamofascism, Islamicists, Muslim, speech, Ahmadinejad, Giulani, Juan+Cole, Terry+McVeigh, ethnocentrism, cross-cultural, Monte Asbury
McCain: 100 years in Iraq “fine with me”
Here’s what’s wrong with “experienced” candidates on national security:
Truthdig: When asked in a New Hampshire town hall meeting about the possibility of being in Iraq for 50 more years, John McCain says it could be 100 years and that would be “fine with me” so long as American troops aren’t getting killed. Comparing Iraq to South Korea and Japan, McCain suggests it would behoove America to maintain a long-term military presence there.
McCain, Romney, Giulani—maybe even Clinton— just don’t get it that Al Qaeda and its ilk attack Americans because American strike-forces are positioned on Arab lands. Arabs and Iranians and American scholars have labored to make this plain. But the President has put his fingers in his ears and cried “They hate us for our freedom.” That’s what experience gets you.
Americans will not be secure until US presidents stop threatening Arab and Iranian homelands. Americans themselves have moved beyond this cold-war view; American government lags behind.
It isn’t right to force ourselves on other nations, and we are less secure when we do. Let’s elect a president who knows it.
Tags: McCain, Clinton, Romney, Obama, New+Hampshire, war+on+terror, troops+in+Iraq, Monte Asbury Powered by ScribeFire.
Newsweek: Bottom line on Candidates
Newsweek published thoughts on the “win – ability” of each candidate for the Presidency, followed by one-line summaries. Here are the one-liners on the leaders from both parties – click thru on the link for details. (Hint: I found the link to this article in an Obama email)
|
You buying it?
Tags: Iowa+caucus, Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Huckabee, Romney, Giulani, candidates, electability, Monte Asbury
Zogby: Obama would beat all Repubs; All defeat Clinton
|
Many of us recovering religious-right-oholics thought this would happen. But I have no idea what happens next.
Tags: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Giulani, Romney, president, candidates, elections, primaries, Democrats, Republicans, Monte Asbury
to this blog
