133 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
See this report from Ohio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXHc2CQCmNk Also see this story from Investor’s Business Daily: http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=308358130652174 |
Behold the awesome power of The One! The oceans subside and even the dead rise to vote for him! |
“Next time somebody defends “community organizers,†keep in mind what they really do. The term “community organizer†a pretty name for a terrible practice; i.e., it’s just lipstick put on a pig.” That’s just silly. It’s like saying that every president is inclined to genocide ala Hitler or every lawyer is an ambulance chaser. This was an interesting story regarding voter challenges: I suspect that voter fraud is relatively rare because I do not know anyone who would be a party to it. Fascinating that Republicans seem to be the most concerned, considering the winners of (and questionability about) the last two federal elections. Voter intimidation, though, seems quite evident. That NPR story points out that even the threat of it prevents people from turning up. Sometimes we might wish for the relative simplicity of the ink-stained finger…. |
ESO: I suspect that voter fraud is relatively rare Actually, an historical consensus has formed around the idea that Nixon won the 1960 presidential election, but voter fraud in Illinois changed the results. Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that in 2004, Franklin County, Ohio (which includes Columbus) had 817,000 registered voters, but just 815,000 residents aged 18 and over. Then there’s the action of the Florida Supreme Court, which would have been voter fraud if members weren’t protected from prosecution for actions carried out under the auspices of official duties. They just up and decided to count votes beyond the legal vote-counting period. ESO: That NPR story points out that even the threat of it prevents people from turning up. People have been saying this for decades. The truth is that this phenomenon is rather rare. The solution is using ID cards at voting places, but the left opposes this, because it costs them elections. During the past 30 years, large voter turnouts have favored Republicans, because it has diluted the fraud efforts of the Democratic get-out-the-vote machines. Put plainly: It ain’t the Republicans out there offering cigarette cartons to homeless people for votes. ESO: That’s just silly. It’s like saying that every president is inclined to genocide ala Hitler or every lawyer is an ambulance chaser. No, its just the case that the nations largest and most well funded community organizing group is rife with fraudulent activity. It’s hard to argue that ACORN, the poster-child of community organizers — is an outlier. In any case, this is what ACORN does. What Obama did was get homeless people to voting places to vote for Democrats and get them to protests to make crowds appear larger. The notion that this is somehow a qualification for president deserves our scorn, and we must lose no opportunity to say so. |
ESO, Good point, ink-stained fingers is a great low-tech way to deal with the multiple voting problem. We should do that. |
The problem with the ink-stain approach is that it wouldn’t take long for an ACORN funded chemist to create and distribute a solvent. |
“Next time somebody defends “community organizers,†keep in mind what they really do. The term “community organizer†a pretty name for a terrible practice; i.e., it’s just lipstick put on a pig.” That’s not just silly, it’s flat out offensive. I’m not about to defend underhanded practices that some community organizers engage in (as you have described). You can find organizations and individuals in ANY field of work that would give a bad name to the whole, community organizing is no different. Extrapolating this to the entire profession is simply irresponsible and untrue. You may have a legitimate difference of political opinion about the methods of many community organizers to rely on public funding. This is fair. But realize that most community organizers are driven by ideals of improving the world as they see it. I realize there is room to have a legitimate difference of opinion about whether their methods are the most effective way to accomplish their goals (which of themselves are generally worthwhile…fighting poverty, inequality, etc). However misguided you believe this may be (and I’m not denying there are legitimate concerns), to question the motives of this entire group just doesn’t fly. In addition, your thinly veiled shot at Obama falls short as well. That would be the same as holding someone’s early professional experience with Fannie Mae against them in 20 years because some shenanigans were going on at different levels (or at different locations) of the organization. I’m not trying to engage in a defense of Obama as a candidate, simply point out your attempt to make him guilty by association is a reach. By the way, the church is full of community organizers, they simply happen to go by different titles like “bishop” or “young women’s president.” That they do so unpaid and largely without recognition is one of the miracles of the church. |
Wow, DKL. Not your best post. What James said. |
James, see my answer to ESO. It won’t due to claim that Bishops and leaders in YW and YM are “community organizers.” You’re guilty of equivocation. When Obama calls himself a “community organizer,” he’s talking about a job — a real, paying job — called “community organizer,” not a type of activity that involves some kind of organizing within some kind of a community. ACORN has been doing this for decades, and it’s what they paid Obama to do. If Fannie or Freddie had been doing what they do for decades, you’d have a point. Furthermore, there’s nothing veiled about my shot at Obama. |
Hmmm. I know two people engaged in get-out-the-vote activities this year. One spent her time canvassing her own neighborhood, the other sits in a coffee shop registering voters. I also had a man knock on my door a few weeks ago, checking to see if I needed help registering. Obviously I’m not homeless, and he didn’t offer any cigarettes—should I feel cheated? |
Oh, just curious: Is ACORN the only organization guilty of voter fraud? Are Republican-friendly organizations ever guilty? |
Brian, Look throughout the nation and I’ll sure you’ll find shenanigans here and there but not at the scale of what ACORN is doing. What is the tally of the number of states looking into fraud done by ACORN? I saw “over a dozen” mentioned but I haven’t found an official list. |
I can’t wait for your election to be over. |
#10 BrianJ, Asolutely you should feel cheated. I, for one, want my cigarettes. |
Ronan: Who are you voting for? Would you like a registration form? {grin} |
Yet another reason for the US to implement a central registry. |
Peter LLC, that be difficult, because it would require a constitutional amendment. In fact, it may actually be impossible, because constitutional amendments are very difficult to get done and to ratify (which is kind of the point, but that’s a different topic). Nevertheless, the idea of a national registry definitely has merit. In fact, clean voting may be the best argument for national ID cards — something that I tend to be against, though I remain ambivalent. |
“It won’t due to claim that Bishops and leaders in YW and YM are “community organizers.†You’re guilty of equivocation. When Obama calls himself a “community organizer,†he’s talking about a job — a real, paying job — called “community organizer,†not a type of activity that involves some kind of organizing within some kind of a community.” You know the saying – if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might just be…A DUCK! If bishops organize their communities, they are (in my mind) a type of community organizer. I realize there is are major differences in their purposes, pay, etc, but they are both engaged in a type of “community organizing.” I don’t want to argue the semantics further. I stand by my original point – blasting all community organizers (the majority of who I believe to be well-intentioned) due to the misconduct of some, is simply off base. I also cannot wait for this election to be over, Ronan. |
I’ve heard it said elsewhere that a great example of a “Community Organizer” is Al Capone. Based on your definition James, I guess that fits. |
Ha! I suppose I COULD have been more precise in my definition, Aluwid… |
wow. this is really offensive. |
I too cannot wait until this election is over. DKL I would like to read interesting, thought provoking posts, not something that makes me think I’m reading something by Sean Hannity. You have a diverse, intelligent readership. I’d like to read something that I’m less likely to get in my inbox from my one nutty super right wing friend. I like differing opinions, but please, how about more facts and less speculation on what you think “community organizers” do. kthnxbai. |
Obama did NOT “work for ACORN” as a community organizer. He worked for the Developing Communities Project (DCP). He DID successfully represent ACORN in a mid-1990s lawsuit against the state of Illinois which sought to force compliance with the federal “motor voter” law. |
What’s revealing here is how many people are outraged because I note the potential humor surrounding mentally challenged Kerry voters and accusations that I’ve made a hasty generalization about community organizers (which, btw, Jessie, is based on facts from reputable news organizations). When someone says that it’s offensive to say that we could joke about mentally challenged people voting for Kerry but doesn’t have an iota of outrage about the perversion of our voting system that this represents, when someone says that it’s offensive to make an over-hasty generalization about community organizers perverting our voting system but doesn’t care enough to be offended by ACORN’s actions, it tells me that you have a deeply broken moral compass. It tells me that you want to classify every fact that makes you uncomfortable as somehow partisan and biased. This is the type of thinking I’d expect out of the mentally challenged folks being bussed in to vote for Kerry — not otherwise educated people in the bloggernacle. There’s this notion of picking at the speck in your brother’s eye when their’s a mote in yours. So I tell you what: I’ll keep making retard jokes and decrying the perversion of American democracy, and you keep fooling yourself that the issue is un-PC jokes and purportedly hasty generalizations. |
wow DKL. What a response. Now I know why this site doesn’t get traffic like the other blogs. It’s not that I am denying that it’s wrong for Acorn to do things like that. It’s that you are completely one sided. What you are accusing me of is what I accuse you of. First, you don’t know that the “facts” you gave me made me uncomfortable. Don’t assume that because I disagree with you I am stupid, or I don’t know the facts. Don’t assume that I haven’t heard this information before. Don’t assume that I don’t have a problem with voter registration fraud. You just gave me an entire response based on your assumption that I am morally corrupt, stupid, and biased. I don’t think anything I said previously warranted that kind of response. I didn’t call you stupid, or morally corrupt, i said i don’t like your post because it’s completely one-sided and inflammatory toward democrats(hence the comment about retarded people voting for kerry, and your “assessment” of Obama). it’s not very productive to call people stupid who disagree with you. kthnxbai |
“Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that in 2004, Franklin County, Ohio (which includes Columbus) had 817,000 registered voters, but just 815,000 residents aged 18 and over.” As a simple lay-commenter, I just don’t think the onus is on me to explain something like this, but I can certainly offer some possibilities. First, as Columbus houses an enormous university, I am sure the population is very transient, meaning that people might have registered there and then moved out. Also, Ohio has rather strict residency requirements, which may affect the numbers when it comes to who counts as a resident (and many students work hard to be counted as residents in order to qualify for in-state tuition). With such a huge university, it seems that one graduation ceremony could easily explain a discrepency of 2,000. I know many students who move from year to year within town simply re-register, rather than doing a change of address form–that could certainly lead to ambiguous numbers. I am sure there are locals who register there and then go to college elsewhere. There are many possibilities! I know plenty of people who are passionate about politics, but I don’t know anyone who is interested in a fake win. On the other hand, I have personal experience having my registration challenged in 2004 and again in the primary this year. That is twice for one person, which certainly seems to be more than my fair share. Both issues were resolved and I was able to vote on the day, but it certainly made me sweat. I am certain that many people in my position (especially the 2004 one, where I had to return to my polling station later in the day) would not have had the luxury of taking the time to get to vote. I have also done voter registration. It does not surprise me that there are sometimes problems with those registrations–whether it is someone’s lazy handwriting or they listed their house number as 16 rather than 160, or they left off their zip code. But to label these as fraud is paranoia. |
Jessie: it’s not very productive to call people stupid who disagree with you. That depends on the basis one has for calling them stupid. For example, it is often quite productive to formulate an argument to demonstrate that someone’s approach to an issue is stupid. If that bugs you, then don’t take demonstratively stupid approaches. Jessie: it’s not that I am denying that it’s wrong for Acorn to do things like that. It’s that you are completely one sided…. You just gave me an entire response based on your assumption that I am morally corrupt, stupid, and biased. The issue remains: I make a serious point about election corruption in the US, and a preponderance of comments take issue with a purportedly over-hasty generalization and a statement acknowledging the potential to make un-PC jokes, with barely a token admission that ACORN’s actions are deplorable. If you don’t think that this is troubling, then I don’t know what to tell you. Nevertheless, I’m glad that you are finally willing to admit that you aren’t denying that ACORN’s actions are wrong. You may be on your way to a morally healthy outlook. |
ESO: I have personal experience having my registration challenged in 2004 and again in the primary this year. Great! That means that people were doing their job. I’ve been a victim of credit card fraud and identity theft multiple times. Once I was traveling and made a large purchase. Next time I went to use my credit card, I found that a hold had been put on it for unusual activity, which was just the large purchase I’d made out-of-town. The person at the credit card company apologized profusely. Having been put through the ringer with fraudulent activity under my name and using my accounts, I was frankly quite pleased. I submit that the fact that it made you sweat was perhaps due to the lack of appreciation for what is at stake. ESO: I don’t know anyone who is interested in a fake win. There’s no such thing as a fake win. Unless a house of Congress refuses to seat one of its elected members (the Constitution gives them ultimate purview over election disputes within its body), a win is a win. Unless a court gets involved to put a halt to voter fraud (as the Supreme Court did in 2000 in Florida), a win is a win. That’s the point. |
you are free to call me stupid. It’s obvious that everyone who doesn’t agree with you on EVERYTHING is stupid. I’ve finally seen the light.
finally? what makes you think you are the only one to raise these issues? again, you assume that you are the bringer of knowledge to us all, that I finally admitted it because I’ve seen the light!! lose the condescension. DKL, your arrogant approach is just offensive. My issue is not entirely with the content of your posts, it’s with your delivery. AND with your rude responses to others. but clearly I have forgotten that it is you that is always right. |
Jessie: It’s obvious that everyone who doesn’t agree with you on EVERYTHING is stupid. I’ve finally seen the light. I love this! Was it your intention to sound completely one-sided here? Jessie: DKL, your arrogant approach is just offensive. Tssk, tssk. Remember Stunk & White Rule #11: “Use the active voice.” The truth is that you find it offensive. You’re usage of questionable English styling implies that there’s some objective basis for offense. |
“I submit that the fact that it made you sweat was perhaps due to the lack of appreciation for what is at stake.” Really?!? My lack of appreciation? You know, I feel I am generally pretty good-natured about our extreme political differences, but this is rather insulting. |
hmm you become more condescending as the conversation goes on- about you being condescending. |
that’s funny.. He totally dissed Jessie’s English style while using the improper form of “your”. nice one DKL |
Anyone who thinks DKL’s writings are stupid, condescending, and offensive..post a Yes. |
Yes |
yes |
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Before this discussion completely devolves (oh wait, too late…thanks Bob) I want to respond to this: DKL: “…when someone says that it’s offensive to make an over-hasty generalization about community organizers perverting our voting system but doesn’t care enough to be offended by ACORN’s actions, it tells me that you have a deeply broken moral compass.” I’m flattered you would mention my moral compass, but again, in principle, I AGREE with your opinion about voter fraud. If ACORN is perpetrating voter fraud, that is a serious. That said, I guess the fact that this may be happening is about as shocking as hearing that another child actor turned out to be a basket case or that the latest Tour De France winner was doped. All disturbing no doubt, but (to me) not worth all the posturing and bluster. Voter fraud is probably about as old as the concept of voting itself. Congratulations for being indignant about something so completely predictable. What DOES disturb me (to the point it prompted my initial comment) is that as members of the church, we have been and continue to be subject to similarly generalized, unfair criticisms at times. Given that, I would have expected a more measured approach in drawing conclusions about any group of people, even one as “terrible” as community organizers. You are welcome to your political views on this, but to me, this type of generalizing just doesn’t fly in any situation – political, religious or otherwise. |
These are deplorable acts that ACORN is involved in. They make a mockery of our democratic system. I hope the culprits are prosecuted and punished for their crimes. Good thing it has nothing to do with Obama. |
This is starting to remind me of BoH’s public vote on whether or not to ban DKL. And then you had DKL insisting that those who argued on behalf of his being banned had failed because he could write a better argument for his own banning than anything anyone else had provided. |
#39 CJ,
Too bad it has everything to do with liberals. |
#34-37, I got a chuckle out of this. Perhaps review your own comments and see if you haven’t been steel to DKL’s flint. |
nas, That’s pretty funny. From one organization committing voter fraud to the whole of anyone left of center. Wow. Again – very funny. |
Obama has nothing to do with ACORN? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTNiN2YwMmQ4Njc2MzE4ZDUxYWVlYTA1NzZlMmY3YmM= Your going to have to prove otherwise. |
Also see the Investors Business Daily story that I linked to in comment #1: Obama was forced to admit that he paid ACORN $800,000 to register new voters, which payments went unreported by his campaign. You’re still going to tell me there isn’t a connection? |
I think you missed the point CJ. Cool down and think about it. You, personally, may not be represented by ACORN, but ACORN voluntarily represents 1) liberals, and 2) Obama (not directly, but rather in shipping people out to vote for him, creating people to vote for him, and hammering people to vote for him). But liberals/left of centereds do nothing to reign that kind of injustice in, just as Obama does nothing to reign it in, all the while decrying the injustice of a polemic Administration. Oh ye…you know how it goes. The title of this post is all too telling… |
“Anyone who thinks DKL’s writings are stupid, condescending, and offensive..post a Yes.” Nah. I think DKL correctly calculated that he could rile up Dems and liberals. |
Why do you people bother analyzing DKL’s writings, when he still hasn’t apologized for his noxious role in that horrible Banner of Heaven fiasco? Some of us are still waiting for DKL to apologize. I know at least one woman who has been holding her breath for quite a while, and last week her head exploded. All of this is on DKL’s head, naturally. DKL, when are you going to apologize? WHEN!!!!!!!?????? |
Never! |
Bob: Anyone who thinks DKL’s writings are stupid, condescending, and offensive..post a Yes. jenny: Yes rob612: Yes Jessie: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO! You guys are great! Look, I’d like to flatter myself that three people actually showed up to say how stupid, condescending, and offensive I am. Alas, jenny, rob612, and Jessie are posting from the same IP address. Anyway, Bob, better luck next time. |
Brianj: I think DKL correctly calculated that he could rile up Dems and liberals. Yes, and no. On the one hand I saw how foam-at-the-mouth crazy people went over Palin’s disparagement of “community organizers.” There’s this irrational desire on the part o knee-jerk liberals to belittle everything that Palin does or says, and that makes them rabidly defensive of community organizing. On the other hand, from any objective point of view, this is a pretty even handed essay. I describe ACORN’s process of registering people in relation to get-out-the-vote efforts, I give a pretty dispassionate description of what happens when the process goes right, and I describe what some people have accused ACORN of doing — allegations with seem quite credible, because judges have issued ex parte search warrants based on them (e.g., in Nevada). There’s really nothing sensationalistic about this post. James: You know the saying – if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might just be…A DUCK! If bishops organize their communities, they are (in my mind) a type of community organizer. I realize there is are major differences in their purposes, pay, etc, but they are both engaged in a type of “community organizing.†I don’t want to argue the semantics further. I stand by my original point – blasting all community organizers (the majority of who I believe to be well-intentioned) due to the misconduct of some, is simply off base. Again, equivocation. You now admit that we have two different types of activity that the term “community organizing” describes. I’m clear enough about which one I intend to mean, but you want to argue with me based on your usage of a different definition. This is, therefore, a double-whammy: both equivocation and a straw man. |
ESO: With such a huge university [in Columbus], it seems that one graduation ceremony could easily explain a discrepency of 2,000 [more registered voters than eligible citizens]. This is utterly preposterous. In order for this argument to work, one must assume close to 100% registration among students and longer-term residents. Only about 65% of eligible citizens are registered to vote. Among college aged eligible citizens (18-24), just over 50% are registered. Jessie: that’s funny.. He totally dissed Jessie’s English style while using the improper form of “yourâ€. Ouch! |
Eric Russell: This is starting to remind me of BoH’s public vote on whether or not to ban DKL. And then you had DKL insisting that those who argued on behalf of his being banned had failed because he could write a better argument for his own banning than anything anyone else had provided. Yep. Me, too. (well put, btw.) |
J. Michael: Obama did NOT “work for ACORN” as a community organizer. He worked for the Developing Communities Project (DCP). He DID successfully represent ACORN in a mid-1990s lawsuit against the state of Illinois which sought to force compliance with the federal “motor voter” law. According to Toni Foulkes, who is a leader of ACORN in Chicago and sits on ACORN’s National Association Board, Obama did leadership training for ACORN. CJ Douglass: These are deplorable acts that ACORN is involved in. They make a mockery of our democratic system. I hope the culprits are prosecuted and punished for their crimes. I completely agree, and I’m glad to see that we’re both unequivically on the same side of this issue relating to the problems with ACORN’s registration activities. |
So from that article, if 25,000 registration forms have come from ACORN and 250 are inaccurate that doesn’t seem so bad. I don’t know how that compares, but 99% accuracy doesn’t seem particularly bad. seems much worse. But does the number of discovered discrepancies indicate that the controls are working or do you think they indicate that there are a lot more that are not discovered? What I don’t understand is why ACORN doesn’t, given their history, do more to avoid duplicate and inaccurate registrations. |
Oops … i messed up that hyperlink … :) |
Not to combine topics, but I am hiring a community organizer for an NIH grant. Community organizers have been very effective in helping folks stop smoking, breastfeed, seek mammograms, etc. Community organization is just a tool, and the entire profession should not be condemned because of one group. |
News Flash: 4,000 dead people registered to vote in Houston… Halloween is upon us, or its the last days, and like Farahkan said- the Messiah is amongst us. |
lol!!! not the same ip, the same router. don’t flatter yourself. |
wow DKL. What a response. Now I know why this site doesn’t get traffic like the other blogs. So quantity of readers is a measure of value? People is thus more important than The Economist? |
#DKL: Don’t feel bad, you may have gotten more votes that Palin will get. For the record, I don’t think your writings are not always offensive. But they do have all the depth of a bird bath. |
DKL is just upset that the writing is on the wall and that Palin won’t get to be President (yet). Cut him some slack. Also, I wonder if the polls showing Obama with a significant lead are simply calling residential care centers over and over again? |
#57 I have been converted- I can’t support community organizers anymore. Hiring someone to convince women to stop breastfeeding? That’s beastly- shame on you, Naismith… |
I checked the Wikipedia entry for “Community Organizer” and I’m thinking that it might be inaccurate. There was nothing in there that mentioned anything about bussing retards and old people to polling places to vote for Democrats. There is some good news however, there is no entry for community organizers over at the conservapedia, and that can be put in the entry there. http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Search?search=community+organizer&go=Go |
#62: Obama is going to win. Not because he is spending more money, not because he’s stuffing the voting box. It’s because of the clear failing of GOP ideas and actions. The Bush War to nowhere, the failed faith in for unregulated Capitalism. |
DKL, 54: “On the other hand, from any objective point of view, this is a pretty even handed essay…. There’s really nothing sensationalistic about this post.” I agree with you to a point. The last paragraph in your post is not even-handed. You describe the fraud of one community organizing group and then lump all community organizers into the same bunch. I don’t know the right term for your error—sensationalism? equivocation? blahbibbydo?—but I still recognize it as such. |
nasamomdele: “News Flash: 4,000 dead people registered to vote in Houston…” Why do you hate dead people so much? I suppose they’re not good enough to get invited to your parties. Elitist. |
“There’s no such thing as a fake win.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but with regard to the 2000 Florida Presidential election ballots, what I’ve heard is that Gore’s big mistake was that he didn’t ask for a statewide recount, and that if he had, he would have won Florida’s electoral college votes. So how is Bush’s “win” of Florida in 2000 not a fake win? I suppose “a win is a win” if there are a certain set of facts that one is willing to ignore or that remain unknown until some arbitrary time cutoff point, but once the wider set of facts becomes common knowledge, it can be difficult to accept that a decision based on the smaller subset of facts can still be determined to have been the correct decision. |
“People is thus more important than The Economist?” Which LDS blog is “People”, and which LDS blog is “The Economist”? To what magazine should this blog be likened? |
“Hiring someone to convince women to stop breastfeeding? That’s beastly- shame on you, Naismith…” Bad grammar, sorry. The “stop” only applied to the smoking, not the mammograms or breastfeeding. They encourage people to stop smoking, initiate and continue breastfeeding, and seek mammograms. |
Bob, And I thought he was going to win because of the sign in my yard! Mark N, Though I wish Gore had won I am able to accept that the 2000 election was a statistical tie. This is upsetting because we like to think of elections as perfect, but it turns out that we simply aren’t able to run elections with enough precision to determine a clear winner when the outcome is that close. So the Supreme Court acted as a biased tie-breaker. Such things are bound to happen from time to time, and unfortunate as they are we probably need to accept them and move on. |
I am personally unaware of an LDS blog as expensive as The Economist. I wonder if they’ve properly priced their magazine… For my part, though I detest People, I can admit that my contributions here probably push us more towards People than towards The Economist. |
All this talk of dead people voting reminds me of a headline someone showed me from a major Chicago newspaper many years ago. A community organizer there worked with retired people to get them absentee ballots so that they could vote (for Democrats, of course). Apparently, she’d been on the up-and-up for many years, but had started filling out absentee ballots for many of the older people she had worked with after they deceased. She was prosecuted, and the headline read, “They would have wanted it that way.” The truth is that this kind of stuff is not at all uncommon among community organizers. Pretending that it’s isolated to ACORN is flat-out ridiculous. Which, incidentally, reminds me of a joke that a Mormon friend of mine made about Repubican’s winning in Massachusetts. He said that a Mormon candidate was a shoe-in — we have the largest list of dead people anywhere. (Anyone thinking “Harry Reid” here?) |
#67 BrianJ, Despite the awareness Oingo Boingo brought to Dead Man’s Parties, the carpet cleaning bill alone is enough to swear off the whole lot of ‘em. |
I should note that there have been accusations that the McCain campaign is asking registered republicans who have recently moved from a battleground state to a non-competitive one to cast an absentee ballot in the battleground states. My wife knows a few people who are taking them up on the suggestion. |
#75 reminds me of the democratic primaries. Republicans were urged (by whom, I am not sure) to register democrat and vote for Hillary as she was viewed to be an easier opponent for the GOP than Obama. It’s silliness but it was going on here in PA. |
DKL- That is a much more balanced way of putting it. My complaint centered on the overly large brush you used in your original post. Of course ACORN likely isn’t the only group, and I’m fairly sure I never asserted as much (if I did, my apologies for overreacting). Trust me, while I have met a number of community organizer types personally (and found their desire to improve the world admirable), I wasn’t so clueless as to recognize the underlying ideology that many based their actions on wasn’t severely flawed in some ways from my viewpoint. That ACORN or any other group (of any kind) might go too far and justify their ends through unethical means is flat out wrong. |
DKL #30, this argument is just stupid:
You’re mistaking the use of a copulative verb with the passive voice, so your criticism is unwarranted. Yes, the passive voice uses the copulative verb “to be,” but the presence of “to be” does not constitute the passive voice. You of all people should know that you’re affirming the consequent. By your example, “The truth is that you find it offensive” would be just as passive. (Obviously it’s not, “that you find it offensive” is a noun phrase that you equate with “the truth” by using a copulative verb). Your questionable English styling implies all kinds of unsavory things about you. |
Last week I received a mailing from the Michigan Republican Party to my home in Maryland. They are concerned that I fell off the voter rolls there (where I lived five years ago) and want me to re-register. |
As I see “All is not well in Zion”. The topics should be we will soon have a black president(that’s OK). We will move to Socialism. To save the country, the Defense budget will be cut by more than half, the Welfare budget will more than double. Countries we have looked down on,(Russia, China, Iran), will double in their power. Mormon Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of history. |
Oddly the Republicans in Massachusetts haven’t bothered to try to get me to vote absentee. Though I do get at least a letter a week from John McCain. |
#80 Bob, Are you saying that because a black president gets elected, we become socialist? That’s racist. P.S. Your comment scored a 15 on the unintentional comedy scale (1-10). |
Re:#30 and (sort of)33 he meant Strunk & White #34 Yes….but… #47 DKL correctly calculated that someone would take his bait. When he sees a keg of gunpowder, he cannot help himself from throwing lighted matches. |
#82: No, thinking I said that is racist. If a white woman (Hillary), were becoming President,(Okay with me), I believe the same things could happen. |
#83: The sad thing is this students are not registered to vote, and are willing to vote for a beer. |
Maybe we could get ACORN to round up people to vote about whether DKL’s comments are offensive? |
Orwell, I disagree with your analysis. You’re correct that the presence of “to be” in the sentence is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a passive verb. The presence of “to be” is epiphenomenal to the passive construction, because a passive construction is a construction wherein the writer omits the acting subject or places the acting subject in the place of the object. Since I did not conclude that the sentence was offensive based on the presence of the verb, “to be,” you are incorrect to accuse me of affirming the consequent. Furthermore, in the statement “x is offensive,” the word is is a copula only when x is a full-fledged clause, an expressed equivalent (or identity or membership, depending…), or a predication. When x is not a clause or an brand of equivalence or a predication, then the subject of the sentence has been omitted; thus, it is in the passive voice. In this case, x = “Your arrogance” — not a clause and not equivalent to “offensive”, therefore an auxiliary and not a copulative usage of “to be.” Because, “Your arrogance is offensive” is ostensibly the same form of sentence as “Your dog is brown,” you’re concluding that it is likewise a simple predication. As it happens, “Your arrogance is offensive” is the passive form of “[omitted subject] takes offense to your arrogance.” So you are also incorrect about the question of whether the statement in question is passive. You are, however, correct to analyze my usage of, “The truth is y” to be a copulative usage of “to be,” because y = “that you find it offensive” — a full fledged clause. Plus, the phrase, “The truth is” is a special kind of phrase that assigns a truth value to what follows, and is the same as a simple assertion of that proposition. Thus, saying, “The truth is x” is just another way of saying, “x“; e.g., saying, “The truth is that London is the capital of England” is materially equivalent to just “London is the capital of England.” Whatever the grammatical analyses, statements like, “Such and such is offensive” or “this and that are unacceptable” are weasel words. Mostly, weak-minded types use such phrases to lend emphasis to their opinions by using inappropriately categorical language to discuss matters that are altogether debatable. If pushed, I’ll concede that my grammatical analysis of “Your arrogance is offensive” is unduly scholastic and, perhaps, a bit tenuous as well. But I stand by it as a justification for chiding the weak-minded about silly uses of categorical statements. In any case, I recommend you read Gottlob Frege’s influential essay, “What Is a Function?” Unfortunately, because it is late Frege, it has a tightly doctrinaire feel to it, lacking the exploratory tone of his earlier works. Nevertheless, it is an enlightening treatments of several things related to this topic. (It also wouldn’t hurt to read Frege’s earlier, and more influential, “Sense and Reference” and “Concept and Object,” along with Bertrand Russell’s response, “On Denoting.” Some of the best reading in analytic philosophy, all of it bearing on the internal grammar and logic of sentences and propositions.) |
Was I incorrect in hearing the Prophet ask us to love one another last week? |
ladybug, maybe. It depends on what he was actually saying at the time. |
#88 ladybug, I thought he was talking about less-actives and non-members. Within the active body is fair game. |
I can concede that this does not look good on Obama. I can also agree that a vast number of Obama supporters will naively sweep this under their neurological rugs. But, likewise I expect the same mindless reaction to come from Palin supporters in light of this new bi-partisan conclusion. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. |
#87: DKL, your essay caught my eye. The only thing I know about this view is what I learned by just now reading Wikipedia on Gottlob Frege. |
Bob, that’s a very good question. Frege is (philosophically speaking) a realist, in the sense that he believes that abstract entities are real. This includes numbers, sets, qualities, rules of logic, and meanings, all of which Frege believes exist independent of human cognition. From a linguistic point of view, Frege’s realism is most pronounced when he discusses his belief that expressions are the ultimate embodiment of meaning and truth, and these expressions take concrete form in specific language as sentence. Thus, expressions themselves are fundamentally linguistic, but independent of any language. So the expression Snow is white takes the English form of “Snow is white” and the German form of “Schnee ist weiss” (I don’t actually speak German, I’m just using a very common example). But the expression Snow is white is, itself, neither German nor English. This makes Frege decidedly deterministic about meanings, which is an approach that seems to be out of favor currently. (Never mind that I actually write the expression Snow is white in italics in English. I could just as easily write it in pig latin, and that’s the point. Nevertheless, a funny thing about the philosophy of language is how awkward it is to discuss language using language.) So yes, you’ve got it right: Frege definitely wants to say that laws of language exist somewhere outside of mortals. Just to pick an easy example from his essay, “What is a Function?” In that essay, Frege contends that a function is shorthand notation for the ordered set of expressions that satisfy it. Frege believes that these ordered sets really do exist, and that they are the objects to which the function refers. Most philosophers do buy into some form of realism, because human knowledge doesn’t seem to work without it. That said, there’s no fundamental contradiction between the view that human language evolved and that there are “laws of language.” There are several ways to look at this, for example: A scientific “law” is simply a reasonably valid generalization reduced to some form of notation. In this sense, there is no reason why accurate generalizations cannot be made about human language. Frege developed a notation for expressing semantic and quantificational formulae. It so happens that we tend to use the one that Bertrand Russell created instead, because nobody understood Frege’s notation (with the notable exception of Russell). The Russell’s and Frege’s notations look quite different, but yield equivalent results. Furthermore, there does seem to be something independent about knowledge, no matter what form it comes in. Modernism seems to say that because knowledge begins with the knowing subject, there is no knowledge apart from the knowing subject (a la Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am.”) But there does appear to be knowledge that exists apart from any knowing subject. For example, in the old days, people would use these huge reference books to look up logarithms. These books contain knowledge that nobody actually knew, that nobody ever did know in total, and that people did not want to know in total (the highest quality books were calculated by machine). Furthermore, items written in languages/alphabets that had been lost (like Linear B or Ancient Egyptian) contained knowledge that was retained for centuries in the absence of a knowing subject. Plus, eyesight and color perception and hearing and smell are also evolved, like the hand. Yet there is good scientific reason to suppose that there are systematic elements in our environment that correspond (more or less) directly to the colors that we see, the sounds that we hear, and the odors that we smell. Likewise, there’s good reason to suppose that there are systematic elements in our environment that correspond (more or less) directly to general human-languge patters of grammar. Keep in mind that evolved characteristics tend to be of an adaptive nature, because non-adapting organisms tend to get eliminated. It stands to reason that language was adapting to something. Bertrand Russell pointed out the rather obvious fact that we take to base-10 so readily because we have 10 fingers. He went on to fancifully note that intelligent beings who lived on the surface of the Sun would find topology to be quite easy, but only very smartest among them would study sums. This reflects a common realist perspective on language; viz., that it actually describes the world around us because it is able to correspond to it in some sense. These aren’t my arguments. I’m just repeating them here, and some people find them persuasive while others don’t. The argument over different forms of realism remains open and is hotly debated. As a logical positivist, I take much the same view toward realism as I do toward the Paulson plan: I don’t like it one bit, but I also don’t see how things can really work very well without it. After reading Quine’s Word and Object, I came away convinced that no useful system of knowledge will work without at least of few realist assumptions. Anyway, I find Frege to be a brilliant thinker who is fascinating to read and quite engaging, but I agree much more with Russell and Carnap when it comes to handling the issues that Frege tackles. and Frege’s opinions are important ones to know within the field of philosophy. |
DKL’s post ignores Republican voter fraud, but should make all of us wake up to see that we are not exactly the beacon of freedom and democracy we like to think we are here in the US of A. In fact there are many countries that we criticize that have freer and fairer elections than we do. Venezuela comes to mind… |
#93: Thank you for your answer. I will not thread-jack again. Back to the food fight. |
Other countries don’t have electoral colleges, which has a DISTINCT impact on our presidential elections. No one cares if a few thousand voters in a state like California or Texas or New York get disenfranchised, because it’s not going to have a distinct impact on the presidential election. |
#96: I care. |
me too. |
I don’t pretend to speak for queno, but I think it’s a fair guess that when he says, “No one cares if a few thousand voters in a state like California or Texas or New York get disenfranchised” he is referring to the fact that it doesn’t impact the outcome of the election. One of the best consequences of the Electoral College is that it localizes voting issues. Thus, saying, “No one cares” is a way of saying, “it makes no objective difference in the outcome of the election.” That said, I don’t begrudge your knee-jerk reactions to make hey of a purely symbolic issues consisting, at most, of ill-chosen words. Bob, your quite welcome. I love to talk about philosophy. And I don’t believe that the are such a thing as threadjacks. From my point of view, the post is a mere starting point. The real contribution is made by the commenters (like you and others). Therefore, let the conversation go where it may. |
#99: I think I would be good at philosophy, if I wasn’t so bad at it. |
DKL, you need help. I’m serious. Please seek help from someone sane and balanced. It’s going to be OK. The country, under a Democratic leader, and you. Peace, be still. As a sidenote, the injunction against the passive is moronic, Strunk and White knew not whereof they spoke–see, for example, http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003366.html if you care at all to learn–and you are seriously damaging your own quality of life by posting these desperate, disparate rants day after day after day. Mormon Mentality has come unhinged and been quite mental for some time now because of this. You can pontificate on Frege to some imaginary audience, rapt at your feet, until your heart bursts in narcissistic ecstasy, but it still won’t change the fact that no one cares for a condescending fool who can’t listen to save his life. Good luck with the future. |
smallvoice: Good luck with the future. Thanks! You’re so kind. Good luck to you, too. |
whatsoever a man soweth |
DKL #87: First, I know I can’t pin the affirming the consequent fallacy on you since you were not explicit enough as to why you were telling Jessie to use the “active voice.” I just saw enough daylight there to throw that out as it could be inferred from what you wrote, though nobody but yourself will ever know the thought process behind it. I don’t buy your grammatical analysis, though. Nice try. All you need is a predicate nominative or a predicate adjective for a full-fledged copulative verb.
But, bonus points for creativity here. It was was funny. Or rather, it was found to be funny; or, [omitted subect] found your analysis to be entertaining. |
smallvoice: whatsoever a man soweth I love that scripture, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” But I’m not sure why you’d use it here. Are you trying to say that I’m mocking God by mocking you? If so, then I feel damned privileged to have you commenting on my post. I mean, WOW. Just WOW. |
Orwell, LOL. I’ll take my bonus points and call it a game. Anyway, you may have missed my mia culpa a few paragraphs later:
And so, as usual, the end justifies the means. Perhaps you’ll find that offensive. It’s just as well. |
I myself am nothing, and have nothing to do with any of this. I meant for you to read the whole chapter, and to think about what you are doing. It’s not too late to stop. |
DKL, this is kind of like the good old days when people were lining up on Times and Seasons to slap you. Jessie, you can’t insult this man, he’s been knocked around by greater minds than yours. Frankly, you both sound like you think people who disagree with you are stupid. I kind of feel people who disagree with me are stupid, it’s human nature. This troubles me. I’m going to study it out. While I believe ESO is right about voter fraud being relatively rare, this doesn’t sound like a little thing, it sounds like a big thing. We probably have the most fraud-free elections in the world, but that’s no excuse. There are people out there who want Obama to win so badly, for one reason or another, that they might lose sight of their values. I don’t think McCain’s own party is all that vested in his winning. But I’m going to study it out. |
DKL:
Not at all, I just wanted to be sure that nobody else did. |
smallvoice: I myself am nothing I believe in you, smallvoice! |
annegb, it is like the good ‘ole days. I thought it was fun then, too. And you’re right: Compared to many of my other opponents, these guys are lightweights. Many of these folks have reacted more harshly than when I used to word chick. It’s mostly a function of people’s rabid allegiance to Obama. As BrianJ noted, this is a reasonably even-handed essay, with the possible exception of the last paragraph. The lengths to which otherwise intelligent people will go to protect Obama from even the mildest, most matter-of-fact criticisms is a shameful degradation of American political discourse. ESO: You know, I feel I am generally pretty good-natured about our extreme political differences, but this is rather insulting. And yet you discuss voter verification efforts as though their a problem rather than a solution. I’m just calling it as I see it, ESO. Find it insulting if you want to, but at the bottom of it, there’s likely a fundamental difference in core values between you and me on this issue. |
jenny: lol!!! not the same ip, the same router. don’t flatter yourself Actually, it is the same IP. Whether it’s the result of using the same router is a different question. Readers can conclude what they want, but since (a) the handles of the commenters are novel, (b) they come from the same IP, and (c) almost everybody trying to make sock-puppet commenters in blog space denies it, I’m comfortable concluding that you’re the same person until I have more evidence. But just to be clear, because you don’t seem to have understood what I said: I’m disappointed to learn that some agent of ACORN showed up to stuff the ballot box and thereby corrupt the voting on Bob’s resolution. You owe Bob an apology. |
DKL I think you’re a little paranoid. But that’s not surprising:). It’s the same IP because we were sharing an internet connection from my router. What you see is the IP address of my router, my overall network address. You should research ip addresses and network addresses before you accuse people:). Kthnxbai |
Jessie: I think you’re a little paranoid. I don’t get it. Instead of believing that 3 people showed up to say that I’m “stupid, condescending, and offensive,” I argue that only 1 person showed up to say that I’m “stupid, condescending, and offensive.” And that’s paranoid? By your logic, if I were to argue that hundreds or thousands of people showed up to say that I’m “stupid, condescending, and offensive,” I’d be less paranoid!?!? Jessie: What you see is the IP address of my router, my overall network address You’re router’s external IP address is not your “network address.” The term “network address” means many things, but it is not generally going to be used by internet routing experts to refer to the address that your router shows to computers outside your network. (I happen to know this, because, as fate would have it, I’m something of an internet routing expert.) The router’s external IP address will be the address through which your network is routed when you’re using NAT or some alternative. In other words, It’s a node on the internet that is likely using NAT to push TCP and UDP packets arriving at a single IP address to multiple computers within your network. The IP addresses of your computers behind an NAT-based router will typically be within a “fake” range of IP addresses reserved for private, internal network addressing (e.g., the 10 class A, the 172.16-31 class B, and the 192.168 class C IP address blocks). In any case, everybody caught using sock-puppets makes the router claim, because routers do cause identical IP addresses. Thus, my wife and I use the same IP address to access this site from separate laptops with different MAC addresses and individual IP addresses within the 192.168 class C IP address block that aren’t visible outside the network. The evidence that betrays a sock-puppet is the novelty of the contribution. All of a sudden, a chorus of concurring opinion arises from new contributors at the same address. Your latest attempt to falsely assert some kind of superior knowledge about rather simple routing issues underscores the evidence that you’re using sock-puppets. If you want to do this without getting caught, I suggest using an anonymous proxy. I wrote a lengthy comment explaining how to do this once on Millennial Star, if you want to look it up. Jessie: You should research ip addresses and network addresses before you accuse people. I apologize in advance for being smarter than you in every way. Nevertheless, I have more to say about internet-related routing topics like BGP or OER and about network related routing topics like NAT and IP routing tables than I do about Frege (though not about Carnap or Russell). People frequently best me when it comes to spelling, grammar, church history — even politics. But don’t argue with me about technology. I am technology. |
113. You should at least make sure you are at least conversant in technical talk before you accuse someone else of ignorance. You could sound alot more authoritative if you knew what you were actually saying. It really makes no difference whether you are one person or two. You are either roommates or theives. Either way you’re both highly likely to think the same way and defend each other rendering your opinions the equivelent of those of one person. The latter would expalin why you’re democrats. |
*Note to self, refresh before posting a comment* |
are you for real? Well I’m glad you took that much time out of your day to give me such an extensive response to my earlier statement about my router. “The evidence that betrays a sock-puppet is the novelty of the contribution. All of a sudden, a chorus of concurring opinion arises from new contributors at the same address”.. is this all you have to say that YOU are right and I AM WRONG about my own router???
this is just silly. First, I am not a democrat, nor is rob. Why does everyone assume that if you have half a brain to be critical about what you hear about a candidate, you must be in league with them? Just because I don’t like to trash on democrats, I am one? this conversation is going nowhere. |
Well, I respect more the fellow willing to get out of his grave to vote, than the guy who is not willing to get out of his bed to vote. |
Jessie: this conversation is going nowhere. You should try jump-starting it with some comments from your sock-puppets. In any case, when you say things like, “You should research ip addresses and network addresses before you accuse people” to an internet and network routing expert, you can’t expect the conversation to go very far. |
Bob, very clever. |
#115: Come on KyleM, since when have the Democrats become the “one think” party? This honor has aways been claimed by the GOP. The GOP like to call the Democrats the “no think” party. |
If there really is only one Party in America, It’s the “No Think” Party. |
117. I get it. You’re a “moderate.” That changes everything. I bet one American dollar this is either the first or second election you’re old enough to vote in. I’ll bet another American dollar that if you were old enough to vote in the last election, you voted for Kerry and vote democrat any time you don’t actually study out the candidates (which is likely every time). I also think you’re living in sin with Rob, you are also Rob, or you’re a thief. 121. I was trying to be less inflamitory. Democrats don’t like it when you expose their lack of cerebral activity. I think the past couple years have fractured the one think mentality of the GOP. I know that I’m not thrilled with the recent move towards big government and fiscal irresponsibility that many republicans, including the GWB administration, have made. |
#114:” I am technology”. The thought Bruce Willis shot you in ‘Live or die hard’? |
#123: There he goes again….if Democrats have one big problem it’s too much “cerebral activity”. I enter into evidence: ;Al Gore, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, and Google. |
Bob: #114:” I am technology”. The thought Bruce Willis shot you in ‘Live or die hard’? “Live or die hard” is fiction, Bob. It’s just a story that somebody made up. |
125. Just because people talk alot doesn’t mean they’re thinking. |
#126: I KNEW, sooner or late, they’d start making things up in the “Die Hard” movies! |
@108: “DKL, this is kind of like the good old days when people were lining up on Times and Seasons to slap you. “ Maybe DKL-bashing is cyclical, like global CO2 levels. What remains now is to determine the extent to which man’s actions influence DKL’s popularity. I for one favor a combative comment cap-and-trade system…. |
Jessie, are you the same jessie that comments at FMH? |
“You should research ip addresses and network addresses before you accuse people.” Yeah, if you weren’t so lazy, you would have hacked into their router and looked at the ARP table so you could tell based on the MAC address which PC they were really communicating with … but I guess if you don’t have the courage to hack someone else’s router (hint: user=admin, password=) then you have no honor. |
At this point, thanks to the videos of ACORN employees in 3 cities offering to help do things like setting up prostitution rings consisting of underage girls imported as sex-slaves, I’m entitled to gloat a bit about this whole ACORN mess, and that’s exactly what I am hereby doing. John Fund quotes Navada voter registration organizer Bonnie Greathouse comment explaining why she wasn’t worried about ACORN’s voter-fraud indictment in Navada: “People always come forward to our defense. We’re just community organizers, just like the president used to be.” (emphasis added). You can’t make this stuff up! The increased prominence that Obama gave ACORN initially resulted in a huge amount of funding, but it has also caused them to come under increasing scrutiny. It’s a good thing that traditional media is dying — without new media news outlets daring to have the integrity that traditional media never had, many of the liberal comments on this post made still seem plausible. |
This brief editorial in the Wall Street Journal sums things up quite nicely. |