While I don’t agree with every point you’ve made and don’t exactly like being boxed into the whole “all liberals dig affirmative action” statement…I am impressed that you are able to acknowledge that politicians from both sides of the table have valid points and should not just be dismissed just because they are Democrat or they are Republican…and I am glad that you are able to put your prejudgments aside and actually LISTEN to what is being said.

I think one of the downfalls of the government-especially in recent times, is that there aren’t more people like you…and instead the country is filled with those who are in the mindset of-well they are a Liberal so whatever comes out of their mouth is b.s. and vice versa.

I appreciate your vote of confidence. I try to always weigh things objectively and see where that gets me instead of starting with an opinion and extrapolating facts from there. In my brief experience on this earth, this has led me to the views I currently hold. As I receive and evaluate more information those views may change. That is one thing that has always bothered me about grilling politicians about changing sides on issues (ala Mitt Romney). I see it as a virtue that someone changes an opinion based on new information or a new perspective. My grandfather only had a 3rd grade education, but he told me repeatedly “A wise man changes his mind. A fool never does.” I think he was right.

Now I’m not saying deep down you specifically have racially charged beliefs. But it seems, all of us, are one way or another blind to our own bigotry or those beliefs held by friends and family.

I have friends. Who, if you were to know only of them the direct discriminatory quotes I’ve heard them say in the past, you’d characterize them as bigots, racists or something else. Yet, I do not consider them as such.

It this weird perplexing duality of character. Reverend Wright seems like a contradiction. But is his problem hatred or ignorance. And is there a difference? I certainly think there is.

“Liberals, stop wagging your fingers; you’re the biggest culprits.”

I’m wagging my fingers; not at what came before or after, but at this statement itself. You know I guess I could harp on and on about this; and if I did, I guess I would be just as dishonest as your statement here, at ignoring an otherwise very well thought post about Obama’s speech. I will say this: I think you see them as the biggest culprits, because you choose to see them that way.

Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false. If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. It is an obfuscatory way to say “you’re lying” or “you’re stupid.” The phrase is also frequently used by orators when a debate foe or audience reaches a conclusion varying from the speaker’s on a given subject. This appears mostly in debates or discussions of speculative, non-scientific issues, such as morality or policy.

Given that definition of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ then I can assure you that you are wrong in accusing me of it. I write this blog because I enjoying expressing my opinion which I believe has merit. I have no illusions that it is influential in American politics. In short, I can’t fathom why I would be intellectually dishonest.

If I actually have acquaintances that think those things, then I am ignorant of that fact. I don’t know every detail about everyone I know. Perhaps a more constructive point on your end would be “Actually, you might be surprised at the extreme positions some of your acquaintances hold that you don’t know about. For example: ______. In that light your criticism of Obama’s judgment for remaining friends with Rev Wright is unjustified.”

However, it is getting tiresome that every time we disagree (which is most of the time) you contend that I am intellectually dishonest. I really hold these opinions. I’m not a fiction writer. I don’t have an agenda to push. As I told you on another forum, I don’t blindly latch onto the agenda of a political group and advocate it against reason. In short, there is no trickery going on here. I am not trying to trick my readers into believing something I know to be false, and I am not trying to trick myself into the same.

I may be wrong, and if I am I encourage you to tell me why. But stop insinuating that I am always conducting mental trickery either of myself or my readers. I am a blogger, not a magician.

I definitely can come of as abrasive when I state my opinion; but try not to take it as an insult, it is just my character to say what I think. I hope you do not see me as simply as a disagreeing blog troll. It just my character to highlight disagreements, as I like having good debates amongst people I respect. Agreement I find boring; and in a way, is just self-indulgence. I must say earnestly, I think we agree more often than you think. In truth, I actually responded to this post because I agreed with your basic premises.

Now I admit I was wrong; but in a way to cop myself out, I originally wrote that statement towards your thought about liberals being the biggest culprits of ignoring valid points. I felt this was intellectually dishonest, not what came after or before.

With this though, I guess I should explain what I see as “intellectual dishonesty”. Notwithstanding the Webster or Wikipedia definition; it isn’t for me a nuanced elitist way to call a person a liar or consciously being dishonest. Instead I see as this; people have there own biases. Whether conscious or not, people filter information through their these biases. If what comes out of these “bias filters”, for lack of a better term, isn’t fair or ignores another side. I consider that intellectual dishonesty. Fair, in this context, is of course very subjective.

I must say, it is just one of my pet peeves. In fairness, I don’t hold any illusion that I’m not guilty of it myself. It seems to me, you don’t like it much more than I do. When you say: “it shows that one thinks they might not be able to logically counter the points if taken head-on, so the points must be unacknowledged or dismissed outright.” I see that as the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. It is as if a persons “bias filter” is on overboard. Never being able to see the other side of the road.

Such a thoughtful entry. Your insightful, objective and fair appraisal of the Obama speech is refreshing. I am so used to the shrieking, angry right wing lunatics on conservative radio that I was prepared to tune you out as well. But you surprised me. But, please consider this. Many people of all political beliefs found Obama’s speak appealing because he was treating his audience as adults. He acknowledged other’s viewpoints and didn’t offer simplistic solutions. That is why so many voters are attracted to him. Here in California it is surprising how many Republicans are saying they are going to vote for him. I believe they are tired of the fear mongering, the with us or against us mentality of this administration and the Republican party’s pandering to it’s fundamentalist supporters. . They are tired of so many viewing opponents as mythical, stereotypical caricatures of ideals they dislike. I am quite sure “right wing, peckerwood, KKK member racists” are about as rare as “big government, tax and spend, hurt those evil wealthy people liberals.” Obama is a refreshing addition to increasingly polarized and rigid political landscape.

I’m sure you’re familiar with Nathaniel Fick. I’ve been so impressed by the guy that I was inspired to seek out what other Marine Officers were saying about the issues of the day.

Your take on Obama’s speech is probably the best I’ve read, definitely the most even-handed.

Great read!

RG.

A mere bigot, by contrast, is just someone who feels antipathy for other ethnic groups but without any accompanying delusions of genetic superiority.

Rev Wright has never espoused the former, nor the latter in his sermons. But given the history of the Tuskegee Airmen, WMD, Three Strikes & Your Out, and the outright racism he and most of his parishioners experienced it should come as no surprise that out of several thousand sermons he said something that white America would find objectionable.

If you go to a UCC, or Universalist Church, you will hear similar sermons, because the underlying truth is there for those who are willing to consider it.

From the tone of your post, you are; but many are not comfortable having to re-examine the biased truths they have absorbed.

I think that one major problem with society no matter what country you live in, there are all of these groups that you are put into. You find employment and they want to know what race you are, if you are male or female. I went out to eat the other day and the server handed me a survey about the service, BEFORE she took my drink order. They asked where I live, how much money I make, my race, gender, sex, age, education level. I am sorry but why does a restaurant have to know that information about their customers? It should be do you like the service, was the place clean, etc. I know I am rambling, I do this often bear with me. But if we were not so worried about a person’s views, what political party a person is affiliated with, whether or not he or she supports or is against something that is headline making news, should not be held against this persons character. I am one of those people that have both conservative and liberal views, I also have my own opinion of what I think should be done about the companies that cut jobs here and send them to another country. Do people agree with me? Not if they own stock in the company they do not. I do think that there has to be something done to keep jobs here, I am from Ohio, and we keep losing jobs left and right unless you want to work for a little over minimum wage, no health care, and get treated like crap. When a Wal-Mart superstore opened in Cleveland over 1,000 people went to fill out applications, they were looking for 400 employees. It is like that everytime a new place opens up around here, there are LINES of people who need work. As far as getting hired at a job based on race, it does happen. Also employers are afraid to fire certain people or else they can be sued for being racist. I left a company because no matter how many times 2 people were written up for violating company policy they were not fired. These people told the management that if they were fired they would sue for discrimination. These people were BLATANTLY stealing money, groceries, one of them walked out with a television set and NOTHING was done. That type of behavior is disgusting. But because I did not like working with them, and kept my personal belongings locked up where they could not get them, I was the racist. I was the only WHITE person working there, how could I be the racist? People do not want to accept any kind of punishment for their actions, they want to take the easy way and make everyone else do the ball busting work. There are too many things that have to be fixed and no matter what happens, no matter who is elected for president, it will always be a mess. So what everyone has to do is keep plugging away, find their own solution and hope someone doesn’t sue them for it.