Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Dueling With Absurdicus

Readers may wonder why we would spend any of our time responding to Absurdicus instead of concentrating on the real subjects of this blog, Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer.

The answer is simple. Absurdicus is a prolific writer. He usually either speaks for Mark Udall in the blogosphere or parrots those who do. Too often he wanders away from the truth, sometimes far away. If Mark Udall wants to get elected surrounded by a bodyguard of lies and liars, the public has a right to know what is happening.

Here is his latest comment left under our Absurdicus makes a plea post:
So you're admitting you didn't read what I wrote. Wonderful.

No, you wrote two sentences. You can't doubt that we read the second sentence because we wrote a whole post around it. We read the first sentence and didn't understand it. Once you clarified your point, we wrote a whole post around what you claimed your first sentence said, something we would have happily done if you had been more clear the first time.
How is showing pictures of the Roan Plateau propaganda? Are you saying they doctored those photos and the Roan plateau doesn't really look like that?
We absolutely are saying that the scrub land character of Roan Plateau is being misrepresented and concealed by the photographs that make the news and made it into the Mark Udall commercial. That makes them propaganda in the same way that a film of any despot patting the head of a little girl is propaganda. It doesn't present the whole picture and that part that it does present is misleading as you admitted in your last argument.
Let's just take your argument to it's eventual conclusion. The Roan Plateau doesn't look all that great at 10,000 feet. Ooops, the Roan plateau doesn't look all that great from 1000 feet away. Just like judging what you look like from any large distance away, why not just not look at all and then make your argument for what the Roan Plateau look like. Let's not even get into the species of plants, animals, etc exceeds that of other lands that already have protected status. You don't even need a picture for that.

Our argument might reasonably be that every square inch of the Earth cannot be protected from human development. We elect politicians to make decisions about what should be protected and what should not. When politicians like Mark Udall and their supporters routinely lie about the nature of the land they want to protect or any other matter of importance, they cannot be trusted to help make public decisions. More importantly, they shouldn't be trusted and shouldn't be placed in a position of trust. That is what elections are about.

Your comment about the "protected status" of other places could easily be turned against those other places if the Roan Plateau is to be the measure.

Your claim that it is impossible to understand the nature of a landscape from 1,000 feet elevation is silly and intentionally misleading. Enough Americans have bought window seats on airliners to know that.
As for big campaign donations. Who are you trying to fool? Do you really put the Sierra club on the same level with Exxon Mobil and their astroturf group Americans for American Energy?

The last we heard corporations cannot make legally campaign contributions at all, and individuals are limited to making $2,300 donations per cycle. The Sierra Club can mobilize individuals to donate. Exxon cannot.

Who are you trying to fool? This isn't a high school debating class where you get to try out an argument or a piece of propaganda and discard it if it isn't convincing. That is what you are doing. If you and Mark Udall are truthful, and make truthful arguments based on accurate facts, you have a right to expect that the public will trust you.

If you and Mark Udall get caught making false arguments often enough, the public won't trust you even when you are truthful. Mark Udall doesn't seem to understand that, which is why we have a "Udall as a liar" tag. For his supporters who can't be truthful or make truthful arguments, we simply dump them into the "Big Blue Lie Machine."

1 comment:

absurdicus said...

Please point out one single place where I have told a lie. Just one, back it up with sources, not your opinions.
"Once you clarified your point, we wrote a whole post around what you claimed your first sentence said, something we would have happily done if you had been more clear the first time."

Well, I'm sorry your education has failed you to the point you don't understand my writing.

"We absolutely are saying that the scrub land character of Roan Plateau is being misrepresented and concealed by the photographs that make the news and made it into the Mark Udall commercial. That makes them propaganda in the same way that a film of any despot patting the head of a little girl is propaganda."
Yep, those two things are exactly the same thing. I can see Edi Amin now using happy little children to justify the drilling of the Roan Plateau. I think we should totally get American for American Energy to try a commercial like that.
Again, what part of showing a picture of the roan plateau is misleading? I suppose you're now going to turn that around on me and elevation a photo is taken from. I think reasonable people can look at a picture taken at ground level and a picture taken at 1000 or 10,000 feet and determine which is more relevant.
"When politicians like Mark Udall and their supporters routinely lie about the nature of the land they want to protect or any other matter of importance, they cannot be trusted to help make public decisions."
Telling a lie is quite a different thing than using campaign tactics you don't agree with. I'd love for Udall to bring a libel case against you.

"Your claim that it is impossible to understand the nature of a landscape from 1,000 feet elevation is silly and intentionally misleading. Enough Americans have bought window seats on airliners to know that."

What does one understand about the species living in the Roan Plateau from an airplane seat? I think there's a phrase that goes something like not being able to see the forest from the trees. In this case it's the total opposite. You want us to look from far away at the "forest" Instead, whats important is all the different "trees" growing there you'd like to not look at and replace with dilling rigs for your SUV.
"The last we heard corporations cannot make legally campaign contributions at all, and individuals are limited to making $2,300 donations per cycle. The Sierra Club can mobilize individuals to donate. Exxon cannot."
That's exactly why I mentioned Americans for American Energy. Corporations can make unlimited donations to 527 groups. That's the issue.
"Who are you trying to fool? This isn't a high school debating class where you get to try out an argument or a piece of propaganda and discard it if it isn't convincing."
I'm fooling you! Because this debate isn't between you and me. It's me pointing out how silly your arguments are. Every time you don't like what I have to say you jump down a level and say Udall isn't truthful without citing any specifics. Have I given you enough rope yet?