Tim O'Reilly's endorsement of Barack Obama
[W]e need a president who can harness the best and brightest our country has to offer, a president who is conversant with, and comfortable with, the power of technology to assist in solving these problems, a president who is good at listening, studying, and devising solutions based on the best insight available, rather than on narrow ideology. We need a president who can forge consensus, not just among the partisans in our own fractured democracy but around the world. We need a president who can inspire our citizens and our global partners to forgo narrow self interest and embrace the possibilities that we can achieve if we work together to build a better future.Why I Support Barack Obama (O'Reilly Radar)I believe Barack Obama is that president. He is a man of intelligence, but also a man whose character and temperament seem suited to the problems of our age: unflappable, optimistic even in the face of adversity, willing to speak the truth about subjects that have long been taboo (I'm thinking of his speech on race, and his speech on fatherhood) and with unscripted reactions that show his fundamental decency (I'm thinking of his reaction to those who wanted to make a campaign issue of Sarah Palin's daughter's unplanned pregnancy.)
Because this is a tech blog, not a political blog, though, I primarily want to address the subject of why members of the technical community should join me in supporting Barack Obama. (The New York Times has made a compelling case based on the broader issues, as has Colin Powell.) I outline four principal reasons:
1. Connected, Transparent Government
2. The Financial Crisis
3. Climate Change
4. Net NeutralityI will also discuss some important additional considerations, personal and political, that I hope Radar readers who don't want to see politics in these pages, will forgive.
the latest
latest episodes
We should remember that his character includes promising to not run for President this election, and promising to stick with public funding for his campaign. In the 3rd presidential debate he ducked, rather than addressed, McCain's taking him to task on the matter.
He also voted in favor of telecom immunity, which both denies citizens justice on the matter, and helps establish the Presidency as outside the constraints of law (by indemnifying those who commit illegal acts on his orders.)
There are some things to like about Obama, but he's no saint.
"Because this is a tech blog, not a political blog..."
Huh?
Of course he can't write a well-reasoned endorsement of Obama without the McCain trolls showing up and saying garbage like, "Obama is a well known socialist! He wants to abort all of our American flags and sell them to the Islamofascists!"
I kid, but not really. Seriously, the comments are sad over there.
#1: The only part of your comment that has anything to do with a technology-based endorsement of Obama is the wiretapping immunity, and that's not a distinguishing character, since McCain voted for it, too.
#2: Huh? BB or Radar? BB is a "wonderful things" blog, as defined at their whim by its bloggers.
The line about being a "tech blog, not a political blog" is part of the quoted material, and refers to the O'Reilly Radar blog, not BoingBoing.
Damn, for a second I got Tim O'Reilly and Bill O'Reilly confused and was rather stunned. Now that would have been quite a coup.
Wll bm s dfntly sclst, th nly qstn s hw sclst s h, r cn h b? Wth dmcrtc sprmjrty spps w'll s. H ws nflncd by cmmnst Frnk Mrshll Dvs s by nd h rcntly blngd t Lbrtn Thlgy chrch, nd Lbrtn Thlgy s hybrdztn f Mrxst blf wth Chrstnty. Lbrtn thlgy s nt mnstrm brnch f Chrstnty, nd wld rg t hs lttl t d wth th tchngs f Chrst t ll. t's mr lk sm clvr Mrxsts fgrd t hw thy cld cpt rlgn t njct Mrxst dlgy nt ts vctms, dsgsd s smthng ls.
dmduncan,
That was one of the worst gobbets of Talking Point FUD that I have ever seen posted on BB.
Antinous, it's sad that you think that. It's not talking points, it's true. And the tragedy is that it is now customary to reject any fact in the realm of politics with which you disagree as propaganda. You are the future, and the future is falsehood.
I think a lot of facts will start to get jumbled the same way you jumbled my words in the above post.
Exactly what were the alleged "talking points," because I don't have a clue what you mean. Obama's connection to Frank Davis? Liberation Theology? If it's the latter, it's obvious you've never read a book on Liberation Theology.
And don't be a wussy, killing the vowels. If you don't like my words, be honest about who you are and eliminate them. It's what you really want to do, so do it.
dmduncan, read the moderation policy.
And yes, there are some pretty big leaps of faulty logic (and implications of more) in your post, a la current presidential race smear tactics.
The topic here is Obama vs McCain's tech policy, not tenuous assertions that Obama is a Marxist.
People say things like "some pretty big leaps of faulty logic" when they can't spell out the faults. Sophomoric use of emotive language.
I'll be waiting for their enumeration, Kieran.
Re your allegation of "smear tactics," refer to my previous post. Facts do not smear people. If you regard facts as smears, I am afraid of you.
And my response in #7 was actually a response to #3 who brought up the subject: "'Obama is a well known socialist! He wants to abort all of our American flags and sell them to the Islamofascists!'"
So I'll be waiting for you to tell FRESHYILL to read the moderation policy as well.
Don't BS me.
if a discussion is not what is actually desired, be advised the big bucket of cold water is at hand.
As far as accusations of Socialism/Marxism are concerned, have you actually read what the socialists think?
Here's the link to an article in the International Socialist Review addressing, among other things, Obama's so-called "socialism."
a basic question: does the candidate want every human being in America to get medical care when needed?
Dagfooyo:
Same here for a sec. Just visualizing Bill O'Reilly saying those words was a body-blow.
#11: OK, here goes.
1. "Well he's definitely a socialist." - You've simplified the spectrum between capitalism and socialism down into poles - Obama may have leanings towards socialism, but he's a very far cry from a true socialist. I'm not sure I could name it formally, but that's definitely fallacious, and is highly reminiscent of campaign talking points, especially from the Republicans.
2. "With a democratic supermajority, I suppose we'll see." - FUD. 'Nuff said.
3. "He was influenced by communist Frank Marshall Davis as a boy." - This is a big one. I'll split it up:
a. From what I can gather, FMDdefended communists from rampant McCarthyism, but was not one himself. I certainly wouldn't take allegations by the HUAC witch-hunters as fact.
b. "influenced by ... as a boy" - This sounds like thinly-veiled code for "was sodomised by ... as a boy"
c. FMD was also a black American poet. Obama could simply have appreciated that aspect of the man. Being influenced by him does not necessarily imply that Obama was influenced by his communist tendencies, even if he had any.
d. Even taking all your implications as given (that FMD was an evil communist poisoning the young Obama's mind with communist ideology), how does what happened in Obama's childhood affect his ideology now? Most intelligent people pass through ideological phases during their childhood and adolescence, which have no bearing on their more mature ideology.
4. The Libertarian Theology tirade. - Googling libertarian theology brings up 1190 results, and Google Scholar brings up 9, most of which look like false positives. If it's effectively never mentioned in an academic sense, and barely mentioned on the entire web, I'd say it's a hazily-defined neologism at best. So you've come, with your neologism, defined it to equate to Christian Marxism (however self-contradictory the very idea may be), and asserted without basis that it applies to Obama's church. That's at least three leaps of faulty logic.
I haven't been following the U.S. election race (and the tropical storms drifting across the blogosphere) as closely as some, but now that I've gone through your statement in detail, I agree completely with Antinous. It's a ball of raw, spiteful, fallacious new-millenium-style-Republican-election-campaign talking points.
Freshyill was being ironic, and also not far from accurate in describing the comments on Tim's blog. The first few are vitriolic, anonymous trolls. Thereafter there is some rational discussion on abortion, but the comments definitely don't get off to a good start.
Oh, and lastly, "Sophomoric use of emotive language" would be :
"And don't be a wussy, killing the vowels. If you don't like my words, be honest about who you are and eliminate them. It's what you really want to do, so do it."
OR,
"Don't BS me."
OR
"If you regard facts as smears, I am afraid of you."
(a la menacing Homer Simpson voice):fetching the bucket
Lol. Not to worry, Tak. I'm done. I just really don't like seeing personal attacks on the moderators.
And a challenge was issued.
Um...Libertarian Theology or Liberation Theology? (The latter has one fewer "R" after it has been disemvowelled.)
I think DMDUNCAN may have meant the latter.
#20. Ahem. Pardon me. Please disregard my point 4 - it's a little hard to see through the disemvowelment. I'm sure I could find more holes in the argument to pick at, but I think the "discussion" is now over.
No problem, I know it's a day late. I just wanted Future Internet Readers (or whoever) to know that LT does exist.
➤ " thnk th "dscssn" s nw vr."
Hhhh. wrk fr lvng dd, hvn't hd chnc t rspnd t yr nn-sns (nd mn tht ltrlly) yt! Hhh.
➤ "1. "Wll h's dfntly sclst." - Y'v smplfd th spctrm btwn cptlsm nd sclsm dwn nt pls - bm my hv lnngs twrds sclsm, bt h's vry fr cry frm tr sclst. 'm nt sr cld nm t frmlly, bt tht's dfntly fllcs, nd s hghly rmnscnt f cmpgn tlkng pnts, spclly frm th Rpblcns."
Wrng. Kn jrk rctn, prbbly ssmng sg f th wrd "sclst" n ts mtv sns rthr thn ts dscrptv sns. Wk "sclsm" nd y'll fnd hd spnnng vrts tht nt nly mtch Brck bm, bt mny plcs f mst thr pltcns n bth sds f th sl, whthr thy dmt ths vws r nt. nd tht's ls why, n th prt y fld t qt, sd th nly qstn ws wht knd f sclst s h? Y r ssmng my cmmtmnt t prpstns whch r nthr sttd nr nsttd, s y, nt , r rsng strw mn. Stck t my wrds nt yr mprssns. nd th fllcy whch y wrngly trd t chrg m wth s clld th fllcy f fls ltrntvs.
➤ "2. "Wth dmcrtc sprmjrty, spps w'll s." - FD. 'Nff sd."
Wrng gn. Stck t my wrds, nt yr mprssns. Pll dt sggsts th lklhd f sgnfcnt dmcrtc gns n bth hss. Bt snc t hsn't hppnd yt, w'll hv t wt nd s f th trnds mtrlz. FD? N, rsnbl prdctn bsd n th crrnt dt. FD? Snds lk y thnk n prty rl s gd thng. Nff sd.
➤ "b. "nflncd by ... s by" - Ths snds lk thnly-vld cd fr "ws sdmsd by ... s by""
Krn, stck t my wrds nt yr mprssns. dn't spk n cd. Myb y d. Nt m. sy xctly wht fl nd thnk. f wntd t sy smthng lk tht, my wrds wld hv sd tht xctly. Nw y knw.
➤ "Mst ntllgnt ppl pss thrgh dlgcl phss drng thr chldhd nd dlscnc, whch hv n brng n thr mr mtr dlgy."
Ww, tht's ctlly tr. Bt y ls sk:
➤ "...hw ds wht hppnd n bm's chldhd ffct hs dlgy nw?"
Tht s ctlly n xcllnt qstn nd n tht fw ppl ctlly sk wtht bng clld ll srts f nms. 'll nswr t ltr.
➤ "4. Th Lbrtrn Thlgy trd. - Gglng lbrtrn thlgy brngs p 1190 rslts, nd Ggl Schlr brngs p 9, mst f whch lk lk fls pstvs."
Krn, t's clld LBRTN THLGY, nt LBRTRN THLGY, whch mght xpln yr stnshng gnrnc n th sbjct.
➤ "f t's ffctvly nvr mntnd n n cdmc sns, nd brly mntnd n th ntr wb,"
Whch s nt srprsng f y r lkng fr smthng clld LBRTRN THLGY nstd f LBR-TN THLGY.
Lk Krn, thr r thngs n th wrld clld bks, nd ths bks r ctlly bt thngs, nd smtms thy r bt thngs lk LBRTN THLGY. Nw rlz t s nt s cnvnnt t rd BK s t s t GGL trm, bcs fr n thng, t tks mr tm t d, nd t cld hmpr ns ffrts t b fst nd snrky, bt hnstly, Krn, y smtms d hv t RD bt sbjct n dpth t knw wht t s bt, nd 'v knwn bt Lbrtn Thlgy yrs bfr vr hrd th nm Brck bm. Bt, dd prs th Wk rtcl n t, nd lthgh th Wk s nt th rgnl src f my knwldg rgrdng Lbrtn Thlgy, th Wk sms my wn dscrptn f LT frly ccrtly dspt yr prsnl flr t mgn xctly hw Mrxsm cld b blndd wth Chrstnty (t's prbbly th rlgn-s-th-pt-f-th-msss ln tht mks y thnk th tw r mpssbly cmptbl). Rd, Krn, rd. RD t's hstry nd ts prpnnts. RD th phlsphrs f Lbrtn Thlgy. G T LBRRY f y mst.
➤ "S y'v cm, wth yr nlgsm, dfnd t t qt t Chrstn Mrxsm (hwvr slf-cntrdctry th vry d my b)"
Cmpln t Lbrtn Thlgy's prpnnts, nt m. 'm nt th n wh trd t stck thm tgthr nd sll th rslt.
➤ "nd ssrtd wtht bss tht t ppls t bm's chrch. Tht's t lst thr lps f flty lgc."
Th flty lps ll blng t y: 1. Y hv rsrtd t nm-cllng Lbrtn Thlgy: "hzly-dfnd nlgsm." Fls. t s nt tht. t s qt wll dfnd. Y thnk t s tht bcs y hvn't dn ny rsrch bt t, s yr cmplnt mnts t n rgmntm d gnrntm, nd flty lp #2: "Krn ds nt knw tht wht dmdncn sys bt Lbrtn Thlgy s tr, thrfr wht dmdncn sys bt t s fls." 3. Y sm t b sggstng tht m mkng th dfntn p. ntr, nd nthr flty lp; nd f y r ndd sggstng tht, thn t's ls n d hmnm n m. Whch mks flty lp # 4 n yr prt.
➤ "ssrtng wtht bss tht t ppls t bm's chrch"
Wtht bss??? Rv. Jrmh Wrght s Lbrtn Thlgst. nthr fct. Lk t r nt, Krn, yr prblm, nt mn. FCT. Bt spps t s pssbl tht th PRST t St. nthny's s Cthlc, bt tht hs CHRCH s NT, s 'm wllng t ct y tny bt f slck n tht pnt.
n nswr t yr rlr qstn:
➤ "...hw ds wht hppnd n bm's chldhd ffct hs dlgy nw?"
Hw t hppnd m nt qlfd t sy, bt tht th mn vncs chrctrstclly sclst blfs ndcts tht t dd.
1. bm's ssctn wth "Frnk." ( m ths fr nmprssd wth thr yr pwr f ttntn r yr rsrch sklls, s yr rnt n "Frnk" s nt crdbl.) 2. bm's 20 yr mmbrshp n Lbrtn Thlgy chrch (s cvt bv), nd 3. VRY cls rltnshp wth Rv. Jrmh Wrght, prd Lbrtn Thlgn, nd 4. bm's WN WRDS n svrl dffrnt ccsns sng th sclst phrslgy f sprdng r rdstrbtng th wlth——ths r mnnglss "cncdncs" t ppl lk y ("d hmnm,"[ 'll sv y th trbl ;-)]), bt vdnc f prsnl blfs t ppl lk m, wh r dpt t "thn slcng" n th rlm f prsdntl pltcs (Yy, n pprtnty fr y t ggl smthng!) S th fct tht bm S sng sclst trmnlgy nd ttndng Chrch lngsd Lbrtn Thlgn fr 20 yrs ndcts tht hs mtr phlsphy s sclst. Nt tht bng sclst s nhrntly bd. Grg rwll ws n, nd ls crtc f sclsm, nd h's n f my hrs. S tht's hw tht s.
n prmptv dfns gnst n ttck n my rcrd f "thn slcng" sccss: Bgnnng wth Crtr whn ws lttl by, 8 tms hv bn rght nd 0 tms hv bn wrng n whch prsdnt wld wn th lctn. "Thn slcng." 'm gd t t. nd 'll b rght 9th tm whn bm wns.
n mtv lngg: Y dn't ppr t knw wht tht s thr. mtv lngg s nt mtnl lngg lthgh mtn s nvlvd n mtv lngg. Lk LBR-TN THLGY, mtv lngg hs spcfc strctr nd mnng. t mns t dfn X s Y s tht th mtns rsd by Y r thn rsd by mntn f X. t's dcptv tchnq tht bypsss crtcl thnkng, nd whch pltcns r xcllnt (bm fr bttr thn mst) t xpltng.
Fr xmpl: Dfn "Lbrtn Thlgy" s "hzy nlgsm," thn sll "hzy nlgsm" t yr frnds s whn thy hr "Lbrtn Thlgy" thy thnk "hzy nlgsm" wtht vr ndrstndng wht "lbrtn Thlgy" ctlly mns.
mtv lngg sn't mtnl lngg r mtphr. t's tchnq f dcptn.
➤ " hvn't bn fllwng th .S. lctn rc (nd th trpcl strms drftng crss th blgsphr) s clsly s sm, bt nw tht 'v gn thrgh yr sttmnt n dtl, gr cmpltly wth ntns. t's bll f rw, sptfl, fllcs nw-mllnm-styl-Rpblcn-lctn-cmpgn tlkng pnts."
Sr! Slf ndcd brn wshng. f y kp rdng t vr nd vr 'll grw hrns nd tl.
Fnlly, thr s n ntrstng bk clld "n Bllsht" (gn wth th bks, ths gy!) whch y my wnt t pck p, snc y r n th bk rdng md nw, whch xplns bllsht n cncptl/phlsphcl, nt n mtv sns, lthgh d dmt tht m nt bv sng mtv lngg, s clrly dntfy t hr whn sy tht:
Krn, y r pltcl zmb, nd nt vry smrt n, s zmbs g. Nw 'll gv y th lst pst, bt 'm gttng th lst wrd bcs tht g slp y pstd wsn't ft fr th ntllctl cnsmptn f bnb, nd m hghly skptcl tht ny f yr ftr psts wll mprv n qlty. Dn't bthr m wth yr "c" gm.
NW th dscssn s vr.
dmduncan,
Re-submit your comment in a civil tone if you want it to have vowels.
No Antinous. I didn't disemvowel my post, you did. My tone was appropriately civil, my response was brilliant, and I think your judgement was poor. You certainly did not see any harm letting Kieran insinuate that I was some sort of republican talk machine, which I personally found highly insulting.
So you live with it. I'm not playing your game.
bye Dunc.
P.S. I'll be deleting BB from my RSS feeds and won't be re-visiting. I am disturbed by this practice of censoring people who have good, coherent points to make, and the whimsical nature of your judgements about what is "civil."
Kieran should be allowed to decide for himself, as you allowed me to decide for myself when I found what HE said offensive.
But in truth, I expected you to do what you did, Antinous.
Fini.
Bye Tak. I enjoyed your comments!
Just to be explicit, I am not and was not insinuating (or stating blatantly) anything about you personally. I was commenting on your post (#7), which did sound like the product of a "Republican talk machine", which is why Antinous disemvowelled it. The rest of your comments on BB have been quite rational and well thought out.
As I said before, you're free to resubmit your comment with less vitriol.
civility here is not an ornament. We need it.
ZOMG!! I swear I didn't know!!! Aiiiigghh!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saW49rEyz4U&feature=related