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

[Evan Zimmerman <evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com>]

A few things -- I'll try to keep it short (note: upon reflection I
failed to keep it short), since being relatively new to the list I'm a
bit wary of too much back and forth...

> That wasn't the way you approached my comment a couple days ago, and I
> appreciate that.

Thanks! I certainly wouldn't suggest you know less than I do, not
knowing you very well at all -- I was more inclined to find out why
you are inclined to feel 'ok' about Ashcroft. That seems to be a
minority opinion, in the neighborhood of no-one-I-know, so I was
surprised. I do have conservative friends, but Ashcroft is a little
beyond the pale so he doesn't get much support even there. I think
it's the singing ;-)

> The point was that the story was wrong.  Not mistaken, but flat-out
> lying about the guy. 

Perhaps -- I would disagree with you, but that's a given at this
point. I'll speak to that and these points...

> 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.

> 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.

... among others. 
Where we disagree I think is a matter of perspective. I have no doubt
that there are experts on your lists and in your reading who are
factually correct and have a much better hold on such details than I
-- I'm not a poli-sci guy, just a duffer as it were.
But your points paint, alternatively by what you're trying to drive
home, with either too broad a brush or too narrow in my opinion.
"Communism is evil" just ain't so. _As practiced_, yes, in many many
cases. But in it's goals as Marx and others set them out? Saying that
isn't patently wrong though, so it's a good point. It's too broad
though for my tastes.
On the other hand "but flat-out lying about the guy" is too narrow. I
have no doubt there is someone out there on the net right now that
claims Bush is both the reborn Christ and the Anti-Christ. He's
neither, but we can find folks to say it. Hell, they even have
"credentials".

The broader view in the news, in my view, represents a sort of
collective intelligence -- a herd driven one, yes, but also self
correcting. I find that conservatives arguing for Bush tend to go way
off to the left or right for sources. Liberals do it to, but I try to
avoid both extremes. Going to the right for your defense points, then
attacking using examples from the extreme left, is not, in my mind,
productive. It's punditry.
I try to take in as much media (as I can stomach) that I trust, not
expecting perfection, from both sides. I've been skeptical of the Bush
Bulge all along, because it seems too Area 51 for me -- but that
doesn't mean it's not true either, given the precedents. Stranger
things have happened. (see also: Nixon)

Watching that collective intelligence, you can see broader context.
Right now, my news sources, confirmed by looking at the 'real' world
(ie, people out of work and competing with their kids to be burger
flippers, caskets, anti-americanism abroad), tell me that the sky
isn't purple. Bush can say things are sunny and getting better as much
as he likes, but they 'ain't' in many ways. That doesn't mean they
won't get better, but I don't intend to see him have a redo.

Similarly, that larger context told me at the time that Ashcroft was
overstepping his bounds. Perhaps the media got the story wrong, it
happens (Hi Dan!), but when it does there is a storm of controversy.
That hasn't been the case with Ashcroft. I get more of a "oops, you
caught me" vibe, which isn't reassuring.

It's hard to get my point across in a few paragraphs, but generally I
would say that we differ in how we look at the news and our sources.

Disparate points you mentioned:

Re: marching in lockstep -- no one thinks they do.

Re: christian convictions -- it doesn't bother me that Ashcroft is
religious, it bothers  me that he can't separate that from his job.
Yes, prayer in the office is inappropriate. In the Justice dept? It's
unacceptable. We may just differ on this point.

Re: Racist/Bigoted -- also a place we may differ. In his hiring
practices, his past behavior, I see bigoted and racist behavior. I
don't run around pointing at random people saying that -- again we go
back to context. If enough people come forward and suffer consequences
to say, 'that man doesn't deserve to be guardian of our laws', I have
to wonder, why? Do you honestly thing liberals run around, rounding
people up to make racial/homophobic accusations just to smear an
"honest man'? I don't.

Finally, you said
> balance to the discussion, at least
> during election season, is a lot like bailing out the ocean with a
> teaspoon.
Agreed, because so much is at stake no one is willing to give an inch.
I do think it's important for each of us at least _seek_ balance in
these things though, even if in the end we can all just agree, Bush is
a $%#$%. ;-)

Anyway, I enjoy discussions like this, but I hope we're not hijacking
the thread too much...

Cheers,

Evan



On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 17:17:18 -0400, James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org> wrote:
> 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
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> 


-- 

Evan

_________________________
evan.zimmerman AT gmail.com
http://evanz.org