The distinctions between "intrinsic value" and "extrinsic value," between "first-order good" and "second-order good," or -- as Aristotle put it -- between "intrinsic" and "instrumental" are very useful. Often such conversations go around in circles without the disambiguation. People talk past one another because they mean different things or just have not thought through the distinction themselves.
Thinking through it can help one clarify to oneself just what it is that is important about the issue at hand.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: There are more important liberties than the right to burn a flag.
The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders. For me, that is a fundamental right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never had any desire to burn a flag but if anyone passed a constitutional amendment banning flag burning I would have to go start a big flag bonfire in protest.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like I said earlier in the thread, I think what matters is your reasoning. Why did you depict a French flag? Was it to intentionally show disdain for France? If so, then I think you did in fact insult an entire people. If it was for no particular reason, then I have to wonder why you picked France and didn't just make a flag up, or why you didn't leave it blank? What matters most to me is intent. When someone burns the American flag because they want America to similarly burn in flames, then I'll denounce them, when they do it to protest a US action peaceably, then I'll let them do it. I think there is a difference, inherently, between burning your own flag and burning someone else's. Burning our flag can mean dozens of things, burning someone else's flag is almost always a sign of open contempt. I'm just curious as to what your reasons were.
I chose a french flag specifically because the people who are most likely to defend flag burning tend to have an affinity for the French. In using a french flag I had hoped to invoke an emotional response that would demonstrate to them their own hypocrasy.
quote: I don't think you should be so liberal in your trading of freedoms. We aren't playing let's make a deal with our liberties, and there's no reason it should be an either/or situation.
My statement wasn't about trading liberties so much as it was priority of liberties. We argue about flag burning, but how much will that affect your every day life? Do you burn a coupla flags on your way to work every morning? (Well, you do if you live in Berkeley... And have a job.) I don't think so. But equal marriage rights ARE an everyday thing. Lower taxes are an everyday thing. Even Abortion is an every day thing because you live with it, one way or another, the rest of your life.
Flag Burning is an incredibly minor issue.
I still don't want it illegal.
And I still wouldn't do it and would ask you NOT to do it.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders.
You're not criticizing the leaders when you torch a flag, you're criticizing the nation. The American flag isn't President Bush's symbol, or President Clinton's symbol, or your Senator's symbol, it's the nation's symbol.
And besides, isn't the editorial page of your local newspaper a vastly better symbol of your right to criticize one's leaders?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders.
Hmmm. That might be the root of some of the disconnect.
In what way? Is there a reason to ban flag burning that isn't about limiting what we can express about the county or its leaders or how we express that?
edit to respond to rakeesh: The editorial page of my newspaper isn't really my newspaper. And some forms of prostest are better suited to some situations. Just because we have a channel for protest, doesn't mean we should shut down opther channels.
And, as for your first point, in a representative government, the leaders are supposed to represent the whole country. Sometimes the country as a whole gets it wrong.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It hardly matters if there's a reason or not, because that's been explicitly rejected more than once. No one here is talking about making flag burning illegal.
quote:The editorial page of my newspaper isn't really my newspaper. And some forms of prostest are better suited to some situations. Just because we have a channel for protest, doesn't mean we should shut down opther channels.
If your letter is in the opinions section, it's sure as hell your letter at least, right?
quote:And, as for your first point, in a representative government, the leaders are supposed to represent the whole country. Sometimes the country as a whole gets it wrong.
*puzzled* So the next time I object to the actions of one of my leaders strenuously, I should string up an effigy of that leader and torch it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In what way? Is there a reason to ban flag burning that isn't about limiting what we can express about the county or its leaders or how we express that?
The only thing I've said about banning flag burning is that I do not support making it illegal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll repeat what's been said at least three times already: no one here is challenging the right to burn the flag. If by some chance someone has and I missed it, I do not think flag burning should be illegal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've tried to get letters into the Letters to the Editor page. It's harder than I thought, and they edited them down when they did go through. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to decline, not because I can't find them, but because I think it has been covered enough in the media and for that matter on this website to the point where the behavior should be accepted as something that has happened, so I'm not going to go through the effort to put a list together. If you seriously question the inferences Administration officials have made (and may or may not have outright said so, but I can't recall a time off the top of my head), then I question how often you've watch or read national political news in the last two and a half years.
I see. Could you please list all the things I can ask for evidence about without being accused of being ill-informed? I'd like to know if there are any other cherished memes I mustn't question on pain of being called ignorant.
I have a hard time believing you actually said that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph, I was asking you to elaborate on the disconnect you mentioned.
rakeesh, and I have said that making flag burning illegal would be what would prompt me to burn one.
There is certainly good historic precendent for burning bad leaders in effigy.
And one can't always get letters printed, especially in privately own newspapers. Unless one privately owns one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I chose a french flag specifically because the people who are most likely to defend flag burning tend to have an affinity for the French. In using a french flag I had hoped to invoke an emotional response that would demonstrate to them their own hypocrasy.
What on earth are you TALKING about?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is certainly good historic precendent for burning bad leaders in effigy.
And one can't always get letters printed, especially in privately own newspapers. Unless one privately owns one.
You're evading my question, boots. I didn't ask if there was a precedent for it, I asked if you thought it would be appropriate--not legal or illegal!--to torch an effigy of a leader if I disagreed with him, rather than taking any one of the dozens of types (and hundreds of thousands of options within those types) of ways to express discontent and criticism.
quote:And one can't always get letters printed, especially in privately own newspapers. Unless one privately owns one.
Which leads to any one of dozens of other potential methods.
Torching a flag is a lazy man's protest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a very attention-getting and strident protest. I would hope that it would be a protest against something which warranted such attention and stridency; otherwise, it is crying wolf.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:mph, I was asking you to elaborate on the disconnect you mentioned.
Ah. My disconnect has to do with what burning the flag means, not what banning its burning means.
To me, burning the flag is not symbolic of the great and noble ideals of freedom of expression and the right and duty of citizens to criticize the government.
Instead, to me, burning the flag is closer to urinating on someone's grave, or smearing feces on the front door of a court or church house. It is a mode of expression which is meant to be shocking, offensive, and desecrating.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead, to me, burning the flag is closer to urinating on someone's grave, or smearing feces on the front door of a court or church house. It is a mode of expression which is meant to be shocking, offensive, and desecrating.
I agree without qualifier with the first two, and in some cases it certainly seems like the third one fits in terms of intent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is, and should be reserved to be, shocking and offensive. As I noted above, I reserve the term "desecration" for that which is held to be sacred.
I'd use the analogy of ice water to the face, but I can understand that others may have different analogies which resonate emotionally. For me, I'd say that level of shock would be comparable to actually defecating or urinating on the flag, if that.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is where the disconnect comes from, because to me, burning it is comparable to defecating or urinating on it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? I think there's a contempt expressed by pooping on something that isn't necessarily expressed through setting it on fire.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, defecating would probably be worse, not that it really matters one way or another.
Also, my usage of the word desecrate was deliberate. I try to treat the flag with respect and reverence when I have the occasion to do so. I do think there is something of the sacred in the flag and what it stands for, and thus I do think it can be desecrated.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me more than flag-burning are the smarmy, self-aggrandizing flag-wrapping politicians who bring up this issue repeatedly to whip up the base, while ignoring far more critical issues facing our country.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, first off, to echo riv, from where do you derive your theory that people who defend flag burning are naturally tied to France? Now the only link I could theorize, is that Republicans are generally anti-flag burning, and pro-war, and being pro-war, they’d be anti-French, since the French snubbed us on Iraq. And I’d put forth that generally Democrats are the opposite, so perhaps by association you could surmise that pro-flag burners are pro-France, but the logic it took to get there is a bit silly for me. And you’ll have to explain it to me, because on the face of it, I don’t see the hypocrisy you’re referencing.
quote: My statement wasn't about trading liberties so much as it was priority of liberties. We argue about flag burning, but how much will that affect your every day life? Do you burn a coupla flags on your way to work every morning? (Well, you do if you live in Berkeley... And have a job.) I don't think so. But equal marriage rights ARE an everyday thing. Lower taxes are an everyday thing. Even Abortion is an every day thing because you live with it, one way or another, the rest of your life.
Alright, now I see where your motivations lie. And yet I still think that you feel it would be totally worth it to trade away a lesser freedom in order to buy yourself what you personally consider to be a more important freedom. There are a LOT of freedoms that I don’t use on a daily basis. I have never had to worry about being protected against illegal search and seizure or owning a firearm, so I could easily trade away those things. I never plan on owning a gun in my life, so by your logic, I should be perfectly willing to trade away the Second Amendment in return for a national healthcare plan. Out of sight out of mind I guess. I find your logic and stance on this to be quite chilling.
Rakeesh –
quote: You're not criticizing the leaders when you torch a flag, you're criticizing the nation. The American flag isn't President Bush's symbol, or President Clinton's symbol, or your Senator's symbol, it's the nation's symbol.
Alright, I can totally understand that point of view. But I respectfully disagree. Sometimes a nation needs to be criticized as a whole. Right now I am wholly dissatisfied with much of what is happening in this country. I think we’re falling apart at the seems, domestic issues are being ignored to the detriment of our long term survival, and our foreign policy is ruinous and threatening to our national security. Now given how dissatisfied I am not just with our leadership, but with the general public, the public sphere, the media, industry, and pretty much everything in it, is it possible for me to burn a flag to show my contempt for the direction we’re taking? I think the difference is that many people ONLY view the flag as a symbol of the GOOD America has to offer, but a great many people view it as a symbol of ALL of what America is, and that includes her demons. Frankly, I think this country is so deep in the crapper that the flag we all idealize so much doesn’t even really represent us, and we as a nation aren’t doing the founding fathers who are caught up in those symbols any justice at all. Given that, I think burning the flag is a perfectly fair act of expression for me to show how I feel, to show my contempt for what I view to be others doing far worse than damaging a symbol, because they are ruining the actual thing that symbol stands for. The idea I’m trying to convey here is hard to get out in words, but I think I just came close. Keeping in mind that I have never actually burned a flag, and that I don’t really intend to any time soon, but I think if I did, I would be wholly justified. However I respect the history it embodies too much to do it, even if the nation as a whole doesn’t really seem to at the moment.
Rakeesh again –
On the subject of effigy burning. Would it be “appropriate” by whose standards? Clearly it isn’t appropriate by your standards, but then neither is the subject at hand, flag burning. I would have to say it wouldn’t be appropriate, only given the fact that effigy burning in America fell out of favor a century or more ago, but, flag burning never had the same drop off in popularity. It has always been a medium for showing disapproval, and has always been utilized, though infrequently, throughout American history. So, while I think you certainly COULD burn an effigy, any while this is regularly done in other countries, in America I think you’d come off looking like a fringe lunatic, but I don’t think you’d come off looking the same way for burning a flag, I don’t see the two as comparable in the 21st century.
Mph –
I see a drastic difference between defecating/urinating, and burning. Burning has always had a more symbolic, and sometimes noble feel to it. It’s an odd reference, but imagine the end of Return of the Jedi, only instead of burning Darth Vader, Luke urinated and defecated on him. Burning, historically throughout the ages, can mean a ritualistic sacrifice, it can mean a showing of honor and devotion, and yes, it can be a form of open contempt and intended offense, but I don’t think that burning has the same automatic offense that defecating/urinating has. And I think the multiple explanations in this very thread, about how people feel about what they are actually intending to do when they burn the flag means more than just the bottom line.
Dag –
I saved you for last. First off, sorry about the tone of my post. I sounded a lot more like a dick than I really intended to (since I didn’t intend to sound like that at all). It is my honest opinion, that anyone who has paid serious attention to the national political news in the last five years or so would have seen at least one example of Republican patriotism heckling. But, since you clearly are informed, and still haven’t viewed such an example, I’m forced to call my opinion into question.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm going to decline, not because I can't find them, but because I think it has been covered enough in the media and for that matter on this website to the point where the behavior should be accepted as something that has happened, so I'm not going to go through the effort to put a list together. If you seriously question the inferences Administration officials have made (and may or may not have outright said so, but I can't recall a time off the top of my head), then I question how often you've watch or read national political news in the last two and a half years.
I see. Could you please list all the things I can ask for evidence about without being accused of being ill-informed? I'd like to know if there are any other cherished memes I mustn't question on pain of being called ignorant.
I have a hard time believing you actually said that.
I rather thought that this was something that would be easily accepted and wouldn’t require a search, and since I didn’t really have the time (at the time) to do a decent search, I blew you off, which I apologize for (if for no other reason than how extremely rude I was about it). Also, I didn’t carefully read your post, small as it was, to realize what you specifically wanted to know was my definition of “more or less” which really does leave quite a bit of room for interpretation. So, belatedly, here’s my attempt to answer your original question:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Remember when the Bush Administration more or less equated questioning their leadership with a lack of patriotism?
Could you quote some examples of this? "More or less" leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so I'd like to know to exactly what you're referring before responding.
First off I’d point you to what I originally said in my first response to you regarding Alberto Gonzalez’s comments. I’ll freely admit that I can’t recall a time when any elected Republican official has come out and specifically said “so and so is unpatriotic.” They’ve all read Spirrow Agnew’s cheat sheet enough to know you don’t specifically question patriotism, you attack their judgment and then infer that they are unpatriotic.
quote: December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."
Now like I said, you’ll never specifically hear them use the word “patriotism” but it isn’t hard to miss the references. When you claim that bemoaning the PATRIOT ACT’s removal of liberties is in fact aiding terrorists, eroding national unity, diminishing our resolve, arming our enemies, and hurting diplomatic ties with allies, I think that is tantamount to calling someone a traitor and/or treasonous, and I think he’s calling them unpatriotic, because patriots don’t do those types of things. It is a clear attack on the loyalty of those that speak against the Administration, as the Administration in this case supports the PATRIOT ACT.
quote: February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."
Aid and comfort is a phrase generally reserved for describing treason, actually isn’t that one of the actual descriptions of what treasonable activity constitutes? I’ll grant you that Tom Davis is not an Administration official, but I would contend that as a member of the Republican party, and with his party’s leader in the White House, he is in fact linked to Bush. And hell, this was an attack on another Republican. These attacks were more widely thrown at Democrats who shared Dashle’s viewpoint, check out the NOW link below for more on it.
quote: July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
Now that’s a lot more direct and obvious than the last couple examples. Rove is directly questioning the patriotism of liberals, and in this case, liberals who are speaking out against Bush Administration policy. Check out the Washington Post link below for more on this one.
So yes, while the Bush Administration, and by extension their Republican lackeys, never explicitly use the word patriotism in their attacks on dissenters, I think that each individual comment comes together to form a collage with one message: Dissenters of Administration policy, in a time of war, are not patriotic, and serve only to help our enemies.
I hope that answer satisfies you, and again, I apologize for being a jerk to you before.
quote:Now like I said, you’ll never specifically hear them use the word “patriotism” but it isn’t hard to miss the references. When you claim that bemoaning the PATRIOT ACT’s removal of liberties is in fact aiding terrorists, eroding national unity, diminishing our resolve, arming our enemies, and hurting diplomatic ties with allies, I think that is tantamount to calling someone a traitor and/or treasonous, and I think he’s calling them unpatriotic, because patriots don’t do those types of things. It is a clear attack on the loyalty of those that speak against the Administration, as the Administration in this case supports the PATRIOT ACT.
This is the central problem I have with this widely accepted "fact" that Republicans are questioning people's patriotism.
Here, a cause-and-effect scenario has been postulated: that certain types of dissent aid terrorists in certain ways.
It is certainly true that certain kinds of public expression will aid the insurgents, for example. If they believe that more attacks on Americans will cause public opinion to force a withdrawal, then they will gravitate towards those tactics and have a much easier time recruiting.
In the specific case, an argument can be made that the failure to close what are seen as loopholes in our ability to investigate terrorists can encourage terrorists to continue to try to exploit those loopholes. I'm not saying the argument is true; I am saying that it is an argument based in the effects of the speech, not the feelings of those making the speech about our country.
It's similar to the "people who want to ban abortion want to punish women for sex" arguments we have that frustrate me so much. The argument requires that the speaker assign his own motivations to the person who wants to ban abortion. That is, since the speaker sees unwanted pregnancy as punishment, the assumption is that the anti-abortion advocate does, too.
The parallel isn't exact here. But the only way those statements amount to an attack on patriotism is if the one making the accusation about the effects of the dissent also asserts that the effect is desired by the one dissenting - an assertion not made in this example.
You say this is a "clear" attack on the loyalty of those who say certain things, but I don't agree that it's clear.
The Gonzales comments also don't amount to an attack on patriotism. Specifically, I think you took his comments out of context. He was talking not about freedom to dissent but a theory of liberty that brooks no state interference. For example, someone who advocates that the fourth amendment does not allow a police officer to run into the home of someone shouting "HELP! HELP!" without a warrant would be advocating a view of liberty that, in my view, does not adequately incorporate civic responsibility. In my view, anyone who thinks that his right to be secure in his home from government intrusion prevents answering direct calls for help by government officials is not exhibiting civic responsibility. Gonzales has postulated a similar line of reasoning - one less compelling and that I don't agree with. But it is also a line of reasoning that does not question patriotism.
Note also that it was not the freedom to dissent that triggered his accusation of civic irresponsibility. It was the conception of privacy rights as relate to wiretapping.
Davis's comments is also a cause and effect statement, not an accusation about the loyalty of those making the statements. (I'll also note - as a quibble only - that this example do not derive from the administration.)
I see the "they're questioning my patriotism" accusations specifically as intended to stifle certain forms of discourse. If someone thinks that certain forms of dissent help our enemies, they should say so. The people making the dissent should then demonstrate either 1) the dissent does not help our enemies or 2) any help to enemies is outweighed by the importance of the dissent.
Both are valid arguments to make in response. "You're questioning my patriotism" is, ironically, simply another form of what the administration has been accused of doing.
The last one - which did not appear in any of the top google search results when I looked yesterday - is the only one I've seen that attributes motives. This does appear to be an example of what you were saying, although I wish we had the whole speech for context.
I don't want, however, to see statements about how one's words are used by our enemies to be considered automatically out of bounds and attacks on patriotism. Such arguments need to be made sometimes, if only to remind speakers that their words have effects outside the U.S.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think some of your defense of their statemens begins from a position of assumed good faith. As in, you're assuming they actually mean what they are saying on the surface. I can already imagine how you'll respond to that, and I know how it sounds, but after what I've seen happen and what I've heard said over the last four or five years, I don't have an ounce of trust in most Republican officials. While I have no proof, I don't believe at all that they necessarily believe what they are saying and mean for it to be taken only in that context. I think that they mean for it to be taken as an assault on other people's patriotism.
But, I think you make a very valid case for saying we shouldn't just brush their concerns under the rug. Dismissing them by claiming patriotism questioning is out of bounds would be doing the same thing as the charge being levied against them to begin with.
Still, with Rove's comment, and others that I have seen from him, and Dick Cheney, and to a lesser extent Tony Snow, and to a lesser extend Condi Rice and Scott McClellan (that I don't have exact quotes on, but I know I've heard it), I think they are more direct manifestations of a grander Republican theme of trying to portray liberals as unpatriotic. It's a concerted effort. They all use the same phrases and the same attacks, they all pick apart the same Democratic talking points. Either they plan it, or they're sharing some sort of latent mind meld.
So I should say each comment should be viewed on a case by case basis, though in the instances above, minus the Ashcroft quote, I think they greatly support my case. They aren't approaching the discussion in good faith when they are being so intentionally deragatory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think some of your defense of their statemens begins from a position of assumed good faith.
In that case, then the lack of good faith of those making the charges comes into play. For example, we have Here's one example:
quote:CARVILLE: Richard Clarke says the Bush administration blew its chance to take down al Qaeda by going after Iraq. And so just today in a newly released audiotape we've got al Qaeda's No. 2 guy supposedly calling for the overthrow of Pakistan's government.
To debate the extent of the Bush administration's incompetence we're joined from Capitol Hill by Democratic Congressman and my dear friend and general pain in the behind Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. And one of my favorite Republicans, Congressman Peter King of New York. Thank you all for coming.
MESERVE: Congressman Emmanuel, let me read to you from Richard Clarke's resignation letter to President Bush just about a year ago. Said, "It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months. I will always the courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11."
And then at yesterday's hearing, Mr. Emmanuel, when Mr. Clarke was challenged why besides that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) language and a briefing with the press he had been even more supportive of the president. Why did he say that? Here's what his answer was. Let's listen to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLARKE: I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: In other words, this guy is a spin artist. You know, how can you tell he's telling the truth now when he says he wasn't telling the truth a year ago when he was briefing the press?
REP. RAHM EMANUEL (D), ILLINOIS: Bob, I think I know something about spin. Dick Clarke is not a spin artist. And the fact is, look, when I worked with him, you had good days and bad days. He was a tough guy to work with. He worked for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton and this president. Three Republicans, one Democrat. But nobody ever questions his patriotism. You may not like the way he forcefully -- I'm like a dog with a bone. He's like a dog with a bone. He was tough. But he always did it because he thought of protecting America. He thought what he wanted to do was right for America.
To question his patriotism or to somehow what he's doing is political you're missing the point. This guy is a true patriot. You may not agree with him.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: Congressman, I am so sick of every time I criticize one of the Bush bashers, they say you're questioning his patriotism. I didn't say a damn thing about patriotism.
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: Let me repeat -- let me repeat what my question was. And don't give me this patriotism baloney. I'm asking you, how can you tell...
EMANUEL: Bob, it's great to be on the show.
NOVAK: Wait a minute, let me ask the question. How can you tell when he's telling the truth when he says I was just giving a lot of baloney before? How do you know he's telling the truth now?
EMANUEL: Because he was there. That was a different question than what you asked, Bob.
But what you said to me, he was just a spin artist. I said no he's not a spin artist. He happens to be a patriot. I didn't say you questioned his patriotism, No. 1.
No. 2, as Dick Clarke oversaw -- the war on terrorism. He has a very particular point that's worth debating if you want to have a debate, which is by going to war in Iraq we diverted resources from the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
Recently we just sent some resources to Afghanistan we couldn't have sent because we had them tied down in Iraq. That is a legitimate policy discussion. And he made that claim. I happen to think it's right. And that is a legitimate -- being held in this country. That doesn't make him a spin artist. Happens to make him a person who has a view on foreign policy.
It seems like it's a gut reflex - Clarke's truthfulness is questioned based on his admitting that he was spinning things for the administration before. Not the most sophisticated analysis, but "was he spinning then or is he spinning now" is certainly expected criticism in this situation.
And Emanuel leaps to patriotism. He later states that Novak didn't question his patriotism. So we have him raising patriotism to stave off accusations of spinning, and doing so in a situation where admittedly no one questioned patriotism. I've seen this repeatedly.
The meme has become accepted through repetition. It is in this context - a context created by repeated assertions that dissent really is patriotic, no matter what the Bushies say - that the pattern emerges. Each individual comment is read starting from the assumption of bad faith - not merely a lack of an assumption of good faith.
For all the talk of "squashing dissent," dissent is alive and well in America today.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Burning, historically throughout the ages, can mean a ritualistic sacrifice, it can mean a showing of honor and devotion, and yes, it can be a form of open contempt and intended offense, but I don’t think that burning has the same automatic offense that defecating/urinating has.
Automatically? Obviously not, since someone can burn a flag in order to honorably retire it. But it's very different when it's purposely done as a shocking, offensive, and degrading act.
Just because fire can be used to honor someone in a funeral pyre doesn't mean that burning someone in effigy is somehow honoring them.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's very different when it's purposely done as a shocking, offensive, and degrading act.
Do you think that the Penn and Teller bit (or a similar "celebrating liberty" demonstration) was intended as degrading?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Good example, and I'd say in that instance, Rahm was way, way off base with the patriotism thing. Novak was talking about his reliability as a public servent and they weren't talking about anything that I could even possibly link to patriotism before Emmanuel brought it up.
I should say, that I never said mainstream Democrats as a whole were totally off the hook either. I've seen them trot out patriotism as a form of misdirection, but that doesn't negate the real attacks from Republicans.
And I have to say, in response to this:
quote:Each individual comment is read starting from the assumption of bad faith - not merely a lack of an assumption of good faith
Given the Bush Administration's actions over the last seven years, is that really a big surprise? It's a presidency that doesn't engender or earn good faith, it gives every reason for people to only have bad faith and a lack of trust in them, so one can hardly be surprised when already questionable words are taken the wrong way, it's just par for the course. I don't think repetition is the only thing involved here, there's serious substance to the claim, and Bush and his subordinates have helped it along via their actions. While I'll agree with you that Democrats might cry wolf from time to time, I think more often than not (and this is from my memory of news stories I have read), they have valid complaints against a very dishonest government and against an underhanded opposition party. They might do well to try and earn back some respect points, maybe then I'll trust them when they expect me to take something at face value.
I should also add that given the examples I have given you, and the example you gave me, it's all the more important to view each individual circumstance separately and consider the context, who is saying it, and what specifically is being said. Because in your example, patriotism was clearly not an issue, and I believe in many of my examples, it clearly is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Burning, historically throughout the ages, can mean a ritualistic sacrifice, it can mean a showing of honor and devotion, and yes, it can be a form of open contempt and intended offense, but I don’t think that burning has the same automatic offense that defecating/urinating has.
Automatically? Obviously not, since someone can burn a flag in order to honorably retire it. But it's very different when it's purposely done as a shocking, offensive, and degrading act.
Just because fire can be used to honor someone in a funeral pyre doesn't mean that burning someone in effigy is somehow honoring them.
I never said that it was, not automatically.
My biggest problem with your first statement there is that you are assigning intent onto he who would burn a flag. You're saying that if someone were to burn a flag for any reason other than disposal purposes, they could only possibly do it in order to be shocking, offensive and degrading? That's ridiculous. Especially given the arguments in this thread, many people believe burning a flag, while shocking (I'll give you that one, it's a drastic measure), is not intended to be offensive or degrading, but is a perfectly valid and very powerful form of protest, and contains none of the vile animosity that you are assigning to it.
Seriously, when did you become a mind reader?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think comparing burning to defecation is that useful. Their meanings are contrived from how they have been used in the past and currently.
Its well within the realm of possibility to have a culture that decides that spreading feces on an object is a means of veneration.
Also I doubt we will ever have public defecation on the flag, as that would violate indecent exposure laws.
Though I am reminded of a South Park episode where in protest to Isaac Hayes leaving the show over their rude treatment of scientology that they then depicted Jesus and some other historical figures all defecating on the flag.
quote:Given the Bush Administration's actions over the last seven years, is that really a big surprise?
Not to someone with your existing premises and viewpoint on them, no.
That's kind of my point. Your viewpoint may be correct. But it's still coloring your perception of those examples.
quote:I should also add that given the examples I have given you, and the example you gave me, it's all the more important to view each individual circumstance separately and consider the context, who is saying it, and what specifically is being said.
But you are specifically applying a universal context to the administration statements. In the process of considering them individually, you're applying the reputation of all the other statements.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my existing premises and viewpoints have been earned by the Administration, and I think I'd be a bit of a fool to give them blind trust, or even neutral trust (as in, neither for or against) after all the wrongs I believe have been committed by them. And I'll freely admit that that might just be coloring my perception of what they have to say, but I think the blame lies largely with the President for breaking that trust, rather than the guy who no longer trusts him. But regardless of ME, I think if you showed many of those quotes to random people you'd find several who'd agree with me.
quote:But you are specifically applying a universal context to the administration statements. In the process of considering them individually, you're applying the reputation of all the other statements.
Well, it IS part of a larger context, you can't take that away. I guess what I meant was, your example about what Rahm Emmanuel doesn't make a pattern, and doesn't necessarily negate a valid complaint that another Democrat might have. Similarly, two Republicans saying similar things might also be just as distinctively different, but the larger context should be a FACTOR in determining the intent of the speaker. If their words fall lockstep in with a larger pattern, wouldn't it only be logical and fair to include that larger pattern as a determining factor in making a judgment on the matter?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But regardless of ME, I think if you showed many of those quotes to random people you'd find several who'd agree with me.
Which is a very different statement than the common expression of the idea "the administration accuses people who disagree with them of being unpatriotic" as something everyone accepts.
quote:If their words fall lockstep in with a larger pattern, wouldn't it only be logical and fair to include that larger pattern as a determining factor in making a judgment on the matter?
Not if the larger "pattern" consists of lots of ambiguous statements and a few unambiguous ones. So far, all but the Rove one have been about effects of speech, not motive.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think comparing burning to defecation is that useful.
I think it is very useful in explaining how disrespectful I personally find it to be, which I was asked to do. (Well, not directly, but to answer the request that was made, I had to explain it.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still hold by it being something I'd expect most, well, at least Democrats, to accept. And frankly I'd expect a lot of Republicans to as well because many of them probably agree with Bush's attacks, or at least did, back in the day.
Well, get into the motive of the people leveling the charges then. Saying that your opponent is supporting our declared enemies and is giving them aid and comfort either suggests that your opponent is a traitor, and thus unpatriotic, or is so willfully stupid that they can't fathom how truly harmful their actions are. Watch the party line. I wish I'd kept it, but I found a different site that showed dozens and dozens of examples of Republicans, mostly Bush Admin officials repeating Spirrow Agnew's famous phrase about "I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm questioning your judgement." Now depending on the situation and the words being said, I am perfectly willing to accept that at face value, because I believe that is a perfectly valid opinion to hold, and certainly someone CAN do just such a thing. But when you look at the people being attacked, many of them clearly aren't stupid. They are well educated, well spoken inviduals who know what the are doing is right. And removing stupidity from consideration, when an opponent levels charges of "aiding and comforting the enemy" I think that is tantamount to a charge of treason.
I don't find the statements as ambiguous as you do. They are out to stifle debate and stifle dissent. Just because they suck at it doesn't change what they are trying to do, and I don't plan on letting them off the hook for it.
And there are many more examples out there (did you read my links above?), but I'm on a forum, I'm not writing a term paper, and I'm perfectly content with not having convinced you that I'm right in the end.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think comparing burning to defecation is that useful.
I think it is very useful in explaining how disrespectful I personally find it to be, which I was asked to do.
But that is entirely my point.
The discussion is turning into a personal interpretation of what exactly burning something means to the invidvidual. Ditto to defecation.
I suppose that is useful in gauging where proponents and opponents are coming from in this discussion, I'd just hate to see it turn into,
Person A: To me burning is disrespectful Person B: Well to me its not so bad Person C: Well in India women used to immolate themselves out of respect for their husbands so perhaps Americans need to get over the fixation with burning = bad.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate for me to explore why I view the situation differently than others do?
I'm not striving to convince anyone. If I can manage to understand and to be understood, I call that a good conversation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate for me to explore why I view the situation differently than others do?
I'm not striving to convince anyone. If I can manage to understand and to be understood, I call that a good conversation.
I apologize, I don't think you are reading me correctly. Perhaps it is presumptous of me to try and keep the conversation away from a certain direction. You are entirely in the right to respond to questions being posed to you, I was merely expressing disatisfaction that the comments preceding our immediate comments at this point in the thread indicate a move towards a clashing of personal perspectives.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that your opponent is supporting our declared enemies and is giving them aid and comfort either suggests that your opponent is a traitor, and thus unpatriotic, or is so willfully stupid that they can't fathom how truly harmful their actions are.
Where does it suggest stupidity, willful or otherwise? Most political criticism focuses on the future negative consequences of a particular act - raising taxes hurts the economy, cutting taxes increases the deficit, etc. Does every such example include a suggestion of willful stupidity?
quote:I don't find the statements as ambiguous as you do. They are out to stifle debate and stifle dissent. Just because they suck at it doesn't change what they are trying to do, and I don't plan on letting them off the hook for it.
By that standard, I contend that you are, in effect, attempting to stifle this particular form of dissent.
This is why I don't think it's the appropriate standard to use.
I'm aware that the Administration's words will have a larger effect than yours. Your intent is still to either get them to stop doing it or to make others think the administration is doing something wrong.
Which is exactly what the administration is trying to do.
Attempting to win an argument is not stifling dissent.
quote:And there are many more examples out there (did you read my links above?), but I'm on a forum, I'm not writing a term paper, and I'm perfectly content with not having convinced you that I'm right in the end.
I've read the examples. I'm not convinced. Beyond that, I find the accusation is premised on the administration possessing a strange combination of stupidity and craftiness and the American public possessing a strange combination of lack of backbone, power to suppress dissent, and the ability to read between the lines, and the lack of ability to read between the lines.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree, on several of your points, and I think we've reached an impasse.
But let me ask, what do you think it suggests, when an opponent says you are giving "aid and comfort to the enemy?" And where did taxes and the economy even enter into this debate? I thought we were talking almost exclusively about foreign policy issues. Considering this Administration rarely even seriously brushes hands with domestic issues, I'm not trying to make that argument. Apologies if I wasn't clear before, and I can see now that I probably wasn't.
I don't agree with your comparison. Republicans sent the message that the kind of debate that Democrats wanted was inappropriate during a time of war, that trying to even stop a war in progress was inappropriate in a time of war, and that discussing it in the public sphere was treasonous. And that last bit is supported in my quotes above. You are suggesting that they are trying to win the argument, but I just don't like their methods. I'm suggesting that they are trying to avoid the argument entirely by shutting it down, I don't see the comparison as valid. I want them to let the debate happen, for better or for worse for my own particular side. If you consider me trying to keep a debate alive to be a form of stifling dissent, well, I find that to be a very odd position, but that's just my opinion
I think the accusation is premised on the Bush Administration not being forthright with the American people, and the accusation is a direct result of their actions. The Bush Administration has NOT dealt with the American people in good faith, and without trust and good faith, I think this: "the American public possessing a strange combination of lack of backbone, power to suppress dissent, and the ability to read between the lines, and the lack of ability to read between the lines." is all moot. If the people don't trust their leader, it doesn't matter if they have backbone or not, they won't believe they need to have a backbone if they don't buy his premise.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And besides, isn't the editorial page of your local newspaper a vastly better symbol of your right to criticize one's leaders?
A person who burns a flag is obviously electing to express their discontent in the manner of their choosing, and I'm sure it's agreeable to dislike the idea that some forms of expression should be curtailed because they discomfort some people.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And where did taxes and the economy even enter into this debate?
What? That was an example of commentary about the negative consequences of a political act. You stated that if a politician says that X's acts lead to a particular negative outcome, then that politician must mean that either X desires that outcome or X is stupid. I was pointing out another example of common political criticism that focuses on the negative outcomes of the opponent's policies.
I'll ask again, does every such example imply either stupidity or desiring the bad outcome?
quote:Republicans sent the message that the kind of debate that Democrats wanted was inappropriate during a time of war, that trying to even stop a war in progress was inappropriate in a time of war, and that discussing it in the public sphere was treasonous. And that last bit is supported in my quotes above.
No, it's not. As you said, we're at an impasse - although I'll point out that the dichotomy of stupidity or treason on which you rely is a false one.
quote:I'm suggesting that they are trying to avoid the argument entirely by shutting it down, I don't see the comparison as valid. I want them to let the debate happen, for better or for worse for my own particular side.
Yep. A long as that debate doesn't include making statements about the effect that debate may have on the course of the war.
quote:If you consider me trying to keep a debate alive to be a form of stifling dissent, well, I find that to be a very odd position, but that's just my opinion
It is an odd position. Perhaps you missed the part where I said "By [your] standard..." and "This is why I don't think it's the appropriate standard to use."
In other words I don't think you're trying to stifle dissent. You, are, however, attempting to label a particular position as "out of bounds" in some way - exactly what you accuse the administration of doing.
Censorship and dissent-stifling is as loaded an accusation as unpatriotism, and you're using it with the desired goal of carving out a whole category of argument.
quote:I think the accusation is premised on the Bush Administration not being forthright with the American people, and the accusation is a direct result of their actions. The Bush Administration has NOT dealt with the American people in good faith, and without trust and good faith, I think this: "the American public possessing a strange combination of lack of backbone, power to suppress dissent, and the ability to read between the lines, and the lack of ability to read between the lines." is all moot. If the people don't trust their leader, it doesn't matter if they have backbone or not, they won't believe they need to have a backbone if they don't buy his premise.
What? I don't even know why you're connecting the two. You've stated that the American people are smart enough to figure out that the administration is really saying that the Democrats are unpatriotic when they don't actually say it, yet dumb enough to be manipulated by this trick. I don't see the two as consistent positions to hold.
By the way, I'm still at a loss as to how this "stifles" dissent, even if your characterization of the administration's message were accurate. Are you seriously suggesting that there are people who don't criticize because of this, who would otherwise be criticizing? If so, I don't think much of some people, and doubt they have much of anything to offer meaningful political discourse.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
