Left In Lowell

Posting this for my husband, known as “Mr. Lynne” around these parts. (I keep telling him I’ll get him his own username, but I digress):

I just finished watching the McLaughlin Group and I continue to be amazed at the mental contortions that Tony Blankley, editorial page editor at the moonbat Washington Times, is willing to contort himself into in order to get a GOP talking point out.  This particular time, Tony Blankley takes offense at Barbara Boxer’s exchange with Condoleezza Rice:

From http://www6.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/11/iraq.congress/index.html

“‘Who pays the price?’ Boxer asked Rice. ‘I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a personal price, as I understand it, with an immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families… not me, not you.’”

Many on the right, including Tony Blankley, are spinning this exchange as some kind of low blow attack by Boxer on Rice.  That is to say that they assert that the act of pointing out that Rice has no children was some kind of attack on Rice’s character.  (Or he lives in a state cognitive dissonance where he understands logic yet also feels that he is ‘right’)

Tony Blankly, on the McLaughlin Group, looked like he took genuine offence calling the event a “vicious as-hominem attack”.  This demonstrates that he is either a brilliant actor, or he doesn’t understand (or is willing to ignore) logic.  He is either comfortably ignorant of reason, or comfortably deceitful in his fake disgust.

For those who haven’t had a logic course (something I’d like to see included in every high school education), an ad-hominem attack is a “change the subject” trick where one attacks a person’s character rather than the person’s argument or reasoning.  This kind of attack isn’t valid when that person’s character is in fact irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of their conclusions, or irrelevant to the formal validity of their argument.  Even Hitler is correct when he asserts (hypothetically) that:

• Editorialists who dispense with reason in favor of pre-supplied talking points are not worth reading.
• Tony Blankley dispense with reason in favor of pre-supplied talking points.
• Therefore Tony Blankley is not worth reading.

Pointing out to Hitler that he is… well… Hitler… doesn’t work against this argument.  However much it may satisfy our sense of moral perspective on the subject of Hitler, attacking Hitler’s character does nothing on the subject of his argument.  It doesn’t show falsity in his statements or invalidity in his argument’s form.

The amazing thing here is the argument proffered by Boxer isn’t an ad hominem attack.  Boxer asserts that it is important to note that who “pays the price” and then asserts that ‘who’ does not include Boxer or Rice:

• Neither Boxer nor Rice are in the American military.
• Neither Boxer nor Rice have family in the American military.
• The American military and the families are the ones who would pay the price for any escalation of the Iraq war.
• Neither Boxer nor Rice would pay the price for any escalation of the Iraq war.

None of Boxers assertions are ad hominem distractions into Rice’s character.

 

There is one interesting aspect of this whole brouhaha that I do take offence at.  If one were to believe that Boxer was attacking Rice’s character in a vicious ad hominem attack, one would have to believe to be a childless woman is somehow a major character flaw,… major enough that the mere act of pointing it out might be considered vicious.  If this is true then I truly have learned something new today.  I’ve learned of yet another reason to loath Toney Blankley.

I meant to shill–er, post about this yesterday, but for anyone that has some time to kill tomorrow (Saturday) afternoon, the art show opening reception for Women of Western Ave at the Whistler is from 2 to 4 at the Whistler House. And yup, I am premering a new painting at the show. This is really the first official show I’ve participated in, and the first painting which was solely for “art’s sake,” meaning it was not for a family member or for a class or for any particular reason other than to attempt to create a work of art. If all goes well, it will be the the start of a series of similar-themed pieces, but to find out what that theme is, you’ll have to come and see the art. If you can’t make the opening, the show runs from January 11th until February 22nd, and the Whistler House (the birthplace of James MacNeil Whistler) is open Wednesday through Saturday, 11am to 4pm.

I missed some of this, but it’s a good chance to hear citizen Q&A with our new governor. It’s on right now, until 4pm.

In my short early morning stint on WUML’s Sunrise this morning (*yawn* - too early for me to be talking politics) the comment came up that bloggers are their own form of special interest. Of course, being more a writer and less light on my feet as a talker, as I mulled that afterwards on my way to work, I came up with all sorts of responses I would have liked to have said. And being a writer on a blog, I can actually make my points after the fact.

Wikipedia defines “interest group” thusly:

An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group, pressure group (UK), or special interest) is a group, however loosely or tightly organized, doing advocacy: those determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected.

All right, that sort of describes the unruly blogosphere…though, it’s a whole lot more organic than an organized group, because different issues resonate with different bloggers and what rises to the top as important to the general ’sphere is in no organized control. But then Wikipedia says this about the term “special interest” and its variants:

Interest groups are political organizations established to influence governmental action in a specific area of policy. This could be done by persuading legislators, working through a regulatory bureaucracy, engaging in legal proceedings, or other means.

I think many seasoned activists who are not readers of blogs really completely misunderstand the culture of blogging. In my observation, Faye was right about one thing - blogs are not 100% representative of the population as a whole. That’s because the people who write, read, and comment on blogs are generally people who are at least interested enough to actually do so. However, to call them all activists is pushing it - lots of readers and even bloggers are not, though bloggers often encourage activism. Of course, there’s also a lot of people who don’t vote…is the voting portion of the public also a “special interest”? If so, it’s one that many people could choose to be part of but don’t. There’s no exclusivity in blogs, either. It’s whoever shows up to participate.

Instead, the “blogosphere” is like a group of opinionated editorial writers mixed in with a debate club. There’s very few times where we are a monolithic bunch. On the issue of gay marriage, for example, you’d think we’d all be on the same side, and we are - on the priciple of equal rights for gays, the progressive bloggers and a majority of their readers stand firm. However, anyone who watched the internal debate and struggle, often passionate and personal, over the anti-gay-marriage amendment at the ConCon could see that there was no consensus on which way to “encourage…changes in public policy,” never mind how to do so.

Liberal bloggers are like a room full of cats. We all have lots of things in common. We like catnip, we all cough up hairballs, and give us a good scratching post and we’re pretty content. However, try herding us all in one direction, and pretty soon you’ll notice that Fluffy and Tiger are hissing at each other, and Muffin’s asleep in the corner. Whiskers is looking out the window at the mailman, licking his lips. And Patches is busy ignoring the scratching post and shredding the sofa to pieces.

When I picture special interest groups, I imagine a teacher’s union which is interested in teacher’s issues, or a corporate association lobbying for their industry. Bloggers are not usually single-issue, single-voiced, or cohesive even on that which they agree. Decisions, when they do happen, are really grassroots consensus. When lots of bloggers agree on something uniformly, you know that’s something different. That’s why the Patrick campaign was so remarkable.

The one thing that liberal bloggers do agree on is that more people, not less, need to be involved in their democracy, and they should be empowered to do so through a more transparent government and good information backed up by strong data. This is likely why Deval appealed to so many of us. If that’s being a special interest single-issue advocate, that’s a damn good one to be. Because that’s what will groom the furry, tangled coat of democracy into a shiny coat of equal opportunity.

At our best, we bloggers strive to be a bristle in the anti-shedding brush of political involvement. That’s advocacy all right, but not for any single special interest.

[Disclosure…the cat metaphor was a work of fiction. Names, cats, locations, and events are used snarkily and are the product of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual bloggers (living or dead) is entirely coincidental.]