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.
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?
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.
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 - 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'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.
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).
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.
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 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.
BenAnd 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