Securing A Target Versus Monitoring A Movement

The Daily Dish seems to be surprised that normal civil liberty procedures are often bent in the immediate vicinity of obvious terrorist targets or during periods of possible civil disturbance, such as the Republican National Convention in NYC in 2004.  It's a little-known free-speech restriction, but true - Not only can you not yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, but you can't walk into a burning building crowded with fireman and yell "Theatre" (Do not attempt this at home...).

Well.  If the Daily Dish wants to document a broader effort by Evil BushCo to monitor the anti-war movement, or the pro-gay marriage movement, or the pro-choice movement, we applaud the effort and await the outcome.  Meanwhile, the notion that security was tight and normal civil liberty safeguards were subject to flexible interpretation during the Republican conventions does not surprise me.

And while on the topic of things that won't surprise me - I expect that security will be lock-down tight at the next Dem convention, that we will see DHS-inspired threat assessments about disgruntled vets and racist militia to justify it, and no one from the left or the MSM will have anything to say about it except to compare it favorably to the dark Bush years.

Comments

[clarice]

So young and already such a cynic!! Tut Tut.

[Ann]

Would Andy approve of this:

Video: John Ziegler’s arrest

Hmmmm

[pagar]

Compare-John Ziegler's arrest to this:

Former Representative Tancredo had to flee the auditorium after the violence by the Leftist youths became too dangerous for him to continue.

[Appalled]

TM:

Hmm -- I actually think you just did what you accused Krugman of doing a few blog posts ago. Here's Andrew:

And when the Bushies cordoned off demonstrators and tapped phones without warrant, and tracked protesters at the GOP conventions in New York and St Paul, the right-wing blogosphere was complaining, right?

From the text, he's complaining about (i) tracking protesters at the conventions and (ii) the cordoning off of demonstrators (which was pretty much sop for Bush's post 9-11 appearances) and (iii) warrantless wiretaps.

So...per Andrew -- there are three things the right-o-sphere did not complain about. Per your post -- there was only one thing. And, conincidentally, you picked (or cherry-picked) the one item that was easiest to defend.

Hey, well you were touting "the notion that if a person cites multiple causes a critic can cherry-pick one or two and insist they have fairly represented the person's view" as a new and powerful tool for yourself.

[Appalled]

Now, sbw may wonder "is there a serious point to this?" or is this another desperate appeal for attention. There is a point. The nature of blogs and partisan punditry is that things get simplified, nuance gets lost, mistakes get made, and politicians and pundits find a way to represent the views of their opposition by emphasizing the opposition's most extrmee acts, or their most obnoxious statements and that is the rule of the political system we have created for ourselves. One can always find some tossed away line in a column, or a regrettable turn of phrase, and amplify it into a narrative that impresses a group of people who are inclined to agree with it. I see that method used frequently in the comment section here, as a matter of fact.

[Ignatz]

Hmm -- I actually think you just did what you accused Krugman of doing a few blog posts ago.

Good grief.
You got pwned on that thread. Accept it and move on.

[Ann]

Speaking of the dark Bush years, I finally figured out what Obama meant by "transparency".

I know Andy would agree with this:
Secret Interrogation Memos To Be Released

You see according to Obama it is a “time for reflection, not retribution,”.

Nuance?

[Strawman Cometh]

THAT EFFIN ANGER MANAGEMENT AD TAKES FOREVER TO LOAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ranger]

Appalled, I'll repost this here, since you obviously missed my response to your lame claim in the last thread:

(Remember, nobody ever proved that Obama was at any of Wright's infamous sermons.)

Posted by: Appalled | April 16, 2009 at 09:11 AM

Well, unless you count the Audacity of Hope sermon that, by his own personal account, brought Barry to tears of religious joy as a young man. You remember that one, where Wright declares that "This is a world... where white folks' greed runs a world in need." It is important to note the fundimentally racist character of this sermon, because Wright does not refer to "rich folks' greed" but "white folks' greed." Obama understood it to be openly racist as well, because it is this specific language that he repeats in his books. The fact that he chose this title for both his keynote address at the 2004 national convention and as the title of his second autobiography indicates how deeply Obama has embraced this racist view of the world.

[Appalled]

Ranger:

By "infamous", I was referring to the ones that were put out on youtube last year that caused the big stink.

[clarice]

Can anyone explain to me the point of having a debate with someone who consistently makes shit up ,is rather consistently illogical and will never concede error?

Thank you.

[Ranger]

Appalled,

So you don't find the fundimentally racist elements of the Audacity of Hope sermon "infamous"?

I certainly do.

Oh, and Barry was quoted in the NYT telling Wright that the reason he couldn't give the public invocation at his kick off rally in Springfield for the presidential campaign was that "You can get a little rough in the sermons." But I guess he only knew that from what he had heard before Rev. Wright started selling DVDs.

But, other than Obama's statement in his autobiography about the joyful impact of the racist meaning of the Audacity of Hope had on him, and his own explanation to Wright about why he couldn't be seen speaking in public for Obama, there is no indication that he ever heard anything "infamous" come out of Wrights mouth.

[pagar]

Clarice, I think the answer is No, it cannot be explained.

[Appalled]

Ranger:

I haven't read the sermon, so I really can't say. I'm not going to defend Wright, or Obama's attendance at his church.

[bad]

I'm coming around to Appalled's point of view. I find it completely believable that Obama never heard ANY of Wright's sermons, even the ones he was present for. Dude would have had to focus on something other than himself. What are the odds....

[Appalled]

bad:

While I heartily disapprove of what you have to say, I'll ROTFLMA when you say it.

(Good zinger...really, really good.)

[bad]

While I heartily disapprove of what you have to say...

Appalled, I'm so shocked and hurt. Whatever shall I do?

[verner]

Fox just had a report on the released CIA docs on interrogation.

Waterboarding, we knew about, but slapping to get their attention-but not to harm, and shutting the perps in a box with a caterpillar are new!!

Oh my goodness, how cruel and inhumane...yawn.

And what did Tenet say in his book?

Since Obama was so gracious to release all this, why doesn't he open up the files and tell the American people what terrorist threats were thwarted by the CIA's ghastly inhumane worm torture methods.

It's only fair.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I haven't read the sermon, so I really can't say. I'm not going to defend Wright, or Obama's attendance at his church.

Too late to come to that conclusion.

[verner]

Here's a link to the released report LUN.

I'm starting to think that the Obama administration didn't want the memos released because they'd make the ACLU,the International Red Cross, the New York Review of Books and all the other lofty lefties that compared the Bush administration to the Gestapo look like a bunch of dopes because the believed all the torture lies told to them by those choir boys (aka al qaeda mass murderers).

[Appalled]

Charlie:

I have never defended Wright or Obama's attendance at that church, so it's not exactly a new conclusion. Ranger's use of my parenthetical takes it out of the context it was placed. It's fair use, but it does give a misleading impression.

[Ranger]

Ranger's use of my parenthetical takes it out of the context it was placed. It's fair use, but it does give a misleading impression.

Posted by: Appalled | April 16, 2009 at 07:16 PM

Well, here is the "original comment" that sparked your statemen:

I think the way he looked in church, Mort, probably confused that nobody was screaming about how evil America is. That's what he's used to hearing in church, and he obviously didn't hear that.

Posted by Tom Maguire on April 16, 2009 | Permalink

Here is your full comment:

Well, I'll just say the comment is as fair as Krugman's downthread, and let it go at that. (Remember, nobody ever proved that Obama was at any of Wright's infamous sermons.)

Posted by: Appalled | April 16, 2009 at 09:11 AM

I think your point speaks for itself, and is demonstrably false.

[Appalled]

Ranger:

Ah yes, but it was in the context of the lengthy debate about whether the Krugman comment from a couple of days ago was fair or not -- with me taking the position that it was fair.

The reason I made that statement was that Rush's comment assumed a fact not in evidence, based on the youtube controversy from last year. Nevertheless, there is a shared belief in the dittohead community that Obama certainly was at one of those sermons.

Enough said -- I have now hit the point where I am throttling a dead horse, and I am not going to go to where you want to take me.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

You mean that now that you're losing the game you're taking your ball and going home.

[sbw]

Now, sbw may wonder "is there a serious point to this?"

Appalled, I have not a whit of wonder about you. You have shown your colors. How clueless and sad.

Some of us work hard here and elsewhere to understand things better, and for you to act like an ass to make that more difficult is not appreciated. It demonstrates that you honestly do not know the value of society, what in society to value, and do not care to learn.

There is no difference between your approach and Islamic fundamentalists who know they are right because it is they who are doing the knowing.

Pompous, self-centered, hopeless, ignorant fool!

[sbw]

Not to put too fine a point on it.

[PeterUK]

Bollocks!

[sbw]

Puk, you care to expand on that?

[Extraneus]

(Remember, nobody ever proved that Obama was at any of Wright's infamous sermons.)

I thought Po's point that nobody ever proved Obama had a real birth certificate, or that his grades at Columbia merited admittance to Harvard, were refutation enough.

Unlike the claim of his never having heard Wright's shockingly "infamous" sermons, which is laughable, the other two things could have easily been proved or disproved by Obama himself, but they haven't been. It's difficult to understand why such a man as Obama wouldn't want to put these distractions to rest.

[glenda]

sbw--I think it means "Jolly Good"

[sbw]

Glenda, er... no. It means "Balls!" Which can mean "Nonsense!" If so, he needs to be more specific what about.

[glenda]

sbw--there is certainly a lot of "balls" speak going on...after I wrote that, I had a thunder bolt hit ( I, doofus)

[JM Hanes]

Appalled:

"So...per Andrew -- there are three things the right-o-sphere did not complain about. Per your post -- there was only one thing"

Linking to source material is such a cynical piece of window dressing! That must be why Krugman avoids it like the plague -- along with politicians lying about their opponents' positions. For someone who was making a nuance based argument just yesterday, it seems, you sure can be selective about where and when you apply it.

"I see that method used frequently in the comment section here, as a matter of fact."

Define fact. You seem to have an intellectual plank in your eye. If you want to talk methodology, what do you call it when you indiscriminately tar whole communities -- comment sections here or dittohead communities there, what's the diff, eh? Insulting groups feels so much less personal doesn't it? It's like the opposite end of the cherry picking seesaw. Do other folks around here do that? Sure. They just don't deliver regular lectures on everybody else's hypocrisy.

"Ah yes, but it was in the context of the lengthy debate about whether the Krugman comment from a couple of days ago was fair or not -- with me taking the position that it was fair."

That is too rich to leave alone, when the context of TM's post here is a continuing back and forth with Andrew Sullivan. How far back would one ideally have to follow you before responding to your comments? That's a lot of shifting sand to negotiate: Cherry picking is fair when someone else does it, either because all political hacks do it or because you agree with the particular brand of cherry being picked. Cherry picking requires a three alarm self-awareness alert, when TM putatively does it, because -- in a position you extrapolated from a cherry picked, out of context, sarcastic, phrase from a previous discussion -- TM supposedly implied it was unfair or risible or something when Krugman did it. No wonder you feel you've exhausted the topic.

"I have now hit the point where I am throttling a dead horse, and I am not going to go to where you want to take me."

An equine metaphor, how appropriate! We've been trying to lead a horse to water, you keep digging yourself a deeper hole to bury it in.

[JM Hanes]

Clarice:

It's a fish and barrel thing -- admittedly an acquired taste.

[Ann]

JMH, That was soooooo fine to read. Standing up clapping, yelling Hoorah!

An equine metaphor, how appropriate! We've been trying to lead a horse to water, you keep digging yourself a deeper hole to bury it in.

I think we could call that a "cherry on top"! :)

[JM Hanes]

LOL, Ann!

[daddy]

Surgical JMH!

[clarice]

Is she ever NOT,Daddy?

[Appalled]

JMH:

Comment 1:

It's always tricky when you write a comment which holds someone to a standard that he has himself enunciated, but you, as commenter, has argued against. It leaves oneself open for just the sort of response you leveled -- even if you are leaving it as sort of a riposte to the torrents of outrage you had gotten on another thread. Nevertheless, TM proclaimed his standard, and then, probably by misreading Sullivan's torrid prose, did not live up to it. I have a right to comment on it -- and you guys have the same right to call me out about it.

Comment 2:

Cherrypicking quotes, or misattributing quotes is something that commenters here have done. I am not inclined to name names. (PUK did it to me a number of years ago, by attributing to me some heinous thing somebody else had said -- it's why I made rude warm beer comments about him for a few years after that) I really don't think that iss a fair thing for a commenter who uses an alias to call out things people did on old threads that nobody now cares about.

Comment 3: I think you raise a reasonable point here -- Ranger may not have read (or cared) about the great Krugman battle of a previous thread and did not have the benefit of that context. He took advantage of a parenthetical I should never have written. (The idea of defending Wright makes me ill.)

But, when it comes to TM (who's a big blogger and can handle the slings and arrows of his devoted commenters and who I think rather enjoys the combat, judging from the blog posts he writes and the comments he leaves), I just did the time honored tactic of holding him to his rather recently encunciated standard. And no amount of well written rhetoric on your part makes that unfair, or even all that rich. Did Tom argue that you can't cherry pick, via sarcasm? He sure did, JMH. Re read the post -- it was really the point of his post. Did TM cherry pick in this post. I believe he did. And, frankly, despite all the high dudgeon I have seen deployed in this thread, none of you have actually refuted that point. Most of your writing and others are along the lines of me being unfit to make that point.

Comment 4: I am at least glad you did not go with the obvious horse reference.

[Ignatz]

"Did TM cherry pick in this post. I believe he did."

That seems the nub of the disagreement. You may believe he did but have produced no credible evidence that anyone else should.

"I am not inclined to name names. (PUK did it to me a number of years ago, by attributing to me some heinous thing somebody else had said -- it's why I made rude warm beer comments about him for a few years after that) I really don't think that iss a fair thing for a commenter who uses an alias to call out things people did on old threads that nobody now cares about."

Perhaps my irony meter is out of tune, but your parenthetical seems decidedly at odds with the declarative part of that paragraph.

[Appalled]

Gee sbw, I'm surprised you did not quote this:

“...It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

“Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

“Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd; your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse the Augean Stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings, and which by God's help and the strength He has given me, I now come to do.

“I command ye, therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. You have sat here too long for the good you do. In the name of God, go!”

[Appalled]

Ignatz:

Read the original post. If you disagree, so be it. AS for your irony meter -- well, maybe, but I think I did need to cite something, but not necesarily everything.

[sbw]

Appalled, you make noise as easily as you make water, except the latter you do out of necessity and the former you do for entertainment.

You do not see that it demeans you when you have so much you might offer. The real shame is that, while no one likes a smartass, the smartass likes himself least of all.

Buy a mirror. You must nave none at home.

[sbw]

BTW, it was Cromwell who said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to consider the possibility you just might be wrong."

And he was. No humility.

[clarice]

OT: China's big threat to us:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Chinese-spies-put-chips-in-US-planes/articleshow/4412075.cms>Scary stuff

[DebinNC]

Chinese penetration of electrical grids and water supply systems? Re the MSM, only nutters like Glenn Beck believe that could happen...and that we should be preparing now to counter such things. The only preparing BO is likely doing is how to blame Bush if something happens.

[daddy]

Just FYI China stuff,

Toured a new international hub in Guanjo (Canton) China last week. In the large cafeteria section there were 30 microwaves. The surprising thing to me was that 4 had the following signs above them in English and in Chinese:

"For Islamic Foods Only."

I might have expected that in Western China. In Canton, Beijing or Shanghai, not so much.

[bad]

Daddy, the night time janitors can't read and heat up dog sandwiches in them.

[JM Hanes]

"I have a right to comment on it -- and you guys have the same right to call me out about it."

I'll defend your right to state the obvious any time.

"I just did the time honored tactic of holding him to his rather recently encunciated standard. And no amount of well written rhetoric on your part makes that unfair, or even all that rich."

Re-reading is definitely in order. TM pointed out that Krugman provided no context, and supplied copious remedial links -- setting a standard you studiously ignore. You, yourself complain about lack of context above, but choose not to provide it. You defend Krugman's context free cherry picking as "fair," and then castigate TM for putatively doing the same thing, despite the fact that, once again, TM links to source material, which Krugman did not. Tom is picking a bone, not a cherry, and links are another web tradition -- upon which your own exegesis is ironically based.

"I really don't think that iss a fair thing for a commenter who uses an alias to call out things people did on old threads that nobody now cares about."

It is, however, apparently fair for you, using an alias, to tar everyone else collectively for things unnamed members of the community have done on old threads that nobody now cares about. In preference to speaking your mind, you launch rude barbs about warm beer in service to grudges over long forgotten mistakes. Do we file this under mea culpa or time honored tested tactic?

"Ranger may not have read (or cared) about the great Krugman battle of a previous thread..."

That must be why he prefaced his comment with "Appalled, I'll repost this here, since you obviously missed my response to your lame claim in the last thread."

"[Ranger] took advantage of a parenthetical I should never have written."

The time honored practice of holding Tom accountable becomes "taking advantage" when your own ox gets gored. Passing the buck for a parenthetical you should never have written, however, is surely a ground breaking maneuver -- especially when you follow it with a parenthetical.

Absent an enunciation of the standards in operation here, it looks suspiciously like "Do as I say, not as I do." I'd call all that rich, indeed, and all the richer when you're calling others out for hypocrisy.

"And, frankly, despite all the high dudgeon I have seen deployed in this thread, none of you have actually refuted that point."

Frankly, despite your own high dudgeon, I'd say that you, like the Black Knight, simply do not recognize when you've been refuted.

[clarice]

Rremind me never to cross JMH.I beg you all. When that lady slices and dices there's no need for a garbage disposal..the job is done.

[Ann]

Ditto, Clarice!

I was just telling my husband how brilliant JMH is and then you come up with: When that lady slices and dices there's no need for a garbage disposal..the job is done. LOL

In a fight, I would want you both on my side!

[MayBee]

daddy- Hong Kong has a fairly robust muslim population, and there is a lot of travel between Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Perhaps that is why? Or perhaps because Guangzhou is such a manufacturing center, Islamic nationals travel there on business.
???

[daddy]

JMH,

The line that sprang to my mind upon reading that was:

"Down goes Frazier!, Down goes Frazier!, Down goes Frazier!",

Howard Cosell's wonderfully classic description of Pro-boxer Joe Frazier getting Knocked Out in a famous Championship Boxing match.

MayBee,

that makes sense. I know there's a big Hong Kong Muslim community what with the islands British History etc, (so much so that we joke that we get our laundry done in the Al Queda Building, which everyone immediately understands where we're talking about,) but I didn't expect to see such PC niceties observed in China proper, where I've hung out for years and never really bumped into it before. About 12 years back on an early Beijing layover a bombing by an Islamic Chinese faction out west had caused Beijing authorities to retaliate by bulldozing a block full of dwellings into rubble in an Islamic section of Beijing. Since then, excepting Honk Hong, I can't off the top of my head think of a single instance of observing Islamic influence in the standard Chinese cities I regularly visit...Beijing, Shanghai or Shenzhen. I do not read Chinese, so maybe it's always been there and I've just missed it, but I should say that this cafeteria I mentioned is in a Hub belonging to an America company (the one I happen to work for) so its probable it's simply an instance of current American PC sensibilities carried overseas. By the way, the facility is state of the art.