Foley columns nothing but insult, innuendo
June 20, 2013 11:24 PM | 1298 views | 5 5 comments | 65 65 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Columnist Kevin Foley, who, for some unknown reason, has been given a bully pulpit in this newspaper, thinks his job is to insult and condemn anyone who is not an Obama disciple. That much is obvious, since insults, innuendos, labeling and name calling are the things of which his writings consist. What is not known is why he is allowed to continue. It is almost as if nobody in the paper reads what he writes before it is thrown out for public consumption.

His latest column was an unacceptable affront to free-thinking people, including conservatives and liberals. He pronounces that those who hold beliefs contrary to his own are the victims of a condition known as “epistemic closure,” a term used properly to describe advanced “confirmation bias.” However, when used by certain political hacks, it is employed to describe those who are not easily swayed by faux evidence, pre-conceptual research and manufactured data. The antonyms for epistemic closure would include uncertainty, gullibility, lack of conviction, ignorance and confusion.

I submit that Obama disciples, who are willing to overlook and minimize such things as “Fast and Furious,” the Benghazi travesty, the IRS failures, the wholesale spying on the American people and the free press, the arming of our enemies, the growing evidence of voter fraud in the last election, the uncontrolled spending by this administration and countless other atrocities, are as guilty of being the victims of epistemic closure as those who cling to the belief that Obama is not qualified to be president, whether by birth or by experience.

The latter, of course, is no longer up for debate. It has been proven time and again.

Nettie Helen Stemm


Comments-icon Post a Comment
Dan Tyler
June 25, 2013
Ms. Stemm, I'm afraid that not only are you losing this particular argument, but you are proving Mr. Foley's point while you are at it. There are many reasons why Americans can be disappointed in President Obama, but the issues you chose to write about are exactly the "no there, there" issues that the "vast right wing conspiracy" has chosen to emphasize. Your echoing of those talking points reveals you as a ditto-head, not an independent thinker. Take a break from media you like and listen to some different voices for awhile. You may not change your mind, but you may come to see Mr. Foley as more mainstream than you thought.
Kevin Foley
June 21, 2013
As usual, Ms. Stemm, whom I'm sure is a very nice lady, provides no examples of my alleged op-ed atrocities. But she does successfully demonstrate the phenomenon of epistemic closure. Here's how:

"I submit that Obama disciples, who are willing to overlook and minimize such things as “Fast and Furious,” Ms. Stemm is unaware that there was no smoking gun linking Obama to F&F. This "scandal" evaporated as a result.

"the Benghazi travesty," It was a tragedy, but again, Republicans have failed to find any evidence to support their bogus allegations that Obama "let Americans die". This "scandal" has not gained any traction. Ms. Stemm doesn't know this.

"the IRS failures," A conservative IRS employee said he initiated the examination of the tax exempt claims of right wing organizations as a matter of due diligence. This "scandal" only served to show the IRS is in need of reform. Ms. Stemm is unaware of this fact.

"the wholesale spying on the American people and the free press," Obama continued anti-terrorism policies begun under Bush, programs supported by many Republicans. Ms. Stemm is ignorant of this.

"the arming of our enemies," What does this even mean?

"the growing evidence of voter fraud in the last election," What "growing evidence"? This is a retread canard the far right media pushed post 2012-election.

"the uncontrolled spending by this administration and countless other atrocities," the president doesn't control the nation's purse strings. Congress does. Ms. Stemm evidently failed her high school civics course.

I can't speak for the MDJ editors other than to say I was invited to provide a column on Fridays to counter balance Ann Coulter's screeds. The idea is to help readers see both sides of the coin, to question their preconceived notions, to examine what they believe to be the truth. Ms. Stemm seems to prefer reading only that with which she agrees, to stay inside that right wing communications bubble. Result: Epistemic closure.

Based on the number of on-line views I get and the encouraging comments I receive from conservatives and progressives, I think folks enjoy my stuff.

Ms. Stemm, if it hurts your hair, please don't read my column.

Nettie Helen Stemm
June 24, 2013
Kevin, thank you so much for proving my points.

Might I add that most of those who "enjoy" your writings are nameless clones who only echo your words, or else those if us who use them as a source of amusement.

Your only real supporter is a true American and a real journalist by the name of Oliver Halle, with whom I rarely agree, but who presents his views, in an intelligent manner without the degrading name calling and insults, so common in your "writings."

BTW, do you not think it strange that people, and the media, are still talking and writing about these things you claim have faded away? Could it be that the only thing that has faded away is your ability to deal with your failed leader?

Kevin Foley
June 24, 2013
Nettie, I didn't prove your points. I eviscerated them with facts available to anyone interested enough in getting the whole truth, not just whatever nonsense you heard Limbaugh barking about.

Here's a word of advice to you, Mel Fein and other columnists and posters who hate progressive points of view, especially those anchored in verifiable facts like, for instance, your F&F or IRS smears.

If you are going to blast me or other progressive points of view, try supporting your claims with examples like I always do. You'll sound more intelligent and less reactionary that way.

Nettie Helen Stemm
June 25, 2013
Kevin, you come off as a insufferable boor, tooting your own horn.

My letter said that you rely on insults and innuendos. Your response was filled with both, plus broad, unprovable statements which you choose to call "examples".

Your support on this venue is limited to namesless dolts who echo your words, and you take that as a sign of popularity. You really need to get in touch with reality. Most readers laugh at the inane tripe you write.

Further, my letter referenced scandals within the government, which are still under investigation, not Obama's involvement in them. But you did not address them, only threw out some vague statements defending Obama's involvement or lack of same.

Please reread the letter and respond to my points, if you are going to respond. Red herrinf reponses don't cut it.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides