OT: Bush castrates Intelligence Oversight Committee

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2008-03-18, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >> We might as well debate whether "no particular interest" is (according
> >> to Jobst's version of the Strunk & White approach) just as awful an
> >> error as "the fact that," a false distinction that should be edited
> >> out wherever it appears, and an unmistakable sign of muddy thinking
> >> that invalidates everything said by anyone who writes it.
> >
> > It is not muddy thinking, it is a deliberate attempt
> > to win an argument by asserting that ones thesis is a _fact_
>
> It can be used like that, but not necessarily: you could perfectly well
> say "the proposition that" (like your Abraham Lincoln) or "the thesis
> that", etc.
>
> Strunk & White are talking rubbish. The phrase does have a use which is
> to turn an indirect statement into a noun. Yes you can just about elide
> it but that can lead to confusion especially in a long sentence. There
> is nothing wrong with long sentences and sometimes they need more
> signposts in them like "the fact that" to help you find your way around.

The original to which Jobst replied asserted a state of
affairs, the entire support of the assertion being the
phrase "the fact that". Jobst labeled the original use
"begging the question". He was talking about a logical
fallacy not style.

--
Michael Press

 

[Peter Cole]

still just me wrote:

> The Bush-ians stand up and yell how they can't protect us without
> violating our Constitutional rights. Somehow I think they are unclear
> on the principles that created this country.

Perhaps the most egregious case of this (maybe not, there are so many to
choose from) is the creepily named "Automated Targeting System".

http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2007/0108/032.html

"U.S. customs agencies have been quietly operating this system for
several years. Called Automated Targeting System, it assigns a "risk
assessment" score to people entering or leaving the country, or engaging
in import or export activity. This score, and the information used to
derive it, can be shared with federal, state, local and even foreign
governments. It can be used if you apply for a government job, grant,
license, contract or other benefit. It can be shared with
nongovernmental organizations and individuals in the course of an
investigation. In some circumstances private contractors can get it,
even those outside the country. And it will be saved for 40 years."

"There is something un-American about a government program that uses
secret criteria to collect dossiers on innocent people and shares that
information with various agencies, all without any oversight. It's the
sort of thing you'd expect from the former Soviet Union or East Germany
or China."

Apparently the EU was scammed about this, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Target_System

"Following the controversed Passenger Name Record agreement signed with
the European Union (EU) in 2007, the Bush administration gave exemption
for the Department of Homeland Security, for the Arrival and Departure
System (ADIS) and for the Automated Target System from the 1974 Privacy Act"

The irony is that this administration has invoked "executive privilege"
far more frequently than any prior one, as many as four times in a
single month. The bottom line: citizen privacy is sacrificed for
"security", while administration privacy is preserved for "security".
Anybody who trusts this to be a benign arrangement hasn't read much
history, nor a newspaper in the last 8 years.

 

[Peter Cole]

still just me wrote:

> The Bush-ians stand up and yell how they can't protect us without
> violating our Constitutional rights. Somehow I think they are unclear
> on the principles that created this country. This is the very sort of
> thing that was core to the American Revolution. Yet there are millions
> of dopes who go along for the ride as the Bush-ians blast out their
> message over and over.

There may be millions of "dopes", but it doesn't look like they're a
majority, despite what the mainstream (like Time Magazine) press would
have you believe:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/time/index.html

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:32:38 GMT, Peter Cole <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The irony is that this administration has invoked "executive privilege"
>far more frequently than any prior one, as many as four times in a
>single month. The bottom line: citizen privacy is sacrificed for
>"security", while administration privacy is preserved for "security".
>Anybody who trusts this to be a benign arrangement hasn't read much
>history, nor a newspaper in the last 8 years.

Executive Priv's, Signing Statements, or just outright ignoring the
law or courts and doing whatever they want... it's quite the
presidency.