All gone to look for America …

“Freedom of the press, as it exists today (and didn’t exist, really, until the 1960s)”

Talk about setting up your strawman arguments! Sheesh…

To be fair to Den Beste, his post is about things he thinks about doing or happening, but wouldn’t want them to because they were immoral.

Which is a pretty good thing too, as another one of his fantasies in the post is pulling down (presumably against their will) girls’ “tube-tops” to uncover the “treasures” beneath.

Good Lord, q – next you’ll be asking for freedom of speech and the restoration of habeas corpus and then where will we be, eh?

I don’t understand the juxtaposition. The second quote is appalling, but the first is merely wrongheaded. Moreover, the quotes are saying completely different things. The first quote is about the public’s mistrust in the media, not about killing demonstrators. Even if the first quote were calling for censorship, which it isn’t (even in context), juxtaposing it with the second would be grotesquely unfair.

The subtext of many of these sorts of Instapundit posts is that, “If you guys in the press don’t stop criticizing Bush, I’m gonna lead a mob to shut you guys down.” It’s similar to a mobster dropping by the corner store and saying, “Gee, it sure would be tragic if something happened to your beautiful store if you don’t pay for someone to look out for it.”

Instapundit’s fatal flaw here is in assuming that the people are caught up in the monopolistic vice-like grip of the New York Times and NPR.

If the “People” start seeing the “liberal” press as “untrustworthy and unpatriotic” then assumedly they will start reading the New York Post and watching the Fox News Channel.

Circulation numbers indicate we are very “far from that point.”

Seems like the “and didn’t really exist until the 1960s” remark fits the classical definition of “begging the question.” What an ignoramus.

– marc

I hate to be a Pollyanna, but should we maybe wait for the political killings to start or for the storm troopers to burst into the offices of the New York Times before we announce the razing of the city on a hill?

The problem isn’t with the Freedom of the Press, narrowly defined. You can write pretty much what you want. The real issue is about who controls the effective means of propaganda in this country, who gets to decide which images and sound bites will condition an ignorant and passive public like so many lab rats. Free rational discussion is not enough. Irrational appeals can only be countered by other irrational appeals driven home by a like number of repetititons—remember the case of the anti-tobacco advertising, which only became effective when it turned to ad hominem (though well earned!) attacks on the industry.

Kent State: They already shoot protestors in the United States. It would be much easier to get rid of Bush and his failed policies. No tranquil peace ensued after the shots fired at Kent State, but if that is what you propose then, well, “bring it on!”

Right-wingers have been ranting, raving, and threatening disturbers of the status quo since time immemorial. It’s a good thing that some of the unhinged rhetoric is leaking out. Would you prefer if it all took place behind closed doors?

I fully support Democratic Hobbesianism. We pick a leader and then keep silent for 4 years when we get to pick another leader and then go silent again. Even if that leader lies, lines his pockets, promotes his cronies or leads the nation into pointless unjustified war, the people are still better off then living in a state of nature and thus have no right to complain.

How simple life would be. How happy!

There is no truth to the rumor that “Den Beste” is actually an anagram for “Adam Yoshida”.

By the way, have you checked out Clueless’ Contact page? The guy’s harder to get ahold of than Keyser Soze.

An America with press censorship would look a lot like America during World War II. An America without habeas corpus would look a lot like America during the Civil War. In either case, no biggie, as the high school girls used to say when I lived in Berkeley.

Incidentally, I think that it is unlikely that anything like this will happen unless Al Quaeda can show us a lot more than they have. It would take a Twin Towers every year or so to get us to that point. Like many conservatives, Professor Reynolds has a somewhat irrational dislike for the press. It’s sort of like the way a lot of Crooked Timberites feel about Israel. Those of us who aren’t emotionally involved just shrug.

Maybe it’s me : you tell me.

Ever noticed a reliance of rightwing crackpots on the three dots ?

The “…” can be used to great profit by hypocrites : is allows to conveniently say more than you write. It’s a concentrated of the “it would be too bad if” described by hesiod.

You just don’t have that sneaky little subtext : you put it right under the readers nose. “Liberals have been warned… Shouldn’t be suprised if that awful thing happen…”.

Here’s a tool ideal for homicidal fantasies, doomsaying, and the more simple factless talk-out-of-you-ass thing. I-e the equivalent of a swiss army knife for the loony right.

Think of the “developping…” ending drudge nutcases stories. Or of all the times these “…” ended a bloody rave that begun with “if i was in control”.

I followed the ussclueless and instapundit links, and searched the “…” string, in only the frontpage.

clueless :

“Here’s hoping Europe does not have to live through a tragic farce…”

insty (quoting):

“And the results would be catastrophic…” (about librul media nefarious influence)

That’s how i like them.

I mean :

That’s how i like them…

“The subtext of many of these sorts of Instapundit posts is that, “If you guys in the press don’t stop criticizing Bush, I’m gonna lead a mob to shut you guys down.””

So deeply buried only you guys could pick up on it.

Well, i did find subtext-“…” after a quick search on yglesias’ and tpm’s front pages.

… In quotes from insty and drudge respectively.

:-)

Godwin’s Law has been declared inoperative. Or at least in suspension until the WOT is over. (I think I saw that said on boingboing.net)

Yabonn wrote:

“Well, i did find subtext-”…” after a quick search on yglesias’ and tpm’s front pages.… In quotes from insty and drudge respectively.”

I don’t know who tpm is, but the front page of Matthew Yglesias has ellipses within Yglesias’ own text, as well.

One possible solution to the anti-patriotic rhetoric coming from parts of the press is a bill to create a government office to monitor such activity.

We could call it the “Global Anti-Americanism and anti-Patriotic Awareness Act”. It would set up an office to monitor and combat acts of anti-Americanism and anti-American incitement that occur in America, and also in foreign countries too.

It would enable us to get a clear view on who is at the centre of this activity.

“Moral behavior comes in that final rejection stage; it is in what we permit ourselves to do, not what we think, that morality manifests, because we cannot control our thoughts.”

This is a false rationalization. What happened to criticism of the left for moral relativism? I’m sorry, but if you think ill of someone solely for his skin color, you are a racist, whether or not you act on those thoughts.

Some would argue that thoughts alone can’t be morally wrong because they don’t always (or maybe even seldom) lead to bad actions. I would argue that such thoughts will lead to an increased probability that some bad action would result.

We can’t control all the stupid little thoughts come into our heads. We most certainly have control over which thoughts we entertain and fantasize about.

The authors of the U.S. Bill of Rights obviously never considered the possibility of an unpatriotic press. They couldn’t conceive of a people who would find it necessary to dissolve the political bands that connect them with their government.

What I meant by my earlier comment is that the
urge to commit irrational acts does not reside within the breast of denBeste alone. The emotionalism of some of these posts confirms the underlying fraternity with denBeste’s inner workings.

I’m truly surprised that so many philosophical types have trouble understanding the concept of hypotheticals which serve to illustrate the absurdity of something by counterexample. DenBeste is arguing for restraint by showing how bad the world would be if we gave in to our initial feelings.

You are like the fundamentalists who think that Depeche Mode’s “A Question of Lust” can’t be a love song.

nat whilk :

Tpm : talking points memo.

I found another one in one yglesias post. But this one was was devoid of the dark undertones you find in the clueless or instapundit ones.

Not that you couldn’t find one of these somewhere on the left side of the blogosphere, mind you. But it does seem like the three dots channel certain, ah, particularities of the loony right imaginary.

patriotboy : that’s a good, typical, one. I never quite got that fetish the u.s. rightists have for france. Quite flattering – if only france deserved for real that arch-librul status. Alas.

Yabonn wrote:

“I found another one in one yglesias post. But this one was was devoid of the dark undertones you find in the clueless or instapundit ones.”

How dark are the undertones of these ellipses from the Talking Points Memo you mentioned (all on the front page):

“On the other hand, giving it more thought, perhaps what he needs is not so much a pair of training wheels as a set of brakes …”

“And so it goes …”

“Hmmmm. Who were Chalabi’s US government interlocutors? What a mystery …”

“Ask not for whom the memory-hole sucks, Ahmed; it sucketh for you …”

Folks may not be in danger of being shot yet, but try to read an anti-war poem in a New Mexico school and you can count on being fired. Orcinus has the details at

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D5E325368

Fascism may seem immenent in the US but I suspect the real cause for this overreaction is that the dimwits who installed George W as their figurehead are beginning to suspect that his managerial incompetence allied with their
ideological rigidity may soon cost them their grip on power. But too many career military men and rational conservatives have seen the light already for a fascist takeover to be accepted by the American public. There’s a light at the end of this particular tunnel.

Except, fyre, that the story about New Mexico making its rounds throughout the internet is not exactly how it happened. There’s a good round up of the actual situation at Volokh.

Gah, sorry about the double post.

Reynolds is, surprise surprise, all moronic bluster. Find me a libertarian defense for stomping the right to publish media that also holds sacred the right to bear arms and I’ll start to worry.

No doubt neurons are firing hard in Knoxville over just how to pull something like that off. Still, either Glenn drops the snivling cool-guy attitude and becomes just another right-wing stomp-them-all type or this circle remains unsquared.

There is no enforcement mechanism for the type of shit he tries to shovel. None. So he can take a step back and tough American freedom the fuck out.

Here is a slight paraphrase of what Reynolds says, which I have extended beyond what he did say, in 2 different ways:

1) “Freedom of the press will come under systematic attack if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. If we get to that point, we’ll all have to fight hard to prevent the forces of fascism from having their way and undoing the First Amendment.”

2) “Freedom of the press will come under systematic attack if a majority — or even a large and angry minority — of Americans comes to conclude that the press is untrustworthy and unpatriotic. If we get to that point, well, whaddayagonna do? Can’t argue with a mob — even a small one. Huh.”

If Dave Neiwert were writing, he might come out with #1. But #2 reads way more like Reynolds’ version; it’s the fatalism of the thing.

Best response to Reynolds’ post was from Roy Edroso of alicublog.

Does anybody really trust Volokh Conspiracy? Is there any reason to think that more honest/reliable blog than, say, Andrew Sullivan?

In a word, yes.

There’s a great deal that Eugene Volokh says that I disagree with. (And my comments here are limited to him; there are some co-conspirators I seldom read and about whom I have no opinion one way or the other) Indeed, except on a few points, I’d say his basic worldview and mine disagree.

But, whatever about his conclusions, he tries to base them on fact; tries to reach them by reasoning; and doesn’t hesitate to examine his thought in the light of others’.

Compare that with, say, Glenn Reynolds. Unlike him, Volokh isn’t much of a one for mau-mauing, economy with the truth or links to things that don’t say anything near what he claims they say. Volokh and Reynolds might be on the same side of the spectrum, roughly speaking, but one of them places a premium on intellectual honesty and the other doesn’t.

I’m happy to read Volokh every day, much as I disagree with him. But life’s too short to waste time with Reynolds.

Dsquared,

Some time ago, right after the Spanish elections, Chris Bertram of CT said that if a Spanish citizen heard someone saying that the Spanish electorate was intimidated by the terrorists into voting differently, then Chris would perfectly understand if the Spanish citizen punched them out. It wouldn’t be right, but Chris would completely understand.

According to your logic, Chris supports the idea of assaulting people who express differing opinions, or at least “it’s not obvious he’d object over much if they started doing it.”

Crooked Timber motto: it’s a bad post, but its worthy of us!