11/02 Brendan: More nastiness on airport security
An increasingly nasty campaign is underway against House Republicans who oppose making all airport screeners federal employees.
First, Joe Conason, the New York Observer and Salon columnist, alleged that they have "post-traumatic stress disorder". Then Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) called Rep. Tom Delay's (R-TX) efforts to delay the bill in the House "immoral". Conason followed up with a second column attacking "right wing extremism" that labels the House Republican leaders "intellectually unfit" and insinuates that they tried to "[give] comfort to the nation's enemies".
Now Conason has put together yet another vicious column attacking DeLay and his allies. He calls on New Yorkers to join him in renouncing the House GOP position on the issue, which would give the administration the option of using federal or private security screeners:
It is a chance to inform [Delay and his "cronies"] forcefully that their warped priorities, so weirdly unchanged by the events of Sept. 11, are no longer acceptable to the American people. Those priorities-aside from turning over as much of the national treasure as possible over to the very wealthiest Republican campaign contributors-are to cripple even the most necessary government initiatives and to keep workers docile, unorganized and underpaid. Such primitive impulses are now in direct conflict with the best defense of the nation's health and safety.
After attacking Delay and his supporters as having "primitive priorities" in a previous column, Conason uses an even more vicious slur this time - "primitive impulses". Note how he defines airport security as a "government initiative" that Republicans (with assumed bad intentions) want to "cripple". In fact, the whole debate focuses on the extent to which airport security should be a government initiative, but Conason simply defines it as such.
The columnist then takes another crude potshot at DeLay for citing European countries that use an airport security model similar to the one he supports. "Ordinarily, the xenophobia of the Republican right makes any reference to the wisdom of Europe taboo... Those people are all foreigners, aren't they?"
Isn't it possible that Delay and his supporters honestly believe that their model will provide better security? Conason will only admit that "it is hard to tell" if Delay is "disingenuous or simply ill-informed" but both are "likely".
The pro-federalization campaign is bringing out the worst in proponents emboldened by a perceived position of strength, particularly the increasingly mean Conason. With the House passing a bill with the federal/private option yesterday, let's hope things don't get worse.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
Related links:
-Lowey and Armey invoke higher values to avoid debate (Ben Fritz, 10/24)
-The discourse of mental illness (Brendan Nyhan, 10/16)
11/1/2001 10:04:14 PM EST |
10/31 Ben: Kristol segues from suggestion to accusation
Beware the power of suggestion.
That's the lesson from a column in yesterday's Washington Post by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol that makes a number of speculative suggestions about the current war on terrorism and then follows them with accusations. Problem is, Kristol never bothers to back up these suggestions with facts.
Kristol's piece disparages most of the Bush administration's war strategy. In two places, however, it blurs the line between fact and speculation. The first is to suggest that the U.S. should be attacking Iraq: "We can try to close our eyes to the truth about Iraq in the service of the 'coalition' and 'patience,'" he writes. "But we cannot win a real war on terrorism with our eyes closed."
Of course, there are reasons to consider going after Iraq, and Kristol himself has made them in the past. In this piece, however, he accuses the government of not doing anything due to concerns over "coalition" and "patience," which he puts in quotes as if to indicate they are not legitimate. He also simply asserts that by not fighting Iraq, the U.S. has its "eyes closed." These are not arguments. They're attacks based on implication.
Interestingly, Kristol’s argument--or lack thereof--for attacking Iraq stands in contrast to a piece in today's Post by William Hoagland, which points out legitimate reasons for considering an attack on Iraq: "[T]he need to deal with Iraq's continuing accumulation of biological and chemical weapons and the technology to build a nuclear bomb." Kristol would be well advised to take a lesson from his fellow pundit and include actual reasons for his assertions before he accuses the government of turning a blind eye to a threat.
Similarly, Kristol attempts to frame law enforcement's theory that the terrorist attacks and the anthrax mailings are separate as desperate spin:
And what signal do we send when our law enforcement and intelligence agencies desperately try to convince the press that, as Saturday's Washington Post headline put it, "FBI and CIA Suspect Domestic Extremists; Officials Doubt Any Links to Bin Laden"? Really? ... Is the FBI and CIA's leading theory really that two elaborate and historically unprecedented and yet unrelated terrorist conspiracies (one domestic, one foreign) were simultaneously unfolding over the past year -- and largely in the same states (Florida and New Jersey)?
Later on, Kristol refers to the government's spreading this theory in the media as "premature efforts at reassurance and transparent spin." Once again, he writes as if something is clear, but provides no real argument. Even if one grants that the anthrax and September 11 attacks may be connected, there's no reason to believe, as Kristol suggests, that the government is "desperately trying to convince the press" of untruths. There certainly is plenty of evidence making the government’s theory possible, and it's well known that all relevant evidence has not been publicly released. Kristol’s analysis boils down to speculation and inference stated as fact.
If Kristol granted that his assumptions that Iraq is an enemy and the anthrax and terrorist attacks are related are in fact suggestions, however, he wouldn't have the ammunition for this harsh conclusion: "At some point, the president surely will insist his administration change its strategy, and get about winning the war. Better sooner than later." When Kristol says, "winning the war," he of course means the war that he wants to fight, complete with the assumption that Iraq is an enemy and al Qaeda is responsible for the anthrax. Making this argument is fine, if it's backed up by facts. Unfortunately, William Kristol seems content to believe his own suggestions.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
Related links:
-The Olson Reversal (Brendan Nyhan, 5/14)
10/31/2001 11:06:11 AM EST |
10/30 Bryan: Pundits allege "war profiteering"
"War profiteering" is a serious allegation with deep emotional associations - which is precisely why several liberals and one conservative have used the term recently to attack policies they disagree with.
According to my dictionary (the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus, American Edition), to "profiteer" means to "make or seek to make excessive profits; esp. illegally or in black market conditions." Pundits have sought to capitalize on the connotations of the term by deploying it against those they believe are taking advantage of the tragedy of September 11.
Robert Kuttner's syndicated column, published in the American Prospect Online, the Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe, broadly accuses pharmaceutical companies of profiteering, using Bayer's patent on the antibiotic Cipro, which is used to treat anthrax, as an example:
Meanwhile, the trade association of brand-name drugmakers, known as PhRMA, is fighting a rearguard action. It has convened a Taskforce on Emergency Preparedness, made up of CEOs from the industry, to address the extra production needs. This sounds good, but PhRMA represents only brand-name drugmakers. It explicitly excludes makers of generic drugs, which are much cheaper, no less effective, and thus far less costly to consumers and taxpayers.
There is a name for this behavior. It's called war profiteering.
Kuttner is obviously not interested in the nuances of the debate, choosing instead to make his point with a rhetorical sledgehammer. Meanwhile, others have borrowed the phrase to criticize the stimulus package before Congress. Jane Bryant Quinn may have been the first when she wrote in the October 1 edition of Newsweek that "Talk of more tax cuts is in the air. In what I'd call war profiteering, the rich are using this opportunity to seek a cut in the tax on capital gains."
The allegation was repeated by Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal on CNN's "Capitol Gang" on October 27, who claimed that the bill "could be aptly titled 'the campaign contributors' war profiteering act of 2001,' because that really is what it is."
The most recent use of the term came from Bob Herbert in yesterday's New York Times:
In Senator Kennedy's words, the House proposal, which contains more than $100 billion in tax cuts for corporations and individuals, "merely repackages old, partisan, unfair, permanent tax breaks -- which were rejected by Congress last spring -- under the new label of economic stimulus. The American people deserve better."
With Americans fighting and dying both at home and abroad, we are understandably in a season of patriotism. That patriotism should not be soiled by wartime profiteering.
It is perfectly fine to argue that the stimulus package is unfairly tilted to corporations or too expensive, or to accuse politicians of political opportunism. Unfortunately, the term "wartime profiteering" is beginning to become a blanket accusation one can now aim at any target of his or her choice. Look for more of this loaded phrase as the debate over how to stimulate the economy heats up.
[Email this to a friend] [Subscribe to our email list]
Related links:
-Lies, damned lies, and spin (Ben Fritz, 7/2)
-Kuttner's tax-increase euphamism (Brendan Nyhan, 6/5)
10/29/2001 08:17:53 PM EST |
by Ben Fritz
At a time of war, terms like
"patriotism" and "treason" are especially loaded. Unfortunately,
following
the events of September 11, some pundits have used them to unfairly
castigate political opponents. This trend has picked up steam in the
past
week, with numerous examples of conservatives and liberals using this
rhetoric irresponsibly in place of rational debate. (read the
column)
10/29/2001 04:38:32 AM EST |
Home | Columns | Posts | Topics | Email list | About | Search
This website is copyright (c) 2001-2005 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.
Comments by YACCS
|