May 27, 2004
Operation Iraqi Children
I have, from secret sources, smuggled out these exclusive pictures of more abuse by American soldiers. Here you can see the havoc wreaked after handing out school supplies donated by Americans back home and coordinated by Operation Iraqi Children, an organization created by Gary Sinise and Laura Hillenbrand:
Isn't it just awful what our troops are capable of doing. Just look at those twisted smiles of satisfaction.
Posted by Owen at May 27, 2004 12:45 PM | TrackBackYou are watching The Propaganda Channel. Stay tuned for more propaganda after these messages.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 27, 2004 02:06 PMVote Fafnir for President ! We now return you to our regularly scheduled propaganda.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 27, 2004 09:12 PMFor someone so devoted to cold, impartial rationality, you sure do love using emotion laden words like "propaganda," and "zealot."
First, you offer no argument here. You merely try to discredit the pictures with an appeal to emotion by crying "propaganda." (Which is a fallacy by the way)
Second, what is it about the dissemination of real photographs, about real help that makes it propaganda? Why shouldn't these pictures be shown? They are an argument meant to counter the claims that our troops are evil, oppressive occupiers who are intent on raping the Iraqi people. These pictures illustrate the real progress that is being made on the ground.
Posted by: owen at May 27, 2004 10:40 PMI never said "these pictures should not be shown". I said "these pictures are propaganda". So are the pictures of wounded Iraquis staggering through the ruins or whatever -- yes, I make no exception for either side of the issue.
The reason these pictures (yes, both kinds of them) are propaganda is because their sole purpose is to deliver a powerful emotional charge, and thus convince the audience that your side is right. Your little quip after the pictures doesn't make things better in any way.
Now, what you could have done is post an article, saying something like, "since we occupied Iraq, child mortality rate dropped 56%, while school attendance rose 85%. Furthermore, the Red Cross has reported that more Iraqi children are receiving proper nutrition than ever before, according to the following study" (note: I just made up all these numbers). And yes, if you wrote such an article, you could've illustrated it with pictures of happy shiny children -- you probably could've even included a shot of Rumsfeld kissing a baby or something -- and I would've been ok with that.
Yes, you could've written such an article... but you didn't. My guess is that either you're lazy, or scared -- because an article like that would actually be possible to disprove (at least in theory).
Note, by the way, that I did not invoke FallacyWatch on this post. I can't analyze a logical argument when there isn't any.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 28, 2004 12:02 AMIf I were to post an article talking about the reconstruction of schools, you would decry it as propaganda just as readily as you did this.
There is no difference, neither in essence nor degree between an article saying that we're passing out school supplies, and a picture showing the said passing out of school supplies. Except perhaps, that a picture has more impact, and that seems to be what you're afraid of.
You privilege one type of argument over another, by saying that verbal is rational and visual is not. You attribute the added power of visual to emotion. I would contend that techniques that make someone more interested in the argument should not be dismissed on face.
Posted by: owen at May 28, 2004 12:18 AMIf I were to post an article talking about the reconstruction of schools, you would decry it as propaganda just as readily as you did this.
Let's see it ! Cough up the article.
There is no difference, neither in essence nor degree between an article saying that we're passing out school supplies, and a picture showing the said passing out of school supplies.
You're right about that. An article that shows actual evidence that all this passing out of pencils is doing something positive -- now that would be different. Think about this for a moment. Which of the following would you be more inclined to believe ?
- A picture of an American soldier stomping on some Iraqi teenager's head
- An article that says, "American soldiers are stomping kids !"
- According to a study done by Red Cross, using the following methods, American soldiers used excessive force in more than 90% of their encounters with Iraqi teenagers; 65% of these teenagers posed no military threat (as supported by the following data), and the other 35% were attempting to surrender. This data has the margin of error of 2%."
(note that, as usual, all these numbers are made up)
Can you see the difference ? The first two cases just state a claim (designed specifically for emotional impact) without offering any evidence; the third one actually explains exactly. I chose to use a claim you disagree with ("american occupation is bad") just to illustrate my point better; if you want, I can restructure the previous couple of paragraphs to use a point you do agree with. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of whose side it's on.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 28, 2004 12:47 AMYour standard excludes any visual representation that might, possibly, have an emotional impact on someone UNLESS it is accompanied by a horde of statistics. Statistics can also be manipulated, my friend. Not only is your standard for what constitues proper evidence narrow and possible gendered, it's just plain silly. You wouldn't want to see the picture of the man in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square without a statistical study of how many tanks were involved. Ridiculous.
Owen, obviously American troops do good things. I would note, though, that this operation was created and organized by private citizens, and as such the troops only get credit for good delivery service. With the prison abuses, that's all in-house. There are probably better parallels to humanitarian missions totally controlled by the military.
Posted by: Andrea at May 28, 2004 04:08 PMOh my God! What are they going to do next?! Liberate the Iraqi people from a lunatic dictator? I just cant imagine, the horror...
Posted by: Gavin at May 28, 2004 09:55 PMAs I said: I don't like propaganda. For the record, I think Bowling for Columbine is pure propaganda, too, and I hate it as well.
You're right when you say that statistics, and pretty much everything else, can be manipulated. What I don't like is pictures/text/whatever whose purpose is nothing but to manipulate.
The Tianamen Square is actually a counter-example to your point. Without the context (i.e., knowing what actually happened), it would just be another picture of tanks running people over, like (sadly) so many others. The Tianamen Square photo is not a generic picture of evil terrorists stomping women or good Rumsfeld kissing babies; it actually refers to a specific event, and this is where it derives its emotional charge from.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 28, 2004 11:06 PMI side with Andrea on this one. You can argue against visual arguments by either: (1) translating Owen's arguments into written arguments or (2) presenting your own images. The problem with visual images is that they require the recipient of the argument to apply more premises -- thus, the visual image is more "enthymatic" than a standard written argument. All arguments, however, require enormous amounts of ontological and cultural premises. So I'm not sure that any clear distinction exists. Moreover, the emotional/rational distinction, though existent, isn't as dichotomous as you propose it to be.
Posted by: Grant at May 28, 2004 11:08 PMWait, so you're saying that Owen posted just pictures with no context? Because he gave a pretty clear description of what's happening in the pictures...
Posted by: Andrea at May 28, 2004 11:09 PMYou can argue against visual arguments by either: (1) translating Owen's arguments into written arguments or (2) presenting your own images.Actually, you can't argue with propaganda (visual or otherwise) at all, because there's nothing to argue about, no substance. Owen flashes a picture of troops kissing kids, Michael Moore or someone flashes a picture of troops shooting kids, it's not a debate -- it's just a contest of who can shout louder.
You're right when you say "the emotional/rational distinction, though existent, isn't as dichotomous as you propose it to be" -- assuming that you mean, "human beings always mix emotions into their thinking". But you're wrong if you're saying, "the emotional/rational distinction is not dichotomous even in theory". Er, yeah, so I don't know what you mean exactly.
Wait, so you're saying that Owen posted just pictures with no context? Because he gave a pretty clear description of what's happening in the pictures...Actually, I did think that there wasn't enough context. It seemed as though Owen was basically saying, "look at out troops and she shiny happy kids, aren't they sweet ? Anyone who thinks otherwise must be some sort of MONSTER !" (yes yes I am exaggerating, but you get my drift). This focuses on just one instance of good things happening, and ignores the big picture, which may consist almost entirely of bad things happening (as Moore believes, I think).
Essentially, this is similar to USSR putting up posters with happy well-fed workers holding hands and smiling (in a chaste, Marxist kind of way, of course), while ignoring the fact that the other 95% of the population live in fear, poverty, hunger and legalized slavery.
Before you go off the handle, note that I am not saying that the two situations I described are identical; what I am saying is that the technique used is identical.
Actually, another (and more America-friendly) example would be TV/print ads. If the ad is selling, say, a car, what it might have is a shot of semi-nude women fawning over the car owner, as he rides off into the sunset (or something to that extent). The ad doesn't tell you anything about the car's mileage, construction, durability, etc., all it says is, "buy this car if you want to be cool". Note, again, that I am not saying that all ads are like this; this was just an example.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 28, 2004 11:39 PMWhen did we accept that this is propoganda. It seems circular to me: propoganda is propoganda because its propoganda. I just don't see any objective way to demarcate propoganda from other forms of argumentation. I suppose we could say that propoganda involves deliberate lying and forgery, but Owen isn't doing this.
Posted by: Grant at May 29, 2004 12:43 AMThe main problem here is that we can't agree on a definition of propaganda. It is, without a doubt, one of the hardest words to define, very similar to obscenity's "I know it when I see it." It is a word that is used primarily as a smear, and is very open to equivocation. Which is why I'm shocked, shocked, that someone who believes only in cold rationality would use such an emotionally charged word to poison the well of another speaker.
Thus far, Bug has given the definition as follows:
Without the context (i.e., knowing what actually happened), [Tianamen Square] would just be another picture of tanks running people over
1. Propoganda is contextless.
you can't argue with propaganda (visual or otherwise) at all, because there's nothing to argue about, no substance.
2. Propaganda is substanceless.
What I don't like is pictures/text/whatever whose purpose is nothing but to manipulate.
3. The purpose of propaganda is to manipulate.
As to points 1 and 2, most everyone would agree that these posters from WWII are propaganda. Yet they would be meaningless without the context of the war. Furthermore, often, the message in the posters is disputable. We see there a poster that says "Russian: This man is your FRIEND, he fights for FREEDOM." Given the regime in power at the time, and what happend to Eastern Europe, that is certainly a very debatable point. These posters need context to be understood, and they have substance that is disputable. Thus they fail to meet Bug's definition.
As for number 3, all argumentation is meant to manipulate. The point is to convince someone to side with you. Bug's beloved example of nonpropaganda clearly fits this definition:
According to a study done by Red Cross, using the following methods, American soldiers used excessive force in more than 90% of their encounters with Iraqi teenagers; 65% of these teenagers posed no military threat (as supported by the following data), and the other 35% were attempting to surrender. This data has the margin of error of 2%."
Any figures that any "watchdog" group releases are meant to manipulate. They are meant to make governments and people take actions that the group thinks appropriate. Why would Amnesty, the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, etc (ad infinitum) release numbers or press releases? To manipulate people into agreeing with their worldview.
Posted by: owen at May 29, 2004 01:25 PMBug you need to crawl back in your hole and take the rest or your uneducated misinformed friends with you.
The photos are factual as are the photos of the prison scandal as are the photos of Nicholas Berg. You can call all of this propaganda if you choose. However you would be wrong. To prove it is propaganda you have to prove that the people who took the photos and the people who initially distributed them did it "methodocailly to spread, promote, or injure a cause" If you can prove this with real facts then you have a case if not you need to shut up.
You and your friends forget what happened on 9/11 and you could care less. You are just going on with your lives in your fantasy world oblivious to the facts. The reason we are in Iraq and Afganistan is to prevent the terrorist from killing us on our soil. And if you don't belive that is what they want to do then you need to read their propaganda and listen to what they say. These terrorist just want to kill you because you are an American (I assume). They would kill your children without even thinking.
If we do not stop these people now, your children and my children and grandchildren will have to. Don't you know their "real" propaganda is designed to recruit more terrorists and kill more Americans. You must be for what we are doing in Iraq or you are with the terrorists. Becasue we are trying to stop them and you do not want to. And if you do want to how would YOU do it. Everyone has an opinion on that but only one man has the power. Sure there are going to be soldiers killed and mistakes will happen. But until you can give me solid prof that the President and his advisors are on some secondary mission to deceive the American public you must stand behind him.
Everytimne someone like Ted Kennedy speaks publicly condeming the President they give aid to our enemies. Not since the Civil War has a president come under such attacks.
You must realize that Al Qieda uses every negative piece of information as "Propaganda" against us. They use it to promote their cause and to steel their resolve. What would be wrong with Ted Kennedy, et. al. speaking with the President behind closed doors like mature adults? There would be nothing wrong with that. Then we could present a united front which would in fact demoralize our enemies.
But the truth be known Ted Kennedy, et. al. wouldn't have any "progaganda" to use in order to defeat George Bush, whom they hate. Go ahead Bug admit it you hate President Bush and that is the reason you are so negative about everything he does!!!
So stop all this banter over what constitutes propaganda, it doesn't mean anything.
What matters now more than global warming, the economy and jobs is nothing compared to thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans being killed on our own soil by a terrorist attack. And that is no propaganda. Don't belive for one second that if a terrorist had a button in his hand and he knew that if he pushed that button that a nuclear device would go off in the center of NY city and possibly a million innocent women and children would be killed, don't belive he wouldn't jump at the chance even if he were to die in the blast. Would you give your life to stop him. I doubt it you would turn tail and run in order to save your own.
We must win this war and if you or your friends are not willing to fight for our country with your actions and by joining the military then JUST GET THE HELL OUT!
Posted by: X soldier at May 29, 2004 07:58 PMOwen: firstly, I applaud you for presenting an actual well-thought out and calm response. That's what I'd like to see more of. Kudos Owen.
Moving on: I honestly don't know another word that means "propaganda" but is not emotionally charged. My intention was not to posion the well, but to make a point. Sorry.
Anyway, I don't think that the WWII posters would be meaningless without context. Ok, maybe if you didn't know there was a war on, then they'd be meaningless; not sure if that's what they meant. In any case, the posters are saying, "This person is your friend. He fights for freedom". That's it. There's not really anything that could be misunderstood about that.
Actually, the inclusion of more context would harm the cause behind these posters, because then, as Owen pointed out, they'd say something like, "This person is your friend. His totalitatian regime drafted him into certain death. His commanders pretend to fight for your side just because your enemies backstabbed them. As soon as the war is over, this man will help them take over your assets." I think you can see how that would be detrimental to the cause the poster is trying to promote. So, in this case, extra context would actually be harmful to the propaganda; in general, enhanced knowledge of the situation tends to have that effect.
I don't think we mean the same thing when we say "manipulate". When I say "manipulate", I mean, "turn them to your cause by instilling a fervent belief to the exclusion of all independent thought". Cult leaders manipulate their followers, for example. It is also possible to convince someone without manipulating them, by giving them the evidence that your side is right. CFOs (and even lowly programmers) sometimes manage to convince their upper management that making a poodle-washing website is not a wise business plan.
I realize, of course, that all human communication involves manipulation to some degree. The reason I prefer detailed studies and statistics to pictures of Rumsfeld kissing babies is that studies can be disproven, at least in theory -- because they are ultimately grounded in the real world, which we all share.
Second-hand smoke is a good example of this. I can't find the link right now, but basically, all the anti-smoking fervor erupted over this one study that purported to show that second-hand smoke was more dangerous than a nuke to the head. This study was later found to be false; its data was not collected in any sane manner, and it even has some math errors in it, IIRC. This finding has severely weakened the anti-smokers' cause.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 30, 2004 12:04 AMActually, X Soldier's post provides a good example of propaganda and its effects (no, I didn't post it, in case you're wondering). Note how he shouts all the usual slogans ("terrorists are evil !", "if you don't support everything Bush says you're evil yoo !", "you're living in a fantasy world because I said so !", "you must stand behind Bush because he's our President !", "shut up shut up SHUT UP !!!1!!", etc.). This is no longer a person who can be reasoned with, or even talked to in a calm manner; this is now a person who burns with righteous fury, and woe be to anyone who stands in his way.
If someone cares, I can analyze X Soldier's post in more detail -- but, for now, I think it's pretty clear all by itself. I can also present a case for why this kind of behavior is, in the long term, harmful.
Obviously, I do want America to prevail (it's where all my stuff is, after all). However, if the cost of our victory is a country populated solely by screaming frothing clones of X Solider, then I'd rather move to Canada. I guess that makes me a terrorist, huh ?
The facts, the facts, the facts! My goodness this person needs to read something about the collapse of the fact/value distinction. The only workable distinction between facts and values is that facts are "enthymatic" while values provide a normative conclusion. The problem with this definition is that it allows us to transform any fact into a value and vice-versa. Thus, our only permanance is a lack of permanance. X Soldier would have us believe that our discussion is superfluous banter. If the framework(s) in which we discuss events and things determines our normative conclusions, then I think this discussion is far from unimportant. The most ignorant tend to be the most averse to criticism and debate. After all, if you come to learn that your foundations are empty and contingent, then you can no longer be absolutist, powerful and righteous. Lastly, I'm not sure that X Soldier understands the difference between personal ethics and political ethics (what Rorty calls private ironism versus public solidarity). Although I don't like Senator Kennedy, I understand the role he plays. Would any of us want a United States without a vigorous opposition group? Would we want the President to have carte blanche in his domestic and foreign policy? Would we want are already depraved public culture to be even less dialectical and critical? I want a balance, X Soldier wants dominance. I am democratic, X Soldier is autocratic. This harkens back to an essay written by Brian Barry about private and public preferences: although we want our private preference to be the final outcome of an election, we have no problem with the majority coming out on top. Therefore, sometimes our genuine preference is for our preferences to not count. Sadly, X Soldier can't recognize this.
Posted by: Grant at May 30, 2004 12:21 AMAnd as for Bugmaster's description of the anti-smoking movement, I think those of us who oppose smoking base our opposition on more than a study. Your good friend Owen and myself have asthma (I also have eye allergies to smoking). So let's not bring smoking into this.
Posted by: Grant at May 30, 2004 02:24 AMSorry, one last comment: I'd like to know what constitutes independent thought? Is this similar to the naive beleif in independent action -- the moral leviathan described by Neitzshe as "The longing for 'freedom of the will' in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half-educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden--all this means nothing less than...pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp of nothingness into existence." (Beyond Good and Evil, sec. 21)[Recently quoted by Leiter].
Bugmaster must understand that by being independent he is reifying the dependent. In other words, your opposition to dependent thought posits a sphere of "dependency." You are a reactionary -- literally, your thought is reacting to dependent thought. Thus, your independency is nothing more than a dependency upon dependency. I don't doubt that there are better forms of argumentation, science and communication. But I do doubt that any metaphysical foundation exists for these better forms.
Posted by: Grant at May 30, 2004 02:33 AMGrant: "The facts ! The facts !" I am going to print that and put that on my wall. Same goes for the moral leviathan. That's just so quintessentially academic :-)
Asthma-wise: right, I understand about that. But the current anti-smoking crusaders believe (well, or used to) that second-hand smoke is dangerous to everyone, everywhere, even in minute amounts... It's a sort of an anti-homeopathic belief (well, as held by the most fervent individuals, of course). According to what we know now, this is probably false. Asthma, of course, is another matter entirely.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 30, 2004 04:32 AMAs for Nietzhe: I am not sure what you mean by "metaphysical foundation"... I fear that if you want me to understand you, you may have to stoop to my uneducated level, and explain things without relying on quotes for which I have no frame of reference.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 30, 2004 04:35 AMNo one has commented on the fact that we are at war. The fact that terrorist use any sign of weakness (also known as devisiveness) against us, to further their determination to kill us and impsose their "values" on us.
I am not saying that I don't believe in free speech. That is why soldiers are dying in this war, yet people like Ted Kennedy are causing this war to be protracted and giving the enemy "propaganda" to use against us. They are not doing this because they believe what they are saying, they are doing it because they hate President Bush.
Yes all your talk is wasted because you ignore the real problem. What happened today in Saudi Arabia is only another indication that these terrorists don't care about anyone.
The real problem is the terrorist threat, we as a people need to unite to fight it and stop fighting among ourselves. The only differenc between this and WWII is that the enemy is not the head of some country that we can attack.
This is in fact WWIII. You people have no respect for this country, you are consumed with distrusting the government, the military and anything related to it. Everyone should have to serve in the military.
Our universities are filled with liberal professors producing liberal minded citizens. Do you disagree with that?
What if all the professors were conservative? Would you think that was OK?
As you know I am a conservative but I didn't know that until the last election. I served in the military for over 20 years and never knew the difference between a conservative and a liberal. The military made me who I am today. The liberal universities made you who you are. Frankly it is very scary. There is no way I could make you understand becasue we have been raised in entirely different enviroments. However I DO understand you and where you come from and I have educated myself in the liberal and conservative viewpoints. Most liberals won't even listen to a conservative view point. I know becasue I have talked to many. I find that most of them don't even know what is going on. They only read the headlines of liberal newspapers and watch the liberal media.
I used to belive all that I read and heard in the media. I used to think that reporters were unbiased. You as well as I know they are not.
Recently I read an article in Time where they interviewed some soldiers at Ft Stewart, the article said that the soldiers at Fort Stewart were concerned about the war. But they interviewed two privates with no time in the army and an retired E6 (you don't retire as an E6 unless you are a substandard soldier). They interview these soldiers at a bar. If that wasn't a biased article based on interviews from soldiers who don't know what they are talking about what is.
So how do you feel about George Bush? What if it was Bill Clinton doing what George Bush is doing would you feel the same? Don't you agree that there is much hate for George Bush? Don't you agree that there is no reason to hate him?
I usually trust people until they give me a reason not to. So far I belive the president is sincere in his beliefs and in what he is doing. And unless some one can show me "facts" that "prove" otherwise I will continue to support him.
All of this stuff is not that complicated, you either want to stop the terrorists before they come to our country and start killing us or you don't. If you don't belive they want to do that then you ARE living in a "Fantasy World".
Get real.
X Soldier
Posted by: X soldier at May 30, 2004 08:41 AMGrant,
You miss the point entirely. You must keep it in the context of war time. I said that Kennedy and others like him give aid to our enemy buy giving them propaganda to use to recuit new terrorists and to steel their resolve to kill us. Those are facts, not values.
Can't you people admit that they want to kill us in the name of their perverted form of Islam. Until you are willing to admit that and that we need to do everything we can to prevent it, then there is no need for further dialog, becasue there is noting I can say that will change your mind.
I belive the only reason some terrorist has not strapped a bomb on him/herself and walked into a mall and blown up hundreds of people in this country is because they fear what we would do. If Kerry is elected the chances of that happening will be much greater. You do know that if terrorist could vote they would vote for Kerry. But that doesn't matter to you because you don't belive they are a threat to us anyway. If you did you would understand our need to be in Iraq and the important sacrafice our soldiers are making in this war.
X Soldier
Posted by: X soldier at May 30, 2004 08:53 AMI'll let Grant handle this one. Postmodernism vs. right-wing fanaticism... It doesn't get much better than this ! Popcorn for everyone :-)
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 30, 2004 03:15 PMIf I may...
X Soldier: Well, there is a point where a statement becomes redundant. You passed that point 3 posts ago.
No one has commented on the fact that we are at war.
That's because that's not what this post (or these comments) are about. It's about what propaganda is and is not. Whether wartime or peacetime, propaganda is a part of daily life from beer commercials to election campaigns.
...people like Ted Kennedy are causing this war to be protracted and giving the enemy "propaganda" to use against us. They are not doing this because they believe what they are saying, they are doing it because they hate President Bush.
Nobody is giving anyone anything. Terrorists might just take one of Bush's speeches, translate it, and show it to their followers decrying us as the Great Satan and we are trying to destroy them, so they must destroy us. And little Teddy didn't have to lift a finger. Is the Democrat party using the war as an opportunity to further their own political agenda? Absolutely. So are the Republicans. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are not contributing any more to terrorist propaganda than Bush giving a speech. Unless, of course, they're making videos and posters in Arabic encouraging the destruction of the Great Satan. And if they are, then you know something we don't.
As for protracting the war, Kennedy does not give orders to the troops. Congress does not give orders to the troops. The troops are being commanded by the commander-in-chief to tread carefully (in the socio-political sense) and not go burning bridges (metaphorically). If anything is protracting the war, it's Bush trying to do it right (which may or may not happen - the jury's still out on that).
you ignore the real problem.
You make it sound like if we don't talk about how eeeeeevil Islamo-fascists are all the time, then we are ignoring the problem. This post (and these comments) aren't about the validity or success of the war. They are about defining propaganda.
This is in fact WWIII.
Ummm...no. No country is at a point where they could execute that kind of agression on such a large scale. Please don't go making doomsday statements. It's depressing.
Our universities are filled with liberal professors producing liberal minded citizens. Do you disagree with that?
Well, yeah. I'm mostly conservative, and all but 3 of my teachers have been conservative. One of them enough to make Owen seem far-left. Are the majority of the professors liberal? Well, I can't answer that empirically but I'd venture a probably. The political affiliation of your professor is unimportant. The whole point of a college education is to develop thinking skills. It only becomes a problem when teachers (left and right) grade according to their ideology. I sincerely doubt that this is such a wide-spread problem (though it happens).
I served in the military for over 20 years and never knew the difference between a conservative and a liberal.
No offense, but what rock were you stationed under? Especially serving in the military 20 years. Assuming you just left service yesterday, that's several politically heated military operations. I'm sure it's been longer than a day since your last day of service (or are you still serving?)
The military made me who I am today. The liberal universities made you who you are.
I'm going to take offence at both of these statements. Because if the military is producing folks exactly like you, then it certainly isn't the military that produced men like my grandfather and father. And attending a "liberal university" (I don't recall registering at Leftist U) doesn't make anybody a liberal.
I DO understand you and where you come from and I have educated myself in the liberal and conservative viewpoints
Well THAT'S kind of pompous, don't you think? I sincerely doubt you have an inkling as to what we like to eat for breakfast, let alone why we choose our political viewpoints. That statement leads me to believe you really haven't educated yourself in liberal or conservative viewpoints.
Most liberals won't even listen to a conservative view point.
Did you ever notice that most conservatives won't listen to a liberal viewpoint, either? And I don't mean sitting patiently waiting to state your counter-argument. I mean actually processing the opinion. This might be a jump away from logic (sorry Bug, Grant), but since you kind of missed the point of this post, it seems that you probably don't process or consider anything that might conflict with your cherished opinions.
I know becasue I have talked to many.
Well THAT certainly makes you an expert in the matter. Now, this might just be the mathematician in me, but exactly what number constitutes "many" (a ball-park estimate would be fine)? And would this "many" actually contain a representative demographic of the leftist community? The answers: not enough, and no.
So how do you feel about George Bush? What if it was Bill Clinton doing what George Bush is doing would you feel the same? Don't you agree that there is much hate for George Bush? Don't you agree that there is no reason to hate him?
In the order given: So-so, yes, yes, no. To clarify the last one: Bush has been spending his time pandering to people he doesn't need to pander to. He's passed an overly-restrictive abortion ban, signed an ineffective medicare reform, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm glad the economy is better. I'm astounded that he had anything to do with it, because the majority of his domestic policy has been crap.
All of this stuff is not that complicated, you either want to stop the terrorists before they come to our country and start killing us or you don't.
Well, since all you've talked about is how conservatives have facts and liberals are stubborn and uninformed, I don't have any clue what this sentence has to do with anything. Unless it's you touting your own "with us or against us" speech.
You miss the point entirely. You must keep it in the context of war time. I said that Kennedy and others like him give aid to our enemy buy giving them propaganda to use to recuit new terrorists and to steel their resolve to kill us. Those are facts, not values.
A discussion of propaganda cannot be limited to wartime alone. Again, the war isn't even the topic here. It's propaganda. And saying that Kennedy gives aid to the enemy is a pretty hefty (and assuming) statement. Again, unless he's distributing terrorist recruiting brochures, your statement isn't a fact or a value - it's a baseless opinion.
Can't you people admit that they want to kill us in the name of their perverted form of Islam.
I don't think anybody denies that. And it would be appreciated if you'd at least comment on the topic at hand. In any event, you're making a pretty good case for what propaganda is and what it can do. :-)
I belive the only reason some terrorist has not strapped a bomb on him/herself and walked into a mall and blown up hundreds of people in this country is because they fear what we would do.
Exactly. And maybe this is me being optimistic, but were there a second 9/11, it would take an act of diety (pick one) to prevent us from pressing "the button" or enacting some other form of overwhelming response. And all this independent of the political affiliation of the Head of State.
In sum: First, you need to calm down. Second, character assassination rarely converts. Third, stop assuming. Fourth, pay attention to what is being said, not what you think is being said or what you might be reading between the lines.
There is an inherent mistrust of government that has been with this country since its inception. The reason for the Constitution was because the government could not (and should not) be trusted. People like you are the reason we have (and need) this distrust.
If you're for the war, then good for you - so am I. If you're conservative, great! But it doesn't give you the right to smear any of my friends (which I take personally) by putting words in their mouth or assuming you know something that you don't.
Posted by: Jason at May 31, 2004 01:59 AM(Note, I wrote this before reading Jason's post. If there is any overlap, it is because I am in complete agreement with most of what he said)
Where to begin?
I'm not sure which of my comments gave off "liberal" (in your partisan sense of the word) vibes. I just never thought that any necessary relationship existed between one's opinion on the fact/value dichotomy and one's partisan political attitudes. The only partisan comment I made in post(s) was that I dislike Ted Kennedy.
I'd recommend that you take the time to understand the distinction between first and second order preferences. My point was that while we may not vote for Ted Kennedy or his policies at a second level preference, our first level preference is that the winners from our process (I think it is democratic while some think it isn't) be able to carry out their policies. In practical terms, I don't support Ted Kennedy's policies, but I do support his policies as expressions of the democratic will (the will of people from his state who put him forth as a federal representative). This is what makes us democrats (in the non-partisan sense) and not autocrats. Thus, he may be a bastard on a second level, but at a first level he is doing what he is supposed to be doing.
Second, I didn't hear any reasons why an opposition isn't good. As someone who believes in human fallability, I don't anyone to have carte blanche power. Therefore, Bush may be good, but he isn't perfect. A constant check is needed, as the great Madison put it.
As for foreign policy, I agree with you that Islamism (note, this is a political ideology not a religion) poses a mortal threat to what Karl Popper called the "open society." And I do think that many Americans haven't taken the threat seriously: either we "caused" them to be bad or they aren't that bad.
I have a general objection to people shoehorning the problem of Islamism into historical analogies. Thus, certain right-wing partisans want it to be WWII while certain left-wing partisans want it to be Vietnam. I think both are stupid comparisons. While we can use historical examples to refine strategies, to put America's current battles into pre-fixed frameworks is counter-productive at best and harmful at worst. As I see it, the President has done many things correctly -- invasion of the place we call "Afghanistan," invasion of the place we call "Iraq," and the re-deployment of our CIA throughout the world.
Yet, I also have many problems with his actions. First, the source of Islamism is Saudi Arabia. For the past century they have been religiously colonizing the Muslim world with their sickening version of Islam. While many right-wingers have criticized America's continual relationship with the House of Saud, Bush has done nothing but cozy up to them. This is harmful. Related to this point is Bush's refusal to encourage American's to consume less oil. I personally would levy a gas tax, but there are other means. At the very least, an attitude change would be helpful. I find it odd that the self-described "right-wingers" never talk much about the problem of America's high fuel consumption (with the exceptions of Krauthammer and Sullivan).
As a last word of advice, I would recommend that you recongize that our world consists of more than just "liberals" and "conservatives." I personally try to avoid using either term because they describe nothing and create unecessary distinctions. If you really wanted to use a distinction, the better one would be between libertarians (opponents of direct regulation) and statists (usually socialists but sometimes fascists or communists). With this spectrum, "conservativism" is split in half (economically libertarian and socially statist) and "liberalism" is split in half (economically statist and socially libertarian). At least spectrum actually describes something.
You should also stop thinking that a person is either educated by the "military" or by the "academy." I know people who have been influenced by both. Moreover, I'm not sure that they also encourage different values.
As for your description of the "liberal" academy, I think it uses "liberal" thinking. How so? Well, your criticism of the "liberal" slant in the academy assumes that an institution must represent a diversity of viewpoints. This is a form of moral relativism -- since everything has equal worth, everything should be represented. You ignore the possibility that it is good to have a critical slant in our universities (this is a contentious and long debate so I'll save the details for another time). But "factually" speaking, you are quite wrong in stating that a "liberal" slant exists in the academy. By "liberal" I think you mean leftist, statist, socialist, skeptical etc. This description only makes sense in certain parts of the academy. In the sciences this is simply not true. In the social sciences, it is partially true. While economics and political science departments are usually moderates, sociology and anthropology departments are highly leftist. In the humanities, your description is accurate.
But your point is irrelevant because it implies that a professor should be judged by his political affiliation, which implies that a professor's political affiliation (or non-affiliation) affects how one teaches. Besides political science, philosophy (only in the teaching of political philosophy) sociology, history, and economics, a professor's political slant has little to do with his teaching. Thus, out of the entire range of departments, only a few have any significant relationship to politics. You also imply that if the universities weren't biased against "conservatives" then there would be more conservative academics. I doubt this is accurate. Conservatives tend to have attitudes that make them go into the business world and vice-versa for "liberals." While there are "conservatives" who like academia, these people are exceptions that prove the rule.
I'm not sure that I made clear my distaste for certain partisans that do allow their partisanship to affect their teaching. As debate partners, Owen and I endured a year of self-righteous leftists who wouldn't separate their mostly ignorant opinions from their judging. This meant that when Owen and I said X we had to be "beyond doubt" while the putative leftists could simply make assertions of X. At some points in the year it became unbearable. This garbage needs to stop, but this really has little to do with the Soldier's complaints. In fact, his self-righteous tomfoolery has much in common with the imbeciles on the debate circuit.
Posted by: Grant at May 31, 2004 01:57 PM*Applause* I don't really have anything to add to Jason and Grant's post, but I will anyway.
I often hear from people such as X that "you have no idea how evil these eeeeevil terrorists are". I know all too well. There are people who have given up any kind of independent (sorry Grant) thought to their leaders, who tell them what to think. And they tell them that the Western people are nothing more than demons clothed in human flesh, who should be destroyed. End of story. Islamic terrorists will keep trying to kill us until they run out of bombs. They cannot be reasoned with, cannot be persuaded (at least, not in a single generation), cannot be appeased (contrary to what some ultra-left-wingers think). They burn with self-righteous fury, and would destroy everyone who doesn't think exactly as they do, if they could.
Remind you of anyone, X ?
I'd like to think that America is a country which promotes a very different set of values (er... sorry Grant). In this country, we believe in freedom of speech, and especially in freedom of thought. Dissent is not only welcome, but is in fact the foundation of our system of government. And (as the prison rape scandal indicates) many citizens here believe that we should treat people with a certain measure of dignity, even if these people are our enemies -- because, innately, we believe ourselves to be better than a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth zealots.
Well, at least, I'd like to think that. But you're making me wonder.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 31, 2004 03:28 PMNow that we've reached 30 comments, and 17 single-spaced pages, I think we can wrap this one up. Unfortunately, there is no real resolution on the original claim of "propaganda." Neither have we agreed on a definition, nor even broached the subject of whether propoganda is bad, good, useful, or any other adjective. We've been operating on the assumption that it is bad, but I don't think that's entirely clear.
Don't worry, there will be plenty more politics to argue about, particularly War on Terrorism stuff.
Posted by: owen at May 31, 2004 08:02 PMYeah, actually I was wondering about that: is there a quick and easy way to disable comments on a per-post basis ? I couldn't find one, but maybe I'm stupid.
Anyway, I think I did respond to your argument about WWII propaganda and definitions; the ball is in your court now.
Another offtopic question: would you mind changing the "Mindhive" link on your site to "http://metabug.dyndnd.org/mindhive" ? The other URL is old and will probably soon vanish.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 31, 2004 08:55 PMDerr. That's "http://metabug.dyndns.org/mindhive". I am t3h suxx0r.
Posted by: Bugmaster at May 31, 2004 09:20 PMOK, so I will have the last word.
If you have ever listened to Larry Elder, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Oreilly then you know how I think and what I believe. I think I identify with Larry Elder more than the others but I usually agree with most of what they all say and believe.
Yes I have listened to, read, and watched opposite opinions for the past 40 years so you cannot say I am not open minded.
There are hundreds of examples of Professors at many universities who are liberal. A student from UCLA just wrote a book about it. There is a college guide that lists and talks about each university in this country and the majority of them are considered liberal.
The scary thing is what I said before that we are producing a liberal minded society, (put whatever label you want on it).
The good thing is that these conservative talk shows have materialized to present the opposite side and hopefully stem the tide of "liberalism" that would eventually take over and destroy our system of democracy.
That is my opinion. Can any of you say that you have read any of the books written by Sean Hannity, Bill Oreily, Rush Limbaugh? If you have you probably dismissed their books as BS as I would dismiss the book written by Colmes. Certainly if you haven't read even one of these books I would consider you closed minded.
It seems to be a stalemate and the eventual winner will be the side that recuits the most converts.
One may say there are no "liberal" talk shows, but I would say there is Opra, The Today Show, The Evening News Shows, not to mention 90% of the newspapers and magazines. And don't forget the liberal papers at UCLA, including one written by an Arab group who trashes our democracy and they are funded by my taxes, while "conservative" groups get no money.
No need to answer these comments, I think we know where each other is coming from and the only resolution will be when one of our sides is proved right.
Like Sean Hannity says, "It's ok to be freinds with liberals, just don't elect them to office."
Duty, Honor, Country, I'm afraid that these words mean less and less as time goes on. All I want is peace and freedom and I am willing to do whatever it takes to get it. Without peace and freedom nothing else matters.
Have a peaceful, free Memorial Day.
X Soldier
Posted by: X soldier at May 31, 2004 11:14 PMObviously, I do want America to prevail (it's where all my stuff is, after all).
You're an asshole bitchug i mean bug.
Posted by: Gavin at June 1, 2004 01:27 AMX soldier: You don't deserve the last word.
Yes I have listened to, read, and watched opposite opinions for the past 40 years so you cannot say I am not open minded.
Yeah. And I suffer through Rap, Hip-hop, Country, Top 40, and Muzak. That doesn't mean I have broad musical tastes. That means I have a high tolerance for crappy music. Just because you listen to, read, and watch opposing opinions doesn't mean you are open-minded. Perhaps you like to mentally confrim your superiority when you partake of these mediums, thinking to yourself "Stupid liberal, you don't know anything." Perhaps you are just a glutton for punishment. I will make no claims as to why you partake of opposing opinions. But open-minded means to openly consider all options. If you were open-minded, you would be reading Franken, watching Moore, and listening to Air America trying to find every shred of truth you can, and comparing it to what you already know. Most importantly, you would be willing to change your stance if their arguments (and conclusions) were better than what you already had.
There are hundreds of examples of Professors at many universities who are liberal.
And there are thousands of university professors at several hundred universities. These examples are hardly conclusive evidence.
we are producing a liberal minded society
So you take responsibility for this "liberalization?" I think it has more to do with how we elect our representatives and how we raise our kids than what kind of civics professor I have at "Leftist U." You would do well to stop blaming everything on liberals and liberal media. I'm conservative (mostly) because I choose to be. Nobody "converted me." Neither O'Reilly or Oprah influence my votes or beliefs anymore than I allow them to.
I think we know where each other is coming from and the only resolution will be when one of our sides is proved right.
Here you go again assuming. Based on everything written here, I think it's clear that you don't know where I am coming from (the same probably goes for Grant and Bug). And further, no side will be "proved right." This country is designed such that no one group will always prevail, so you have nothing more than a "dynasty" of about 12 years. Hardly enough to prove a point with regard to politics.
"It's ok to be freinds with liberals, just don't elect them to office."
Also: It's ok to be friends with conservatives/centrists/the green party, just don't elect them to office. This is the problem with political media figures like O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly does something outrageous and Franken shouts "See! Look how foolish that is! That's how conservatives are!" And then Franken does something and O'Reilly just parrots Franken. It's all retarded.
Duty, Honor, Country, I'm afraid that these words mean less and less as time goes on.
And who is at fault for that, hmmmm? The eeeeeevil liberals? Big Bad Kerry and the Kennedy Bunch? No, not really. There are a multiplicity of reasons (that means "a lot") that those words are losing meaning. But one thing is for sure: there is no one group outside Islamo-fascism that wants America to suffer and bleed and die. Kerry and Bush both want what is best for the country. The conflict comes from the fact that Bush and Kerry see two completely different methods to accomplish this end.
Posted by: Jason at June 1, 2004 02:44 AMOh yeah. Owen...to close comments, just log in to your blog, and make like you're going to edit this entry. Near the bottom (before the "delete comments" section), there is an "Allow Comments" drop box. Select "Closed." These comments can then be viewed, but nobody can post any more.
Just to let you know.
Posted by: Jason at June 1, 2004 02:49 AMUmmm...Bug asked about that. Oops.
I am m0r3 suxx0r t4hn Bug.
Posted by: Jason at June 1, 2004 02:53 AMI don't intend to pick on X Soldier, becuase, after all, we need people like him. However, I just can't help but feel sorry for someone whose intellectual horizon begins with Hannity and ends with Colmes. It just saddens me that our public political discourse is so tightly circumscribed and categorized. I'm sure we could find hundreds of things to blame for this, but we have the ability to move beyond the "status quo." Could you imagine how much better our discursive community would be if Rawls and Nozick (as opposed to Hannity and Colmes) framed our great debates? I hear X Soldier throw out so many terms -- democracy, freedom, peace. Has he ever thought about what democracy means? Has he ever thought about the problems with democracy. Does he know the other meaning of the word "liberalism"? It just shocks me that people can live their lives in a haze of assumed cultural practices, never questioning their rightness or foundations. Quite sad.
Even more sad, however, is the alternative of non-experts not being able to say what they want about political issues. I have as much distrust for academics as I do for former soldiers. I think if everyone took their beliefs a little less seriously we might have more room for discussion.
Jason: actually, there are other people besides Islamic countries that hate us. There's North Korea, China, parts of Russia, and pretty much every other totalitarian regime. It's nice to have a big bad Western scapegoat when you can't even feed your own people. But, of all the damn fascists, only the Islamic ones are actively attacking us with bombs, AFAIK.
Jason: I thought that "allow comments" dealie worked globally ? Hmmm or maybe that was something else... I remember using it and being disappointed, but I may have been asleep at the time.
Mr. X: I am guessing that by "freedom" you mean "freedom to think exactly like I do", right ? I think Grant said as much, too (but I couldn't tell because he's smarter than me, heh).
Wow, this thread is like the Energizer bunny ! Only evil. Er... more evil. Anyway, it just keeps going and going and going and...
Bug: Well, that's what I was referring to - groups whose purpose is to make us suffer. Referring to what I said before about WWIII, I don't think there is a group that has the power to commit themselves to aggression of such magnitude.
On comment closing: MT's documentation says that it's on a per-post. I still haven't had enough experience messing with those things to determine how accurate their documentation is. Use at your own risk.
Posted by: Jason at June 1, 2004 09:07 AMGrant, et al.
How many soldiers do you know? How many soldiers have you ever had a one on one conversation with? Have you ever talked with any graduates of the military academies?
The motto of West Point is Duty, Honor, Country and it is taken seriously. How can you distrust people who you don't even have a clue about??? Talk about closeminded. What hypocrisy.
I believe all of you will look back 20 years from now and realize how immature your attitudes are. There is something to be said for maturity and wisdom. That is why you have to be older than 35 to run for President. Imagine one of you as president.
I know when I was in my twenties that I was somewhat of an imbecile. I thought I knew everything and that everything I did was right. How wrong I was.
I don't understand why you should have a problem with Hannity and Colmes. Where does one get information if not from the media? I suppose if I said I only read the NY Times or the LA Times your comment would have been that I am so narrow minded.
Hope you realize that all of these talk shows read the NY Times, LA Times, etc. every day. I challenge any one of you to call any of these shows and discuss your views. I doubt you would "survive the audition".
I will not be commenting further about any of your banter as I can see I am wasting my time. You ignore some main points in my conversation and the rest of it you just make excuses for.
I am sure you will also rip this post apart. Just realize that I am 60 years old, that I have been around much longer than you "young guns". There is more than a generation gap here and it is guite disconcerting. Things are actually much simpler than you make them out to be.
You and I can be equated to the movies. You are the "Young Guns" and I am Clint Eastwoods character in "The Unforgiven".
I'm outta here for good!
X Soldier
"Remember 9/11 or it will be repeated"
The bunny lives ! Well, seeing as I am the "et al", I think I should respond.
I don't think I ever said I distrusted soldiers. It's the politicians that I distrust -- especially if they have a history of lying to me about the reasons behind sending soldiers off to war.
It is precisely because I do not know everything that I strive to think for myself, as opposed to just accepting blindly what the government tells me. If a President or a Senator wants to win my trust, all he has to do is be honest and do a good job. Slogans aren't going to do it.
I think Jason and Grant did adequately address the main points of your post; if you list something they missed, I'll take a shot at it. Of course, it's not a fair fight, seeing as I am (apparently) just a young imbecile, but still, I say it's worth a shot.
Posted by: Bugmaster at June 2, 2004 11:09 PMI'm not sure if X Soldier is a real person or if Owen is playing games with us. If X Soldier is Owen's even more right-wing personality, then he needs to come clean. If X Soldier is real, then all I can do is laugh. A common argumentative strategy for those who lose debates is to say "you are not responding to what I'm saying." It appears that Grant et al. has focused on everything X Soldier has said. The irony is that all of us agree with much of what he said -- he just can't comprehend anything outside of his little world.
Notice, though, that he threw in some bad ad hominems (I say bad because there can be good ad hominems). In fact, one of my best friends is a reservist in the army. He is on the Kuwait/Iraq border as we speak. Another one of my good friends is a politial scientist who was an army intelligence officer in the early 90s. Moreover, at law school, a friend of mine is a Navy grad. I tend to like the military crowd. And yes, I do listen to what they have to say.
While age can make someone wise, there is nothing sufficient about it. In other words, you can be old and wise or old and stupid. Simply stating that because you are older you have more wisdom is fallacious. X Soldier wants us to accept this syllogism: if old then wise; X Soldier is old therefore he is wise. In actuality, I think the only justifiable syllogism is this: if wise then old. But from this you can't say that age is sufficient for wisdom. All one can say is that age is a necessary condition of being wise.
Besides newspapers or talk-shows, there are things called journals. This is where real academics (and some respectable non-academics) publish their works. You can even buy some of these journals on the newstand (such as Foreign Affairs or the National Interest). Second, you can read good newsmagazines, like the Economist or the New Republic. There is also NPR or the BBC radio, but I'm sure your ten-second attention span can't handle in-depth stories.
Lastly, I think that "Grant et al" could survive a debate with such great minds as Sean Hannity, Larry Elder or Dennis Prager. Please!
best.
Posted by: Grant at June 3, 2004 01:07 AM