September 8, 2009

• (politics) The Apparent Shallowness of the Van Jones Issue

  
  Intro:

  I noticed on the Media Research Center's "bias alert" RSS feed (link) that it was apparently enough to merely reassert what was already being confronted in regards to the merit of Obama's former green czar, Van Jones. I was expecting to see some kind of pros and cons chart to expose just how little Van Jones did versus the known objections.  However that's nothing like what we got.  And so far it seems, that free association and labels go a long way with critics of Obama.  It seems pretty clear that Van Jones is no longer a commie (link). 

  ---

  Libertarian, Christian author of "The Irrational Atheist," Vox Day blogged (link):

  My dear Mr. Jones, it may be vicious, but it's not a smear when they're quoting you directly!
  

  "I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today. On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

  Never write anything that you don't understand can and will be used against you. The reason I am always careful to articulate my more controversial opinions is that I know perfectly well that they'll eventually be appearing on Wikipedia or a blog somewhere. Of course, because I know what I'm doing, my critics are usually forced to avoid printing the direct quotes because those never sound anywhere nearly as bad as the inaccurate and exaggerated summaries.

  Jones, on the other hand, clearly didn't. The direct quotes were damning, which is why he had no choice but to resign.
  

  ---

  I responded:

  Hey VD,

  Is there a problem with people like Van Jones working with Obama on narrow issues they happen to have common ground on if they are qualified for that specific job? I don't see why Obama has to necessarily agree with everything everyone in his administration believes. With standards like that I'd have to object to every Christian appointment in his administration. But if folks like Francis Collins, for example, can do the job and keep their other beliefs out of it, that's just what it's like living in a world where people starkly disagree. And I respect Obama for that. What am I missing here do you think?

  Ben 
  

  ---

  John Mosby responded:

  What qualified Mr. Jones, Ben ? Being a fellow commie like his former boss ? The fraud that is the Kenyan Kommie Kook and his fellow travelers have been outed, and soon will be routed.
  You may ponder or pout, but the truth will out.

  ---

  I responded:

  So you are saying Van Jones had absolutely no experience or expertise in terms of the "green" movement and that it was 100% about political affiliation you believe Obama holds as well? I'm not pouting, but that's not a response to what I've brought up. Why should someone believe Obama is a communist (now that you've asserted it) and why should I believe Van Jones was unqualified for the narrow position he was given in the Obama administration? These are fairly simple straight forward questions that make or break whatever point is trying to be made. As is, guilt by free association isn't much of an argument. I'm not saying I know any better, necessarily, but if the Glenn Becks of the world are making a stink, it seems reasonable to expect them to address these crucial points, don't you think? And if they already have, link me up. I'd love to have a good reason to change my opinion.

  Ben
  

  ---

  Spacebunny responded:

  Ben - the "green" movement IS a communist (or at least socialist) movement. You are the one who seems unwilling or unable to grasp the point.

  ---

  I responded:

  I'm sorry, buzz words are not arguments and advocating green energy (link) does not make you a communist or a socialist. It makes you a good steward of the planet, ideologically. That can be attached to just about any political movement that cares about the environment.

  I also don't see why I deserve your tone. I've asked some very straight forward questions and no one seems to give a crap about whether Van Jones was actually qualified for the narrow job he had in Obama's administration or why Obama has to agree with everything everyone that works for him believes in as long as they are clearly team players on the given issue. Wouldn't it be swell if future responses to my comments from anyone here actually responded to those two fundamental issues? I know I'd appreciate it.

  take care,

  Ben
  

  ---

  Spacebunny responds:
  

  WAR_ON_ERROR: 9/8/09 10:05 AM:

  I'm sorry, buzz words are not arguments and advocating green energy does not make you a communist or a socialist.

  So unable to grasp the point it is. I'll type slowly for you, perhaps that will help. He was not simply advocating it, he was insisting on gov't intervention/control of people's lives ad how they lived them - what they could buy, how to dispose of things, etc- in this regard and that is what makes him a communist dear. It is not a buzzword (although that word certainly is).
  

  WAR_ON_ERROR: 9/8/09 10:05 AM:
  It makes you a good steward of the planet, ideologically.

  No, insisting on gov't control and everyone doing what dear leader says does not make you a good steward of anything, much less the planet, it makes a communist wanna be dictator.
  

  WAR_ON_ERROR: 9/8/09 10:05 AM:

  I also don't see why I deserve your tone

  Because you've demonstrated yourself on this and at least one other thread to be, well, not very capable of the conversations here. You are either actually stupid or deliberately obtuse.

  Wouldn't it be swell if you weren't stupid? Seriously, if you have to ask why an avowed communist is unfit to serve in the US gov't you are not tall enough for this ride.

  ---

  I responded:
  

  Spacebunny: 9/8/09 11:11 AM:
  He was not simply advocating it, he was insisting on gov't intervention/control of people's lives ad how they lived them - what they could buy, how to dispose of things, etc- in this regard and that is what makes him a communist dear.

  I apologize for the confusion, but in the quote you were responding to I was talking about Obama and the available common ground he might have with someone who has starkly different political views than he does. You appear to be talking about Van Jones and I wasn't disputing his political views necessarily. And I'm wondering if this "communist insisting" was going on as part of his job in the Obama administration specifically? It actually had some significant impact in some way in shaping the stimulus package? Honestly I don't know the whole story and as I said, am looking for relevant info if there actually is any.

  Ben
  
  And I followed up with:

  So just for the record, the opposition's argument against Van Jones goes: "He's a communist, therefore not qualified to do his job."

  And to be clear, the Obama administration's argument is, "he's qualified to do his job, therefore it doesn't matter whether he's a communist or not."

  And, also for the record, supporting the genetic fallacy is what it takes to be tall enough to ride this Vox Day ride here?

  Should I take back my acceptance of Francis Collins since he's a Christian and therefore clearly not qualified to do his job in the government?

  And should I stop respecting Obama (or anyone for that matter) for working with anyone who will work with him in this eclectic society of people who starkly disagree?

  Our comments have been archived on my blog, fyi.

  Ben
  

  ---

  Spacebunny responded:

  WAR_ON_ERROR: 9/9/09 12:21 AM:

  And should I stop respecting Obama (or anyone for that matter) for working with anyone who will work with him in this eclectic society of people who starkly disagree?

  Our comments have been archived on my blog.

  First of all, the fact that you have any respect for Obama in any regard at all is damning in and of itself with regards to your capabilities. [Ben edit:  That's priceless.]  The second half of that sentence is hysterical "for working with anyone who will work with him"? Really? That leaves you two options. Either you are saying that there are so few people willing to work with him that he has no choice but work with people who are diametrically opposed to freedom and democracy (being an avowed communist) that this country was founded upon and by their own words will attempt to destroy that freedom, or you are saying that he doesn't necessarily disagree with Van (making Obama a man with communist leanings as well - in which case you'll get no argument from me) just other people do.

  Either way its extremely disingenuous to try to conflate the office of POTUS with any other job in this country. Pretending that one's past and present political activities should have no bearing on one's suitability for a government job further demonstrates that I was indeed correct in my assessment of your height.

  Why would I care if you are archiving this? It's already archived here where far more people are reading it and observing your foolishness than the ten people at your blog dear.
  
  

  ---

  I responded:

  Spacebunny,

  I'm sure there are offices and various higher up jobs in the administration which would require a more sensitive approach. However, being the czar of green jobs doesn't appear to be one of them. If there was a gay rights czar, I would not have appreciated Rick Warren being in charge of that. But including him in the prayer service, I didn't have a problem with, even though many people on my side did. I expect and respect Obama for working with people he disagrees with and for being inclusive rather than filling the ranks with yes people. That doesn't mean I expect him to put them in charge of just any old thing uncritically. I don't think anyone here has shown that he has.

  I can understand a knee jerk reaction to Van Jones' background. And I could understand your concerns if every single person in Obama's administration had a similar background. I'd start being concerned, too. However passionate people come to Washington for a variety of reasons and I strongly suspect Obama's administration is filled with some very talented, very diverse folks that your suspicions can't account for. I'm still open to the possibility that Van Jones was not overly qualified for the job, but everything I'm reading about him shows that he was, and that he was willing to set aside his own agendas for the sake of being a team player. Even his resignation shows that.

  Ben

  ---

  Spacebunny responded:
  

  WAR_ON_ERROR: 9/9/09 3:12 AM:

  I can understand a knee jerk reaction to Van Jones' background

  It's not a knee jerk reaction dear. Although you clearly need to believe it is. Jones either has political influence or he doesn't, you can't have it both ways. If he is working with the POTUS then he clearly has political influence and as a "czar" he would be.
  

  WAR_ON_ERROR: 9/9/09 3:12 AM:
  and that he was willing to set aside his own agendas for the sake of being a team player. Even his resignation shows that.

  His resignation shows nothing of the kind. It was a face saving maneuver for both he and Obama, nothing more.

  ---

  I responded:
  

  Spacebunny: 9/9/09 3:47 AM:
  Jones either has political influence or he doesn't, you can't have it both ways. If he is working with the POTUS then he clearly has political influence and as a "czar" he would be.

  Van Jones had an influence on the creation of green jobs. Obama has lots of people in his administration with lots of different backgrounds. There were 34 czars with Van Jones on board. So the political influence you are concerned about (in a second tier influence to begin with in the administration as far as "czars" in general go who hardly have any power) has a 1/34th efficacy? And that's assuming Obama gave a crap about anything Van Jones said apart from his expertise on green jobs. If there's anything I've gathered about Obama, it's that he tends to happen to his environment and not the other way around. It's just your assertion on that count and the prior probability that Obama has the time to shoot the sh#t with all 34 of his czars (and all the higher ups in his administration and the media) beyond the immediate on topic needs seems a bit implausible. You can agree that Obama is a busy guy, right? Regardless, it doesn't appear to be either or on the face of it as you have portrayed. There's a third option, that Van Jones really didn't have much political influence beyond the green jobs gig. I don't know why that's such an anti-intellectual idea to folks on this blog. Why should someone believe in the worst possible construction of the available facts here?

  Ben

  ---

  Outro:

  Just about everyone steps over the line, exaggerates, has axes to grind against someone, has their uncritical sacred cow issues, and is too passionate about retarded philosophies.  None of this seems to really matter as long as Van Jones wasn't doing anything illegal, and was actually qualified for the job Obama gave him.  In a more perfect political world, working with people who will work with you despite your differences of opinion would be praised.  And here I thought that's exactly what I was getting with Obama.  But instead, we get crap like this (link) from people who prefer a slew of misrepresentations to what Obama has been intentionally selling all along as a virtue I can believe in.  And none of this seems to even matter, since Van Jones' radical views are openly discussed in the past tense.  I'm still open to more facts on the matter, but they don't seem to be very forthcoming. 

  Ben

  • 11:42 am
  • 9 Comments