Michael Reynolds of The Mighty Middle doesn’t take kindly to my recent “attack” on a certain breed of rhetorical presumptuousness (namely, the willingness to assign blame everywhere in lieu of a complete accounting of the facts as a way to assume a rhetorical high ground), suggesting that I’ve mischaracterized as an argument what was merely a description.
But notice Reynolds doesn’t address the operable part of my argument—that Gandelman’s framing of his categories in a way that favors his pre-determined position without accounting for the actual position of some of the staunchest “defenders” of the federal response (namely, that evidence of egregious failure should be introduced before a verdict is reached)—except to say that Gandelman is under no obligation to frame his categories in a way that would be “appealing” to those of us who must necessarily, given the finite set of options, be shoehorned into one those categories. Which, while it’s certainly true that Gandelman is under no obligation to present his categories in a way that avoids rhetorical deck stacking, such a maneuver is nonetheless problematic, particularly when the reason for such negative framing appears to proceed from a pre-determined conclusion, one that begs the very question about where blame properly lies.
Writes Reynolds, “Goldstein seems to believe that the mere fact that Gandelman describes fools as fools deprives him of any claim of objectivity.” Not true. Rather, what I do believe is that Gandelman had reached his conclusion in advance, and that those who didn’t fit into the clearly “correct” category of “Gang Bangers” (like, conveniently, he himself does) were predetermined to be “fools”—which of course gives lie to claims of objectivity (after all, objectivity would have compelled Gandelman to wait until all the facts were in before reaching a conclusion) and itself, again, begs the question.
But I’ll let you all decide.
For the record, I have nothing against Joe Gandelman personally. In fact, he’s a fine person, so far as I can tell, and I don’t mean to diminish him so much as I wish to obliterate from the public debate the laziness inherent in his avowed position.
It is, after all, that same kind of laziness that allows us to refer to Israeli responses to a declared intifada aimed at civilians a “cycle of violence” rather than doing the difficult work of identifying and describing the actual chain of events in a way that permits one to assign responsibility correctly.
You know his position is even worse than those of the rabid left because he cloaks his misconceptions in a facade of objectivity.
For some of the uninitiated, that gives more weight to his premature judgements. The pious moderate, not taking sides, but rendering his judgement objectively. Supposedly with no dog in the fight.
How pretentious!
Scratch a “moderate” and nine times out of ten, you’re going to find a “liberal”.
True story.
BECAUSE OF THE PARTISANS!!!
Thanks for linking back to my post. I didn’t think you’d do it, you did, and that shows me something. Maybe after we’ve all kissed and made up we can all three have a beer, or a lovely Scotch.
Sexist!
Speaking of, where’s the f**king ‘dillo? I’ve got the cameras stocked with fresh film and a bunch of the kids down the block over to watch.
sharp, um, i’m getting up the courage to go fill in the hole he’s dug under my house. though it may be tomorrow. i’m recovering from finding a dead snake by my mailbox. not sure i can handle more contact with nature today.
“There’s enough blame to go around…”
“Everyone bears some portion of responsibility…”
“Now is not the time to lay blame…”
“Who can tell where the real blame lies…”
“Everyone plays the blame game…”
Jeff, you’re spot on again. These are the half-truths that are told when agenda journalism fails to hit its target and when those who should be critically assessing the hows and whys of failures give way to lazy thinking.
O’Reilly had Schumer on yesterday. He led into a question about the upcoming speech by the Prez by saying something like “there is no longer any debate that all levels of gov’t, federal, state, and local are to blame…”
He’s right, in many people’s minds, there is no longer any debate.
Mr. Ryenolds,
Kiss and make up? There’s no personal animosity here. Jeff sinmply pointed out that Joe, who I like and whose blog I read, reached a predetemined conclusion without evidence then hid behind his claim to be objective as a way of legitimizing his leap. Which, oddly enough, is what most professional journalists do on every single issue they cover. Sadly, this sort of nonsense leads to the hardening of false memes in the national psyche that create horribly bad decisions regarding those self same issues later.
Look for a debate to begin soon on the role of Federal troops in disaster relief. As its result, the power and repsonisblity of state and local governements will be greatly eroded.
When that ahppens will you and Joe step up and admit, “You know if we had framed the issues of federal repsonsiblity in the response to Katrina more truthfully maybe this debate would have turned out differently?” If you do, that will show me something.
I’m not the begging type (as you may remember).
Please!
Let’s not let this clever ploy to cover the real tragedy cloud our thinking. Katrina/Kyoto be damned, it’s Friday and the ‘dillo has gone missing for a month. Goldstein is covering something and we’re gonna get to the bottom of it!
corvan- good post.
If you guys do kiss and make up, can I watch? That sounds pretty hot.
actual counterfactual position of some of the staunchest “defendersâ€Â
I’m confused, which positions of the defenders are counterfactual? I haven’t heard any positions that were counter to the facts; they seem pretty fact-based to me.
Matt30 –
Sad but true that there no longer is any debate. But I have to say, I don’t really think there ever was one as far as the MSM is concerned. Flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary, it has been a basic premise of the MSM from day 1 that Bush is responsible for the breakdown in NO.
After trying to question many different people via blogs and discussion groups, almost every one of them treats me like they have found the remains of a worm in their half eaten lunch when I even DARE to question the federal responsibility for the total breakdown of local responsibility. But, interestingly, not one of them has come closer to posting any evidence than to say “there are plenty of links out there”.
The MSM, and even some of our weaker “bretheren” on the right, have spun this story so hard, that I think it’s impact will never be blunted, even though the truth is now starting to come out. I guess Bush really had no choice but to come out and say “I take responsibility (for not going to the Hill with an Uzi and forcing Congress to give me the power to slap that silly bitch out of my way)” Oh well. “Day after day,alone on the hill…”
Speaking of Bush, has anybody heard anything about this…
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002329.html
I don’t know if this has been covered here yet, as I haven’t read all the new postings since my last visit, but if it’s true, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…
…or maybe shoot myself in the foot for not realizing what Scrappleface is about…
BANG!
No…can’ be! TW: foot
Oh my aching back, back to square one:
Would someone please tell me what the hell FEMA did wrong, where, how and when.
TW “wanted”….. well no shit!
“Non-partisan Centrist Moderates”
tend to be the most
partisan.
Couldn’t agree more strongly, Jeff. I was even told recently that I shared some of the blame, as well.
I guess someone found out about my “magic weather weasel” that I use to conjure hurricanes.
Douse him in the bathtub-flash flooding; stick his tail in a light socket-lightning; swing him around on a string-tornado; really long string-hurricane.
I would suggest that the “cycle of violence” reference is the second best example. The best, and most pertinent, example would be the “cycle of poverty.” We’ve been told that if people in the USA are living in poverty, every citizen that is better off shares the blame. Never a nod to the fact that irresponsible decisions lead to hard times. Never an acknowledgement that reproduction is most often optional. Never is it spoken that neverending handouts lead to neverending dependence.
TW:simply
ridiculous
BoDiddly,
What they, (that omniscient blob that is everyone but you) fail to tell you is that eliminating poverty is a goal that even Don Quixote would not attempt. How can I say this any more clearly, THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND THERE ALWAYS WILL BE POOR PEOPLE!!
There is no guarantee in this country of economic equality. The only thing we can offer is the guarantee of equal opportunity. Some achieve and some don’t. Some are content to be in poverty and hence do not strive. There are people in
Appalachia, living up a holler somewhere that probably do not see $2K a year, yet are as happy as clams. They live the way they want – off of the land, with no governmental interference and no dependence on government for their survival.
Some people have a level of economic contentment that classifies them as poor. The fact that they are content with their economic situation doesn’t phase the “do gooders” on the Left.
All you can do is promote “equal opportunity”. Somebody (are you listening, Jeff?) needs to write a post on the dilution of secondary education. What is a degree worth today vs. what it was worth yesterday. What is the quality of education today vs. the quality yesterday.
rls,
Yes, eradicating poverty is impossible. What is possible, and what we desperately need, is a comprehensive program to stop the government programs that makes living in poverty so attractive.
I do hope your post was extending my sentiments, rather than dissenting. My first impulse was that you were somehow indicating that I advocated agressive programs with the intent of “solving” the poverty problem, but that stemmed mostly from the “everybody but you” phrase.
As to the education post, that’s a particularly delicate problem, because any honest discussion would have to address the social experimentation that has taken place within the public school system that began with desegregation. One must tread very lightly to avoid giving the impression that he supports segregated schools, but the fact is that while desegregation was proper and necessary, in the government’s rush to implement desegregation, standards of discipline and academia were abandoned that had long served both black and white schools. Through the decades since that move, schools have become a fad-psychology proving grounds, systematically transformed from educational facilities to experiments in social engineering.
TW: “looked”
…good on paper