me:
>> Note that he [Obama] didn't sign any contract to put what he said into
>> practice. Not even a verbal contract.<<
Julio Huato:
> What a load of sophistry this is.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
According to the Wikipedia, "In the modern definition, a sophism is a
confusing or illogical argument used for deceiving someone." I'd like
to see how I am trying to deceive anyone. I'd also like to see how the
statement above is illogical or confusing. It may be _wrong_, but
that's completely different than sophism.
> Try this at home, if you have young children. Tell them that you are going
> to buy them a gift they've been craving for. And see how that noncontract, a
> legally nonbinding promise made in the most informal manner, plays out in
> your relationship with them. Then report back to us.<
Having been a parent, I don't have to do an experiment. But I know
that the analogy between a parent and the president-elect is a false
one.
That is, there's a gigantic difference between (a) the relationship
between a parent and his or her children and (b) that between the
president-elect of the (still) most powerful country in the world and
the very numerous citizenry. This is especially so in light of the
large number of competing political pressures on him. Especially since
Obama has not actually been in power, I am sure that he's made a
variety of different promises which will turn out to be in conflict
with each other.
Considering how many things Obama says, I am sure that many of them
will be forgotten. As with any politician, many of them are
meaningless to begin with. Many or most people (wisely) believe that
any happy talk politicians produce is just that.
> Obama could have criticized the workers for seizing private property not of
> their own. ... But, no, the guy sympathized overtly with the workers, who
> are taking direct action to have their bosses' obligations with them met.
> Obama is not just a private citizen. He is the president elect. His words
> carry weight. If what he's really been plotting all along is to stab these
> workers in the back, then his casual words are going to increase the cost for
> him.<
He could have said what he thought was the popular thing ("in these
perilous times") to say to his constituencies. I think that's what he
did. I doubt that he'll appoint Robert Reich (or someone similar, the
"left wing of the possible") as labor secretary. If he does, then I'd
put more credence in his support for workers involved in the sit-down
strike.
I'm sure that Paul Volcker (and his ilk) dismissed it as mere
political rhetoric, too, since he knows what really counts is action
and since he knows who's got the most political-economic power. I hate
to say it, but if Volcker thinks this, he's likely going to turn out
to be correct.
I did NOT say anything at all about "plotting." Since I'm very
anti-conspiratorial in my thinking (and explicitly so on pen-l,
irritating Charles and Paul to no end), I see this attribution to me
of such conspiratorial notions as very silly.
Instead of seeing him as "plotting" to "stab these workers in the
back," I treat him the same way any politician. Maybe, with his Ivy
League education and all, he's somehow better than his peers. (Like
Bill Clinton? -- no, he's got an Ivy ed too.) But this runs into the
class structure of our society. He may _want_ to do something
different in the future (supporting the workers) but I am predicting
that just as Clinton discovered once in office that he had to keep the
bond market happy, Obama will refrain from such statements in the
future -- or they will become increasingly nebulous.
In any event, I want to see the context of Obama's statement.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
