Calling Someone a Terrorist is a Form of Terrorism

Falsely invoking terrorism is a form of terrorism. If the idea behind terrorism is to terrorize (use tactics to make others instantly and incredibly afraid) some group into doing either a) what the terrorist wants and/or b) something other than what the group would normally do, then the outcome of calling someone a terrorist is to get others to be afraid of being around or associating with that individual. Since 9/11, the US has been in the thrall of the word terrorism. It has been used over and over to make us afraid of “others” in the world who would do us harm. For some, such as myself, this can become numbing. I don’t tend to think much about anyone labeled a terrorist anymore since it is used so often and incorrectly. 

Now the definition I am using to describe terrorism may be objected to as being too broad, as it may include such tactics as using fear to get someone to stop smoking, or brush their teeth, or be good or receive a lump of coal at Christmas, or worship one specific God or spend eternity listening to New Kids on the Block. I added the qualifiers instantly and incredibly to offset the difference between simple fear and the full blown terror that terrorism is attempting to invoke. The fear involved in terrorism arises from sudden and unexpected actions that is of a much grander scale than the examples of fear I gave earlier. And this leads to my conclusion that given the climate of our country and the rhetoric of its leaders since 9/11, calling someone a terrorist who has not done the actions of a terrorist is an act of terrorism. It is an attempt to make someone so suddenly afraid of that individual that they will abandon their previous way of living and thinking and adopt one more in line with the invoker or will at least stop what they were doing. 

Lately, McCain/Palin supporters have gone in public and proclaimed Obama a terrorist (see last post.) Now I’m not saying this is representative of all of his supporters, nor am I disagreeing with my earlier post that most of these individuals are mostly saying these things to rile those they see on the other side of the ticket. But to use the term terrorist to describe a Senator who is running for President is to try and scare someone into either a) voting for the other party or b) getting them to not vote for someone else, or not at all.

I’m calling them out as terrorists. 

The Rational Moderate

We're in the News, Bethlehem PA

Well, apparently McCain and Palin held a rally at Lehigh Uninversity the other day, right in the heart of southside Bethlehem. I'm sorry I didn't hear about this until it was too late, because I certainly would have gone down there to talk with some of the supporters. But that isn't what is making the news. Rather it, at first, was the head of the the Lehigh County Republican Chairman Bill Platt's asking the crowd, "Think about how you'll feel on Nov. 5 if you see the news that Barack Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, is president of the United States." Now, I don't actually have a problem with calling someone by their full name, but some are referring to this as a wink and a nod to Obama being a terrorist, or secret Muslim, or related to Saddam because middle names carry over. 

But while McCain was here taking about his opponent he was interrupted by my neighbors shouting "socialist," "terrorist," and "liar." On top of that, there are some very interesting individuals on video making the same claims, only this time in Ohio: 

But again, here are my neighbor's reactions:

Now, I really love living in Bethlehem and that's even knowing that an idiot like Michael Behe (intelligent design proponent who cannot come up with a new argument for his position and does not respond to the thousands of articles, experiments, and arguments that counter his views) is working over at Lehigh, but I'm really worried. I'm worried for two reasons. 1) These people are really like this and believe the things they are saying, or 2) They are so easily caught up in the crowd that they are saying things they don't really believe to get a rile out of those who disagree with them. I actually think it is the latter, but what worries me about that position is that it is counter to exactly what this country needs and to what I am sure a majority of people from all political positions want which is to actually have conversations about the things that matter. I don't think you should be uttering things you don't believe to get on the other's nerves. So cut it out Bethlehem, and Ohio, and every other place where this kind of nonsense is happening.

The Rational Moderate

Debate, Round 2

CBS - Uncommitted voters went with Obama 40% to 26%

CNN - Obama

MSNBC - Obama (but this one seems particularly skewed)

Fox News - Obama

Media Curves - Independents for Obama 52% to 34%

BBC - didn’t really have anything on their own but linked to Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe who called it a tie which gives it to Obama.

My Take -

I thought it was ugly. I thought Obama avoided answering some questions and he needs to stop doing that. It is a strength for him. While some politicians do better by moving the question into a direction better suited to what they want to talk about, it is worse when he does that because he can specifically answer the question and should.

I thought McCain attacked Obama too much with things that were easily responded to, such as his arguments about Obama “invading” Pakistan or his record on tax increases. 

I thought McCain started off looking angry and ended up looking really flustered and nervous. The weird jokes he made, the dropping of the microphone into his hand when he finished a question... these are the actions of someone who is really nervous. 

I think McCain’s really worried, and I think it’s going to get really, really ugly. 

The Rational Moderate

VP Debate Wrap Up

Polling wrap up on last night’s VP debate. (Again, I’m not linking to these so if you doubt me check out a lovely thing called “google”)

CBS - Biden, as more uncommitted voters went his way. Though Palin’s numbers did increase as far as knowledge and preparedness (though I can’t imagine they could have gone down considering...)

CNN - Biden, though again Palin did better than expected. 

MSNBC - Biden

Fox News - Biden - I could actually find the poll this time. Commentator Aaron Bruns gives it to Biden, but thinks it won’t have an effect on voters whereas Palin has reassured her base that she can handle the job.

Media Curves - Isn’t up, though commenters who saw their results said once again independents favored Biden.

BBC -  commentator Kevin Connolly gives it to Palin, but again prefacing that with the fact that she was expected to fall on her face and didn’t rather than on her making any decent points. If not for that he would have called it even.

My Take: Yeah, I admit that I was watching this for the same reason that millions of NASCAR fans watch cars driving around in circles - I wanted to see a fire ball explosion. And yeah that didn’t happen. But paying any attention to Palin’s answers to the questions compared to Biden, it is clear that she doesn’t know what she is talking about but just managed to hide it better than she has in her interviews. What I thought was interesting was that Biden never once attacked her on anything. He defended against attacks on him by her, but never attacked her directly on anything about her experience or her being a maverick. (I’m so sick of that word I could scream) This was clearly calculated and I think it worked as instead of getting bogged down into what is a monumentally bad decision by McCain, he basically ignored her while coming off as gracious. One of the biggest fears for Obama’s side was that Biden would come across as a big overbearing bully against Palin, but by ignoring her and her *ahem* experience, he avoided that trap.

The Rational Moderate

Cracked Skepticism

Cracked has gone from a terrible revamped magazine to a pretty decent website. 

In honor of the first word in the title of this blog, I really enjoyed this article on several mysterious non-mysteries. 

When I was a child I was terrified by the Bermuda Triangle. The idea that there was a particular part of the ocean where boats and planes would just disappear made me wonder why someone wasn't stopping people from passing through that region. 

Then I got a little older and read a little more and found out that the triangle was really more of a trapezoid of sorts and I thought, "Holy Crap! This is larger than I thought! Why isn't the Coast Guard doing something?"

Then I got a little older and read a little more and found out that the area of the ocean where the triangle is has about as many if not fewer disappearances as any other well traveled part of the ocean and I thought, "Holy Crap! The ocean is a death trap! Why would any one travel anywhere overseas?"

And then I got a little older and read a little more...

The Rational Moderate

A Reasonable Libertarian Position

Sometimes it can come across that all I do is complain about everything without offering something positive or constructive about a solution to a current problem. Well, I'm not really going to offer something positive here myself but offer a link to an article by Jeffery A. Miron who is an economist at Harvard University (not that being form Harvard makes his argument carry more weight.) 

He argues that the best thing we can do is not bailout these companies, but rather let them declare bankruptcy. 

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

Now I'm not saying that we should follow Libertarian economic principles, but rather here is a Libertarian who is making a good argument for returning to the earlier economic regulations while allowing the market to punish those who screwed up in the hopes that they won't do it again. 

Read it here.

The Rational Moderate

And the 1st debate winner is...

Polling wrap up on the debate (I'm not linking all of these - feel free to google):

Jon Taplin - Leans towards Obama, but thinks the media will call it a draw.

Media Curves.com - gives it to Obama with Obama sweeping the independents category.

CBS poll gives it to Obama, but in the category of decisions about Iraq, give it to McCain. Uncommitted voters lean towards Obama.

CNN had Obama winning overall and sweeping the categories. 

Fox News - can’t seem to find a straight answer anywhere. If I was cynical I would take that to mean that their polls also show Obama winning the debate. 

MSNBC - polls have Obama

BBC - Their commentator gave it to McCain, but only slightly. Their round up of other commentators ended up as 4 for Obama, 2 for McCain, and 2 a draw.

My Take - I’m not sure. It is hard for me to distinguish between what I thought and what I think other people would think about what was happening. I thought Obama failed in one area I thought he was good at: directly answering a question. He was likely the first politician I had ever seen do this in a debate in the primaries and I was sad to see it go away last night. I thought McCain did well, even if I didn’t agree with many of the things he said he at least seemed to answer the questions a bit more than Obama. I thought that people would lean towards McCain as the winner in this over Obama, as he lead the discussions and put Obama on the defensive to which again, Obama picked up the Biden Bug and just rambled on. But after looking at these polls, Obama seems to have really taken it. Go figure.

The Rational Moderate