“Outright media lies are easy to debunk. It’s the lazy, fact-free, inside baseball analysis that’s killing us.” -@Shoq
I have been getting bombarded by people on Twitter accusing me of “being on the wrong side of history” with respect to the NDAA simply because, I suppose, I am not exhibiting the appropriate amount of outrage to match theirs. My interest in politics, the media, and the manner in which narratives are created and disseminated throughout Blogistan, the Twittersphere, and ultimately to the mainstream media is seemingly gauche to some.
One need only look at the 800 plus comments at Balloon Juice yesterday (here, here, and here), many of them excoriating me for focusing on the “wrong” issue. The politics of the day is less important than the fact that our civil liberties are being infringed — at least that is what I’m told.
Nonetheless, as is my right, I will continue to focus on what interests me, no matter how unimportant it may seem to some — and that is this: the language we use to describe and discuss important prevailing issues.
Let’s take one of Milt Shook’s criticism of Glenn Greenwald — that Greenwald refers to the National Defense Authorization Act as the “indefinite detention bill” or the “detention bill”:
Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto this bill without killing the entire NDAA. He can’t.
Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”
In response to John Cole’s post decrying Shook’s statement above as “Jonah Goldberg level stupid,” and akin to calling someone a liar for calling a “Kleenex” a “Kroger brand tissue,” I called Cole’s example a “preposterous false equivalence”:
Calling the PPACA “Obamacare,” or calling a Kleenex a “Kroger brand tissue” essentially assigns labels to concepts that are by and large identical. A Kleenex is a tissue; Obamacare is the PPACA. The latter is a politically charged alias, but it does not substantially alter the artifact to which it applies.
“Indefinite detention bill,” on the other hand, is a name chosen to incite the emotions of people expected to be rightfully horrified by the mere existence of a “detention bill,” as if it were the primary law being enacted. It is not. What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.
In conclusion and with much love to my boo in WV, I have to call his example a preposterous false equivalence.
Language matters. The manner in which we describe things matters. Indeed, Frank Luntz has built a lucrative career on recasting and rephrasing descriptors for policies. “Death Panels.” “Medicare Vouchers.” “ObamaCare.” For example, I know that people on Twitter fear that the NDAA could be used to round up and silence Occupy Wall Street protestors. It taps into a fear of political dissidents being disappeared, as they so often are in dictatorial regimes in foreign countries. The NDAA does not allow for that.
The reason people think that it does, however, is because of the frenzy and hysteria that civil libertarian bloggers whip up through lazy and oftentimes manipulative writing intended to leave a distinct impression on their readers: that this “indefinite detention bill” is a clear and present danger, and an immediate threat to their own civil liberties, as well as the civil liberties of their family and friends. It is hyperbole on steroids cynically contrived to elicit a particular emotional response from the readers, knowing that most of them lack the ability to parse complicated and lengthy legislation, and the concomitant case law.
The responsible journalist or blogger would explain the nuances without the emotional rhetoric and agenda. One need only visit lawfareblog.com or Mother Jones (see Adam Serwer’s piece “The Defense Bill passed, Now What Does It Do?“) for such responsible journalism and blogging. Greenwald and his ilk, on the other hand, exploit the reader’s naivete for purposes of flogging their own on-going anti-government, anti-executive, and implicitly anti-Obama agenda. Anyone who doesn’t yet see his ongoing, anti-everything libertarian agenda dripping from every post he writes is either an armchair ideologue with no sense of history or proportion, or someone with a severe reading disability.
What he does is damaging to the political discourse because it requires an unpacking of the emotional rhetoric that obfuscates the underlying legal, moral, and ethical issues that should be in the public discourse. Instead we’re stuck looking at this visceral short-term hysteria instead of the underlying law which nobody likes.
Greenwald routinely engages in blatant goalpost-shifting: He writes about a particular issue, and after whipping up outrage among his readers, he turns his attention from that issue to a new issue, without making any attempt to defuse the outrage engendered by the original issue. As a result, the goalposts get moved from the original issue to the new issue, even when the new issue is not the basis for the initial outrage. His faithful readers, especially the lazy echo chamber ensembles in the new “old boy” media (many of whom use him for TV filler when they need a good Obama bashing rant), don’t notice or care that the target was shifted. They eagerly ride the outrage beast until it dies or Greenwald has moved on to his next screed with his legions of fans in tow.
For example, when Greenwald first wrote about the National Defense Authorization Act, he focused on the provisions requiring mandatory detention on U.S. soil:
If someone had said before September 11 that the Congress would be on the verge of enacting a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S., it would be hard to believe. If someone had said after September 11 (or even after the 2006 and 2008 elections) that a Democratic-led Senate — more than ten years later, and without another successful attack on U.S. soil — would be mandating the indefinite continuation of Guantanamo and implementing an expanded AUMF, that, too, would have been hard to believe. But that’s exactly what Congress, with the active participation of both parties, is doing.
After the language authorizing military detention in the United States was removed from the bill, Greenwald deftly moved the goal points:
The ACLU said last night that the bill contains “harmful provisions that some legislators have said could authorize the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world” and added: “if President Obama signs this bill, it will damage his legacy.” Human Rights Watch said that Obama’s decision “does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad” and that “President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Do you see what he’s done? He has taken the outrage generated by the horrifying thought that Americans could be snatched from their homes and sent to Gitmo never to be heard from again — a bill to authorize military detention inside the U.S. — and simply transferred it to a new issue — that the bill authorizes imprisonment without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world.
Now, is this new issue legitimate to discuss? Of course it is — as is the entire bill. In fact, it is imperative that we discuss it — but it is likewise imperative that we are discussing the proper issue. Moreover, it is also crucial that we recognize that there are many folks who still think that this bill permits the government to snatch them from their homes on U.S. soil, when it categorically does not. Greenwald contributes to this ecosystem of misinformation. By continually moving the goalpost, he manipulatively maintains the outrage level in his ongoing and ever-changing narrative, which has already been largely inculcated in and accepted by his audience. Incredibly, the media routinely allows him — if not outright encourages him — to do so.
Greenwald relies upon a loyal chorus of Twitter followers, blog readers, and his friends in the media to rapidly respond to whatever narrative he concocts using this manipulative strategy knowing that few people — especially in the media — will do the work required to place his screeds in their correct political and policy contexts. Sometimes because they’re his friends, and sometime because they’re just, as my friend @Shoq often says, “pathetically lazy.”
This is a bad law. T think that it is bad practice and bad law to ‘indefinitely detain’ anyone. Current criminal provides all the legal means necessary to do what needs to be done.
Congress passed this law. PBO did not pass this law. If people do not want laws of this sort to be passed, the solution is clear: do not elect people to office who would pass a law such as this law.
PBO was not about to veto a NDAA. The threat to veto was empty.
it really is that simple.
If the veto threat was empty, why did Congress strip the worst language out of the bill? Why did they add clarifying language?
Obama doesn’t bluff. His veto threat did more to fix NDAA than all the PL’s outrage and petitions.
Exactly. But if you read the poutrage going on, you’d think all that language was still in the bill. Heck, I just came over here from Digg, and half the “politics” section over there is polemics about “police state” and “military police in the streets of the US.” None of which is in the bill, but heck, they’re not going to let a perfectly good rant go to waste.
While I don’t like the poison pill (detention provisions) the Republicans shoehorned into the NDAA the fact is that we can’t afford to allow military funding to lapse. While the GOP plays bubba games and the progressive commentariat bloviate and demand a veto from the President the troops they so piously claim to support are wondering if they are going to be paid after the first of the year.
Now I’ve ranted I would agree with your essay. Words determine how we think about issues. Allowing the NDAA to be called an indefinite detention bill is a disservice to everyone.
This has to be the stupidest fight in the history of Balloon Juice and I am glad I am missing it. I read the Serwer piece twice and I understand the issue to be similar to that of drones. If you can indefinitely detain an American citizen captured overseas, you must give some law of war reasons why that person is being detained. You also had to give some law of war reasons why Awlaki was killed, but we peons had little idea what the full story was. The issue is then bigger than what is in the AUMF. The issue is about how far you want to move military-civilian boundaries. If you are thinking metaphorically, then the whole defense authorization bill is about what authorizing those two wars means, and that includes the detention/MC issue.
I believe there was someone that I know who said, “If John had a girlfriend! If he was willing to tell us that it was going well! You would be utterly miserable for 24 hours and you could walk away, and be a grownup.” If this was a Hollywood movie, the writers would shut the bedroom door within 24 hours of your meeting in real life. You have been each other’s partner in crime and fiercely had each other’s backs.
/completely self-indulgent paragraph follows written for therapy purposes
The way I feel about John Cole is 90% “Brother, dear heart”–as in I would be glad to call him my brother from another mother–and 10% bullshit. In fact, it is trash. It is not worth offering him. It is just that there is such a deep hunger behind the damned bullshit that I can tell myself it would be like cutting my daemon off. I would have to be a completely different and better person to kill it. As I said though, John’s being committed to someone else who can give him much better, and legally, is one way. And there is what TNC said in his post. You (the context was clearly people in general) try to behave decently, even if “demonic” or “bastard” are much better words for what is inside you than “beast”.
Well, cant let a good opportunity go to waste to criticize the President, damn the truth and reality
Yeah, God forbid anyone criticize Obamessiah at all! Like I said, you people are no different than Bushbots circa 2003.
Balloon Juice broke 400 comments and counting. Shorter BJ: ABL sucks, and why won’t she come down here in the comments so we can fling our feces directly in her face instead of lobbing them impotently in her general direction while she ignores us? Waaaaaahhh!
I keep hoping that someday John Cole will have a Balloon Juice Nation event, and hold it in Carrie’s high school gym.
hahahahahaha. that’s hilarious.
most of the clowns in all my threads are pied, so reading the BJ comments is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit.
There were soooo many, far tooooooo many stupid comments at BJ. I think civics must no longer be a required course in high schools.
This may be the stupidest fight in the history of Balloon Juice, and I am glad I missed it. I decided that what I thought was that this is about metaphor. If an American captured overseas can be indefinitely detained, then there must be some law of war reasons given for the indefinite detention, just as there were law of war reasons given for the killing of Awlaki. Not only were we peons not really privy to the latter set of law of war reasons, this goes beyond what is in one authorization or other. Similarly to the drones, this is about the boundary between civilian and military ways of looking at things and treating things. A defense authorization bill defines that boundary and what we trust the military to be engaged in–it could be used to fund the MC system as well.
I think trying to behave decently means I say NOTHING. But if this was a Hollywood movie, it would turn out this way. The two of you have had each other’s backs too fiercely for the screenwriter not to be tempted.
I love how you peel back the layers of BS to show the truth at the core. It’s easy to be misled with subtle changes and the feelings invoked by certain words. And yes, they are taking advantage of those who cannot objectively look at what is being presented.
I don’t follow BJ, but the stupidileaks are everywhere. Way to fight the good fight!
Thanks ABL fr saying everything I’ve been trying to say on other sites. IE Reclaim America From The Lunatics, & The Christian Left. It just pisses me of @ how liberals are so easily conned by the neo-cons ie ron paul supporters over & over again by the same tactic! 2010 all over again! SMH!
Word is to thought as thought is to ?
I find it refreshing to be reminded of the ‘choice’ we make in the words we use. You have brought visions of Ludwig Wittgenstein and David Bohm to mind, where Ludwig sought throughout his life in study of philosophy ‘what is a word, what is the meaning of a word’ – where David sought what is a thought, what is the meaning of a thought’.
To follow up and close after your mind surgery here, I think you are focussing here on not just being conscious of the choice and action to follow when we use words, but I think you are really illuminating that it is the thought that lurks behind – or in intentions – in front of the words we choose.
I liked your post – it reminded me of David Bohm in his book Thought as a System, where the goal of the symposium is to attempt to gain objectivity in thinking. The conundrum of course was proprioception of thought which is – how can you use thought as a tool to study thought without thought getting in the way alas leaving one with a presupposed reality merely ending up being a reflection of the tool itself.
More to the point… Words can be constructive and deconstructive. Indeed words and choice of words is 3/4 of the many political polls. Merely change the wording and you can start to shape your response. I suppose linguists are a quiet lobby on L street (the L is for Kloberg -heh) in D.C. – who knows.
If anything I took from your blog here a reminder to always be awake, aware and critically evaluating the meaning behind a message and it’s window dressings. As with baroque and fishing lures, I often wonder when I see someone attempting to ‘shape’ perception by choice of dress, jewelry, or words- that there is perhaps something antithetical to the adornments (jewelry or words in this case) in actual substance behind the front.
To close on this thought, I do wonder, if words can be so misleading to the ‘pathetically lazy’ in regards to consumers of partial and mass media ? then dare I speculate on in what ways thoughts can be even more misleading to the pathetically lazy in regards to intellect.
Perhaps there exists a subjective dilemma that the mind can not indeed experience proprioception of thought, that is – that thought can not be used to study thought without getting in the way of itself…
One thing is for sure, words AND ideological foundations can be woven to decieve – my father who taught ancient Greek once shared that the Greeks held that language was a tool for deception. I do not know what historical context or what thinker that came from – that it was probably written down using langauge ? I have to question the validity of the statement eh ? lol.
I ask myself- do animals lie ? know, BUT they DO use cunning. Is cunning behind every lie ? or are some lies truly pathological. It seems if animals use cunning it is for self preservation, or to kill. Gee- I don’t really leave a lot of wiggle room there. I guess any political party should and would be expected to use language as a weapon and a shield.
I still say- there are always intentions behind the volition involved in thinking and I do say- I think you have said it well that we need to always be aware of what trajectory the message is coming from, and what are the intentions of the author, are they to merely attempt to dilucidate or obfuscate (to trap or gain opportunity to distance oneself from the issue, i.e. run away, change the subject to avoid accountability for intellectual deficit as so often happens in these primary debates).
hmm – it’s fight or flight I suppose is upstream from etymology here.
Yikes, at age 43- I do believe i just typed the word ‘know’ instead of ‘no’ regarding that line ‘do animals lie ? know’ ouch…
Sometimes I scare myself with typos like that. Accidental however I’ll try and make something out of it. Clearly this heteronym is a causal by product of years of alcoholism, I can only hope. If not, what could cause such a synaptic disasterous misfire to type ‘know’ instead of ‘no’ when I of course know there is no other way of spelling no. Accidental none the less, or would ‘all the more’ work there just to explore the opposite. Sometimes language offers us unique circumstances in use where you can say things in both ways- such as ‘none the less’ or ‘all the more’ (the latter there I just experimented with and created it now). You can even make yes and no equate I observed some years back. Try it- end a question with yes ? then end it with no ? “It is time to go, yes ?” “It is time to go, no ?” you see ? both carry the same meaning and here we have even deflated any potential use of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ – the second word was the first word apes spoke in the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ – I always found that interesting – to stand up and say ‘no’ was the birth of a new civilization (of apes of course in that case), perhaps it suggests complacency to just say ‘yes’ offers no pathway to a new civilization ? yes ? no ? )
There exists on youtube a video showing two executive advertising experts who were hired to come up with a new symbol for a corporation. They were flown in and taken to the building by limo. Unknown to them, symbols were placed all along the way… in store fronts, people on the street wearing a shirt perhaps. They were actually part of an academic experiement to show how people could be manipulated without knowing it. By the time they got to their ‘gig’ to do their work, they indeed came up with a symbol. Most interesting the symbol they came up with which looked very abstract was nearly identical to the symbol the organizers of the experiment predicted they would come up with. While this was right brain manipulation ? I do wonder if left brain can be taken for such a ride as well.
if a 30 second ad is supposed to make me feel like I’m a better human being for buying brand X of a car, or make my self esteem boosted, or by eating this brand of chips I will truly be happier (even though one of the most carcinogenic substances is found in potato chips deep fried) ? And I observe corporate lobbyists begging attention for legislative branch constituents ? Why should I not call marketing what it is- lobbying, and further, what about op eds ? seemingly amalicious offerings from right or left wing biased news resources ? cleverly designed to get me to buy their product ?
I’ll say one thing off subject from this subject and that is when I was working on a software project a few years back, I said we could easily compare our product with others in the sector and show the others are inferior. The guy I worked with ? offered some great advice “no Tim, I don’t NEED to negative sell my product, it stands on it’s own and people will recognize this when they use it” and indeed, they did.
HOWEVER I observe from the political right and left, this unfortunate mucky swamp of mud slinging where it SEEMS if you have nothing to say ? you simply beat someone else down to make yourself look better. I observe this from Bachman over and over, same with Palin, or any of the Taliban of the West as I call them- the religious right, except it’s Christian fundamentalists here, LIKE the Taliban -seeking political power to solidify a religious nation state as a real and ideal (until God decides nuclear weapons are just a bad idea I guess).
My message is if you thougth uniting the states was a hot idea, and it was, wait until you get a taste of uniting of the nations… And hopefully in my lifetime I will gain witness to that. Out goes useless budgets for ‘national security’ – in comes interests in humanity- the humanities – higher education. Out goes threat of use of nuclear fission with exception to a few nutballs that come along and they will, but humantiy will persevere.
Language can and is abused as this blogger points out.
I always liked that one episode of Star Trek Next Generation, the captain was sitting at a camp fire with another captain – neither of them could speak the same langauge. They somehow used metaphor to communicate. As I’ve always been told metaphor has no anchor and is starkly meaningless ? I do question at the end of the day, when the lights go out, before the sun is to come up again, and fresh air enters the room, the box like cartesian mapped room with – okay okay – you get the point – I do wonder if under it all though, that all language is metaphor… I really do. Maybe in some Jungian sense – there are archetypes behind all words and we’re merely trading archetypes when we seek to use words. They ARE tools after all, I mean they aren’t the dirt or the plant the tool may be used for.
Hmmmm… Maybe that’s it – to the author of this blog – maybe we need to remember words are MERELY TOOLS – and in no way connected really to the labor, or fruits of labor on is using them for.
Imagine someone trying to sell you a plow for a horse telling you it’s the corn itself that you’ll be planting.
It sounds insane – and it is.
Yet – it seems some political media presented online and in print and in voice over talk radio IS indeed presenting the plow as the crop. They have to – they have no seeds to plant, all they can do is blame the witches for why the crops were so bad last year – and pray for rain and call upon the soothsayers (Christian right) for wisdom. Sure Bush was smart and used the Christian right -evil ? yes, success ? it worked. Promised 80 million to faith based organization, doled out 8. Amazing they fell for it twice. Now the 2 billion in grants (2 500 mil and 4 250′s) to anyone willing to even TRY and start a new nuclear power plant far outweighed that. Odd, Bush/Fox promotes ‘keep government out of Wall Street/big business’ yet ? Wall Steet says for 30 years that nuclear power just isn’t a good idea, and people won’t invest in it – but Bush says- here Wall Street – broker 2 billion in new grants for these pals of mine over here at Exelon (I noticed Exelon donated 250k to Obama as well, so, not QUITE sure on that, AND Exelon did get say OVER TOP of the state of Indiana as to how to handle the tritium leaks contaminating ground water, it’s really the only down side to President Obama I’ve seen, that he took that money, man seems to have integrity elsewhere- except GITMO didn’t close yet, I don’t know, I still get a good read from President Obama, I think he walked in and immediatly found his hands were tied by forces new to him and even more out of reach once his hands were tied). One can spin things any way they want with words.
I observed the author here is a lawyer – first day I came across your blog. I would imagine lawyers MUST use language to their advantage – I IMAGINE though, logic and reason SHOULD be a strong enough guide in defending or prosecuting ? BUT – indeed- while not a lawyer myself- I MIGHT explore it at age 43- it’s doable- but – I do suspect that langauge can be abused in the court room too. In fact, this all makes me consider now that langauge isn’t to decieve perhaps, but is a lobbying tool ?
I’ll say this – I was once at a camp fire – turned to my friend Emily- everyone was quiet – no one talked, I said “Isn’t this silence great ?”
Then I realized – you can’t say something with language without distorting or disturbing that which you are referring to I guess.
Things I learned today I didn’t know before.
I was looking for another word for ‘word’ – and I came across ‘cognomem’. My favorite dictionary site- non profit http://www.dict.org having using it for easily 10 years now, I noticed cognomen only translated to ‘name’. Bouncing over to wikipedia- another terrific not for profit site, I came across cognomen.
To my surprise I learned the Roman’s had Praenomen, Agnomen, Nomen and Cognomen. Nomen was indeed your ‘name’ and if you had two ‘Peter’s for example, you used a cognomen to differentiate. If anything it helped me realize our typical three name structure in English, first, middle and last name, but I noticed the example on Wikipedia had used Cognomen more or less as a macro/group, such as Afrifcanus. Now, I might suggest after seeing this ? what is missing in English is the cognomen, we lack this grand macro grouping let us seek ‘humanity’ as perhaps a post cognotem. If ONLY we came to know ourselves through this grand collective of humanity – we could get past nationalism, racism, genderism, and have a linguistic reference or anchor unto which we could all identify some sense of unity. I once entertained why English has only first person singular and plural. Use of ‘we’ really immediately puts forth a division… We as opposed to ? some other group. I’m 43, I realized this in my teens that we lack a true first person universal ‘we’, and I began wondering what happens in a society or culture that adopts a language of preference when a language lacks the infrastructure to even allow for this ‘unifying’ or ‘collective’ persona that surely exists, from Martin Luther to Ghandi – all great spiritual leaders seem to go on about this reality- even the Christos. I suppose I am most let down with Christianity when I witness someone saying ‘my personal saviour’ and it’s ALWAYS about their ‘personal afterlife’ too, even with Islam from people I mean, some personalized judgement takes place, when in reality ? the value to me of the model of ‘The Christ’ is completely lost ONCE it becomes ‘personal’. The real value is when you say – turn the other cheek not because it’s the ‘nice’ thing to do, you do so because the other person IS PART of the same collective you are apart of. I think Islam promotes this with some success, but like Judaism as well- promotes non homogoneous ideology. The message of
It’s my way or the high way (to hell) in general.
Either way- Nomen is my word of the day. And indeed, imagine if we all shared the same last name, some post cognomen ‘humanity’ tag.
Maybe science will clean up the mess and demonstrate that the human genome is one – but I have learned from biogeneticists that the human genome put together was actually put together from many many subjects.
Either way- words CAN be misused ? but let us hope they serve some purpose. It is entirely possible humanity is at the bottom of the totem – not to introduce some Focaultian hierarchy here- but perhaps David Byrne of the Talking Heads is right in the song ‘Animals’ when he hyperactively states ‘the animals… they are laughing at us’. Perhaps words are more of a deficit than any bird song would ever be. I bet there is some bird out there that can mimic and fool other birds- well- until big surprise during mating likely (whoa, I thought you were a blue jay man, what the ? you’re a ROBIN ?) – maybe the parrot.
Maybe there are political parrots out there – calling all parrots ! the NDAA means you will no longer be jobless and homeless, the DoD is coming to take you away and give you 3 meals a day, shelter and books to read- hang on – help is on the way! ?
What happens when one parrot sends out the message- say Limbaugh – and then others take it – and before long ? some convoluded misnomer of a message is viral about the bloggosphere – or well- certainly not blogtopia, or is it ?
True eternal life to me isn’t some privatized afterlife- it’s knowing that – all those stars- that life is eternal- will always be – and I am a part of it – and it will go on…
Praenomen: Tim
Nomen: Miltz
Cognomen: Humanity
Where is the GDAA ?
I would expect a GDAA- G for Global ? to likely hold all nations as terrorist groups sponsoring threat of use of nuclear weapons endangering all life on this tiny planet.
Modern geology shows us that tectonic plate theory is real. After I read of the four types of natoinalism over at wikipedia one day – I got to thinking, gee, we subscribe to territorial nationalism. How on earth can we defend a territory ‘as if’ there are ‘static borders’ that’s sitting on a moving tectonic plate. I do say- quite literally- nationalism has a major fault line running right through it.
That said – I DO think I have a winning argument on the defects in the model of territorial nationalism (not to mention, we just took it from the natives by force, and distributed blankets with small pox- gee ? biological warfare so early in US history eh ? no WONDER we are so paranoid about it – because we did it – it’s like a murder suspect on Columbo- typically paranoid they are suspect, why ? because they did it themselves).
Any investment into this failing model of territorial nationalism is a threat unto every child in the world. I do admire Michelle Obama for two reasons- one for her focus that one in three children post 2000 will develop diabetes – all though I’ve not heard her make THAT point, she is very aware of the true danger lurking in the next generation, and I admire her get fit campaign – not to mention dietary intelligence being put up – so few realize that Gardner of Harvard Educational Labs missed one, and I’m happy to further his proposition. Beyond spatial intelligence- temporal, kinesthetic (athletic), I DO think dietary intelligence should be included, after all it even affects our neurotransmitters in our diet. BUT – I admire Michelle Obama secondly for something I noticed in the press the other day- that it’s all about the kids.
To that, I never share with kids anything about ‘nuclear weapons’ for when I found out, it just put a dark cloud over my head, and having not read Arthur Koestler at the time as in his prologue in his book Janus where he points out that humanity is living with a time bomb around it’s neck based on our former wars- civil wars, reliigous wars, you name it – that we will likely use them again post Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
NDAA is in fault because it’s attempting to save territorial nationalism.
GDAA would look something closer to stating anyone seeking to embody territorialistic nationalism could be held accountable criminally for endangering the entire population of the planet.
No wonder the neocons – Cheney and Bolton and Fox try SO HARD to take down the UN – for the ICC and ICJ are the only factions left to hold a nation state accountable FOR war crimes. Also, again, if you ponder as I have – a few months ago I realized, gee, if uniting of the states was such a great idea- and it was – then uniting of the nations should be even better- and it WILL BE – I have faith – not in Jesus, but in that one trans-nationalistic apolitical aspiration alone.
All that said- I really have little concern over the NDAA.
If anything the NDAA creates a real legal mess for the CIA operatives who DO have to engage with the Taliban and Al-Qaida (or Qaeda if you prefer), I mean, I guess they are exempt ? but now we’re talking about exemptions to NDAA- and that comes too close to Nazi Germany SS if you ask me – those that are not ‘above’ the law, but ‘outside the domain’ of the law. On that premise- I’d say NDAA creates a double bind for DOJ and DoD/CIA/DIA if it’s passed. Because clearly – under cover you HABE to work with these groups, no ? yes ?
I also admire Hillary Clinton every since I saw her speech on ‘volunteerism’ back in the 1990′s. Volunteerism really though is no longer volunteerism once a spiritual component is present – at that point it’s Mother Theresa avenue – ah- yet another person I admire. I make special note Mother Theresa in the end – said after all the suffering she had witnessed (much due to political models and sovereign currency dysfunctionalism)- that she questioned whethere there was a God in the end – the Vatican deployed their OWN NDAA against her – and promptly asked her to stop saying there might not be a god.
I pretty much stand by that nationalism in advent of nuclear weapons- offers humanity nothing, except the threat of extinction. Physicist and philosopher David Bohm (used to teach with Einstein) states that nationalism roots from the same word as percussion, concussion – to break apart. He and others – myself included – promote that nationalism unnecessarily DIVIDES humanity – Chief Seattle is probably crying – Black Elk – for everything they warned of – that the white man would come and pollute the waters – the land – claim to own the land (Seattle said how can anyone own the sky ?) – lawyers no doubt to secure the transaction backed by police and military threat otherwise- by law- of course- those laws made by the people who claimed the land – taken by force ? all of it has come true.
EPA last year – for the first time said – not a percentage of all US lakes, rivers and streams have mercury content – they said last year ALL lakes, rivers and streams now have mercury. Herman Cain- Florida GOP debate “If you could remove any one branch of the Federal Government- what would it be” ?
Herman: “The EPA”
I SWEAR Newt HIRED Herman to take the heat off of Newt.
If you want to see the abuse of langauge- watch Rove’s new intermediary dispensed ad about Elizabeth Warren where they try and make it look like she sided with Wall Street investment banks for TARP. You want to see how DANGEROUSLY language can be used to paint a red horse yellow ? watch that ad- it’s almost convincing – and that’s the danger – I DO understand Warren- she in NO way favored corporate over the citizen. Yet ? The ad is convincing if you are lazy enough, or just ignorant to know any better.
oh my – I just noticed Terr in Terrorist and Territorial- welp- off to http://www.etymonline.com my favorite etymological dictionary to see if there is a sharing in roots here !
Last thoguht before I go steam clean the living room carpet for it’s yearly clearning pre-christmas – and blast Bruce Springsteen from my single Gorilla amp I use for such occasions….
I was just in the bathroom and there I saw “Obama’s War’s” by Bob Woodward. I picked it up at the dollar store because those are the only books I can afford in paper – although I read much else for free from print.google.com until the corporate IP lawyers can figure it all out. I was once talking to the head librarian in the Harvard Faculty Lounge along with Scott Bradner (one of the founding fathers of the eeeeeenternet) about my concerns that copyright law stands in the way of progress of a civillization – both agreed, Scott said write him a letter when I write a book, that’s never going to happen, I can’t focus on anything more than 5 minutes anymore, alcoholism PERHAPS)…
I highly recommend this book in understand just what President Obama has faced. Right off in the beginning – Bush set it up so that ONLY the next President would be allowed to know what US intel was involved in- they literally told Obama’s people to leave- none the less, his response was “during the election, I was worried that I might lose, but after what I’ve learned now, now I’m worried that I won”.
Bottom line though, it is most provocative that Woodward has so many transcripts from Air Force One, Oval Office- I mean, he has entire conversations – I simply did not know those are public. EITHER WAY- get that book – it’s a good read- bottom line ? As I suspected myself- President Obama’s hands were tied upon entering office.
Good guy I think – Considering we’re nearing the expiration date on nationalism – I mean, come on, remove the target – no more big red X, no more target for terrorists ?eh ? but – it’s nice we have some pro humanity people in in the last days- not end days- just last days of living divided. My prediction is tent posts called sovereign currency will take down the circus tent as they give way- but don’t take my word for it – you can read all about a very well mapped out stressor on currency report by Hans Timmer at World Bank – WAY before it happened, he called Greece, Spain, Ireland and then ? he said the US…. So far? Ole Timmer ain’t been wrong- and if you study him ? His SPECIALTY is global economic outlook long term….
It’s not all bad – hey- getting past the hump of living under threat of nuclear weapon at least on the level of nation state wars ? I’m sure every child in the world will have just one more smile a day on that one.
Aristotle would have gotten along with Michelle Obama- he too realized the importance of making it all about the next generation. While he promoted education – I do say- I hope that’s next. I argue every citizen should have by right broadband access, for that is venue to education, look at MIT courseware- totally free- I can go there – take classes – no cost- sure you don’t get a diploma – but who cares if it’s knowledge and understanding you are after.
Afghanistan – 80% illiteracy rate- there is the problem solved, build schools- better- give each citizen broadband feed off a US dod satellite already in place and give them all $200 laptops – that’s a couple billion tops – don’t kill people- EDUCATE THEM.
What was that line from a former president of Harvard ? “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance”
I suppose I could up that “If you think terrorism is expensive, try nation state derived global thermal nuclear war” – or what? are we saying we spent trillions on the cold war for nothing ? another phony neocon threat.
Thank you for your critical thinking skills here ABL.
There is so much out there to read- I merely stumbled on your site today.
I hope I can remember to return – you speak with a voice of reason and clarity and purpose.
I wager you are one heckuva a lawyer !
happy holidays- really now- I MUST get myself to my carpet steamer and start a full days work ahead of me ! I like standing on it and pushing it backwards to get better suction- I don’t know why they don’t just make one that has a foot stand so people can put their weight on it. Ah- liabiltiy I bet heh..Perhaps they could just put in a disclaimer for legal liability reasons…This steamer may cause injury – use at own risk. That disclaimer should be added to everyone seeking citizenship in the US. In fact ? citizenship should be an ACTIVE process come to think about it – me ? I was merely born here and it was automatic – didn’t have to learn the Constitution, Bill of Rights – etc… No language test – nothing like immigrants have to go through.
I do say ABL – maybe explore some blog or study on how many people would actually PASS the same tests immigrants have to – that ARE legal US citizens. Wouldn’t that be something ? to show that oh ? who knows, maybe 80% of US citizens are not ‘illiterate’ as in Afghanistan – but completely, er, pathetically lazy as your ‘shok’ friend put it – and don’t even KNOW any domains of the law- or as you put it – concomitant case law that goes with it. I had to look up ‘concomitant’ as you had used it in your article…
concomitant
adj 1: following or accompanying as a consequence; “an excessive
growth of bureaucracy, with attendant problems”; “snags
incidental to the changeover in management”; “attendant
circumstances”; “the period of tension and consequent
need for military preparedness”; “the ensuant response to
his appeal”; “the resultant savings were considerable”
[syn: attendant, consequent, accompanying,
concomitant, incidental, ensuant, resultant,
sequent]
n 1: an event or situation that happens at the same time as or
in connection with another [syn: accompaniment,
concomitant, attendant, co-occurrence]
I do so love case law – Heinz Pagels was a genius physicist in my view- the late husband of Professor Emeritus of Religion at Princeton – Elain Pagels- author on much of the Nag Hammadi coptic codecs – Heinz stated back in the 80′s that ‘Law’ domain would be the next boom for application of computer science. As a senior software engineer, or senior senior something or another as I put it – I do say – while it hasn’t happened YET ? I could be happy for 10 years probably working on or seeing some type of programmatic approach to evaluating case law – how to represent any case though into some formal system for evaluation, perhaps just using logic… I don’t know, maybe it’s unrealistic -but my oh my how interesting it would be to say as a lawyer- here I am looking at THESE circumstances – and have software that would kick out 3 incidences of case law that composite ? could win your case – that is IF I understand how case law works, I always presumed case law is where you can say – ah ha- this has already been solved before- we have to rule the same here as before. Maybe I’m wrong. That would be sad though to have your case determined SOLELY by software.
On the OTHER hand (how many hands are there) ones life is not complete until they watch this TED lecture on how algorithms shape our life- Huffington Post had this up on their front page a few weeks back.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world.html
It is a must watch video for everyone. He is a physicist – who works on Wall Sreet- he points out that 70% of ALL trades are driven by algorithms now – intellectually protected proprietary algorithms- last year ? he points out something like 9% of the market just vanished, and to date? no one even knows where it went- or why. It’s a very very good speech – TED has short speeches – hope you don’t mark this as spam – really now – I MUST go steam the carpet – ugh! Why didn’t I just put down vinyl flooring (I’d go hard wood ? but it’s a down economy).
ok ok
One LAST thought.
If 70% of all trades on NYSE are driven by algorithms where traders have a screen and a big red button that ssys STOP as Kevin points out ?
Imagine if only voters could be controlled 70% by algorithms -heh.
Yet no so funny is – if our economy is at the mercy of hidden algorithms designed for microsecond profits ? no economy ? no government.
Anthropologists in South America now put forth that the most important sign of a GREAT civilization is – trade routes and economy.
Yet – 70% of NYSE trades are automated, no human really checks in on them… well- surely some -but not many- most of it is just automated and see ‘whatcha got’, if it works, great, if not, tweek it.
So, how can we demand so much from politicans when really ?
The politicans are merely at the mercy of the winds at sea level – when the economy is the jet stream running the entire show – including their paychecks.
Yet ?
Where is the concern for the mechianization of society ?
SURE – in the 1970′s this was a popular rant- but really now….
70% of ALL NYSE trades are from protected ? secret ? private algorithms ?
How can SEC even BEGIN to regulate what is invisible to it ?
This bill authorizes permanent warfare anywhere in the world. It gives the president unchecked power to pursue war. It diminishes the role of this Congress. The founders saw Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which places in the hands of Congress the war power, as essential to a check and balance against the executive abuse of power. This legislation diminishes Congress’ role in that regard.
This legislation authorizes the military to indefinitely detain individuals without charge or trial, including the detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. In short, what this bill does is it takes a wrecking ball to the United States Constitution and gives enormous
power to the government or the state. I want friends on both sides of the aisle to understand this; we are giving the state more power over individuals with this bill. It’s the wrong direction.
SO why does the NDAA contain language about detention without defined cause (simply suspected activity is cause enough)
Why is indefinate detention without trial NOT a violation of our:
FORTH AMMENDMENT: rights: unlawful detention
FIFTH AMMENDMENT: protects the right to due process
SIXTH AMMENDMENT: Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel
EIGHTH AMMENDMENT: Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment
MAYBE SUPREME POWER CAN BE MISUSED DURING ELECTIONS TO retain leadership: IF large numbers of people are held before an election this could destroy the election process all together.
Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for INDEFINATE detention, the Act legislatively codifies the President’s authority to indefinitely detain terrorism SUSPECTS without trial as defined in Title X, Subtitle D, SEC 1021(a-e) of the law.
=====> Is this suspension of habeas corpus?
Habeas corpus defined:
(Latin: “you may have the body”) is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention, that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to their aid.
FINAL POINT: Those who may be held indefinitely INCLUDE U.S. CITIZENS arrested on American soil – what has happened to liberty if one can be held by a government for an undisclosed reason, indefinately without a trial.
THIS HAPPENS IN COUNTRIES LIKE NORTH KOREA — after the new N. Korean leader claimed himself as SUPREME LEADER — our president signed in this bill — and everyone man and woman in this country would be wise to research and read as much as possible about how the NDAA can be misused against AMERICANS….
ARE WE NOTHING MORE THAN TAXPAYERS??
— working to support BIg gov that holds is in bondage and makes it impossible to have LIBERTY? THEY CAN INPRISON American’s like rats, IF WE RATTLE THE CAGE AND QUESTION SUPREME ABSOULTE POWER?
GOOD QUESTION —- the right to question authority, may be past tense.
.please reply and share your thoughts
Sounds like you enjoy manipulating language to suit your own agenda too.