Pundits, Parrots and Credentials
The conversation of late here on OneUtah, courtesy of the Citizen Gun Lobby, has had me pondering one particularly disturbing legacy of the Chimp Era; this relentless parroting of talking-points. From the media all the way down to the average dial-up blogger, for the first time in their lives, people now claim by fiat, an implicit authority to speak on issues which, in any other time, would have required some semblance of credentials.
Its as if by birth right, any American can now announce a completely novel interpretation of the Constitution (Jefferson was a Christian ergo the separation clause means the opposite) . Or by virtue of owning a gun one can suddenly claim expertise on original intent without reading the Federalist Papers or even knowing what they are.
And its almost guaranteed, when backed into a corner, these people will invoke a first amendment right to their opinion.
Never in my life have I witnessed such a blossoming of so many brand new experts on international relations, domestic politics, The Middle East, war, American history, The Constitution, and in Dwight’s case, sex.
This little clip struck me as I ponder what will come of the kind of political debate in which one side insists that credentials don’t matter.
Download On Parrots and Talking Points
You may watch the entire clip here.
May 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Cliff
I never knew you were such an elitist.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Yes, Ken, it’s “elitist” to ask that people actually know WTF they’re talking about. Ken Bingham-poster boy for parrots.
May 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Dial-up blogger”? I resemble that remark! Maybe I should get broadband to enhance my credentials…
May 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
A child exists, so be it! We’re not calling it science-fiction anymore. Arm yourself, even if it’s with an atom-driven keyboard. Fight as best ya can. Duty calls.
Btw, Cliff, I find a goodly number of the gun proponents, to be smart, conscious, sensitive and in other ways, worthy of big-tent inclusion. They didn’t seem incorregebly neocon. So what’s the beef? You don’t want the weight of thier hardware to be protecting your rights along with thier own? I think they may be deserving of a little thanks, given the nutcases that think they hold the power. It might very well be the JD’s and Bob S.’s who are keeping the bizzaro’s from taking the martial law leap. Think about it.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Cliff
So to be consistent I suspect that Oneutah.org will now only feature articles that have been peer reviewed and published in scholarly journals and/or periodicals? You may want to close off your comment section to those who are not experts or have not been bestowed the proper credentials in the field they are writing about. Otherwise you are exposing your readers to the non-credentialed that have no mind of their own but to parrot the GOP and DNC’s talking points.
I also suspect that any article you post will only pertain to your field of study and not speculate on any topic that is beyond your scope of expertise.
May 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Cliff, it is pretty obvious you are just getting around to the federalist papers.
Keep in mind, they are not the Constitution.
Anyway, if you are true to your nonsensical writings, the Constitution is a “living document” and like Alice in Wonderland, the words mean what you say they mean, so what other credentials do you need?
The Constitution is a rather simple document, only people with ulterior motives would attempt to complicate it, and claim that only those with “credentials” will interpret it.
In fact all their opinions, and our own are quite irrelevant. The Supreme Court will decide what it means, and when that is done, it will be exactly what it means. Like Roe vs Wade, Brown vs. Board of education, and so on.
The opinions of the SC are the only ones that matter. The rest just have no meaning.
You will have a very hard time fighting the precedence of the personal right, in the light of the history of this nation. It is as if you seemingly deny that the guns held by people for over 230 years personally without objection has never happened. It is rather funny that you proclaim to know better than this staring you in the face reality. You surely don’t need any academic credentials to review the personal right in action year after year.
Did you just wake up Rip Van Winkle?
There is of course this, the feds pass an act that you must supply your own personal arm to form a militia. /www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Or perhaps Federalist 46, by Madison.
Do you suppose that he thought that a tyrannical standing army would have anything to fear from a militia of citizens that were not permitted their own personal arms? Would the citizenry when confronted with tyranny ask the tyrants to supply them with guns to do battle with them? The personal right is obvious in this context. To argue otherwise is simply wishful thinking, and confusing the issue for an ulterior purpose…disarming the populous for self centered reasons.
Madison Federalist 46, note the “guns in their hands” portion. Again, would the tyrant government supply them, after your silly claim that there is no personal right? It is clear that the Feds have NO RIGHT to deny the people personal arms for this very obvious reason.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;
still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
BESIDES THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING ARMED,
which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Cliff, you are a jonny come lately to the Federalist papers, and basic US history in general.
May 18th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Oh yes Ken. I am an elitist if you say so.
I come from a very middle class family. My elitist parents insisted my siblings and I go to college which unfortunately meant paying my way (like you I suppose).
I guess the only diff between us is you got married first, huh?
re: Only peer review comments allowed? No, just peer reviewed supporting references when attempting to argue facts….unless you have a better idea.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:06 am
The big problem is that people who write for the New York Times and The Washington Post don’t always get their facts right these days. If they were, I’m not so sure I would be blogging. The only reason I started was because I thought there were things that needed to be said about election fraud. I’ve always done a mea-culpa when it was called for and take my responsibility for putting false information out there seriously, but It’s always a temptation to get lazy when you’re not even getting paid for your time.
There are a plethora of “political scientists”, “republican consultants” or even “retired generals” out there today who are full of crap and they know it, but they’re getting paid to spread rumors. I don’t think naive bloggers are even that big of a problem. They can be refuted and made to see their errors. It’s the out and out liars that muddy up any serious discussion.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Cliff
I just had my latest photoshopping “New GOP” featured on MichelleMalkin.com.
How is that for credentials?
May 19th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Ken:
Your graphic is very cute (I mean that!), but your phony right wing attempt to make McCain look liberal is falling flat. You are breaking Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment and thou shalt better redeem thyself!
This is great fun watching the radical, death bringers trampling each other running for the center though. Don’t slip on your own blood.
Persevere!
But remember, the Malkin stench is going to be very hard to wash off your clothes and hands.
May 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Larry, it’s a veritable implosion! Maybe we’ll get a black hole out of the deal.
Ken, your thing showed up here for a minute as well. The dogs snubbed it. Too much ‘corn’ syrup.
May 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Larry Bergan says: (I was forbidden until I cleared my cookies!)
I thought I saw a coke can here also. I guess Ken isn’t going to be allowed to hog the bandwidth here, but It won’t matter anyway if the Republicans get their way and slow down everybody’s internet including Ken’s website. I’m sure Malkin will have enough money to keep going though.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Hey cav…thanks.
Bob S and I have both said this a number of times, gun control isn’t a liberal vs conseravative issue, it’s a RIGHTS issue.
The same mentality that bans guns is going to find a way to ban abortion, gays, “marital devices”, miscengenation and rock and roll.
Giving the government the power to control others also gives them the power to control you.
May 20th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Jd, I’ve been led to believe they have no power we DON’T give them.
Keep up the good work.
May 20th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Cliff,
Sorry I haven’t been here to help take you to task on this piece of excrement, but I enjoyed a little time with my family. Now where to begin with this pile
Isn’t it always amazing how the left (who says we shouldn’t label people) are always so quick to call names. Citizen Gun Lobby is favorite of the left. If we are a “lobby” then we must be organized, maybe even paid. Sorry to break your pet theory up, but I don’t know JD, John, Cav or any of the other pro-rights folks on this board; except through this board. And if I’m supposed to be getting paid, the firearm industry seems to be sending the checks to the wrong address.
Could it be that we are just part of what you call us “Citizen”, just people trying to protect our rights from people like you. How it that other’s should have the right to do as they like with their rights; sex, drugs, marriage, etc. But you can’t support everyone’s right to self defense? Maybe it’s not really freedom that you are after, but control?
Way to show your intelligence and vocabulary skills off. Tell me what do you think of the Obama-Curious George t-shirt design? Is it racist, bigoted?
This one I particularly love, Pot meet Kettle. You have repeated and constantly parroted the talking points of the left and in particular the anti-rights organization Violence policy Center. I called you to task about this previously and you never answered. You lifted wholesale passage directly from their website (one without citation) and barely explained.
I’ve noticed that when some of the pro-rights group link or cite, there is a greater tendency (almost always) to place it in context or provide our thoughts. You repeated by rote the VPC talking points.
Here is another point where you show your elitism….maybe you consider yourself one of the ruling elite? Dig that condescending phrasing “all the way down”. Tell us what you truly think of your fellow bloggers. What sets you apart from anyone else on the face of the earth sir? Nothing. So much for the vaunted claims of equality from the left, eh?
Wow; such arrogance, you pompous jerk. People have and always will have the implicit authority to speak on anything and everything they choose. From the dawn of history, freedom of speech has been one of mankind’s most cherished rights.
Do you think that maybe even 200 something years ago, this was an issue those in power or those who want power like you, feared the average person speaking his mind? Maybe that is why the Founding Fathers included free Speech as part of the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights, to preserve the spirit of the anonymous pamphleteers that sparked the Revolution.
From Mirriam Webster Online
So, what credentials do you have to argue the 2nd amendment? We don’t care, it’s the ideas, theories, facts and documentation that matters, not some degree or diploma granted however many years ago. It is the high of elitism to say “only those who have studied the issue may speak on it”.
I have noticed few, if any demands, for the credentials of those that support you; why is that? Maybe it’s pride, knowing that people like John, Jd, and I are knocking down every poor argument, wild theory or asinine proposal you post. Trying to silence the opposition?
Again, it is the birth right of any and every American to announce novel, crazy, misguided or true ideas. That Freedom of Speech thing again. Why is it that opposition to the war is okay, but supporting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms is wrong? Let the people decide, who knows they may come up with other crazy ideas like letting women vote, ending slavery, making abortion legal, etc.
Yep, got it in one Cliff. Imagine that, I don’t apply to you or the other powers that be for permission before having an opinion. Gosh, how daring of me. It is only when we defend someone’s right to an idea that is completely abhorrent to you or I that is it truly free speech. And I thought you served on a board that supported that idea
Shame on me for thinking that I had the same rights as you.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am
and Bob S. comes in with the HAMMER!
You almost owed me a new monitor for that one, Bob!
in other news….Cliff? How’s that opposition research coming? Find anything nasty on the web about me?
May 21st, 2008 at 10:46 am
JD,
Hmm, then I’m really glad I waited a couple of days to respond to this one. I went from full rant mode to about 70%.
I’ll try to post a warning next time.