Detailed Abstractions

Wow.  I went to bed last night and woke up this morning contemplating what to write about the “fishy email” BS that recently came out from the WH.  After reading several articles on various websites, it seemed that the story was actually written correctly.  Most citizens interested in freedom, don’t like the idea of the government collecting data on what they deem “disinformation.”

But I forgot that I apparently live in some bubble where rational thought is allowed, as some journalists believe the only problem with the government seeking citizens to spy on other citizens, is the GOPs paranoia (here):

…However, opponents of reform have seized upon the request as a means to heighten the paranoia that has become their favorite weapon in this debate.

In a letter to the White House, GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas portrays it as program “asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed “fishy” or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests.” He raises the spectre of a White House “data collection program” by which it can assemble “the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens” opposed to reform. In other words, an enemies list. He also demands to know “what action … you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in ‘fishy’ speech?”

It’s a ludicrous suggestion, but it’s perfectly in line with the GOP strategy to use emotion, anger and fear as means to drown out debate, discussion and facts. It is the telling behavior of a movement that knows it will lose the debate on those grounds.

I’m not even sure how to effectively dissect this without including all kinds or personal sounding attacks about the author’s intellect, but I’ll see what I can do.

First, it should be plainly obvious that the author, and anyone who agrees with him that the WH is doing the right thing, has very little historical knowledge as to what typically comes after these types of requests.

It’s frightening to believe that anyone with a passing, cursory glance, at history can’t see the danger in sending political speech deemed “fishy” to the government for review.

Secondly, when anyone decides to disagree with a specific opponent, usually the strength of their hand can be gauged by their reaction.

For instance, if I engage an opponent on slavery, where I think it’s wrong and someone else thinks its right, my hand is so strong that I barely give much thought or strenuous objections.  I’m more likely to laugh at the logic twists someone would have to go through to attempt to prove slavery is necessary.  (assuming of course my opponent didn’t have power to implement their changes)

If however,  my hand is extremely weak… say for instance I think it’s a good idea for citizens to tell the government when they disagree with their fellow citizens about a political issue, I might have to start name calling and attacking the messenger.  Because surely attacking my opponents in this case on any rational level would lead only to my embarrassment.

Third, but very important – fear based motivations in politics is not new and not limited to any one given party.  Even in this very debate, both sides are using fear.  One side is claiming that without immediate change, more people will be left to die of treatable illnesses.  The other claiming that a government run health care system is more dangerous to your health than the current state of affairs.

Indeed, fear is almost always used these days.

Smoking bans gained traction?  Fear of health care costs to employees

Patriot Act?  Terrorists are everywhere and coming to get you

Gun bans?  You’re neighbor might be the crazy one with a gun.

TV sex/violence?  It’s going to lead us all to become homicidal rapists.

Cap & trade?  Our entire planet and the human race are at stake

Most religions?  Our entire planet and the race are at stake

Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at University of Kent, has done some great work on the politics of fear and our fear based culture.  His website contains his writings which are well worth the read for anyone interested in the repercussions of this fear based approach to legislation.

However, the mere fact someone is using fear based politics honestly does not tell you whether the fear is real.  Simply because someone tells you something might happen that might scare you, doesn’t mean what they are telling you is wrong.

It’s only used here by Mr. Jay Bookman to marginalize his opposition into a single, coherent group of irrational crazies.

It’s much easier for him to pretend the other side is simply paranoid and completely wrong.  It stops all the cognitive dissonance he has built up when he hears clear objections to that which he obviously cherishes.

As Voltiare said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.”  Maybe Mr. Bookman is too simply weak to deal with doubt?

Well – this will be one of those additional times that I’m a pariah that no one agrees with, but I think I’m  getting used to it by now …

First – a brief disclaimer.  I think flying a plane around low level areas in NYC without warning wasn’t a smart move (article here), however the fear born out by some was an obvious overreaction to what was taking place.

It amazes me how scared as a society we are of things that will likely never affect us, like abduction of a child from strangers or a terrorist attack using the exact same tactic as before or worrying about whether a neighbor has a gun, while things that are much more dangerous such as driving, we don’t seem to care about.

Frank Furedi (his site) a professor of sociology at Kent University has written extensively on the politics of fear including a new article about the next big scary thing, the dreaded swine flu…

The explosion of global fear about the outbreak of a deathly flu virus in Mexico is more a response to the dramatisation of influenza than to the actual threat it poses.

There is nothing unusual about the outbreak of flu. Every year, thousands of people die from the flu, and, in normal conditions, society has learned to cope with the flu threat. From time to time, an outbreak of flu turns into a global pandemic, leading to a catastrophic loss of life. However, there is no evidence that the so-called swine flu, which has so far claimed a relatively small number of lives, will turn into a pandemic. Rather, what we are faced with is a health crisis that has been transformed into a moral drama…

Even in a recent Stratfor article detailing risks we are posing to counterintelligence operations not only now, by Obama releasing the torture memos, but in the past as well (here):

…Politics and moral arguments aside, the end effect of the memos’ release is that people who have put their lives on the line in U.S. counterterrorism efforts are now uncertain of whether they should be making that sacrifice. Many of these people are now questioning whether the administration that happens to be in power at any given time will recognize the fact that they were carrying out lawful orders under a previous administration. It is hard to retain officers and attract quality recruits in this kind of environment. It has become safer to work in programs other than counterterrorism…

…Other than during the peak times of this cycle, counterterrorism is considered an ancillary program that is sometimes seen as an interesting side tour of duty, but more widely seen as being outside the mainstream career path — risky and not particularly career-enhancing. This assessment is reinforced by such events as the recent release of the memos.

At the CIA, being a counterterrorism specialist in the clandestine service means that you will most likely spend much of your life in places line Sanaa, Islamabad and Kabul instead of Vienna, Paris or London. This means that, in addition to hurting your chances for career advancement, your job also is quite dangerous, provides relatively poor living conditions for your family and offers the possibility of contracting serious diseases…

…Unlike in television shows like “24,” it is not uncommon in the real world for a meeting called to plan a counterterrorism operation to feature more CIA lawyers than case officers or analysts. These staff lawyers are intricately involved in the operational decisions made at headquarters, and legal issues often trump operational considerations. The need to obtain legal approval often delays decisions long enough for a critical window of operational opportunity to be slammed shut. This restrictive legal environment goes back many years in the CIA and is not a new fixture brought in by the Obama administration. There was a sense of urgency that served to trump the lawyers to some extent after 9/11, but the lawyers never went away and have reasserted themselves firmly over the past several years…

This is just another example of the asinine fear laden, risk averse society we have built.  This type society not only makes stupid runs of panic possible, like some of the current economic issues and this idiotic plane deal, but it also stops innovation and potentially makes us less safe.

A society that can’t take risk is a society that will slowly wither away.

For some time now, I’ve listed “journalist” as one of my favorite pejoratives and without fail I get proven correct at least once a day.  Today is no different.

In Pittsburgh over the weekend, a clearly irrational gunman killed three officers (here):

Three Pittsburgh police officers were killed and a fourth was injured in an unprecedented shooting Saturday morning in Stanton Heights, where authorities believe a man was “lying in wait” with high-powered weapons, ready to fire when the victims arrived at his home.

The man apparently was extremely freaked our about potentially losing civil rights such as gun ownership from the new presidential administration.   This terrorist was obviously deluded, as even if his belief was correct, his actions are highly unlikely to have any net positive effect of reducing the likelihood of his fears coming true.

Either way – with this bit of information, a CNN Anchor reported this week (video here), without proof, only conjecture, that Fox News, Sean Hanity, Glen Beck, and other “right-wing” sources are at fault for this very tragic shooting.

He bemoans Hanity  & Beck directly for talking about “doom & gloom” while not having any direct quotes for any Fox News show or the people he name directly talking about Obama taking everyone’s guns.

& If that wasn’t bad enough, he uses the obviously leftist mouth piece  Media Matters to help him argue his points.  They say Beck said… but again, it seems that if this had taken place it would be fairly easy to come up with the audio itself…

With news like this, is it any wonder that people simply don’t believe them?