Support NeoGAF

[East Lake]

It looks like they're starting out by pardoning people who were sentenced before they revised the laws to be not so harsh. So if you've been in prison a while you might be eligible if you have already done the time you'd get if you committed the crime now. It doesn't say they'd stick with that entirely but the article really doesn't say much of anything about who might get out. Kinda weird to leave that section out bro.

 

[benjipwns]

Bush pardoned Scooter Libby.

Nope, only commuted his sentence. Which pissed off Cheney who pressed Bush to pardon him until the last day of the administration.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...nt-scooter-libby-full-pardon-article-1.370889
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/22/cheney-to-magazine-bush-should-have-pardoned-libby/

 

[sc0la]

Especially if it's completely legal and enshrined in the Constitution.

Please, he will be pardoning brown people. It could be a list of the specific people to pardon in thd constitution and some people would still get mad.

 

[Aaron Strife]

It looks like they're starting out by pardoning people who were sentenced before they revised the laws to be not so harsh. So if you've been in prison a while you might be eligible if you have already done the time you'd get if you committed the crime now. It doesn't say they'd stick with that entirely but the article really doesn't say much of anything about who might get out. Kinda weird to leave that section out bro.

What fun is talking about politics if we can't just blame Obama for everything

 

[TacticalFox88]

I think Obama derangement syndrome should be a real medical diagnosis at this point.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Cliven Bundy has shown us how much the far right has changed.

Let me get this straight: Andrew McCarthy is disqualified from discussing race because (1) his article appears in National Review, (2) National Review once published a racist article, and (3) Cliven Bundy recently said racist things?

So, you're trying to make an argumentum ad hominem logically valid by throwing in a non sequitur?

 

[eBay Huckster]

Let me get this straight: Andrew McCarthy is disqualified from discussing race because (1) his article appears in National Review, (2) National Review once published a racist article, and (3) Cliven Bundy recently said racist things?

So, you're trying to make an argumentum ad hominem logically valid by throwing in a non sequitur?

let me get this straight: speculawyer said or implied any of this?

 

[Metaphoreus]

let me get this straight: speculawyer said or implied any of this?

You have it almost exactly right: speculawyer said or implied all of it. How could you possibly have read his comment differently?

EDIT: Let me clarify: my reading assumes that speculawyer made--or at the very least believed he was making--a comment relevant to the discussion underway. If you reject that assumption--if you believe his comment was irrelevant, or that he believed it irrelevant--then of course you might read his comment differently. Not favorably, obviously, but differently.

 

[eBay Huckster]

yeah, i read that post as a (nearly complete) non sequitur from the post of yours that he quoted

or at least that line, because i'm not entirely sure what cliven bundy has to do with the NRO articles upthread

 

[speculawyer]

Nope, only commuted his sentence. Which pissed off Cheney who pressed Bush to pardon him until the last day of the administration.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...nt-scooter-libby-full-pardon-article-1.370889
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/22/cheney-to-magazine-bush-should-have-pardoned-libby/

Oh thanks for pointing out another deceptive thing about that article. Presumably Obama will be commuting their sentences too, not pardoning them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest...ences-to-see-new-fairness-and-proportionality

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Nvm

 

[speculawyer]

The absence of a scintilla of evidence of racism in the text or enactment of the criminal laws makes no difference.

Really? Really? Laws that punish crack cocaine much MUCH harsher than powdered cocaine lack a scintilla of evidence of racism? Yeah the right has totally changed.

 

[Plinko]

I just, I don't even...

How is this a bad thing? There should be a nonpartisan committee that evaluates each political ad BEFORE it hits the airwaves.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

How is this a bad thing? There should be a nonpartisan committee that evaluates each political ad BEFORE it hits the airwaves.

Free speech. Censorship. More limiting of political environment

 

[WayneMorse]

So Donald Sterling is a Democrat. Weird.

 

[Crisco]

Not counting fake Benghazi outrage, how does the GOP's hatred of Hillary/the Clintons rank against their fanatic opposition to everything Obama. I think initially their will be a similar back lash to her Presidency but over time they will be more willing to work with a Hillary WH than Obama's.

 

[thepotatoman]

Free speech. Censorship. More limiting of political environment

I mostly agree, but with the supreme court limiting everything that could help counter-speech these lies through things like McComish v. Bennett and Citizens United, it feels increasingly like the court room is the only place we can maybe counter the lies.

There's already plenty of precedence of lies not being free speech. Just look at perjury or any number of business regulations including false advertising. It's not really that bad to extend those regulations to tv and billboard campaign advertisements.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/25/mcmorris-rodgers-says-aca-likely-to-stay/

Hahaha holy crap Drudge linked this, it's hilarious seeing conservatives have a collective mental breakdown in the comments.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The outrage over commuting sentences isn't shocking, it's par the course for republicans. They constantly get incensed whenever Obama exercises his power as president. This started from the beginning in 2009 when Obama made that video greeting middle and high school aged children on the first day of school. This has been done by presidents for decades yet all of a sudden you have conservatives around the country going insane about indoctrination, threatening to keep their kids home, etc.

Republicans are outraged at the idea of Obama as president, and it bleeds into how they react to nearly everything he does. Overseas diplomatic trip? Complaints about spending and "vacations." State dinner at the White House? Outrage over "partying." Executive power to institute laws, including delay parts? Impeachment threats, despite the fact no one said a thing when Bush did the same for Medicare Part D.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How is this a bad thing? There should be a nonpartisan committee that evaluates each political ad BEFORE it hits the airwaves.

No, there shouldn't be. People should not have to seek or obtain government permission before speaking about politicians or the government.

I mostly agree, but with the supreme court limiting everything that could help counter-speech these lies

"Everything," except contrary speech.

There's already plenty of precedence of lies not being free speech. Just look at perjury or any number of business regulations including false advertising. It's not really that bad to extend those regulations to tv and billboard campaign advertisements.

Free political speech already is limited by the possibility of a civil action for defamation. It's hard for a politician to make a case for defamation, but that's by design. Free political speech is so important that we accept the risk of substantial false speech in order not to stifle truthful speech.

 

[Aaron Strife]

The outrage over commuting sentences isn't shocking, it's par the course for republicans. They constantly get incensed whenever Obama exercises his power as president. This started from the beginning in 2009 when Obama made that video greeting middle and high school aged children on the first day of school. This has been done by presidents for decades yet all of a sudden you have conservatives around the country going insane about indoctrination, threatening to keep their kids home, etc.

Republicans are outraged at the idea of Obama as president, and it bleeds into how they react to nearly everything he does. Overseas diplomatic trip? Complaints about spending and "vacations." State dinner at the White House? Outrage over "partying." Exercising the right to interpret. Executive power to institute laws, including delay parts? Impeachment threats, despite the fact no one said a thing when Bush did the same for Medicare Part D.

The funny thing about the administration delaying certain parts of the law is that PPACA is actually written to give the Secretary of HHS that power. They actually are following the law, but the GOP has never assed themselves to read it (or they have and are playing politics with it, a far more likely alternative).

 

[Metaphoreus]

The funny thing about the administration delaying certain parts of the law is that PPACA is actually written to give the Secretary of HHS that power. They actually are following the law, but the GOP has never assed themselves to read it (or they have and are playing politics with it, a far more likely alternative).

To which section are you referring?

 

[Gotchaye]

How is this a bad thing? There should be a nonpartisan committee that evaluates each political ad BEFORE it hits the airwaves.

Slippery slope arguments aside, how do you go about choosing a level of strictness which is unlikely to immediately result in problematic suppression of speech while still doing what you're wanting it to do?

Fringe falsehoods are not really a problem, after all. "Obama is a reptilian" is something that'd be really easy to identify as crazy and wrong but which is also basically harmless. Suppressing it is unlikely to do much good, and would probably make things marginally worse because it looks at least a little like a cover-up.

Very few outright lies even make it into political ads. There aren't any "Obama said he wants to kill all the Christians" ads out there. The sort of dishonesty common in ads is interpretive or implied. If a bill might plausibly increase the number of abortions, even if it's aimed at something very different, is it a "pro-abortion bill"? Ads commonly speculate as to what politicians are really thinking or planning, and sometimes this is ridiculous, but there's no clear fact of the matter to check the ads against.

I don't think the core idea is crazy, but at the very least it's the sort of thing that (at least) the major parties would need to buy in to before any of them go off the deep end. That, right now, liberals think conservative talking points are deeply dishonest, and vice versa, means that you can't come up with non-partisan rules for honesty in politics. Even if we stipulate that liberals are right and conservatives are wrong, if the facts are partisan then the facts are partisan, and when your political opponents get to influence the fact-finding committee they can be expected to use it against the facts.

 

[Joe Molotov]

So Donald Sterling is a Democrat. Weird.

Not really that weird. He was born in the 30's.

 

[thepotatoman]

Slippery slope arguments aside, how do you go about choosing a level of strictness which is unlikely to immediately result in problematic suppression of speech while still doing what you're wanting it to do?

Fringe falsehoods are not really a problem, after all. "Obama is a reptilian" is something that'd be really easy to identify as crazy and wrong but which is also basically harmless. Suppressing it is unlikely to do much good, and would probably make things marginally worse because it looks at least a little like a cover-up.

Very few outright lies even make it into political ads. There aren't any "Obama said he wants to kill all the Christians" ads out there. The sort of dishonesty common in ads is interpretive or implied. If a bill might plausibly increase the number of abortions, even if it's aimed at something very different, is it a "pro-abortion bill"? Ads commonly speculate as to what politicians are really thinking or planning, and sometimes this is ridiculous, but there's no clear fact of the matter to check the ads against.

I don't think the core idea is crazy, but at the very least it's the sort of thing that (at least) the major parties would need to buy in to before any of them go off the deep end. That, right now, liberals think conservative talking points are deeply dishonest, and vice versa, means that you can't come up with non-partisan rules for honesty in politics. Even if we stipulate that liberals are right and conservatives are wrong, if the facts are partisan then the facts are partisan, and when your political opponents get to influence the fact-finding committee they can be expected to use it against the facts.

Well 15 states already have anti-lies in election advertisements laws with many of them lasting at least 10 years now with no real big problem. The one that's making it to the supreme court was saying a Democratic Congressman supported taxpayer-funded abortions by voting for Obamacare, a lie debunked by multiple fact checkers but believable to those who only see the advertisement.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So Donald Sterling is a Democrat. Weird.

Why? He's a Jewish lawyer who has lived most of his life in California. That alone gave him a 65% chance of being a democrat.

 

[WayneMorse]

I just assumed someone that wealthy would vote Republican, especially in California because they want low taxes.

 

[speculawyer]

The outrage over commuting sentences isn't shocking, it's par the course for republicans. They constantly get incensed whenever Obama exercises his power as president. This started from the beginning in 2009 when Obama made that video greeting middle and high school aged children on the first day of school. This has been done by presidents for decades yet all of a sudden you have conservatives around the country going insane about indoctrination, threatening to keep their kids home, etc.

Republicans are outraged at the idea of Obama as president, and it bleeds into how they react to nearly everything he does. Overseas diplomatic trip? Complaints about spending and "vacations." State dinner at the White House? Outrage over "partying." Executive power to institute laws, including delay parts? Impeachment threats, despite the fact no one said a thing when Bush did the same for Medicare Part D.

Sounds like you are starting to admit there is some racism behind this.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I just assumed someone that wealthy would vote Republican, especially in California because they want low taxes.

California is full of filthy rich democrats...

 

[speculawyer]

I just assumed someone that wealthy would vote Republican, especially in California because they want low taxes.

Silicon valley is filled with rich liberals. Some libertarians too but blue dominates.

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch...rity-district-house-race-divides-calif-voters

Speaking of California, more specifically Silicon Valley, Mike Honda, one of the most progressive members of the House, is facing a tough primary battle from Ro Khanna, who's being funded by people like Marissa Mayer and other Silicon Valley CEOs. Honda's been endorsed by Obama and Pelosi by I don't think there's been any polling of this race so I don't know how Honda stands.

 

[Oblivion]

Somebody's gonna get fired soon:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/27/foxs-howard-kurtz-slams-foxs-coverage-of-cliven/199044

Holy shitballs. Howard Kurtz goes to town on Fox News while hosting a show ON Fox News! I have never witnessed anything on this channel that was so blatant in calling out it's own network. Even the reliably douchey Matt Lewis agreed with Kurtz' criticism.

And did Lewis just outright admit that Hannity and conservative media hoped that Bundy would get killed and become a martyr like with Ruby Ridge and Waco?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You know, the past publication of racist articles doesn't disqualify National Review from publishing articles discussing race today. This kind of ad hominem attack is bad enough when it's directed, well, to the man who said a thing in the past. What makes your attempt to disqualify National Review even more logically deplorable is that you're attempting to disqualify a present writer for the objectionable writings of a different, past writer.

To the topic at hand: I think it's silly to complain about Obama using the pardon power to pardon people. That's what the power is there for.

Take your histrionic outrage somewhere else. The National Review has a notorious racist past and often present.

The past? You act like that article isn't representative of the National Review though out its history. That article is just the purest form of their racism and white supremacy. I also pointed to it because of its arguments which states that the white should pervert democratic norms to maintain their advantage from a growing minority. That's something Sotomoyor hit on and which they ironically dismiss. This is what that article stated:

the central question that emerges... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

And I'm not just using that one article I'm thinking of many through out their history including two very recently:

• They endorsed the apartheid regime in the south (see above) and in South Africa "The whites are entitled, we believe, to preeminence in South Africa"
• Called black people literally retarded
• Said AIDS patients should be tattooed to identify them
• Said Jews unfairly put Hitler on the Far-Right and have emotional communist sympathies
• Buckley never truly apologized for his racism and only offered a "I'm sorry" for resistance to federal intervention not the underlying ideas he supported
• Published an editorial titled "On Negro Inferiority"
• Highlighted this in a book review in '94: "Orientals are more intelligent, have larger brains for their body size, have smaller genitalia, have less sex drive, are less fecund, work harder and are more readily socialized than Caucasians; and Caucasians on average bear the same relationship to blacks.'"
• Their founder said blacks without colonialism revert to savages and the people of the congo are semi-savages
• Condemend the bombing of the Birmingham Church not because it killed innocent people but because it "set back the cause of the white people there so dramatically,"
• Including letting Derbyshire in 2012 write for them (he wrote this racist piece of trash: http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/#axzz1rI2sQ2I7)
• Published Steve Sailer a notorious racist for years in the 90s
• Positively opined on a book who's thesis was civil rights ended because the blacks were just too violent. And who's author was a self described white nationalists
• Criticized a book which attacked the racist eugenics the Review highlighted and promoted in the 1990s and early 2000s
• Their editor even gets in on the fun downplaying racism in the trayvon martin case and saying the real problem is "black on black crime": http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/294962/murders-don-t-count-rich-lowry
• Two weeks ago extolled Bundy as a gandhi figure
• Had to fire ANOTHER racist last year http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...r-opposed-letting-in-immigrants-with-low-iqs/
• Has through the years constantly insulted and slandered black and other minority leaders when they dare challenge the white supremacy the National Review was founded upon

So yeah, I think I'm pretty justified in stating the National Review should not talk about race and dismiss its role in conservatism. When you have to keep asking why do all these homosexuals keep sucking me off you need to take a look at yourself.

The only time they should write about race when its a full throated apology for the all the damage they've done

 

[Oblivion]

So Donald Sterling is a Democrat. Weird.

A Democrat that hates Black people? What's so shocking about that? Need I remind you that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican?

 

[PhoenixDark]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A Democrat that hates Black people? What's so shocking about that? Need I remind you that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican?

Robert Byrd. Notorious KKK member? DEMOCRAT! ^see

 

[BLACKLAC]

Somebody's gonna get fired soon:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/27/foxs-howard-kurtz-slams-foxs-coverage-of-cliven/199044

Holy shitballs. Howard Kurtz goes to town on Fox News while hosting a show ON Fox News! I have never witnessed anything on this channel that was so blatant in calling out it's own network. Even the reliably douchey Matt Lewis agreed with Kurtz' criticism.

And did Lewis just outright admit that Hannity and conservative media hoped that Bundy would get killed and become a martyr like with Ruby Ridge and Waco?

I can't help but laugh at this. "The best thing that would have happened for Conservatives is to turn Bundy into a martyr"

They were certainly trying.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Somebody's gonna get fired soon:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/27/foxs-howard-kurtz-slams-foxs-coverage-of-cliven/199044

Holy shitballs. Howard Kurtz goes to town on Fox News while hosting a show ON Fox News! I have never witnessed anything on this channel that was so blatant in calling out it's own network. Even the reliably douchey Matt Lewis agreed with Kurtz' criticism.

And did Lewis just outright admit that Hannity and conservative media hoped that Bundy would get killed and become a martyr like with Ruby Ridge and Waco?

lol Dana Milbank giving Howard the heads up. "You're about to get fired bro."

 

[Metaphoreus]

The past? You act like that article isn't representative of the National Review though out its history.

This doesn't matter. If you have a criticism about Andrew McCarthy's discussion of race, talk about that. Otherwise your criticism is completely invalid. The problem with ad hominem arguments is not--as you apparently believe--a lack of evidence. The fallacy isn't rendered any less fallacious by a lengthy recitation of facts supporting it.

I actually considered including in one of my posts last night that it wouldn't matter if you could point to more articles, but I decided not to, believing that no one could think that the problem was with the number or recency of source articles. I'm disappointed to see that that intuition was wrong.

 

[PantherLotus]

This doesn't matter. If you have a criticism about Andrew McCarthy's discussion of race, talk about that. Otherwise your criticism is completely invalid. The problem with ad hominem arguments is not--as you apparently believe--a lack of evidence. The fallacy isn't rendered any less fallacious by a lengthy recitation of facts supporting it.

I actually considered including in one of my posts last night that it wouldn't matter if you could point to more articles, but I decided not to, believing that no one could think that the problem was with the number or recency of source articles. I'm disappointed to see that that intuition was wrong.

No way you are being genuine here. C'mon man.

 

[Aylinato]

^dude made no argument while saying "you are illogical" and didn't refute anything APK said, I'd except nothing more than "he makes nonsense" post from him again

Apologies for not getting back to you earlier.

It's inherent in its nature. Policy is crafted by a single corporation that imposes it on all that it claims within its purview. This concentration of power creates an elite class that writes policy. Now who makes up this elite? Obviously not just anyone, because the goal is to create "good policy" which means you seek out the elite class of those within the purview of the policy.

This is what creates regulatory capture. If you were to write, say oil industry regulations you can't just assemble some random dopes ala the jury method and have them do it. You need someone who has knowledge of the oil industry. Their knowledge of the regulations and its process increases their value to those subject to the regulations and its processes. And then consequently their increased knowledge of the oil industry increases their value back to the policymakers and regulators.

The elite few behind policy is effectively the main corporation and those it assembles to assist it, often other elite corporations because large corporations prefer to do business with each other not smaller and more difficult to manage competitors.

This is why even "democratic" impetus for policymaking is dominated by the elite few when it comes time to craft the actual policy. (If they aren't behind the impetus to begin with.) To once again use my favorite example, Mattel imported a bunch of lead laden toys from China. "The people" got outraged and the government moved to correct this problem with policy. The resulting policy increased testing costs that fell in a quite disproportional manner on small firms and consumers, something that benefits somebody like oh, say, Mattel. But then the kicker, because there's always one: Mattel was exempted from the regulations!

The government has an unique monopoly. As it expands this monopoly into various areas of life it obviously would draw the interest of the elites in whatever area to insure they benefit from the monopoly power entering the realm. This is mutual gain between the elite corporations because one is allowed to expand its influence and the ones being expanded upon gain the access to utilize its monopoly powers to suppress competitors.

This is why PEMEX is such a culture of outsized power and corruption and immunity from accountability despite being "in the hands of the people" obstinately. It's all these things wrapped into one AND a source of a determined constituency.

So what does all this rambling mean? When you transcend the First Amendment limitations it's not actually empowering "millions" but empowering the elites to further close out competitors. You're actually reducing the number of voices being heard. As is to gain access to the monopoly power you essentially have to go through two corporations which have set all the rules. Mounting an independent or third party bid has massive costs in comparison. Whereas those corporations by their access to the monopoly power have agreed to "let you pick" from the two options they have chosen to offer. Mounting a primary challenge WITHIN these corporations has outsized costs if you don't already have elite ties within them.

The marketplace of ideas is limited to those with elite access. The two major political corporations, the billion dollar corporations given access by "press" privileges or the mentioned nature of regulatory capture, and anyone else the monopoly power or elite within it grants access to. But that's it. If you're cast outside this elite group your power drops tremendously.

The Koch Brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Adtkison, the unions (who benefited from Citizens United too we can't forget!), etc. (Along with the internet.) are the types of things that help to reduce the costs of challenges to the existing elite structures. The Tea Party primary victories are a direct result of this, any forthcoming progressive/Green/OWS-associated rises will also benefit from this increased capability to participate. Until the duopoly's hold is broken and the electoral process reformed to reduce the costs, you need a way to pay for those costs.

Reducing political say to periodic voting doesn't do this because voting has insignificant power.

Maybe expanding access will result in worse people getting elected and worse policies being enacted. But that's what you get with democracy. And you can always go back to the current system of elite rule or further in that direction.

TL;DR: I'm an nutjob.

Koch Brothers and the tea party are far from anything but being elites or in the tea party case backed by elites of corporations that you so dearly think would balance out who they are supported by.


Honestly your post screams of "but but but but unions" while being self-defeatist because of the irrational idea that the oil-baron tycoon owners named the Koch brothers would counter their own elite status.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This doesn't matter. If you have a criticism about Andrew McCarthy's discussion of race, talk about that. Otherwise your criticism is completely invalid. The problem with ad hominem arguments is not--as you apparently believe--a lack of evidence. The fallacy isn't rendered any less fallacious by a lengthy recitation of facts supporting it.

I actually considered including in one of my posts last night that it wouldn't matter if you could point to more articles, but I decided not to, believing that no one could think that the problem was with the number or recency of source articles. I'm disappointed to see that that intuition was wrong.

I can't tell if your serious or not

 

[Metaphoreus]

No way you are being genuine here. C'mon man.

^dude made no argument while saying "you are illogical" and didn't refute anything APK said, I'd except nothing more than "he makes nonsense" post from him again

I can't tell if your serious or not

Do they just not teach logical fallacies where you all are from? I mean, they don't get more basic than ad hominem.

 

[PantherLotus]

Your point is that you can't call this article racist or dismiss it even if the rag in which it appears is notoriously racist. You're wrong.

 

[Karakand]

Glad Meta is gonna back me up unironically linking Red Phoenix articles itt. Trubro.

I just assumed someone that wealthy would vote Republican, especially in California because they want low taxes.

You assume he has high taxes, which probably isn't the case.

 

[PantherLotus]

Do they just not teach logical fallacies where you all are from? I mean, they don't get more basic than ad hominem.

You don't know what ad hominem means.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your point is that you can't call this article racist or dismiss it even if the rag in which it appears is notoriously racist. You're wrong.

That's a gross misstatement of my argument. My argument is that you can't disqualify Andrew McCarthy from talking about race simply because his article appears in a publication that has published racist articles in the past. As I said in my previous post, if you have a criticism about Andrew McCarthy's discussion of race, you should talk about that.

EDIT:

You don't know what ad hominem means.

Oh, please do enlighten me.

 

[PantherLotus]

That's a gross misstatement of my argument. My argument is that you can't disqualify Andrew McCarthy from talking about race simply because his article appears in a publication that has published racist articles in the past. As I said in my previous post, if you have a criticism about Andrew McCarthy's discussion of race, you should talk about that.

That's not ad hominem and you don't understand logical fallacies. And yes, if your article appears in National Review it carries the burden of everything that came before it. That's why reputations matter. That's why respected authors don't get pubbed in NR.

More importantly, did YOU want to talk about the article? Because all this meta looks like you're avoiding the subject.

 

[Gotchaye]

Regardless, McCarthy's article is clearly the work of a partisan hack and, whatever National Review's history of racism, is itself pretty committed to denying that policy was tilted against black people.

The most egregious bit of hackery is this:

Yet federal drug enforcement targets felony drug dealers, not simple possession of drugs — the latter is left to the states. Mere users of marijuana and crack are not wasting away in federal penitentiaries.

Of course, under the old law if you possessed 5 grams of crack you were treated as a dealer, regardless of any actual intent to distribute. The intent to distribute was presumed. Now it's 28 grams, I think. McCarthy says this in the course of purporting to correct the impression Obama gives that some people are in jail even though they hadn't hurt anybody or sold drugs to anyone. McCarthy almost certainly knows the law.

East Lake also noted that McCarthy omits any discussion of how Obama's commutations are related to the change in the drug laws. McCarthy's thesis is that Obama is displaying disrespect for the legislative process by not letting stand the penalties that the legislature decreed, but the legislature already changed its mind on these penalties going forward, and it doesn't seem crazy to interpret this as a recognition that the earlier penalties were too harsh even when they were in place. That seems like something an honest discussion of the issue should address.

On race:

The absence of a scintilla of evidence of racism in the text or enactment of the criminal laws makes no difference.

But if lawmakers were factoring race into the equation at all when they wrote the drug laws — and the statutes themselves are race-neutral, as the Constitution mandates — it was the victims of narcotics trafficking they had in mind. The only disparate impact of significance to normal people, those not obsessed with race or criminals’ rights, is the impact that crack dealing has had on minority communities. They have been ravaged.

Yes, that sentencing disparity is really about helping black people, if anything.

 

[Metaphoreus]

That's not ad hominem and you don't understand logical fallacies. And yes, if your article appears in National Review it carries the burden of everything that came before it.

Look, if you want to quibble over whether it's an example of ad hominem or the genetic fallacy, I really couldn't care less. My presentation of the issue is more like the latter; APKmetsfan's is more akin to the former.

More importantly, did YOU want to talk about the article? Because all this meta looks like you're avoiding the subject.

What I'd like to talk about is what I have been talking about: the deplorable tactic of disqualifying people from speaking on a subject on spurious bases. Gotchaye presents an excellent example of logically criticizing the article for what it says; APKmetsfan presents an excellent example of irrationally ignoring what the article says because of where it appears.

Mind you, I addressed the substance of the article when I first commented:

To the topic at hand: I think it's silly to complain about Obama using the pardon power to pardon people. That's what the power is there for.