In another thread, SayUncle says:
If you beat someone up, you beat them up. I don’t think motivation should matter in law. Someone was beaten up and there is a penalty for it.
Following that through to its logical conclusion, we shouldn’t have any special category for “terrorism.” If you set off a bomb in a busy market, you should only be charged for the actual people you killed and injured, and for the property damage. Simply charge the market bomber with murder, assault, and vandalism, and be done with it. That you intended to intimidate others not directly harmed, and/or to cause panic, is wholly irrelevant. Your motivation doesn’t matter.
Attempted murder is out the window, too: It shouldn’t matter that you intended to kill more people — your motivation doesn’t matter. Hell, if you shoot at somebody and miss them, the only crime you’ve committed is possibly violating firearms laws that Uncle would rather repeal anyway. What with criminals not caring about laws, and so forth.
May 2nd, 2007
|
Politics, Libertarian Problem Solving, Weekend Flame Bait |
34 comments
Others have spoken eloquently about the flaws in understanding in this Chait article on the netroots. But what struck me about it was how intellectually dishonest the piece was. One of Chait’s primary arguments seems to be this:
There is a term for this sort of political discourse: propaganda. The word has a bad odor, but it is not necessarily a bad thing. Propaganda is often true, and it can be deployed on behalf of a worthy cause (say, the fight against Nazism in World War II). Still, propaganda should not be confused with intellectual inquiry. Propagandists do not follow their logic wherever it may lead them; they are not interested in originality. Propaganda is an attempt to marshal arguments in order to create a specific real-world result–to win a political war.
That’s a fine thesis to have. It might, in theory, even have some truth to it. But if it is does, you will have to find the evidence for it somewhere other than Chait’s article. Chait doesn’t try to make the case beyond a mention of the conflicting accounts of what happened during the Edwards blogger flame up. (In short, Salon reported that they two had been fired then re-hired. Bloggers with other sources said that, no, the two had never been fired. In short, a typical journalistic dispute where what you report depends on which sources you have. Chait treats Salon, though, as if it had printed Gospel when that is far from clear). That is pretty much the entirety of his evidence. he makes no systematic case that bloggers in general, or even the activist wing centered around Daily Kos, are deliberately trying to mislead the public. He provides no evidence of systematic attempts to inject deliberately misleading information into the public consciousness on the part of left wing bloggers. He doesn’t even present any instances, beyond the Edwards blogger story, of deliberate attempts to propagandize through the blogs. Chait doesn’t make an argument, he merely insults.
That Chait could write an article that doesn’t even bother to attmept to argue on of its central claims, and then have that article printed as the cover story of one of the country’s premiere political journals, is a depressing indication of just how far our press establishment has sunken. No self respecting professor would give this piece anything other than a D for effort. And yet it is the cover story of The New Republic. It is depressing that elite journalism apparently has lower standards than your local community college.
May 2nd, 2007
|
Politics, Legal Issues, Bloggin |
no comments
Despite the fact that one of them looks a little like Elton John …
May 2nd, 2007
|
General, I do too have a life |
3 comments
