is it okay if I use your Constitution to wipe my ass?
The WORST ADMINISTRATION EVER got more good news, kicking the lifeless body of Magna Carta, disguised as Jose Padilla.
August 20, 2007
A Grave Blow to the Constitution
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Jose Padilla's conviction on terrorism charges on August 16 was a victory, not for justice, but for the US Justice (sic) Department's theory that a US citizen can be convicted, not because he committed a terrorist act but for allegedly harboring aspirations to commit such an act. By agreeing with the Justice (sic) Department's theory, the incompetent Padilla Jury delivered a deadly blow to the rule of law and opened Pandora's Box.
Anglo-American law is a human achievement 800 years in the making. Over centuries law was transformed from a weapon in the hands of government into a shield of the people from unaccountable power. The Padilla Jury's verdict turned law back into a weapon.
The jury, of course, had no idea of what was at stake. It was a patriotic jury that appeared in court with one row of jurors dressed in red, one in white, and one in blue (Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, August 17, 2007).
It was a jury primed to be psychologically and emotionally manipulated by federal prosecutors desperate for a conviction for which there was little, if any, supporting evidence. For the jury, patriotism required that they strike a blow for America against terrorism. No member of this jury was going to return home to accusations of letting off a person who has been portrayed as a terrorist in the US media for five years.
The "evidence" against Padilla consists of three items:
(1) seven intercepted telephone conversations,
(2) a 10-year old non-relevant video of Osama bin Laden, and
(3) an alleged application to a mujahideen (not terrorist) training camp with Padilla's fingerprints. We will examine each in turn.
The International Herald Tribune and Associated Press reported in detail on the telephone intercepts (June 19, 2007): "Accused al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla was never overheard using purported code words for violent jihad in intercepted telephone conversations and spoke often about his difficulties in learning Arabic while studying in Egypt, the lead FBI case agent testified Tuesday. The questioning of FBI Agent James T. Kavanaugh by Padilla's attorney, Michael Caruso, focused on seven intercepted telephone calls on which Padilla's voice is heard mostly talking about his marriage and his studies but never about Islamic extremism. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla ever was heard using what prosecutors say were code words for violent jihad . . . 'No, he does not,' Kavanaugh replied. . . . Caruso asked Kavanaugh if Padilla was ever overheard discussing jihad training. 'No jihad training that I've seen,' Kavanaugh said. . . . 'He's not referring to anything here but studying Arabic, correct? Study means study, right?' Caruso asked. 'That's what they're talking about,' Kavanaugh testified."
Despite the FBI's testimony that the intercepted telephone messages contained no incriminating evidence, the "patriotic" jury accepted the federal prosecutor's unsupported accusation that there were hidden code words in the message indicating that Padilla was a terrorist. After all, who but a terrorist would want to learn Arabic?
The video of bin Laden had no relevance whatsoever to the charges in the case. The video is 10 years old and makes no reference to any of the defendants. Moreover, none of the defendants were accused of ever being in contact with bin Laden. The only purpose of the video was to arouse in jurors fear, anger, and disturbing memories associated with September 11, 2001. The fact that the judge let prosecutors sway a fearful and vengeful patriotic jury with emotion and passion rather than evidence is obviously grounds for appeal.
Whoriskey reports that in their closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times and urged jurors to think of al-Qaeda and groups alleged to be affiliated with it as an international murder conspiracy. Padilla "trained to kill,' Assistant US Attorney Brian Frazier misinformed the jury in his closing statement.
Who Padilla wished to kill was never identified, but according to the prosecutors he had been wanting to kill persons unknown since 1998. Padilla was convicted for harboring alleged intentions, not for committing any acts. Indeed, no harmful acts are charged to Padilla. The incompetent jury fell for the prosecutors' wild tale of a murder conspiracy many years old that had no results.
As Andrew Cohen put it, Padilla and the two co-defendants were convicted on the charge of "terrorist-wannabes" on the basis of "evidence that federal authorities did not believe amounted to a crime when it was gathered back before 2001." Cohen concludes: "it's further proof that if you can convince an American jury that a man in the dock had anything to do with al-Qaeda, you can pretty much bank on a conviction no matter how tenuous the evidence" (washingtonpost.com, August 16, 2007).
The training camp application form is as suspect as any evidence can be.
Moreover, the prosecution had no evidence that Padilla actually attended such a camp. Padilla was held illegally for 3.5 years and tortured. At any time during his illegal detention and torture, Padilla could have been handed a form, thus tainting it with his fingerprints.
Amy Goodman, the forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty, the Christian Science Monitor and others have described how US interrogators abused Padilla and destroyed his mind. To expect a person as badly tortured and abused as Padilla to retain the wits not to touch a piece of paper handed to him, or forced into his hands, is unreasonable.
When Padilla was arrested five years ago in 2002, the US government charged that he was about to set off a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city that would kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of Americans. The story was a total lie, a fabrication designed to keep the fear level high after 9/11 in order to keep support for the Bush regime's wars and domestic police state. None of the charges on which Padilla was illegally held, during those years before the US Supreme Court intervened and ordered the Bush regime to release Padilla or bring him to trial, were part of the charges on which Padilla was tried.
There is little doubt that Padilla's conviction, and probably also the convictions of the two co-defendants, is a terrible injustice. But the damage done goes far beyond the damage to the defendants. What the red, white, and blue "Padilla Jury" has done is to overthrow the US Constitution and give us the rule of men.
The US Constitution and Anglo-American legal tradition prevent indictments, much less convictions, based on a prosecutor's theory that a person wanted to commit a crime in the past or might want to in the future. Padilla has harmed no one. There is no evidence that he made an agreement with any party to harm anyone whether for money or ideology or any reason. The FBI testified that the telephone calls were innocuous. The bin Laden video was evidence of nothing pertaining to the defendants. The piece of paper, alleged to be a personnel form recovered from an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan is nothing but a piece of paper and an assertion.
As Lawrence Stratton and I demonstrated in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), the protective features of law had been seriously eroded prior to the Bush regime's assault on civil liberty in the name of "the war on terror." The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights rest on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone explained law as the protective principles against tyranny --habeas corpus, due process, attorney-client privilege, no crime without intent, no retroactive law, no self-incrimination.
Jeremy Bentham claimed that these protective principles were outmoded in a democracy in which the people controlled the government and no longer had reasons to fear it. The problem with Blackstone's "Rights of Englishmen," Bentham said, is that these civil liberties needlessly limit the government's power and, thus, its ability to protect citizens from crime. Bentham wanted to preempt criminal acts by arresting those likely to commit crimes in advance, before the budding criminals entered into a life of crime. Bentham, like the Bush regime, the "Padilla Jury," and the Republican Federalist Society, did not understand that when law becomes a weapon, liberty dies regardless of the form of government. If they do understand, they prefer unaccountable government power to individual liberty.
The incompetent "Padilla Jury" has done Americans and their liberty far more damage than will ever be done by terrorists, other than those in our criminal justice (sic) system who now wield the powers that Bentham wanted to give them.
The Padilla case was the way the Bush Justice (sic) Department implemented its strategy for taking away the legal principles that protect American citizens. Padilla is an American citizen. He was denied habeas corpus and his rights to an attorney and due process. He was tortured in an attempt to coerce him into self-incrimination. In treating Padilla in these ways, the US Department of Justice (sic) violated both the US Constitution and federal law. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Justice (sic) Department committed far more crimes than did Padilla.
By the time the Supreme Court finally intervened, Padilla was universally known as the demonized "dirty bomber," an "enemy combatant" who was arrested before he could set off a radioactive bomb in a US city. The Injustice Department could now simultaneously convict Padilla and enshrine Benthamite law simply by appealing to fear and patriotism. And that is what happened.
Under Benthamite law, the individual has no rights. The new calculus is "the greatest good for the greatest number" as determined by the wielders of power. On the basis of this new law, not written by Congress but invented by the Injustice Department and made precedent by the "Padilla Jury" verdict, the US can lock up people based on the percentage of crime committed by their race, gender, income class, or ethnic group.
Under Benthamite law, people can be arrested and prosecuted for thought crimes. Under Benthamite law, it is the government that protects the people, not the Constitution and Bill of Rights that protect the individual. Benthamite law makes "advocacy speech," for example, a call for the overthrow of the US government, upheld in the 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, a serious federal crime.
The "Padilla Jury" has opened Pandora's Box. Unless the conviction is overturned on appeal, American liberty died in the "Padilla Jury's" verdict.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Cracking open the myth of the "greatest generation's" war...
Published on Saturday, August 18, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
‘It Gets Lonely Sometimes’
by Sean Gonsalves
Some readers just don’t want to hear it from me - writing about the myths of World War II.
Maybe they’ll feel better if it’s coming from Edward W. Wood Jr., a guy who was awarded the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star. A retired city planner and author of “Worshipping the Myths of World War II,” Wood is quick to point out: “I was wounded in France, 60 miles east of Verdun…after only a day and a half in combat. I’m no expert on long-term combat experience.” But it’s way more combat experience than any of the leading architects of the war in Iraq.
“I got hit in the head, the small of my back, and pelvis with shrapnel from artillery fire,” he told me last week. “The wound shattered my life. In those days, you couldn’t talk about the emotional impact.”
He’s 82 now and has spent a lifetime trying to understand war and its impact on those involved. “Worshipping the Myths of World War II” is a product of his very personal, honest and courageous exploration.
Some people consider talk about the myths of World War II disparaging to veterans. Why do some equate de-mythologizing with anti-Americanism?
“There’s two kinds of soldiers: those who have been in combat and the guys who haven’t. I think those two groups have vastly different attitudes about war. Another reason people react that way is because people in the United States have absolutely no idea what war entails. I think a lot of very good people believe that these myths really describe what war is. Therefore, to de-mythologize means, for them, putting down people who have been involved.
“But I don’t think we want to look at what our tax dollars are doing. We just don’t want to look at the reality that’s there. None of this is a disparagement to those who’ve really seen combat. I am really anti-war now and yet, in terms of my own personal life, I have no regrets about having been in World War II. I believe in nonviolence. But, I’m in favor of a draft because I think we all would think a lot more carefully about war.”
Why do you think these myths are so persistent?
“These myths are really rooted in our past and go beyond World War II; going back to the King Phillips War. There were Manifest destiny wars with Mexico, Phillipines and the rest. Teddy Roosevelt believed you weren’t really a man unless you served in war. I don’t think we really want to look at that and it’s not taught very much in school It’s a very subtle message. I think that’s why it persists. The myths exist because we don’t look carefully at our history and because it gives people a great glow to wrap themselves in it. But I think it would be healthy to just be open about.”
What criteria do you use to judge artistic interpretations of World War II?
There’s essentially two really important criteria, I use:
1) Does the author or film maker say something about himself that he didn’t want to tell the world? Does it really delve into what combat does in the deepest kind of way? Does it wrestle with the moral dilemma of killing; seeing and watching people get killed. And how is the act of killing treated?
2) Does it reflect the extraordinary complexity of human reaction to death? And modern war is not just about soldiers in combat but also the impact on civilians. If you don’t have that part of the equation, you’re missing at least 50 percent of the story.”
How do you see these myths impacting the way people view the war in Iraq?
“If you look at how we got into the Iraq war, you see the president and his administration using (WWII) as an example for Iraq; comparing Saddam to Hitler and comparing themselves to Churchill and Roosevelt. I don’t think that’s quite appropriate,” he chuckled.
“We appeal to the idea of the ‘Good War” and a war against evil where the enemy is dehumanized into this monstrous evil… But, actually, WWI and WWII were really one war. If you look at it that way, what happens in the 1930s was a function of the Versailles Treaty and the terrible reparations imposed on Germany…So we built up a situation that was going to inevitably lead to another war.”
“Iraq itself was made out of whole cloth in the early 1920s almost by fiat, putting the Kurds, the Shia’s and Sunnis in one country. So, even now, we are dealing with the consequences of WWI.”
Do combat veterans who’ve served in the infantry have a different perception of what war means, compared to soldiers in the Navy or Air Force?
“The guys who flew in WWII I respect beyond measure. The 8th Air Force, for example. But I do think it’s a different experience for soldiers in the Air Force and Navy, compared to soldiers involved in ground combat. It gives you a very different attitude about what war is.”
In the final chapter of your book, you write: “the issue today is not just the simple one - how can we leave Iraq? - but, rather one far more difficult: How can we turn from war as the solution to our international problems?” What do you see as the answer to the important question you raise?
“I don’t have The Answer. But we need to get away from the myths and try to understand what war is really like. In this war, the only ones who pay the price are the soldiers and Iraqi civilians. That’s so terribly unfair. It infuriates me. If we are in a war, the whole country should pay a price for it.”
“I’ve turned against war but if we’re at war, we can’t have a war and all these people making money off it and living normal lives. It hurts me to see people who go about their lives while terrible death and suffering are occurring in Iraq.”
“America is not very good at recognizing who its real enemies are. We get it all confused with this problem of evil. We see it in others but never in us.”
That’s hard for people to even hear, never mind think about.
“I’m running against the grain and it gets lonely sometimes.”
Sean Gonsalves is an assistant news editor for the Cape Cod Times and a syndicated columnist. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/18/3247/
‘It Gets Lonely Sometimes’
by Sean Gonsalves
Some readers just don’t want to hear it from me - writing about the myths of World War II.
Maybe they’ll feel better if it’s coming from Edward W. Wood Jr., a guy who was awarded the Combat Infantryman’s Badge, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star. A retired city planner and author of “Worshipping the Myths of World War II,” Wood is quick to point out: “I was wounded in France, 60 miles east of Verdun…after only a day and a half in combat. I’m no expert on long-term combat experience.” But it’s way more combat experience than any of the leading architects of the war in Iraq.
“I got hit in the head, the small of my back, and pelvis with shrapnel from artillery fire,” he told me last week. “The wound shattered my life. In those days, you couldn’t talk about the emotional impact.”
He’s 82 now and has spent a lifetime trying to understand war and its impact on those involved. “Worshipping the Myths of World War II” is a product of his very personal, honest and courageous exploration.
Some people consider talk about the myths of World War II disparaging to veterans. Why do some equate de-mythologizing with anti-Americanism?
“There’s two kinds of soldiers: those who have been in combat and the guys who haven’t. I think those two groups have vastly different attitudes about war. Another reason people react that way is because people in the United States have absolutely no idea what war entails. I think a lot of very good people believe that these myths really describe what war is. Therefore, to de-mythologize means, for them, putting down people who have been involved.
“But I don’t think we want to look at what our tax dollars are doing. We just don’t want to look at the reality that’s there. None of this is a disparagement to those who’ve really seen combat. I am really anti-war now and yet, in terms of my own personal life, I have no regrets about having been in World War II. I believe in nonviolence. But, I’m in favor of a draft because I think we all would think a lot more carefully about war.”
Why do you think these myths are so persistent?
“These myths are really rooted in our past and go beyond World War II; going back to the King Phillips War. There were Manifest destiny wars with Mexico, Phillipines and the rest. Teddy Roosevelt believed you weren’t really a man unless you served in war. I don’t think we really want to look at that and it’s not taught very much in school It’s a very subtle message. I think that’s why it persists. The myths exist because we don’t look carefully at our history and because it gives people a great glow to wrap themselves in it. But I think it would be healthy to just be open about.”
What criteria do you use to judge artistic interpretations of World War II?
There’s essentially two really important criteria, I use:
1) Does the author or film maker say something about himself that he didn’t want to tell the world? Does it really delve into what combat does in the deepest kind of way? Does it wrestle with the moral dilemma of killing; seeing and watching people get killed. And how is the act of killing treated?
2) Does it reflect the extraordinary complexity of human reaction to death? And modern war is not just about soldiers in combat but also the impact on civilians. If you don’t have that part of the equation, you’re missing at least 50 percent of the story.”
How do you see these myths impacting the way people view the war in Iraq?
“If you look at how we got into the Iraq war, you see the president and his administration using (WWII) as an example for Iraq; comparing Saddam to Hitler and comparing themselves to Churchill and Roosevelt. I don’t think that’s quite appropriate,” he chuckled.
“We appeal to the idea of the ‘Good War” and a war against evil where the enemy is dehumanized into this monstrous evil… But, actually, WWI and WWII were really one war. If you look at it that way, what happens in the 1930s was a function of the Versailles Treaty and the terrible reparations imposed on Germany…So we built up a situation that was going to inevitably lead to another war.”
“Iraq itself was made out of whole cloth in the early 1920s almost by fiat, putting the Kurds, the Shia’s and Sunnis in one country. So, even now, we are dealing with the consequences of WWI.”
Do combat veterans who’ve served in the infantry have a different perception of what war means, compared to soldiers in the Navy or Air Force?
“The guys who flew in WWII I respect beyond measure. The 8th Air Force, for example. But I do think it’s a different experience for soldiers in the Air Force and Navy, compared to soldiers involved in ground combat. It gives you a very different attitude about what war is.”
In the final chapter of your book, you write: “the issue today is not just the simple one - how can we leave Iraq? - but, rather one far more difficult: How can we turn from war as the solution to our international problems?” What do you see as the answer to the important question you raise?
“I don’t have The Answer. But we need to get away from the myths and try to understand what war is really like. In this war, the only ones who pay the price are the soldiers and Iraqi civilians. That’s so terribly unfair. It infuriates me. If we are in a war, the whole country should pay a price for it.”
“I’ve turned against war but if we’re at war, we can’t have a war and all these people making money off it and living normal lives. It hurts me to see people who go about their lives while terrible death and suffering are occurring in Iraq.”
“America is not very good at recognizing who its real enemies are. We get it all confused with this problem of evil. We see it in others but never in us.”
That’s hard for people to even hear, never mind think about.
“I’m running against the grain and it gets lonely sometimes.”
Sean Gonsalves is an assistant news editor for the Cape Cod Times and a syndicated columnist. He can be reached at sgonsalves@capecodonline.com
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/18/3247/
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
I think making you lose it is part of the design..
I don't think that conservative talking heads are alone in using these types of deception, but I do know that I go apoplectic when I hear them and generally forget and forsake my own intelligence. This makes me an ineffective respondent - of that there is no doubt.
Anyway, good piece from Brandon on Kos.
Foundations of Conservatism: Straw Man, Red Herring, and the Common Enemy
by BKuhl
Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:32:26 AM PDT
This is going to be a series. Many foundations of conservatism exist to deconstruct, so I’ll only tackle a few at a time. Today’s dose includes the Straw Man, the Red Herring, and the Common Enemy. It all appears in an article entitled “Why the Left Lies about Sex” by Kevin McCullough and posted at Townhall.com.
It starts thusly: “Liberals want your child to have sex.” This statement, to many people, is merely a lie. But it is actually much more involved than that. It is the center of a world-devouring black hole of bullshit.
BKuhl's diary :: ::
The statement, first and foremost, is a Straw Man argument. Republicans use these simulacra of reason all the time. A Straw Man is a sham argument set up to be defeated. To construct a Straw Man, just lie about your opponent’s argument to de-legitimate it.
It works in any argument. For instance, imagine we are debating whether to go ice skating. I am pro-ice skating. You respond, “You just want me to fall on the ice and break my ass!” This is bullshit, and it makes me seem like a total bastard. I could respond, “Yeah? Well, you just want to sit on your fat, indolent ass and work on your insulin resistance! You just want to beat the Guiness World Record for the laziest asshole alive!” Both would be straw men.
Back to “Liberals want your child to have sex.” God knows none of us gives a shit about the warped little Pharisee Pod People right wingers are cultivating in their gated gardens of hypocrisy (Note: I am a reformed pod). Nonetheless, dishonesty comes naturally to Kevin McCullough. Claiming that we liberals want their children to have sex is easier than debating us on the merits of our position.
Our real position: Instead of teaching children “abstinence only,” we should teach them “abstinence first.” Abstinence is the only way to avoid with confidence things like too-early pregnancy, infection, and the emotional parasites that accompany immature sex. But one should still know how to protect oneself for the almost certainly inevitable day when sex is appropriate, whether within marriage or otherwise.
See? That seems reasonable, right?
Of course, and it would have taken a hell of an effort by Mr. McCullough to challenge such a perspective. Lying was easier. The Straw Man is inevitable in right-wing discourse.
Now, on to the Red Herring: “For the first time since before President Clinton said what ‘is, is’ a majority of American teens...” You may be wondering, “What the hell does Clinton have to do with this?” This is the expected reaction of a rational mind. Cognitive processes halt for a second in stunned stupor. I call this the “WTF?!?-reaction.”
You have to complement the man, though, for the lyrical and philosophical contortion act required to pull off such a feat of imagination as to cram Bill Clinton’s promiscuity into such a thin attempt at argument. I applaud you, Kevin.
The accomplishment is one of distraction, the right-winger’s all-purpose instrument of influence. The Red Herring is an effort to mislead someone with an irrelevant assertion. It is named after the practice of using the scent of a fish to train hounds.
The Red Herring always seems relevant. For instance, in McCullough’s essay, talking about Clinton’s sexual impropriety sounds relevant to a discussion about government policy and sex.
But the argument is really about the credibility collapse of abstinence-only education as a policy. McCullough claims that the study unveiling this collapse is flawed because the kids in the study grew up during the “permissive” Clinton administration. I shit you not.
(Note: He also claims that the kids in the study didn’t really undergo abstinence-only education because the Bush era funding didn’t materialize until years after the study began. But abstinence-only education pre-existed federal funding for it, and unfortunately for McCullough, a quick read of WaPo’s article on the study reveals that, in fact, “slightly more than half of [the children in the study] also received abstinence-only education.” So, basically, McCullough made shit up, again.)
See? Does Clinton’s infidelity have anything to do with the worthiness of abstinence-only education? No. God, no. This is the kind of argument that makes sane men want to stab themselves in the eyes.
McCullough mentions that fewer children are choosing to have sex according to another study and actually tries to credit Bush with this success. The study never even tested the effects of abstinence-only education; it merely said that kids are having less sex. Kids can be having less sex while abstinence-only programs are failing, but one would think from reading ole' Kevin's article that the two are at mutually exclusive, opposite ends of the universe.
The study also showed that kids are using condoms more often, but McCullough bizarrely expresses dissatisfaction that news outlets mentioned this fact. Did Bush’s policies lead teens to use condoms? Would he deem such an increase in safe sex a success?
The two studies have nothing to do with one another, but McCullough distracted the reader with the Clinton Red Herring while he shifted to discussing this new study. See? Distract people long enough, and you can take them down any garden path you like.
A Red Herring is like pointing to the sky and screaming, “Look! An angel!” while stealing someone’s wallet. Mention something only tangentially related to the topic at hand when trying to change the subject in a losing argument or trying to cover a week spot, and few will notice.
It usually goes like this:
Liberal: “I think that we should build more wind farms to combat global warming.”
Right-winger: “Don’t you know that Ted Kennedy tried to stop an offshore wind farm from being built so he could protect his view of the ocean from his zillion-dollar palace?”
Liberal: “What the fuck? He did? What does that have to do with... ?”
Right-winger: “All liberals are the same. Hypocrites! Stupid liberals.”
This brings me to the final Foundation of Conservatism for now: The Common Enemy.
The Common Enemy Hypothesis is social psychology’s explanation for how a nationalist rip tide can sweep away the consciences of millions of people. All fascist movements contained at their cores a deep hatred of someone. This Common Enemy against which people rally to defeat may be the jews (Nazis), the blacks (the confederates), or, finally, the liberal (Republicans).
“The liberal” is not actually anything like real liberals that think and breath. It is a caricature. Lies such as “Liberals want your child to have sex” accumulate in the mind of the angry Republican to form a heaping pile of bullshit akin to a Straw Man but much easier to hate. The more bullshit one adds to the pile, the more it stinks.
The easier it is to hate the caricature the more united around that hatred they will be. This unity is a sick kind of power.
Republicans find ever-larger ways to make “the liberal” Common Enemy more nefarious. One such way is to pose Straw Men as discussed above. For instance, they claim that liberals hate America (instead of admitting that a capacity for truthful reflection upon one’s wrongs is an essential component of a conscience).
Another way is to find actual examples of the boogeyman one wants to create and use them as examples of the Common Enemy. For instance: Ward Churchill. He makes a stupid comment about 9/11 victims, and right-wingers frenzy around him like piranha. This is also called the Fallacy of Composition, which is to assume that what is true of a member of the group is true of the group as a whole (This is largely how things like racist and sexist ideas start).
The goal, though, is to make him a representative of liberals. When they burn useful idiots like Ward Churchill, they are burning all of us in effigy, even if we never agreed with a word the man spoke. The same thing happens to good liberals like Howard Dean, George Soros, the Clintons, Rosie O’Donnel, or Michael Moore. The right wing is looking for someone to hate by proxy. These people are temporary villains and will be replaced by the rest of us if such a opportunity ever comes within their reach.
What connects all of these ideological instruments is their usefulness at distracting people and circumventing their ability to think for themselves. Each is a distraction, and it is as good an explanation for why politics has been so bizarre during the last several years as anything.
Knowing these concepts will help any liberal counter right-wing propaganda. These concepts are our tools, and we can use them to retake the debate in America. The more people who know what we know about deceptive Republican tactics, the fewer people who fall for them.
Anyway, good piece from Brandon on Kos.
Foundations of Conservatism: Straw Man, Red Herring, and the Common Enemy
by BKuhl
Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:32:26 AM PDT
This is going to be a series. Many foundations of conservatism exist to deconstruct, so I’ll only tackle a few at a time. Today’s dose includes the Straw Man, the Red Herring, and the Common Enemy. It all appears in an article entitled “Why the Left Lies about Sex” by Kevin McCullough and posted at Townhall.com.
It starts thusly: “Liberals want your child to have sex.” This statement, to many people, is merely a lie. But it is actually much more involved than that. It is the center of a world-devouring black hole of bullshit.
BKuhl's diary :: ::
The statement, first and foremost, is a Straw Man argument. Republicans use these simulacra of reason all the time. A Straw Man is a sham argument set up to be defeated. To construct a Straw Man, just lie about your opponent’s argument to de-legitimate it.
It works in any argument. For instance, imagine we are debating whether to go ice skating. I am pro-ice skating. You respond, “You just want me to fall on the ice and break my ass!” This is bullshit, and it makes me seem like a total bastard. I could respond, “Yeah? Well, you just want to sit on your fat, indolent ass and work on your insulin resistance! You just want to beat the Guiness World Record for the laziest asshole alive!” Both would be straw men.
Back to “Liberals want your child to have sex.” God knows none of us gives a shit about the warped little Pharisee Pod People right wingers are cultivating in their gated gardens of hypocrisy (Note: I am a reformed pod). Nonetheless, dishonesty comes naturally to Kevin McCullough. Claiming that we liberals want their children to have sex is easier than debating us on the merits of our position.
Our real position: Instead of teaching children “abstinence only,” we should teach them “abstinence first.” Abstinence is the only way to avoid with confidence things like too-early pregnancy, infection, and the emotional parasites that accompany immature sex. But one should still know how to protect oneself for the almost certainly inevitable day when sex is appropriate, whether within marriage or otherwise.
See? That seems reasonable, right?
Of course, and it would have taken a hell of an effort by Mr. McCullough to challenge such a perspective. Lying was easier. The Straw Man is inevitable in right-wing discourse.
Now, on to the Red Herring: “For the first time since before President Clinton said what ‘is, is’ a majority of American teens...” You may be wondering, “What the hell does Clinton have to do with this?” This is the expected reaction of a rational mind. Cognitive processes halt for a second in stunned stupor. I call this the “WTF?!?-reaction.”
You have to complement the man, though, for the lyrical and philosophical contortion act required to pull off such a feat of imagination as to cram Bill Clinton’s promiscuity into such a thin attempt at argument. I applaud you, Kevin.
The accomplishment is one of distraction, the right-winger’s all-purpose instrument of influence. The Red Herring is an effort to mislead someone with an irrelevant assertion. It is named after the practice of using the scent of a fish to train hounds.
The Red Herring always seems relevant. For instance, in McCullough’s essay, talking about Clinton’s sexual impropriety sounds relevant to a discussion about government policy and sex.
But the argument is really about the credibility collapse of abstinence-only education as a policy. McCullough claims that the study unveiling this collapse is flawed because the kids in the study grew up during the “permissive” Clinton administration. I shit you not.
(Note: He also claims that the kids in the study didn’t really undergo abstinence-only education because the Bush era funding didn’t materialize until years after the study began. But abstinence-only education pre-existed federal funding for it, and unfortunately for McCullough, a quick read of WaPo’s article on the study reveals that, in fact, “slightly more than half of [the children in the study] also received abstinence-only education.” So, basically, McCullough made shit up, again.)
See? Does Clinton’s infidelity have anything to do with the worthiness of abstinence-only education? No. God, no. This is the kind of argument that makes sane men want to stab themselves in the eyes.
McCullough mentions that fewer children are choosing to have sex according to another study and actually tries to credit Bush with this success. The study never even tested the effects of abstinence-only education; it merely said that kids are having less sex. Kids can be having less sex while abstinence-only programs are failing, but one would think from reading ole' Kevin's article that the two are at mutually exclusive, opposite ends of the universe.
The study also showed that kids are using condoms more often, but McCullough bizarrely expresses dissatisfaction that news outlets mentioned this fact. Did Bush’s policies lead teens to use condoms? Would he deem such an increase in safe sex a success?
The two studies have nothing to do with one another, but McCullough distracted the reader with the Clinton Red Herring while he shifted to discussing this new study. See? Distract people long enough, and you can take them down any garden path you like.
A Red Herring is like pointing to the sky and screaming, “Look! An angel!” while stealing someone’s wallet. Mention something only tangentially related to the topic at hand when trying to change the subject in a losing argument or trying to cover a week spot, and few will notice.
It usually goes like this:
Liberal: “I think that we should build more wind farms to combat global warming.”
Right-winger: “Don’t you know that Ted Kennedy tried to stop an offshore wind farm from being built so he could protect his view of the ocean from his zillion-dollar palace?”
Liberal: “What the fuck? He did? What does that have to do with... ?”
Right-winger: “All liberals are the same. Hypocrites! Stupid liberals.”
This brings me to the final Foundation of Conservatism for now: The Common Enemy.
The Common Enemy Hypothesis is social psychology’s explanation for how a nationalist rip tide can sweep away the consciences of millions of people. All fascist movements contained at their cores a deep hatred of someone. This Common Enemy against which people rally to defeat may be the jews (Nazis), the blacks (the confederates), or, finally, the liberal (Republicans).
“The liberal” is not actually anything like real liberals that think and breath. It is a caricature. Lies such as “Liberals want your child to have sex” accumulate in the mind of the angry Republican to form a heaping pile of bullshit akin to a Straw Man but much easier to hate. The more bullshit one adds to the pile, the more it stinks.
The easier it is to hate the caricature the more united around that hatred they will be. This unity is a sick kind of power.
Republicans find ever-larger ways to make “the liberal” Common Enemy more nefarious. One such way is to pose Straw Men as discussed above. For instance, they claim that liberals hate America (instead of admitting that a capacity for truthful reflection upon one’s wrongs is an essential component of a conscience).
Another way is to find actual examples of the boogeyman one wants to create and use them as examples of the Common Enemy. For instance: Ward Churchill. He makes a stupid comment about 9/11 victims, and right-wingers frenzy around him like piranha. This is also called the Fallacy of Composition, which is to assume that what is true of a member of the group is true of the group as a whole (This is largely how things like racist and sexist ideas start).
The goal, though, is to make him a representative of liberals. When they burn useful idiots like Ward Churchill, they are burning all of us in effigy, even if we never agreed with a word the man spoke. The same thing happens to good liberals like Howard Dean, George Soros, the Clintons, Rosie O’Donnel, or Michael Moore. The right wing is looking for someone to hate by proxy. These people are temporary villains and will be replaced by the rest of us if such a opportunity ever comes within their reach.
What connects all of these ideological instruments is their usefulness at distracting people and circumventing their ability to think for themselves. Each is a distraction, and it is as good an explanation for why politics has been so bizarre during the last several years as anything.
Knowing these concepts will help any liberal counter right-wing propaganda. These concepts are our tools, and we can use them to retake the debate in America. The more people who know what we know about deceptive Republican tactics, the fewer people who fall for them.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Jon Stewart on the NIE report and more "circular logic"
Following up on the theme of "circular logic", here's Jon Stewart's take on the recent NIE report
That silly, old Constitution
There is a lot of chatter about impeachment these days in the ether. High crimes and misdemeanors and all that. I'm not really sure if the standard is met or not, but I thought it worth while to restate that particular part of the quaintness that is the U.S. Constitution. Article 2, Section IV:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or for relentlessly brandishing illogic, or an absence of logic, or circular logic, before the exasperated body politic."
Wow... relentlessly brandishing illogic, or the absense of logic, or circular logic. Couldn't really be any clearer than that... it's like they knew these guys would show up eventually.
Saw a great piee from Adam Cohen in the NY Times this weekend about that same wacky group of guys that tried so hard to put something that would last in writing.
July 23, 2007
Editorial Observer
Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War
By ADAM COHEN
The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” he said at a recent press conference. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”
As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress’s role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton’s questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,” he wrote. Mr. Edelman’s response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.
The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.
Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, or for relentlessly brandishing illogic, or an absence of logic, or circular logic, before the exasperated body politic."
Wow... relentlessly brandishing illogic, or the absense of logic, or circular logic. Couldn't really be any clearer than that... it's like they knew these guys would show up eventually.
Saw a great piee from Adam Cohen in the NY Times this weekend about that same wacky group of guys that tried so hard to put something that would last in writing.
July 23, 2007
Editorial Observer
Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War
By ADAM COHEN
The nation is heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq war. Congress is moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war, but President Bush insists Congress doesn’t have the power to do it. “I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” he said at a recent press conference. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.” He added magnanimously: “I’m certainly interested in their opinion.”
The war is hardly the only area where the Bush administration is trying to expand its powers beyond all legal justification. But the danger of an imperial presidency is particularly great when a president takes the nation to war, something the founders understood well. In the looming showdown, the founders and the Constitution are firmly on Congress’s side.
Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”
The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”
Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”
When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.
The Constitution does make the president “commander in chief,” a title President Bush often invokes. But it does not have the sweeping meaning he suggests. The framers took it from the British military, which used it to denote the highest-ranking official in a theater of battle. Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69 that the president would be “nothing more” than “first general and admiral,” responsible for “command and direction” of military forces.
The founders would have been astonished by President Bush’s assertion that Congress should simply write him blank checks for war. They gave Congress the power of the purse so it would have leverage to force the president to execute their laws properly. Madison described Congress’s control over spending as “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”
The framers expected Congress to keep the president on an especially short leash on military matters. The Constitution authorizes Congress to appropriate money for an army, but prohibits appropriations for longer than two years. Hamilton explained that the limitation prevented Congress from vesting “in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.”
As opinion turns more decisively against the war, the administration is becoming ever more dismissive of Congress’s role. Last week, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman brusquely turned away Senator Hillary Clinton’s questions about how the Pentagon intended to plan for withdrawal from Iraq. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq,” he wrote. Mr. Edelman’s response showed contempt not merely for Congress, but for the system of government the founders carefully created.
The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.
Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)