maxparrish
05-30-2007, 08:37 PM
I am wondering...is there an appropriate term for commentary that mocks the truth and ignores reason - one that does not quite rise to the level of a knowing pack of cynical lies, but is far more intentional than delusion, stupidity, or willful ignorance? You know, something like the comments made by defenders of the Senate Immigration Reform legislation?
As you think about it, you might read the following for insight:
Munoz and Torres avoids the dictionary.
"...such a poisonous term (amnesty) is being used this way, because nobody is proposing anything that even resembles an amnesty," said Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza. "We are giving people a chance to earn their legal status, not giving it away."
"Amnesty is where someone comes in illegally and gets in front of others and immediately becomes legal," said Gustavo Torres, director of CASA of Maryland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Maryland?tid=informline), a nonprofit group that helps illegal immigrants. "This is totally different.."
While Chertoff provides us with more to savor, adding mendacity to stupidity:
"I understand that some people think it’s not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed."
Next we have Novak who resorts to sentimentality in the service of the bigoted straw man:
<DIR>...This nation of immigrants has greeted successive waves of newcomers with apprehension stoked by demagogues. It has overcome such past xenophobic impulses. But that will be more difficult in an era of Internet bloggers and radio talkers, ...
...Graham was not happy with his junior South Carolina colleague, Sen. Jim DeMint, for playing to the convention crowd with anti-immigration oratory... Many Republicans reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight... But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid (http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/003826.html).
</DIR>And Linda Chavez also advances the bigoted straw man as her primary defense of the Senate bill,
"Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats...have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are...more prone to criminal behavior. ...No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans -- fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most -- otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project,"
Gerson, a former Bush speech writer, also finds characterizing the bill's critics as bigots as his most compelling argument:
"In 1882, Congress passed and President Chester Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Today we don't name laws as bluntly as we used to. But anti-immigrant sentiments are very much alive, this time expressed in opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie..."
And finally, President Bush lends his own legendary powers of insight to the examination of the bill's critics and their arguments:
It "makes it more likely we can enforce our border _ and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America..."
"...If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it."
Bush then chastised those who say the proposal offers amnesty to illegal immigrants. He called their criticism 'empty political rhetoric' and added that there are those that "oppose it in some cases because 'it might make somebody else look good."
What is remarkable about all the defenses proffered, especially by Republican supporters of the Senate bill, is the uniform poverty of their arguments and reliance upon collective ad hom's of fellow Republicans and conservatives. Whereas critics rely on statistics, facts, expert opinion, and analysis of the various provisions, the bill's supporters rely on name calling, false characterizations, appeals to swarmy history, and unsupported claims.
In summary, the argumentative pathology of those who support the bill is that anyone who does not support the grand bargain must be ignorant, xenophobic, immigrant bashing, Mexican loathing, inhumane, envious of credit given to others, and tends to be in favor favor of the execution of illegal migrants.
. ---
Never mind the statistics on crime, projected social service costs, social security implications, low education levels, our economic needs, questions of fairness to legal applicants, lack of border control, or considerations national self-interests - to bring up those kinds of facts and considerations are, one supposes, an expression of xenophobia.
And never mind the conservative critics such as George Will, Charles Kauthiemer, Peggy Noonan, Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Mitt Romney, Thomas Sowell,
Ed Meese, Shawn Hanniety, the late Milton Friedman,most of the staff of National Review and those "experts" at conservative think tanks - for their criticisms must also be of the indecent crowd.
So what do we call this kind of shameless and absurd form of argument? Perhaps someone here can provide the exact term, but in my neighborhood the only word that comes to mind is...
Horseshit.
Any others?
As you think about it, you might read the following for insight:
Munoz and Torres avoids the dictionary.
"...such a poisonous term (amnesty) is being used this way, because nobody is proposing anything that even resembles an amnesty," said Cecilia Muñoz of the National Council of La Raza. "We are giving people a chance to earn their legal status, not giving it away."
"Amnesty is where someone comes in illegally and gets in front of others and immediately becomes legal," said Gustavo Torres, director of CASA of Maryland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Maryland?tid=informline), a nonprofit group that helps illegal immigrants. "This is totally different.."
While Chertoff provides us with more to savor, adding mendacity to stupidity:
"I understand that some people think it’s not tough enough. Maybe they want people thrown in jail for 10 years or they want people executed."
Next we have Novak who resorts to sentimentality in the service of the bigoted straw man:
<DIR>...This nation of immigrants has greeted successive waves of newcomers with apprehension stoked by demagogues. It has overcome such past xenophobic impulses. But that will be more difficult in an era of Internet bloggers and radio talkers, ...
...Graham was not happy with his junior South Carolina colleague, Sen. Jim DeMint, for playing to the convention crowd with anti-immigration oratory... Many Republicans reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight... But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid (http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/003826.html).
</DIR>And Linda Chavez also advances the bigoted straw man as her primary defense of the Senate bill,
"Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats...have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are...more prone to criminal behavior. ...No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans -- fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most -- otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project,"
Gerson, a former Bush speech writer, also finds characterizing the bill's critics as bigots as his most compelling argument:
"In 1882, Congress passed and President Chester Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. Today we don't name laws as bluntly as we used to. But anti-immigrant sentiments are very much alive, this time expressed in opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.
For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie..."
And finally, President Bush lends his own legendary powers of insight to the examination of the bill's critics and their arguments:
It "makes it more likely we can enforce our border _ and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America..."
"...If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it."
Bush then chastised those who say the proposal offers amnesty to illegal immigrants. He called their criticism 'empty political rhetoric' and added that there are those that "oppose it in some cases because 'it might make somebody else look good."
What is remarkable about all the defenses proffered, especially by Republican supporters of the Senate bill, is the uniform poverty of their arguments and reliance upon collective ad hom's of fellow Republicans and conservatives. Whereas critics rely on statistics, facts, expert opinion, and analysis of the various provisions, the bill's supporters rely on name calling, false characterizations, appeals to swarmy history, and unsupported claims.
In summary, the argumentative pathology of those who support the bill is that anyone who does not support the grand bargain must be ignorant, xenophobic, immigrant bashing, Mexican loathing, inhumane, envious of credit given to others, and tends to be in favor favor of the execution of illegal migrants.
. ---
Never mind the statistics on crime, projected social service costs, social security implications, low education levels, our economic needs, questions of fairness to legal applicants, lack of border control, or considerations national self-interests - to bring up those kinds of facts and considerations are, one supposes, an expression of xenophobia.
And never mind the conservative critics such as George Will, Charles Kauthiemer, Peggy Noonan, Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Mitt Romney, Thomas Sowell,
Ed Meese, Shawn Hanniety, the late Milton Friedman,most of the staff of National Review and those "experts" at conservative think tanks - for their criticisms must also be of the indecent crowd.
So what do we call this kind of shameless and absurd form of argument? Perhaps someone here can provide the exact term, but in my neighborhood the only word that comes to mind is...
Horseshit.
Any others?