Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

You asked what I thought and why.  The last time I asked a skeptical 
question - about the PATRIOT Act thing in Raleigh, actually - I 
received a couple links with the reply that I should "educate myself".  
That wasn't the way you approached my comment a couple days ago, and I 
appreciate that.

As something of a moderate, more inclined to the professorial than the 
pamphleteering, it's a rare thing on most of my email lists, which are 
mostly left-leaning.  I'm not, myself, and I subscribe to some academic 
lists where the discussion focuses around topics within certain 
disciplines.  I probably need to unsubscribe from a few, and limit 
myself to commondreams.org and frontpagemag.com, but I like having a 
longer books-to-buy list than I could ever afford, let alone afford the 
time to read. :-)

On Oct 14, 2004, at 12:26 AM, Evan Zimmerman wrote:

> Ashcroft began using the power to access library records within days
> of saying he hadn't yet. It was a matter of timing.

True, and we could argue about whether searching library records is 
okay.  But that wasn't the point.

The point was that the story was wrong.  Not mistaken, but flat-out 
lying about the guy.  It was an article on how we were losing our civil 
liberties in a post-9/11, PATRIOT Act world.

Many people on this list have complained, loudly and vociferously, 
against Ashcroft, the PATRIOT Act, and so forth.  I see the complaints, 
and the ensuing "activism", as unreasonable because nobody puts it in 
context, or seems to remember legislative history.

For example, I don't recall much comment about the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act.  Let the PATRIOT Act expire - or showboat 
at a bunch of anti-PATRIOT Act rallies until it does - and the fact 
remains: the PATRIOT Act should rightly be called "Son of Antiterrorism 
and Effective Death Penalty Act".  But it's easier to carp about 
Ashcroft than it is to spend a few boring weeks poring over the 
Congressional Record.  And it's rhetorically easier to say, "These evil 
thugs are screwing with our civil liberties," than it is to say, "Well, 
folks, this act is really insignificant compared to that bill back in 
'96."

I'm not calling you a showboater, or saying you're ignorant of 
legislative history.  Rather, I'm trying to portray an intellectual 
environment that could only be called religious.  It has central 
tenets, or articles of faith, and it preaches that anyone who disagrees 
is, to use a word you (rightly) abjure, evil.  Ironically, the American 
left is the intellectual child of a very Puritan morality.  Much more 
so than the American right, anyway, which tends to be more evangelical.

(Oddly, the left is more evangelical in their practices than the right, 
which is one of the reasons politicians, especially on the right, speak 
of a "silent majority".  Though I suspect that, if Bush wins this 
election, we may see a shift in those characterizations over the next 
20 or 30 years.)

> The blue drape thing not being Ashcroft? News to me. I've never heard
> that contested at all other than a stock denial. We don't have to
> argue it since there's probably no proof either way, but it definitely
> passes the smell test for me. Obviously it doesn't for you. Eh.

Two articles to help sort things out:

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-nordlinger072402.asp
http://www.detnews.com/2002/politics/0201/29/nation-402789.htm

Also, I must apologize for accidentally mischaracterizing the story.  A 
non-partisan appraisal induces a less-hostile interpretation, but it 
wasn't Ashcroft who instigated the affair.  And re-reading these 
articles reminded me of the amusing history of photographers framing 
Justice Secretaries.  For that, at least, I'm glad to revisit the 
topic.

> > I think Ashcroft might be a decent man
>
> "Decent" is awfully subjective and personal. Ashcroft brings his
> religion to work, and he's the highest law enforcement officer in the
> US. That's a problem for me, because he appears to side with his
> personal beliefs even when they contrast with the law.
> Decent as a personal judgement doesn't describe his position on race
> and equality issues, to put it mildly.

On religious affiliation, I have to say, who cares?  Communism was and 
is evil - not a bad-so-I'll-exaggerate "evil", but downright 
exacerbating-the-worst-in-man, slaughter-anyone-who-disagrees evil.  
And yet, for years, people freely walked around advocating a system and 
philosophy that has killed more people, and in a shorter time, than any 
other ideology in history.  A guy having religious convictions is 
hardly going to faze me.

But I am unaware of his habit of siding with his personal beliefs even 
when they contrast with the law.  I am very aware of very many people 
making very many complaints to the contrary.  But saying something - 
even saying it loudly and repeatedly - doesn't make it so.  In many 
circles, it would seem that "Ashcroft" is a code for some political 
tendency that I am unaware has ever held much sway in this country.

For example: no abortion clinics firebombed by FBI agents; CommonDreams 
and the NYTimes are still publishing; Michael Moore is making and 
selling movies; no one has to make mandatory donations at their local 
evangelical church; ABC is still putting out memos advising network 
reporters to be tougher on Bush than they are on Kerry; Dan Rather 
hasn't been locked up for that whole "fake but accurate" fiasco; and 
people, including list members, aren't being thrown in jail for 
organizing a pro-Kerry boycott of a local TV station.

And racist?  WTF?

When Tony pointed out that the Ashcroft Justice Department's use of the 
PATRIOT Act

> > ... has resulted in charges against 310 people, with 179 convictions 
> > or
> > guilty pleas including the terror cell in NY in which all 6 plead 
> > guilty.

Sil replied:

> heck, that's not many at all.  considered as a percentage of 
> population,
> it's practically zero!

He may have been joking, or he may have been trying to say that the 
number is too small to sway him.  But there are those of us who also 
think of numbers, like 19 - even closer to zero, but large enough to 
carry out 9/11 - or 3,000 - an order of magnitude larger, but still a 
statistically insignificant number of Americans.

> Anyway, regarding Sinclair:
>
> > And I was being
> > contrarian, but for a purpose: complaining about an anti-Kerry program
> > on a private television network is like complaining about an anti-Bush
> > film in a private video store.
>
> Disagree with you there (shocker!). Sinclair is licensed by the public
> to serve the public interest in it's broadcasts. Broadcasting
> propaganda -- and I would agree that F9/11 is propaganda too, though
> we might quibble over degree -- over a public network to serve one
> political party or another goes against their mandate. They're not a
> video store.

If Sinclair must abstain from broadcasting propaganda over a public 
network, how much more so PBS?  And yet, nary a peep, on this list or 
elsewhere, over the fawning biographical tributary to Kerry broadcast a 
few days ago.  It is these glaring inconsistencies that lead me to 
conclude that some people think free speech is okay, so long as it's 
not supporting the other side.

In closing, let me first acknowledge that I didn't raise a number of 
points, and glossed over several others.  My transitions aren't as 
smooth as I'd like, and I may have missed some things you would have 
liked me to address.

As I mentioned a couple days ago, I wouldn't be able to reply for a 
couple days.  In the ensuing passage of time, the 'Bush's bulge' thread 
has received so many new posts, I no longer think people are amusingly 
pursuing an idle whim, like the Internet Time Waster, but are honestly 
captivated by the -- well, in this case, "story" is most apt.

Personally, I'm annoyed.  I'm hardly a Republican; in fact, the only 
party affiliation I've ever held was Democrat.  But I don't march in 
lock-step with partisans of a certain mind-set.  I keep an open mind.  
I don't immediately suspect the worst motives of anyone on the other 
side.  But trying to bring a bit of balance to the discussion, at least 
during election season, is a lot like bailing out the ocean with a 
teaspoon.

As the election draws nearer, I suspect that engaging dissimilar 
viewpoints will become increasingly anathema.  But for your inquiry, I 
thank you.

--
James Dasher
misterdasher dot com
IM misterdasher