I majored in philosophy in college and took a class on ‘informal logical fallacies.’ Throughout the semester, we had to identify weekly examples of each fallacy from newspapers, magazines, books, or internet articles. It was extremely interesting, enlightening, and most importantly, a motivation for me to think critically about my own positions and the positions of others.
I’m posting a series I put together that addresses the common fallacies in popular arguments/talking points across a range of issues. Each part of the series will focus on one issue, isolate ten popular arguments or positions within that issue, and identify the fallacy the argument commits.
Some of the issues include: Global Warming/Climate Change, Evolution and Intelligent Design, Obama (in a number of ways), Glenn Beck, the Tea Parties, and more.
Right-wing pundits characterize the Ft. Hood shootings as a terrorist attack. But the Columbine High School Massacre and the Virginia Tech Massacre, both events that independently resulted in more death and injury than Ft. Hood, are not characterized as acts of terrorism but as massacres (the former perpetrated by two suicidal shooters, the latter a ‘lone wolf’). The Ft. Hood shooter was a lone attacker, too. So, why are the Ft. Hood shootings a terrorist attack—or, as Dick Morris explains, “the first act of terrorism on American soil since 9/11—and the Virginia Tech and Columbine High School Massacres not?*
Clearly, terrorism and massacre are connotatively different. A massacre is a mass murder that, typically, takes place over a short period of time. Terrorism has many definitions, but today the term is easily associated with acts of war perpetrated by political organizations and, or motivated by a ideological zealotry. More specifically, Americans apply the term terrorism to acts of war carried out by rogue, extremist ideological organizations (or militias). Informally, it exclusively (and incorrectly) means extremist Muslim organizations.
Now, it remains unclear whether or not Ft. Hood gunman Nidal Malik Hasan, a recent convert to Islam, was acting in association with a terrorist organization. No terrorist organizations have taken credit for the attack and claimed Hasan as a operative of the organization. So, it pretty premature, inappropriate, and possibly incorrect to describe the Ft. Hood shootings as an act of terrorism; instead, it was a massacre.
But why are pundits on the right so fast to call it terrorism? Sure, many Americans associate any and all violence conducted by Muslims as terrorism; but I don’t think that simple over-characterization underlies the current application of the term. No, I believe, as always, it is being used politically by the right to attack the left, and specifically President Obama.
By calling the Fort Hood massacre a terrorist attack, the right validates its earlier claims that Obama is weakening the U.S. and leaving it more vulnerable for a terrorist attack. I believe this is the tactic of the right simply because the same group of people, following Rush Limbaugh and World Net Daily, have already mendaciously linked Hasan to Obama!
Just because a murder, or mass murder, is politically or ideologically motivated, it does not mean that it is an act of terrorism. Terrorism is associated with a political organization. A terrorist act is one carried out by a political organization that seeks to carry out violence against a political or social system with which it opposes. The act is not out of necessity, but to advance a political purpose. Acts that meet these criteria include:
The Oklahoma City Bombing: Though the act can be immediately attributed to a ‘long wolf,’ Timothy McVeigh was a sympathizer of the militia movement and acted, with the help of a friend, as a statement against the Federal Government. This is different than with Hasan, who, though sympathizing with Muslim extremist organizations, killed Marines because he they were going to fight against Muslims in the Middle East. McVeigh was not attempting to attack the government to stop it, but to express a point.
The September 11th Attacks: Clearly an act of terrorism. Violence carried out against civilians and military alike, as a statement against supposed American Imperialism and support for Israel.
Since the uproar is about to explode, I want to get ahead of the train on this one: the nomination of David Hamilton to 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Already, the Christian Conservative backlash is started. A Washington Times editorial came out today entitled, “Jesus, no, but yes to Allah.” The editorial goes on to extrapolate Alabama Senator Jess Session’s letter to fellow Senators outlining the opposition to Hamilton’s nomination. The objection is essentially to Hamilton’s belief that judicial interpretations of the law should be footnoted in the Constitution, a theoretical issue in Constitutional Law; that he is an ‘empathetic’ judge; that he is ‘lenient;’ a ruling in favor of property seizing for private economic development; and, the one that will send the dimwits flying, a ruling that the Indiana legislature cannot sanction official prayer in favor of any one religion.
However, on the final point (objection #3 mentioned in the editorial), the Times, echoing Sessions, writes,
Mr. Sessions noted, though, that Judge Hamilton’s odd ruling in Hinrichs v. Bosma “prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ … yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah.”
While we may or may not share Session’s objections, this is (and I presume, will be) a blatant illustration of political spin doctoring. The message the conservative opposition will push is that Sessions is anti-Christian and a leader in the supposed oppression of Christians, and the opposition will drive this home by playing on the popular fear (or disdain) of Muslims and Islam. But, it’s false.
You see, Sessions (and the right) can get away with this claim because in Hamilton’s ruling, he does explicitly prohibit prayers mentioning Jesus Christ. But, that’s not the whole story. First, the House prayers were almost exclusively Christian (appealing to Jesus Christ), except for two of which one was Jewish and the other Muslim. So, given that the prayers were pretty much always Christian, it makes sense for a judge to spell it out because the case was mostly an issue for Christians. Second, Hamilton’s ruling does not only ban Christians or saying Jesus, it bans any that are exclusively sectarian. Below is an excerpt of the 60-page case ruling:
<blockquote>To summarize, the evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Establishment Clause “means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). ‘The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.’” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 605 (1989), quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Plaintiffs have standing as Indiana taxpayers to bring their claims, and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. This relief will not prohibit the House from opening its session with prayers if it chooses to do so, but will require that any official prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian, and not advance one particular religion. * * *
Conclusion. When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.
All of us who have inherited the liberties of the religion clauses of the First Amendment continue to elaborate on their meaning and application one case at a time. In this case, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the Speaker in his official capacity barring him from permitting sectarian prayer as part of the official proceedings of the Indiana House of Representatives. If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal. See Simpson v. Chesterfield County, 404 F.3d at 278-79, 284.
You see, although explicitly mentioning ‘Christ,’ the conclusion prohibits all sectarian prayer (meaning that the prayer appeals exclusively to one religion, and yes, conservatives, that includes Islam) and the use of not only Christ’s name, but the title or any other denominational appeal. So now, it isn’t just Christians who can’t proselytize in the government, no one religion can.
A popular “question” raised by the conservatives in light of the G20 protests is, why aren’t the Democrats and liberals criticizing the G20 protests like they did the 9/12 protests? Of course, the answer from the conservative mind is that the G20 protests, some of which were violent, were liberal protests. In other words, conservatives say the liberals agree with the G20 protests. Furthermore, conservatives are using this unanswered “question” as an example of Democratic and liberal hypocrisy.
Well, the Democrat leaders did criticize the Town Halls and 9/12 protests. They (with whom I agree on the following point) believe the 9/12 Patriot movement is bringing the fringe into the mainstream and stirring up anger based on false claims and misleading fear tactics. The final result of fueling the far-right conservative fire, many fear, is violence; a fear that is justified by far-right rhetoric and references to “revolt” and “taking back the country.” I think there are some dangerous ideas flying around throughout the conservative movement (I hate calling them ‘conservative,’ since they are not really conservatives, but rather traditionalist Christian nationalists, or simply ignorant pop-conservatives), and I think we should criticize it so that we are aware of it. But, to the conservatives’ favor, this movement has yet to become violent and remained peaceful during their 75,000 person march on D.C.
The G20 protests, however, have not been as peaceful. There have been a great deal of protests taking place without permits, and some serious confrontation has taken place. Yet, there has been no criticism of the protests from the left. So, why not? Well, I’ll tell you why and it’s not because the protests are liberal, as the pop-cons want you to believe.
Every major meeting of the world’s leaders brings out every political movement or protest you can imagine, not just “lefties.” In Pittsburgh, it’s no different. They range from liberal activists such as socialists, environmentalists, human rights activists, and fair trade supporters to rightwing activists such as pro-lifers, religious groups, anarchists, fascists and anti-socialists (and by fascist, I’m actually talking about those who identify themselves as fascists, not the politically diluted term thrown around all the time), and isolationists. And, of course the most prominent, those protesting globalism: from the left, it is those who protest global capitalism, and from the right, it is those who protest a global political community. Finally, the protestors aren’t just Americans; there are many people and political activists that travel the world to protest.
So, that’s why the Democrats aren’t criticizing the movement. (1) It’s expected at the G20; (2) the protestors range from the liberal to conservative activists, and; (3) they aren’t all Americans.
Last night a friend of mine hypothesized, “Don’t you think that if Obama, or any politician, would just speak in the terms of the common man, explaining exactly what’s going on, then they would be much more appreciated or successful?” Sure, look at Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They appeal to the “common man,” with the idea of “common sense” government.
Both Palin and Beck have appealed to many people who want “common sense” government. Much of the attraction to Sarah Palin is that she “speaks to the common person.” Beck wrote a book, a rip from Thomas Paine, Common Sense. However, the underlying problem with this whole idea and/or desire for “common sense” is the simple fact that, well, governance is not common sense.
The idea of ‘common sense’ government lacks reality in that it appeals simply to naivete and broad, unfounded assumptions. Government is aghast in conflicting variables and ideologies. It is strategic, tedious, and experimental. It involves foreign policy and defense, theories of justice and law, economic speculation and theory, intelligence, ideology, and leadership. It is, perhaps more than most leadership fields, so meticulous that the very idea of ‘simple solutions and common sense’ is nothing but empty, stupid words.
We can’t have people leading government, the United States, on their own ‘common sense.’ Just because you don’t understand political science theory or the role and impact of government, doesn’t mean that government has become to ‘complicated,’ and thus we should return it to ‘common sense.’ No, it means either you should learn more about government and political science, so maybe you can understand what policy makers are saying
Sinclair Lewis wrote, “When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
The Freedom Federation is the soft and quiet form of Ameritianity.org. Take a look at Glenn Beck’s 9/12 project, watch Fox defend the Christian Crusade, and you might start to think twice about with whom you associate.
Wouldn’t you know! The secular, godless government is attacking REAL American Christians again! This time, they are putting them in jail!
Dale Neumann of Wisconsin, a born-again Christian, is charged with reckless homicide for putting God before materialism! Oh Heaven’s forbid! Neumann’s daughter was ill, very ill, and he prayed to God to heal his daughter’s ailment instead of taking her to the doctor. He said, “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God. I am not believing what he said he would do.”
Of course, the Bible does say God will heal. And, we all know that the U.S. Constitution was written based on the Christian Bible for the US to be a Christian nation. So, what’s wrong with putting the Bible above US law? Isn’t that what the Founders intended?
Neumann’s daughter was 11 years old and had diabetes. She could have been easily helped by a doctor. But, his belief in a Bronze Age text brought him to neglect proper, modern treatment. How sad. How stupid. The above is a joke by the way.
So lots of attention has been given to the Obama birth certificate controversy lately. Perhaps it is a sign that this intellectual movement is gaining some serious momentum.
The issue of concern is fundamentally whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States, and thus whether or not he is qualified to be the President of the United States.
During the presidential election campaigns, the issue was addressed by Obama’s team who released a copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. Naturally, skeptics believed it was not legitimate–in fact, a forgery.
So, Factcheck.org decided to take on the issue. Factcheck.org staff members traveled to Chicago, inspected and photographed the COLB, confirmed its authenticity of its authenticity and concluded Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural born U.S. citizen.
Despite Factcheck’s efforts, some of the birthers maintained their skepticism by arguing the Factcheck is liberal and bias, and in the bed for Barack Obama. Others forged ahead claiming that the COLB is a short-form BC (as opposed to a long-form), and thus insufficient evidence of Obama’s U.S. birth. Finally, the State Health Department of Hawaii issued several statements concerning the skepticism, saying the Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that the COLB is a legitimate and legal Birth Certificate.
But still, many aren’t buying it.
Several reputable news organizations such as CNN, Politco, and others have addressed the issue, while bias political entertainers who consistently promote falsehoods have continued to promote it.
Then recently, this happened and has since received a ton of coverage:
What I find to be most interesting is that the birthers, such as this woman, are demanding a long-form BC with the doctor’s name, hospital, and witnesses, as well as school records and a bunch of other ‘evidence.’ They are hard to impress; they need undeniable evidence that BO was born in the US. But… in the last part of her first statement:
He is not an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya.
What? Really? Given the birthers strict standards for what evidence is considered sufficient for proof of citizenship, I can only imagine that they must have overwhelming evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth and/or citizenship.
A translation that supposedly suggests that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said she was present for Obama’s birth in Kenya. That’s all the evidence you need? A translation, which has been reported as a false (or at least misunderstood or distorted), is the solid proof the Obama was born in Kenya.
I just have to say, what the fuck?!
I mean how one-sided and hypocritical can you be?! You are skeptical of the Hawaii Health Department, a legal and legitimate COLB, Factcheck.org and other evidence, but a translation of an interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother that can be interpreted (if you know what you want to hear) as her saying Obama was born in Kenya is all the evidence you need to conclude Obama was born in Kenya.
Give me a break. I don’t know if it is racism, fear of difference, or just lack of critical thinking skills (combined with gullability) that makes people buy into this bullshit; but I do know that this movement is scary, ignorant, and irrational.
I just want to point out the type of discussions The Fox Nation incites. Do tell, is this really safe to foster such hateful discussion? Is it okay to feed people’s fear, anger, and delusions with disinformative headlines and misleading information?
Look at how these people talk about the President. Look at how people talk about liberals (which, quite frankly, is anything left of the very far right), homosexuals, blacks, and Muslims. I support free speech, but a News organization ought to have some integrity. Making political, social, national and international affairs into tabloid material of the likes of celebrity gossip is very, very dangerous. Headlines and comments follow Read the rest of this entry »
Since I only have your attention for a few seconds before you decide whether to continue reading or to leave, I’m sparing an introduction to my discussion and telling you right now what I am going to argue.
Pure laissez-faire capitalism, constitutional libertarianism, and libertarian-anarchy are not practical political and economic theories.
Now, if you have decided to stay and read, I hope you feel inclined to comment, question, and/or challenge my argument after reading it.
