Comments on: Poetic Justice as Fairness

By: Crooked Timber » » Isn’t it the same thing?

Crooked Timber » » Isn’t it the same thing? — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:14:37 +0000

[...] Finally, there’s the subject of “poetic justice as fairness.” The double-standard in question is exactly mirrored by most of the Bush-backers. Are there any points to be deducted from people like Glenn Reynolds? He dismissed the Plame scandal as “officially bogus”, but demanded the heads of the editors at the New York Times for the NSA leak. Ann Althouse couldn’t care less about Valerie Plame, but is furious about the NSA leak. Powerline, same thing. I could go on. I realize that it’s only hypocrisy if the other guy does it, but come on. Is this where you want to hang your hat, guys? [...]

By: Crooked Timber » » Storming the Hospice

Crooked Timber » » Storming the Hospice — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:09:54 +0000

[...] the troops, storm the Bastille and tell ‘em I sent you. It’s our old friend, poetic justice as fairness. Two words, buddy: Elian Gonzalez. [...]

By: Crooked Timber » » The war on pointy-headedness

Crooked Timber » » The war on pointy-headedness — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:46:40 +0000

[...] rse they would. But that’s a price Rep. Baxley is willing to pay, in the interest of poetic justice as fairness. “Being a businessman, I found out you can be [...]

By: Kalafonsky

Kalafonsky — Sat, 24 Jul 2004 19:29:14 +0000

In addition to responding to fallacy with fallacy, there is the technique of employing the arguments and assumptions of one’s opponent in order to confound him with his own tactics and (in some cases) to unmask the absurdity of those assumptions. For example, a native American who agrees with Justice Harlan that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens” might seek protection from workplace discrimination on the grounds that he is in a protected class. I think he would still be able to argue in the future, without moral contradiction, that administering justice on the basis of group identification is bad policy as compared with the liberal principle of justice for the individual, since justice for the individual is in fact what occurred. My hypothetical native American might also deploy left oppression theory to argue that since oppression is a matter of relative power, and that since African Americans equally with Caucasian Americans displaced him from his ancestral lands, he is oppressed by both, and can critique either the Aryan Nation or the Nation of Islam without being charged with racism. Again, I think he would have stood by his own principle, which is that questions stand independently of the social status of the questioner. By resorting to oppression theory, he would have immunized himself against the vulgar sociology-of-knowledge challenge. As a further note, there seems to be an argumentative weakness that has crept in with the current left’s substitution of minorities (classes) for Marxism’s proletariat. Marx’s argument works, sort of, because it is binary. Valiant proletariat, monstrous bourgeoisie. But minorities don’t always have the same interests. If men have more power than women and whites have more power than blacks, then a white woman is both the oppressed (by men) and the oppressor (of blacks). Not to mention Marxists versus capitalists and gays versus straights. Left oppression theory strikes me as incoherent.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:41:22 +0000

From Heinz Arndt’s Autobiography: In my own case, these political prejudices (if not, I would like to think, the moral convictions) underwent great changes over half a century, from a brief youthful Marxist phase to decades of Fabian-Keynesian views which gradually gave way to … a sceptical-monetarist near-libertarian position … It might be thought that such an odyssey would induce a decent humility: if I could be so completely wrong earlier what grounds of confidence have I that I am right now? I can only shamefacedly report that that has not been my experience. What others may diagnose as a banal example of the common drift to senile conservatism, reflecting that gradual loss of openness to new ideas and sensitive compassion that comes with the hardening of the arteries, presents itself in my mind as a process of learning from experience, both in the general sense of discovering that the world’s problems. At http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2002/week05/1387.htm

By: mc

mc — Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:34:46 +0000

For a bit more edification on how much the price of zucchini went up this week: The US State Department has rejected calls [by Democrats] for tighter conditions to be attached to a proposed $3bn American aid package to Pakistan:

"We don't see any reason - there has been no cause at all for us to have second thoughts about providing any assistance to Pakistan," Christina Rocca, assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs, told a congressional hearing in Washington.

The US Congress has approved the first installment of $701 million for Pakistan from the $3 billion package announced last year. and, some highly biased therefore highly compelling commentary: Pakistan: Payback time Also, The U.S. House of Representatives rejected Thursday a proposal to cut military aid to Egypt nearly in half, heeding the Bush administration's arguments that a cut would threaten U.S. relations with Cairo at a delicate time. Very, very delicate times we live in.

By: s_bethy

s_bethy — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:29:08 +0000

That was fun. I don’t agree with zizka that we couldn’t have wrung some philosophy out of it, but that’s okay. We learned lots of stuff anyway. Stuff about Hamid Karzai and Unocal, and Charlton Heston, and Euro Disney, and Kyrgyzstan, and Talibans, and even Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Other stuff too! A nice polite, academically rigorous, slim and handsome documentarian would not have brought us so much edification. Thank you, Michael Moore.

By: Beth

Beth — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:14:48 +0000

considering the things Moore has said, … about Bush stealing the election, and the whole business with Cheney and Halliburton, the claim that Moore isn’t being venomous And suddenly, ‘poetic justice as fairness’ doesn’t seem so bad, at least not compared to the practice you just illustrated of characterizing any accusatition—now matter how well founded—against any member of the administration as ‘personal’ or ‘venomous’ attacks. There is nothing ‘venomous’ about stating the truth, no matter how unpleasent it may be for you to hear.

By: Beth

Beth — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:11:21 +0000

By: mc

mc — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:57:04 +0000

Steve Carr, I’ll follow you patiently once again in your reasoning: 1) …and the Saudis have all the interest in pretending the number’s as low as possible, as well as in keeping those investments as discreet as the law allows them, which is a lot of discretion. But since you don’t seem to be getting the concept about the figures being e-s-t-i-m-a-t-e-s and you seem allergic to anything Moore-related even if he is citing from news sources, here’s a quickie from the BBC, Aug 2002, hope that’s good enough a source for you (and the whole story of the Saudis withdrawing investments was everywhere at the time, all major news sources – Moore’s notes on the site cite also a CNN report, not just Unger, guess you missed that, with the estimated $860 billion figure):

The Financial Times added fuel to the story on Wednesday by reporting that Saudi investors had already withdrawn $200bn from the US. …While there are no precise figures on how much Saudi investors have committed to the US, analysts put the total at about $600bn.

So we got all sorts of different, approximate estimates in the press, from $600bn to $800. Now, you’re telling us you want the exact, precise, down to the cent figure just so you can bash it on Moore’s head for not getting it “right”, when there’s no “right”? Also. Talk about not seeing the wood for the tree. What point do you think there is in bringing up the estimated amount of financial interests going both ways (since the US has a ton of interests in Saudi Arabia too, given they and Britain run their whole oil industry, hello? planet earth calling?) in relation to the investigations on terrorism, and in relation to the fact those investigations were so not thorough and so not conclusive and information was witheld from public reports? Do you think the “lie” in all this story is all about which estimate figure – estimate for scattered investments mostly protected by extreme discretion and secrecy to the point they were not even investigated into after 9/11 – is more… “accurate”, the 600 or 680 and 860 or higher or lower? Is that the only thing that concerns you? You demand the accuracy over an estimate, but not the accuracy from your own government’s enquiries into the financial connections to the biggest-terrorism-attack-there-ever-was? No wonder you hate Moore so much. You’re exactly proving his point about how a government can get away with putting financial and diplomatic liaisons above investigating into a terrible crime, no, act of war. How do you like this nice sugary speech from the Saudi Minister of Finance, don’t you think his closing remark about “the solid foundation of common interests and mutual benefits that underpin the long-term strategic relationship we have with the U.S… it is incumbent on all parties, official as well as private, to further cement our relationship and to ensure that any doubts are put to rest” might sound like less of a sick joke if the concept was “put to rest… after a proper investigation”, not without it? On the other hand, if you’re happy with that concept of “putting things to rest”, again, no wonder you don’t see the point of all this “tossing up shit”. 2) here’s the quote from the film, and the source:

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: In terms of investments on Wall Street, $860 billion is “roughly six or seven percent of America.”—- “With a total market capitalization exceeding $12 trillion, the NYSE Composite represents approximately 82 percent of the total U.S. market cap.” New York Stock Exchange News Release, “NYSE to Reintroduce Composite Index,” January 2, 2003. ($860 billion is about 7 percent of $12 trillion.)

It would appear the phrase is making a parallel by transposing that 860 estimate figure against the approximate total figure of Wall Street investments. Please explain where the “lie” is, because your reading of it so far doesn’t. Of course “of America” is not literally equal to “of the NYSE”, doh, but he’s using the NYSE as a reference to the market capital of America. Even reporters do it all the time, when equating a national stock exchange and the total estimated capital with the capital or even the wealth of a country. It’s meant to be about the point, Steve. The point of bringing up these estimates. One minute you’re complaining the estimated investments cited in the film are too high, the next it’s too low, you’re doing your best to look at that finger and not see what it’s pointing at. 3) see again the notes to the film for this (if can bear it) and the sources cited – it’s fact, cited in several reports and news stories and books containing a few details about the Carlyle group that you could read from way back before 9/11 and before Moore was even thinking of this film, that Bush was involved with Carlyle through a satellite company, and all the people around the Bush clan were right from the start too. So who’s bullshitting here? – Okay, so it wasn’t “invest” in. It was buy stuff from. Oh man, this is hopeless. Steve, since you’re so obsessed on the precise definitions, try and open the dictionary. You won’t find those 27-missing-pages on the Saudis in there, but it’ll help all the same. Or else, explain to me how are contracts and deals with the Saudis where Saudi money enters Carlyle accounts not Saudi investments in Carlyle? If I “invest in” anything, am I not “buying stuff from”, whether it’s stock, or services, personnel, logistics, etc. We’re not talking shopping for zucchini. We’re talking defense contracts and the like. What’s your point here, that you’d prefer another word when talking about millions of dollars that were paid to Carlyle by the Saudis? Might not the point, again, in bringing all that up be about the question of how far political relations were influenced by lucrative financial relations? It’s hopeless really. But it’s been impressive to see how your statement that the film is nothing but a collection of “false facts” has boiled down to the two extremely vital issues of a) how exact are the estimates of Saudi investments (!) and b) how exact is the word “investments” to describe contracts and deals. You seem to be confusing accuracy with ridiculous, absurd, unfounded pedantry that entirely misses all the points one after the other. In doing so, you’re giving an example of just how far people can go to not even bother with uneasy questions when it doesn’t fit their already prepackaged view, and when tons of propaganda based on fear has been rained down on them for years.

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:50:53 +0000

Just to stay with three of the original factual questions, because I don’t have time to enumerate the dubious sourcing that riddles the entire list of Moore’s “backup” that MC linked to: 1) Moore’s sources for the “$860 billion” that the Saudis have supposedly invested in the US, a number provided in the movie by Craig Unger, are . . . Craig Unger’s book (not really surprising he backs himself up), and a lawyer for people suing the Saudis, who obviously has an enormous financial incentive to pretend the number’s as high as possible. I’d say this is like pulling a number out of the air, but it’s worse. 2) Saudi investments constitute “roughly six or seven percent of America.” Now, the first number is wrong, so this is obviously way too high. But even on its own terms, this number was wrong, and Moore’s sourcing again effectively admits it. The “fact” he cites is the market capitalization of the NYSE, as if all Saudi money was invested only in NYSE stocks. This bizarrely omits the Nasdaq, to say nothing of corporate bonds, etc. “Six to seven percent of America” doesn’t mean “six to seven percent of the NYSE.” Again, this isn’t a fact, it’s a lie. 3) In the movie, the narration says that the Saudis “invest in you, your friends, and their related businesses $1.4 billion.” Set aside the fact that of this $1.4 billion, $1.2 billion went to the Carlyle Group before George H.W. Bush even worked for it. The narrator says “invest.” But if you look in the sources backing this fact up, you find this sentence: “This number includes investments made and contracts awarded at the time that Bush’s friends were involved in the Carlyle Group.” Okay, so it wasn’t “invest” in. It was buy stuff from. Here’s a lie Moore’s effectively admitting to while pretending to back up his facts.

By: q

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:23:22 +0000

steve carr- you obviously have a hidden agenda which is why you go on about Michael Moore so much. Do you have the guts to admit what it is, or are you a girlie man?

By: Elaine Supkis

Elaine Supkis — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:11:47 +0000

Carr, you are really funny. You know the Bush finances???????? ARE YOU NUTS????? They are even more secretive than the Saudi paymasters not to mention the secretive Chinese communists who have put nearly every Bush on their payroll! Incredible. When we speak of the Bush billion we are talking about a CLAN who has mucho dinero. These people leach off of every possible venue which they learned to do from their Saudi buddies, the Saudi royals.

By: mc

mc — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:41:03 +0000

- to clarify, I didn’t mean “voting” per se has a less limited impact than a film, eh… but that the considerations on who to vote for are more limited in scope than wider considerations on entire policies, and the wider approach to questioning itself. It’s like three different levels of “political”. First you need to have a critical and indeed skeptical approach to be able to question things coming from your government or any political authority, then you need to focus on things to question, and then, once in four years, you’ll need to take some of those considerations to the ballot box… while accepting you’ll have to leave 99% of them out… The effectiveness of Moore’s film at the first basic level is already there in how the film is being accessed and talked about. The other levels, esp. the voting level, depend on a whole lot of other factors that one film alone can’t – and rightly so – affect directly. I find it marvellous that Moore doesn’t “fit” in the “standards” definition of either journalist or satirist or liberal or leftist. I think that’s his strength. I don’t see why that would be a cause of concern, unless the concern is precisely that he doesn’t “fit” and so could arguably induce people to question even the brainwashing that comes from the left’s media or political apparatus, and not just the right’s. Ideally, though I don’t expect any film, or anything at all, to ever achieve this result, people would be much more skeptical so as to reduce the chances of being taken for fools by their governments. Is that not better than simply reducing the chances of voting for Bush again?

By: mc

mc — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:26:27 +0000

spacetoast – the point about Morris not being as popular is indeed about the impact, not just political. Moore himself draws on sources that consists of books, articles, etc. as well as direct sources he interviews. There’s a whole lot more out there. So, people interested in reading about these matters have some access to information beyond CBS or CNN or the like. But a film is targeted to a much wider audience than specialist publications. What Zizka said above. I am not arguing that you shouldn’t like Michael Moore or his movies, although I think you shouldn’t. Erm, that seems to be the rhetorical figure of speech where you deny and assert something at the same time, forgot what’s it called…. I don’t understand why would you even think I “shouldn’t like” something. What’s it to you if I like something you don’t? What’s the problem with it? What’s the danger I may incur in? I am questioning the link between Moore’s strategy of “provocation” and the attention he gets in virtue of that, and, on the other hand, his political effectiveness, however his defenders want to construe that. I don’t understand your point here. To me, “political” in this context of impact of something doesn’t mean “with the precise result of inducing people to vote for x as opposed to z”, alhtough that has been declared, more or less provocatively, by Moore himself as part of his intentions. To me, “political impact” is in the widest possible sense. Ie. inducing people to take into consideration very relevant political issues. I don’t equate “political” with “party-political”. Being “political” is a lot wider than that. You said you’re worried his effect is not to win over “liberal” converts but create more skepticism. I don’t see what the worry is about! unless you’re putting party politics before the basic notion of political debate and questioning and so on (that is what I mean for skepticism). I think the target of Moores films and books in general is less the right wing than a whole system of politics, finance and media, if this leads people to question the system as a whole rather than just the right-wing or Bush’s management of that system, that is FAR better in my view than just inducing people to vote for someone else than Bush. Tons better. The wider political impact of the film is already there in its being out and being talked about so much. I certainly don’t judge its entire effectiveness in terms of “will or will not Bush get re-elected”. That would seem very reductive. Although it’d be fun if it happened. Also, you miss my intended point about demagoguery and skepticism. I don’t say that the mainstream media adheres to higher standards than Moore. I say that Moore inevitably undermines his own ability to make the case about their standards—that is, ability and not just credibility in some debate etiquette sense. Oh, ok then, thanks for the clarification, I indeed has misunderstood. But I still don’t see the point there, like I said, short of telling untruths which he is not, Moore’s standards are not the same as a reporter – not in the sense of less accurate, in fact, his standards and modus operandi are far better than a lot of big news sources and I don’t mean just the ridiculous Fox – they’re different, different style, different context, different medium. But I see his point about the tendency of the media’s subservience to power and manipulation of public opinion being made even stronger by the style and medium he operates in. His films and books are driven more by polemics than by journalistic-style reporting, because he is not a reporter; but paradoxically they often do a better job than some people who call themselves “journalists”. Just like satire, often, when it’s good, does a better job of exposing political and ideological manipulation. Yet no one expects satire to be journalism. (Another loose comparison, because Moore’s work is not exactly confined within satire either – satire targets ideas more than precise events or facts so it can take a lot more liberties). The skepticism I’m talking about is one where people see different accounts of the facts as largely a matter of taste, and that is most definitely not a positive attitude to take voting. Matter of taste? I don’t understand this either. Facts are facts, there’s different interpretations or conclusions that one can draw according to one’s prejudices, opinions, etc. Or, one can choose to ignore certain “unpleasant” facts altogether, as many people do. But I don’t see how questioning why weren’t certain facts widely reported, or what do certain facts entail in terms of political effects on certain policies etc., has to do with “taste”. You don’t have to have a ready-made theory that explains everything, to ask questions. Otherwise, what’s the point of asking them? Voting is something that entails a whole different set of considerations. You can only vote what’s on offer, not what you would like to be on offer. I’ve always seen voting as a duty, and always gone for the “lesser of evils” choice. By exclusion. In the absence of the realistic possibility to change an entire system, that’s all you got. Choose what stinks less. That’s a more limited scope of consideration than wider questions on entire policies such as the US foreign policy that were not even limited to one government, or one political party only. And it’s definitely a more limited scope than the effects a political-polemical movie can have on all sorts of levels. Like I say though, I’d be really interested to see some actual data on what kind of an effect the movie is having. And like I said, read the papers! There’s tons of articles about the audience’s response to the film, in the US or UK or elsewhere.