Cowboy Poetry...by Harry Reid

Cowboy Poetry...by Harry Reid Scotty Starnes | March 10, 2011 at 12:30 PM | Tags: budget deficit, cowboy poetry, Harry Reid, spending cuts | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4Hb

H/T to Ed Morrissey atHotAir

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Good cartoon

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reid the Poet

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

And now for a bit of comedic relief:

---

Paul Zerdin, Ventriloquist Without a Dummy

The dummy, an indispensable ventriloquist prop, so you would have thought. But no, ventriloquist Paul Zerdin manages without one, with a little help from the audience.

http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?viral_id=27735&page=1

---

"Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments — commonly known as the Bill of Rights — are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" — L. Neil Smith

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Texas City Ignores Anti-Camera Voter Petition

"What we need in this country is the remote, stealthy, post-natal abortion of all criminals in government."
- Richard Miller

On 03/10/2011 10:30 AM, GregfromBoston wrote:

I'm from Massachusetts, where the dem legislature routinely laughs at initiative petitions.  BINDING petitions!  On Mar 10, 1:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

Don't you just love it when government officials listen to the people.<g> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * Texas City Ignores Anti-Camera Voter Petition* /Port Lavaca, Texas attempts to avoid voter referendum on red light camera program./  Port Lavaca Mayor Jack WhitlowOfficials in Port Lavaca, Texas decided yesterday that they would ignore an initiative petition calling for the 12,000 residents to decide the fate of the red light cameras in a May election (view petition <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3367.asp>). Signatures on the petition were certified as valid shortly after being submitted in January and a special city council meeting was scheduled to place the measure on the ballot, but the city decided against holding the vote. The group Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras <http://www.facebook.com/#%21/group.php?gid=352118962300> believes the city is violating the law.  "We complied with all requirements of the city charter regarding charter amendments," initiative organizer Dwayne Buehring told TheNewspaper. "We turned these in three months ago. Apparently, it was an orchestrated effort on their part to put it off until the last minute so we had no recourse to get it on the May ballot."  Monday is the deadline for an item to be part of the May elections. Under Texas and municipal law, the council vote to place a charter amendment before voters is considered a ministerial duty not subject to the discretion of individual council members.  "The council shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters," Section 14.17 of Port Lavaca's city charter states.  Mayor Jack Whitlow explained that he pulled the item on the advice of the city attorney who argued that "health and safety" matters are not subject to the initiative process. Whitlow also cited a lawsuit filed against the city by a front group for Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company in charge of the camera program. Whitlow suggested the vote might be delayed until November.  "It makes the whole deal look shady," Buehring said. "They know that these cameras will be overturned, and they're scared of that. They'll be put in the same place as Houston. So they're just going to run and hide, violate the charter and violate the law. It's been very clear they love the money."  Red light cameras and speed cameras have been put to a public vote on fifteen occasions, including votes in Houston, College Station and Baytown. Automated enforcement has never survived a vote <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp>. -- "Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments --- commonly known as the Bill of Rights --- are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" --- L. Neil Smith  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

--
"Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments — commonly known as the Bill of Rights — are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" — L. Neil Smith

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Texas City Ignores Anti-Camera Voter Petition

I'm from Massachusetts, where the dem legislature routinely laughs at
initiative petitions.

BINDING petitions!

On Mar 10, 1:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> Don't you just love it when government officials listen to the people.<g>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *
> Texas City Ignores Anti-Camera Voter Petition*
> /Port Lavaca, Texas attempts to avoid voter referendum on red light
> camera program./
>
> Port Lavaca Mayor Jack WhitlowOfficials in Port Lavaca, Texas decided
> yesterday that they would ignore an initiative petition calling for the
> 12,000 residents to decide the fate of the red light cameras in a May
> election (view petition <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3367.asp>).
> Signatures on the petition were certified as valid shortly after being
> submitted in January and a special city council meeting was scheduled to
> place the measure on the ballot, but the city decided against holding
> the vote. The group Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras
> <http://www.facebook.com/#%21/group.php?gid=352118962300> believes the
> city is violating the law.
>
> "We complied with all requirements of the city charter regarding charter
> amendments," initiative organizer Dwayne Buehring told TheNewspaper. "We
> turned these in three months ago. Apparently, it was an orchestrated
> effort on their part to put it off until the last minute so we had no
> recourse to get it on the May ballot."
>
> Monday is the deadline for an item to be part of the May elections.
> Under Texas and municipal law, the council vote to place a charter
> amendment before voters is considered a ministerial duty not subject to
> the discretion of individual council members.
>
> "The council shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for
> their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a
> petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality
> equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters,"
> Section 14.17 of Port Lavaca's city charter states.
>
> Mayor Jack Whitlow explained that he pulled the item on the advice of
> the city attorney who argued that "health and safety" matters are not
> subject to the initiative process. Whitlow also cited a lawsuit filed
> against the city by a front group for Redflex Traffic Systems, the
> Australian company in charge of the camera program. Whitlow suggested
> the vote might be delayed until November.
>
> "It makes the whole deal look shady," Buehring said. "They know that
> these cameras will be overturned, and they're scared of that. They'll be
> put in the same place as Houston. So they're just going to run and hide,
> violate the charter and violate the law. It's been very clear they love
> the money."
>
> Red light cameras and speed cameras have been put to a public vote on
> fifteen occasions, including votes in Houston, College Station and
> Baytown. Automated enforcement has never survived a vote
> <http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/27/2769.asp>.
> --
> "Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten
> Amendments --- commonly known as the Bill of Rights --- are trampled
> underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers
> neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" --- L. Neil Smith
>
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Texas City Ignores Anti-Camera Voter Petition

Don't you just love it when government officials listen to the people.<g>

---

Texas City Ignores Anti-Camera Voter Petition
Port Lavaca, Texas attempts to avoid voter referendum on red light camera program.

Officials in Port Lavaca, Texas decided yesterday that they would ignore an initiative petition calling for the 12,000 residents to decide the fate of the red light cameras in a May election (view petition). Signatures on the petition were certified as valid shortly after being submitted in January and a special city council meeting was scheduled to place the measure on the ballot, but the city decided against holding the vote. The group Port Lavaca Citizens Against Red Light Cameras believes the city is violating the law.

"We complied with all requirements of the city charter regarding charter amendments," initiative organizer Dwayne Buehring told TheNewspaper. "We turned these in three months ago. Apparently, it was an orchestrated effort on their part to put it off until the last minute so we had no recourse to get it on the May ballot."

Monday is the deadline for an item to be part of the May elections. Under Texas and municipal law, the council vote to place a charter amendment before voters is considered a ministerial duty not subject to the discretion of individual council members.

"The council shall submit a proposed charter amendment to the voters for their approval at an election if the submission is supported by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters of the municipality equal to at least five percent of the number of qualified voters," Section 14.17 of Port Lavaca's city charter states.

Mayor Jack Whitlow explained that he pulled the item on the advice of the city attorney who argued that "health and safety" matters are not subject to the initiative process. Whitlow also cited a lawsuit filed against the city by a front group for Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company in charge of the camera program. Whitlow suggested the vote might be delayed until November.

"It makes the whole deal look shady," Buehring said. "They know that these cameras will be overturned, and they're scared of that. They'll be put in the same place as Houston. So they're just going to run and hide, violate the charter and violate the law. It's been very clear they love the money."

Red light cameras and speed cameras have been put to a public vote on fifteen occasions, including votes in Houston, College Station and Baytown. Automated enforcement has never survived a vote.

--
"Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments — commonly known as the Bill of Rights — are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" — L. Neil Smith

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

DHS Web Site 'Precious Treasure Holiday Company' Derailed By Hosting Firm

Undercover Web Site Derailed By Hosting Firm
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/internet/undercover-web-site-derailed-hosting-firm

"The 'Precious Treasure Holiday Company' web site was active until a few weeks ago when its Massachusetts-based web hosting firm removed the site from its servers, apparently in response to a complaint about its content. Now, visitors to precioustreasureholidaycompany.com are greeted with the message, 'This site has been suspended.'"

---

"Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments — commonly known as the Bill of Rights — are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" — L. Neil Smith

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Right Wing NPR Hit Piece Full of Fail

Who cares if she's Jewish? I don't care if she's from the Church of
Modern Day Martians.

Wishing AIDS on kids, on the air, makes her an asshole.

On Mar 9, 5:13 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nina Totenberg wishes AIDS on the grand kids of a Senator.  No prob
> at
> all, promote her.
> ---
> sure ... push another jew to the top of NPR ... it worked so well the
> last time
>
> On Mar 9, 10:37 am,GregfromBoston<greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And they canned a chick by the same name (no relation).
>
> > Either they were canned because the f'd up, or because they let the
> > cat out of the bag.
>
> > Its a "pick 'em"
>
> > Juan Williams said essentially of Muslims on planes what Jesse Jackson
> > said of blacks on the street at night.  Fire Juan.
>
> > Nina Totenberg wishes AIDS on the grand kids of a Senator.  No prob at
> > all, promote her.
>
> > On Mar 9, 10:22 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That pos Shilling (?) CEO of NPR resigned this morning.  Good riddance.
>
> > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM,GregfromBoston<greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > > > I saw that NPR is running like scared rabbits from that video this
> > > > morning.
>
> > > > On Mar 8, 5:58 pm, the daily search <thedailysea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >  Right Wing NPR Hit Piece Full of Fail
> > > > >  First, I love how the introduction says they posed "as Muslims" not
> > > > "Muslim
> > > > > extremists", as if the term "Muslim" was enough information to set up the
> > > > > scenario.
>
> > > > > But I digress. Don't you just love how in every Right Wing hit piece the
> > > > > actors always have to play characters seedier than their targets? As if
> > > > just
> > > > > by exposing Acorn or NPR representatives to their presence will be enough
> > > > > for the pretend taint to rub off on them.
>
> > > > > I also love how, in this latest offering,
>
> > > > > Read the rest at TheDailySearch.com...<
> > > >http://www.thedailysearch.com/2011/03/right-wing-npr-hit-piece-full-o...>
>
> > > > --
> > > >  Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

A new novel set in a parliament

Since books are talked about here I thought I'd mention my own.
Hopefully it won't come across as a crude advertising ploy. I'll
address that in a minute.

_Verbatim: A Novel_ was published by Enfield & Wizenty in October
2010. (ISBN: 978-1926531038.) It's a satirical work set in a fictional
canadian legislature in the 1990s. For those who know about the
parliamentary system, some things in it will be familiar; for those
who don't, the book educates (painlessly!) as you go. The content is
given in three ways: lists of members, letters between bureaucrats,
and debates set out in the dual-column format used by Hansard, the
transcribing division of legislatures in the Commonwealth. (Hansard is
sort of like the Congressional Record.)

It's getting good press up here (canada) and in england; and _American
Book Review_, out of texas, says: "Let the record show that this is
probably about the funniest intelligent book on politics you can get
your hands on these days."

If I stopped there, then this could be seen as just an advertisement.
But I'd like to say that the main purpose of writing the book was to
show, without a narrator (without a partisan guide, so to speak), what
happens in a legislature; how we are governed. I think Tallyrand said
that speech was given to hide men's actions. All that's presented in
the book is speech, about health care, mining, forestry, road repair,
social services, financial debt, and so on. (Speech mediated, of
course, by transcribers and editors.) Party platforms are presented,
policy is discussed, ideas are put forward and debated, from the
right, the centre and the left. While members comment on these things
quite freely, and at times angrily or humourously, there's no narrator
telling the reader what to think. A reader will find something
objectionable in a speech that another reader admires. But it's an
open field for a reader to make up his or her own mind.

Maybe that's what each country's citizens need to do. Pay less
attention to partisan approaches and ideology, be independent in
thought, and analyze the way we choose to be governed (if we
participate, then we choose, it's no longer chosen for us), not just
what this or that approach by this or that person is like.

I'd very much like to see the same kind of novelistic approach done in
the u.s., or australia, or anywhere. I think it would reveal a lot.

regards,
Jeff Bursey

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Thank You, Bradley Manning, for Your Service

Thank You, Bradley Manning, for Your Service
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=34600

"The U.S. government, after months of holding Manning in solitary confinement in an unsuccessful attempt to break his soul and coerce him into implicating Julian Assange, has blanketed him with additional spurious charges in a further attempt to blackmail him into helping extradite Assange.  Among the charges are leaking information to 'the enemy' (although they have not stated who 'the enemy' is supposed to be in the absence of a legal declaration of war, and cannot name any American who has died as a result of the revelations)."

---

"Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments — commonly known as the Bill of Rights — are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" — L. Neil Smith

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Why We Need an Asteroid Strike

Why We Need an Asteroid Strike
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Clot.shtml

"See, societies are like people in that they get old, clot, lose flexibility, and then croak. They can’t get better. Like most things, they just get worse. A rule of thermodynamics says that rivers don’t flow backwards, plaque does not voluntarily leave arteries, and governments do not become more reasonable, efficient, or interested in the well-being of their populations."

---

"Why is it so hard to understand that the reason the first ten Amendments — commonly known as the Bill of Rights — are trampled underfoot by politicos and bureaucrats is that the Founding Fathers neglected to provide a suitably harsh penalty for it?" — L. Neil Smith

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Yaron Brook on "Stossel"!

Unfortunately, we can't get Hulu over here in Deutschland either....I'd like to see this show!!

 

 

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Subscriber: Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center, will appear on Fox Business Network's "Stossel" program tonight, Thursday, March 10, 2011. Dr. Brook will discuss the proper role of government. The program airs at 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, eastern time. If you do not get Fox Business Network, don't worry. The show will go up at Hulu.com two weeks after airing. ARC media # # # ARC on: ARC sites: Ayn Rand Center Voices for Reason ARCTV Principles of a Free Society

Copyright © 2011 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved. Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions. If you would l

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Adam Smith’s invisible hand vs. Barack Obama’s helping hand

Adam Smith's invisible hand vs. Barack Obama's helping hand
By Mark Skousen   10:28 AM 03/09/2011

Today marks the anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith's most famous work, The Wealth of Nations, which was published on March 9, 1776. It's one of my favorite books.

The Wealth of Nations is a declaration of economic independence, and is just as important as Thomas Jefferson's declaration of political independence. It is no coincidence that they were both published in 1776, the Annus Mirabilis of the Enlightenment.

In his fat magnum opus (over 1,000 pages), Adam Smith declared war on government intervention in the economy, and put on paper a universal formula for prosperity that would revolutionize economics and international trade. It promised a new world ­ a world of abundant wealth, riches beyond the accumulation of gold and silver ­ and not just for the rich, but for the common man and the poor.

Adam Smith's solution? Give people their freedom! His "system of natural liberty" would liberate everyone from 16-hour-a-day jobs, subsistence wages, and forty-year life spans. He declared: "To prohibit a great people from making all that they can . . . or from employing their industry in the way that they judge most advantageous, is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind."

His formula? It was very simple: "Little else is required to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, [sound money], and a tolerable administration of justice." That's all we need for prosperity in this country ­ four simple things: peace, easy taxes, sound money, and a justice system that works. It's not that hard, President Obama!

Yet, do we have peace? Not in the Middle East.

Do we have easy taxes? Only if you don't make any money or are on welfare.

Do we have sound money? The dollar and the price of gold say "no."

Do we have a tolerable administration of justice? Not enough.

In short, we have a long way to go before we can declare victory for freedom and prosperity in this country.

Adam Smith's symbol of free-market capitalism was a beautiful metaphor: the invisible hand. The idea is that when an individual is given the freedom to pursue his own interests, "he is led by an invisible hand to promote that of the society."

Oddly enough, the "invisible hand" symbol is mentioned only once in the entire 1,000 pages of Adam Smith's tome, and only once in his earlier work, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" (1759). Critics have jumped on this fact and concluded that the much-touted symbol of free-market capitalism (the invisible hand) was in reality a marginal concept to Smith. In fact, they argue, Smith was really more of a social democrat and radical egalitarian who believed more in a "helping hand" to the poor than an "invisible hand" to the capitalists.

But now George Mason University's Daniel Klein has made a fascinating discovery: Smith placed his references to the invisible hand in the dead center of both books. Professor Klein argues that Smith did this deliberately because the invisible hand doctrine was central to his work. Adam Smith has finally revealed his (invisible) hand!

I've written an article for the Foundation for Economic Education on Dan Klein's discovery about the "deliberate centrality" of the invisible hand in Smith's work, and what it all means. It will appear in print in the June issue of "The Freeman."

On a personal note, March 9th is also the publication date of " The Making of Modern Economics" (March 9, 2001). It is not a coincidence. Adam Smith is the heroic figure of the book, which is now in its second edition. Last year it won the Choice Book Award for Outstanding Academic Title. The book is available in hardback, paperback, Kindle, and audio book ­ and translated into five languages.

I'm happy to announce that Professor Klein has accepted my invitation to participate in a debate at this year's big show, FreedomFest (July 14-16, Las Vegas), on the subject: "Libertarian, Conservative, or Radical Egalitarian: Will the Real Adam Smith Please Stand Up?" Hope you will join us for this annual event (it's the libertarian version of CPAC).

Long live free-market capitalism.


Mark Skousen is the editor of Forecasts & Strategies, and producer of FreedomFest, the world's largest gathering of free minds.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/09/adam-smiths-invisible-hand-vs-barack-obamas-helping-hand/#ixzz1GDZ4RDu2

The Military Has the Authority to Nudify You Too

Thursday, March 10, 2010
The Military Has the Authority to Nudify You Too
by Jacob G. Hornberger

In the controversy over the U.S. military's decision to nudify Bradley Manning, I suspect that most Americans have not yet come to the realization that U.S. military forces have the authority to do the same thing to each and every American. It's simply one part of the revolutionary transformation of American life, one in which the military now has the dominant, controlling position over the citizenry, who now are in the subservient position.

Consider, for example, a jury trial in federal district court in which an American citizen is being prosecuted by federal prosecutors for terrorism. The prosecutors put on their case, which is then given to the jury. The jury decides that there is insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquits the accused.

Is that the end of the story? Does the person's acquittal mean that he walks out of the courtroom a free man? Does the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment preclude him from being punished again for the same offense?

The answer used to be "yes" to all three questions.

Not anymore. The U.S. military now has the dominant, controlling power over the federal judiciary. The military can now ignore and disregard the verdict of acquittal from a federal jury and an order of discharge by a federal judge. The military can take the person into custody before he leaves the courtroom and take him to a military prison, where he can be treated as an "enemy combatant" in the "war on terrorism." That, of course, can mean indefinite detention, torture, including waterboarding and sensory deprivation, and forced nudity.

Yes, this applies to you and every other American. We now live in a country in which the military, pursuant to orders from the commander in chief, has the authority to arrest and round up Americans as suspected terrorists, transfer them to a military dungeon or concentration camp for life, torture them, and nudify them.

While Americans, like foreigners, still have the right to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus, all the government has to do is provide a modicum of evidence establishing ties to terrorism and the petition will be denied. When it comes to "national security" and the perpetual "war on terrorism," federal judges are deferring to the military, just like they do in other countries where the military plays a dominant role in society.

A few weeks ago, a federal district court dismissed a civil lawsuit brought by the American citizen Jose Padilla against U.S. officials. The suit alleged that the U.S. government, operating through its military, had no lawful authority to treat Padilla or any other American as an "enemy combatant" in the "war on terrorism," including indefinite detention, torture, and denial of trial by jury, speedy trial, and due process of law.

The government opposed Padilla's suit with extreme vehemence, just as it opposed Padilla's habeas corpus actions when he was being held as an "enemy combatant."

Why was the government fighting the Padilla case with such vehemence? Because the government knew that if it could prevail in the Padilla case, the ruling would apply to all Americans, not just Padilla, thereby effecting a revolutionary transformation in the historical relationship between the military and civilian in American life.

As people in Egypt have discovered, the power of the government to spy on people, take them into custody, torture them, and incarcerate them indefinitely is the hallmark of a tyrannical government. As you may know, the Mubarak dictatorship justified such powers under the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. The government assumed such powers during a crisis or emergency when the president of Egypt was assassinated 30 years ago. While the powers were supposed to be temporary, they are still in existence three decades later.

Interestingly and revealingly, the U.S. government supported the Mubarak dictatorship for those 30 years, including with cash and military armaments. The support came from not just the president and the Congress but also from the Pentagon, which worked closely with the Egyptian military and even provided training for Egyptian military forces. The U.S. military did not provide such training with reluctance. It was provided with conviction and belief that this was the right thing to do to maintain order and stability in the Middle East.

We should also keep in mind that the CIA, the U.S. government's paramilitary force, also worked closely with the Egyptian dictatorship's torture team, even retaining the team to torture people on behalf of the U.S. government. That arrangement was, again, not made reluctantly. It was done with the conviction and belief that this was the right thing to do.

Is the U.S. government spying on, rounding up Americans, imprisoning them, torturing them, and nudifying them? Well, we don't know yet the extent of the illegal NSA-telecom spying. But no, the government is not doing to a large number of Americans what it has done to Padilla and Manning.

What is dangerous, however, is that Americans now live in a country in which their very own government now wields the same types of anti-terrorism powers that the Mubarak's military dictatorship wielded in Egypt. Even more ominous is the fact that Americans now live in a country whose military showed enthusiastic support for the Egyptian dictatorship, including its military forces.

If another big emergency or crisis arises here in the United States, especially one relating to the war on terrorism or the war on drugs, American might just discover why the Founding Fathers opposed standing armies and militarism and why they enshrined the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eight Amendments into the Bill of Rights.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-03-10.asp

The Plain Truth on State Power

March 8, 2011
The Plain Truth on State Power
The Judge asks whether the government can ignore the Constitution when times are tough.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/freedom-watch/index.html#/v/4575615/the-plain-truth-on-state-power/?playlist_id=157991

Broder’s Last Testament: More War

Broder's Last Testament: More War
Posted by Christopher Manion on March 10, 2011 09:56 AM

Lew, may David Broder rest in peace. For the rest of us, though, he wanted war.

"Not" (just) to get Obama re-elected, of course ­ but to make him "one of the most successful presidents in history."

The callous cynicism with which he applied his able intellect in the service of the State emerges even here: the "reelection war" column, his last, appeared on Halloween.

His model? The Monster himself:

"Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II."

"Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history."

Cops on steroids

Nazis thugs favored cocaine and amphetamines.

 Today the drug of choice for uniformed thugs is steroids.   Thousands of police officers in the US and elsewhere abuse steroids and engage in their illegal trafficking.   Symptom of steroid abuse: hostility, paranoia, and uncontrolled rage with accompanying violence.   Strangely, it's not possible to find a serious video on this subject that comprehensively addresses the issue so we cobbled one together.   It's an epidemic, but commanders allow it and politicians for the most part look the other way.   Because of their unions, police officers are not drug tested unless there is "probable cause." Contrast that with just about any employment situation in the US today where an employer can order drug testing of anyone at any time as a condition of employment.   Video:  http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/1033.html  - Brasscheck  P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and videos with friends and colleagues.   That's how we grow. Thanks.   ================================ Brasscheck TV 2380 California St. San Francisco, CA 94115   

Keller of the NYT speaks out on Fox News

   

Keller: I doubt anyone at Fox News believes they’re producing impartial coverage

by Jim RomeneskoPublished Mar. 9, 2011 9:56 am

The Daily Beast
“They think their mission is to balance what they perceive as a left-wing mainstream media by providing news and comment with a conservative slant,” Times executive editor Bill Keller says of Fox. “That’s their right, but to say otherwise, to pretend to be something else, does strike me as cynical.” ||Earlier: Keller on Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and the national discourse.

RELATED POSTS

1. Keller on Murdoch, Fox News and the national discourse
2. Keller: ‘We all may be working for Steve Jobs some day’
3. Keller: WSJ’s Greater New York is ‘a small-town news section in a big city’
4. Keller addresses brouhaha over his Darfur remark
5. Keller: “Thankfully my job doesn’t require me to know the future, but…”

Surprise surprise! Ron Schiller decides not to join the Aspen Institute - wonder if that was his choice

   

Ron Schiller decides not to join the Aspen Institute

by Jim RomeneskoPublished Mar. 9, 2011 11:22 amUpdated Mar. 9, 2011 11:33 am

Aspen Institute communications director Jim Spiegelman says in an e-mail: “Ron Schiller has informed us that, in light of the controversy surrounding his recent statements, he does not feel that it’s in the best interests of the Aspen Institute for him to come work here.”

Tags: NPR

RELATED POSTS

1. Aspen Institute panel discusses health of nation’s media
2. Aspen cop loses job after giving reporter a ride instead of citing him for DUI
3. Aspen editor: ‘We can’t spend all our resources worrying about what Charlie Sheen is doing’
4. Aspen FOCAS Reminds ‘Information Also Wants to Be Expensive’
5. Ex-Gannett newspaper chief named Morrison Institute director

Re: Still in the Dark About 9/11

What a crock.  It was the citizens of NYC who were up in arms about the trial of the Sheik in Manhattan and the disaster that would have been who deserve blame for the trial not taking place in Manhattan in a civil court - and I agree with the citizens totally.  If Obama had stepped out of the way and the Dems in Congress had stepped out of the way then the trials could have been held by the military, the people who are most in the line of fire of these terrorists, under the laws for military trials promulgated by the congresses since WW II. 

If you will look at the various congresses and senates in the past 65 years since WW II, there have, with very few exceptions, been Democratic senates and congresses.  It is only since 1994 that the Republicans have held power in these legislative bodies and not all the time since then.  It is the Dems who made the laws and held the hearings on these issues and we need to not lose sight of that.  It is not time for the Dems at this point to try to point fingers at who caused these trial holdups.    The games that have been played in the media by the Democrats since 2001 are the major cause of the trials being held up.  It is now time for them to go forward and hold the trials and get this mess out of the way.

On 03/10/2011 09:02 AM, MJ wrote:

Still in the Dark About 9/11
Posted on Mar 8, 2011
By Robert Scheer

Ignorance is the real victor in the president's reluctant decision to abandon the effort to bring the alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attack to account in civilian court. The significance of a fair and public trial would be to reveal to the world the motives and makeup of those we must defeat, and yet the very people in this country who claim to be the most militant in combating terrorism have been the most energetic and effective in stifling that inquiry.

It must be said that Barack Obama deserves credit for attempting to show the world that truth will triumph and justice will prevail when even the most dastardly offenders are given their day in court. But faced with a shrill Republican-led opposition in Congress that succeeded in banning the trials on U.S. soil, the president reluctantly reversed the decision he had made upon taking office to halt military commission trials of those detained at Guantanamo. The announcement Monday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates rescinding the ban on the military trials also called for the indefinite imprisonment of those Guantanamo inmates thought to be too dangerous to be released but against whom the government doesn't have enough evidence to obtain convictions. The shortcomings of the military commission trials was denounced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who said such proceedings fall "far short of core constitutional values by failing to provide judicial review of cases considered by the review board' and to guarantee "meaningful assistance of counsel" to those accused.

But it is not the rights of the accused, important as they are, that should be the main concern here. Rather it is the right -- indeed, need -- of the American public to learn the truth about the motives, financing and methods of those who are alleged to have torn at the heart of our social fabric. What led 15 solid citizens of our ally Saudi Arabia to hijack those planes under direction of their Western-educated leaders is still murky. How did our allies in the war against Soviet communism in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, come to mastermind that savage attack on America? It is startling that, almost a decade after the attack, we still must rely for our understanding of what happened on a narrative informed not by the full disclosure revealed by the evaluation of a vetted record and robust cross-examination in open court of the key witnesses but rather by the unexamined and unquestioned reckoning of the facts supplied by the government officials who interrogated and indeed tortured the prisoners, most significantly Mohammed.

What the public has been led to believe about the events of 9/11 is most fully encapsulated in the report of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, appointed by President George W. Bush. But the Bush administration denied the commission access to the prisoners whose testimony, elicited after torture, provided the basic narrative as to how Sept. 11, 2001, came to be. That fatal flaw in the investigation was clearly conceded in a box on Page 146 of the official 9/11 Commission report containing a disclaimer that the key chapters "rely heavily on information from captured al Qaeda members" and admitting that the commission was dependent on hearsay reports from the interrogators as to what those witnesses actually said.

"We submitted questions for use in the interrogations but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process."

Much of that story was derived from the waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was slated to be tried in Manhattan in civilian court until Congress derailed that possibility. As a result, the mystery of what led him from a small North Carolina Baptist college to fight alongside the United States in Afghanistan and then turn against this country may never be known­along with who financed and directed his journey and that of the hijackers he is said to have guided. For a decade, we have been obsessed with a terrorist enemy that we still barely comprehend. Ignorance is not bliss.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/still_in_the_dark_about_9_11_20110308/ --
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

What Is Prejudice?

"To people who take this muddled view of prejudice, the position of the infant child is the epistemological ideal, whereas the position of the mature adult who can draw upon a wealth of experience is an epistemological quagmire from which there is no escape."

What Is Prejudice?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
by Ben O'Neill

Comedian Chris Rock has a routine where he says,

You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush," "Dick," and "Colon." Need I say more?[1]

Amusing yes, but is it prejudice? Presumably Mr. Rock is expecting black rappers, white golfers, arrogant Frenchmen, and little Chinese people. He is, in short, expecting those things that we have come to know as stereotypes.

Is it possible, perhaps, that this expectation is hindering his rational judgment? Is he prejudging the kind of rappers and golfers he should expect, and if so, what do we mean by this allegation? Should we be offended?

What about some other examples? Are we being prejudiced if we expect Irishmen to be binge drinkers, or expect Native Americans to love gambling? What if we think that women are bad at parallel parking, or that men are bad at cooking? Are we prejudging them?


Experience, Prejudice, and Group Judgment

According to some eminent remarks on the subject, prejudice is a product of our experiences. In a broadcast in December of 1955, journalist Edward R. Murrow told his audience that "everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices  just recognize them." British essayist Charles Lamb held a similar view, complaining of his "earth-bound" experience and describing himself thusly:

a bundle of prejudices ­ made up of likings and dislikings ­ the veriest thrall to sympathies, apathies, and antipathies.

Another quotation, this time from an unknown author:

We are each burdened with prejudice; against the poor or the rich, the smart or the slow, the gaunt or the obese. It is natural to develop prejudices. It is noble to rise above them.

According to all of these views, prejudice is something that we develop from our experiences in life, and which hinders our ability to make rational judgments. We are prisoners of our earth-bound and finite experience, and it is this experience that thwarts our attempts to judge others rationally, without any preconceptions. Though there is disagreement in these views as to our ability to transcend our prejudices, what all of these quotes share is more striking: a common disparagement of life experience and its subsequent effects on our judgment.

But what is prejudice? As is apparent from the etymology of the word,[2] it is the prejudgment of something ­ it is a judgment occurring before it should. What does it occur before? Well, presumably, a prejudiced judgment occurs before all the relevant and available facts are in. If the fellow sitting up at the big bench with the horsehair wig sends some poor rube to the gallows before his lawyer has even had a chance to give an opening statement, then this is prejudgment of the issue, and we might rightly cry afoul -- prejudice! This judge is demonstrating prejudice because he has leapt to judgment before he should have; in this case, before considering relevant information that was available to him, but that he did not care to consider.

We hear allegations of prejudice quite often. The allegation is applied liberally when people make judgments about others on the basis of group memberships. If this entails demographic considerations like sex or race, then the chorus of denunciation is likely to be great indeed -- it is prejudice, stereotyping, narrow-mindedness and bigotry! (Indeed, these are often taken to be synonyms.)

Such judgments are often characterized as prejudices because they supposedly ignore the individual merits of those being judged. To judge someone by their race or sex is allegedly to ignore their inner goodness (or badness) and leap to conclusions, before we know what kind of person they are. The problem with this allegation is that individual merits are often unknown to us, and we are frequently put in positions where we require judgments about people we have never met or interacted with and know very little about. Sometimes these are snap judgments, required before we have any real opportunity to get to know those whom we judge. Other times they are judgments that are protracted, but nonetheless involve considerations of merits that we cannot assess directly in the circumstances.

In these kinds of cases, it is often perfectly legitimate to use group memberships (even characteristics like sex, race, age, etc.) as predictors for other characteristics of direct interest that are not available to us for observation ­ i.e., to use rational inference and discrimination. Doing so is not a derogation of the principle of judging people on their merits, so long as it involves a bona fide attempt to infer these individual characteristics from all the information that is available at the time. (In fact, it is the refusal to consider such proxy characteristics that constitutes the failure to properly assess the individual merits of the person using all the information available.)

Perhaps I'm being a bit sneaky here, and using a "persuasive definition," since I have said that prejudice refers to a judgment made before all the relevant and available facts are in. Perhaps it should only be the former, and I am just sneaking this second requirement into the concept, to load the word in favor of my argument. In other words, perhaps the concept of prejudice actually refers to a judgment made before all the relevant facts are in, whether or not these facts are available to the person making the judgment. Assessing someone on their individual merits therefore means assessing them on all their individual merits, known or not.

Now, if this is the case, then it must mean that a person making a decision without all the relevant facts, even the unavailable ones, is prejudging the issue ­ he is "prejudiced" because he fails to take into account information that he cannot possibly take into account. But, surely, to require such ­ and to disparage its absence -- is to hold people to an impossible standard -- to require omniscience, and complain of the limited knowledge of mere mortals!

In fact, this is exactly what those with this view of prejudice require, as when Charles Lamb (in the above quotation) disparages his own likings and disliking as mere prejudices, on the basis that he is "earth-bound and fettered to the scene of [his] activities." But what more can one ask of poor Charles? That he transcend his own experience, knowledge, and perceptual capabilities -- forming likings and disliking on the basis of things he does not have an opportunity to know or observe? If so, then this is pure mysticism and cannot form the basis of a legitimate critique of judgment and the decision-making processes.


The False Identification of Prejudice

If we reject this mystical and impossible standard, and instead accept that prejudice only properly refers to judgments formed without consideration of the available information, then it is easy to see that much of what is liberally described as prejudice in these heady days of "progressive" thought is actually the exact opposite. What is described as prejudice is often nothing more than belief that is formed on the basis of the sum total of a person's actual experience and learning -- that is, formed on the basis of observation of reality.

If one asserts, for example, that women are hopeless at parallel parking (intending this as a general statement, rather than a strict one-to-one relationship), then this is likely to be a judgment based on observation. Similarly, if one asserts that Irishmen are a bunch of drunks (again, intending this as a general statement) then this is likely to be a judgment based on observation.[3] These are both empirical propositions, and whether each is true or false is a matter to be resolved by an appeal to observation; perhaps to anecdotal experience, and comparison of one's own experiences with others, but ideally to some more reliable method, such as meticulous empirical study of the proposition. (Of course, information of this kind is often not available.) In either case, if the judgment comes when it is needed, is based on observation, and uses all the information that is available at the time, then the charge of prejudice is misplaced.

Though the concept of prejudice is a statement of prejudgment, it is quite often the case that allegations of prejudice involve no attempt to assess the process by which the relevant judgment is made, and the evidence that is used. Indeed, allegations of prejudice are often mere bald assertions. There is no allegation that a person has failed to take account of some piece of information available to them, and the accuser merely presumes that the judgment made could not possibly be a judgment formed on the basis of evidence, since they themselves disagree with it. It is merely presumed a priori that certain empirical propositions cannot possibly be true, since they would offend the sensibilities of the person alleging prejudice. Indeed, it is quite common to see beliefs described as prejudices even though they are actually true, and reflect some demonstrably empirical relationship in reality. Here, ironically, it is not the disparaged belief that proceeds in willful ignorance of the available facts; it is the allegation of prejudice. It is the judgment of prejudice that is prejudiced!

Do you want to be able to identify actual prejudice without being prejudiced yourself? Then consider asking the following questions: How was this belief formed? Is this actually a prejudice, or is it a proper empirical judgment? What do the observable facts say about the issue? What facts seem to have been taken into consideration in forming the belief? What, if any, facts were ignored? Did the person with this belief have access to facts that they willfully ignored, or were some facts simply unavailable when making the judgment?

These are surely legitimate issues if we wish to distinguish irrational prejudgment of an issue from legitimate judgment with all the available facts. To say that prejudice develops from experience, as in the above quotations, is to admit that the beliefs being referred to actually are based on evidence from reality (even if they are ultimately false). To disparage experience in this way is virtually an admission that the kinds of beliefs being disparaged are not prejudices at all, and are being disparaged precisely because of this fact. Such judgments are disparaged, not because they are made with a lack of information about the facts, but because they are made with factual information.

Examples of this kind of muddled thinking about prejudice abound, but it is most apparent in people's attitudes toward judging stereotypes. If one is ever caught musing that Native Americans like to gamble,[4] that the Irish are frequent binge drinkers,[5] or that an awful lot of black guys seem to like basketball,[6] there is a good chance that this will lead to an allegation of prejudice. Yet all of these allegations have some support in empirical observation, and it is quite possible for a person to form such views on the basis of empirical observation and inductive reasoning. Indeed, it is quite arguable that these are true empirical statements, so long as they are framed as statements of correlation, and not causal statements of racial determinism, or strict one-to-one relationships. However, in the face of accusations of prejudice it is usually futile to cite empirical evidence on these points, because the charge is not really a complaint that you are prejudging the issue -- but a complaint that you are not!

In fact, most (if not all) stereotypes are formed and dispelled on the basis of people's actual experience, aggregated to account for the experiences of large numbers of people. Stereotypes arise when large numbers of people notice some correlation between human characteristics and behaviors and mention this to one another in conversation. The observation eventually enters the lexicon of common experience and the stereotype becomes widely known. When characteristics and behaviors change over time, leading some previous correlation to cease or reverse, the stereotype becomes outdated. As with its initial formation, the dissolution of the stereotype occurs when large numbers of people notice that the alleged correlation is no longer present, and mention this to one another in conversation. Eventually this new experience means that the credibility of the stereotype wanes, and it is discarded. Hence, stereotypes change over time, distilling the collective experience of people in a particular culture and time period. They are generally true, and even when they are false, it is usually the case that they were previously true at some point in the fairly recent past, prior to their disposal. Moreover, regardless of whether a given stereotype is true or false, it is rarely a prejudgment ignoring the available facts. Most often it is formed and held on the basis of personal and second-hand empirical observation.

The crucial point here is that whether or not these kinds of assertions are prejudices is determined by whether or not they are based on proper empirical observation. The common hostility to stereotypes (even when they are true) stems from the hostility to actual human experience and inductive inference. To describe such judgments as prejudice is to completely invert the meaning of the concept.

To people who take this muddled view of prejudice, the position of the infant child is the epistemological ideal, whereas the position of the mature adult who can draw upon a wealth of experience is an epistemological quagmire from which there is no escape. Many people are quite explicit about this fact, and they hail children as allegedly clear thinkers, unclouded by the prejudices of adults. Under this view, the infant child is new and free from prejudice, whereas the old man is embittered by a slew of irrational prejudices formed from his life experiences. Hence, when playwright Lillian Hellman says that "nobody outside of a baby carriage or a judge's chamber believes in an unprejudiced point of view" she is implicitly idealizing the baby, holding it in the same esteem as the judicial process of the court of law. This alone should be enough to cause serious questions about this attitude to prejudice. The ideal held aloft as the standard of rationality is the infant child -- i.e., the least experienced, least wise, least knowledgeable person possible! To the prejudice proclaimers of the world, this wailing, babbling little moron is the ideal standard of rational thinking, not despite his lack of knowledge and experience, but because of it.


Actual Prejudice

Actual prejudice is a species of irrationality in which judgment is formed without consideration of all the relevant and available facts. "Availability" here may refer to what is actually known and has already been observed or learned by the decision maker when forming the judgment, or it may include other pieces of information that can be acquired with some further reasonable effort. Which is the case will depend on the context of the judgment and the importance of the judgment, which will determine whether or not it is reasonable to expect additional efforts to acquire more information, and, if so, how much effort should be expected.[7]

In assessing whether or not a judgment is premature, it is also necessary to note that one often needs to make judgments pro tempore, before the opportunity to acquire comprehensive information about a subject. In this context, rationality requires that such judgments be formed on the basis of the facts available at the time, and that these interim judgments be supplanted when more information is available and taken into account in the decision-making process. In this case, the interim judgment is contextually legitimate in its timing; though it is prior to a fuller consideration using more information, it nonetheless comes at the correct time. It is a prejudgment only in the sense that it comes prior to a later judgment, using more information. It is not a prejudiced judgment in the normative sense complained of here. It comes when it is supposed to come, and it uses the information that is available.

If we were to ignore the issue of availability of information, and require all relevant facts to be taken into account, then we would never make decisions under uncertainty, and the entire enterprise of inductive inference would be prohibited. Under such a directive, man would be incapable of functioning. His standard of rational judgment would require omniscience, which he does not have, and would regard anything short of the omniscient identification of truth as a flawed decision-making procedure. Moreover, he would look upon human judgment and decision not just as flawed but as wicked iniquitous behavior. He would paralyze his own mind and inductive faculties for fear of being "prejudiced."

A proper understanding of the nature of prejudice requires a realistic expectation as to the information that is available to a person forming a judgment, and an a priori openness to the possibility that empirical propositions may be true or false. It is not at all inconsistent to make observations about group behavior and characteristics, or use stereotypes, while at the same time eschewing genuine instances of irrational prejudgment. To do so merely requires that we evaluate, when we require a judgment of something, what information we can get about it at the time and what we can infer from this information.


The Consequences of False Ideas about Prejudice

The concept of prejudice is one of the most misused and misunderstood concepts in the world today. Indeed, when one hears an allegation of "prejudice," it is quite often used to describe exactly the opposite of what it actually means. It is most often applied as an allegation against the use of stereotypes, despite the fact that these are actually the distilled wisdom of the empirical judgments of millions of people, and are applied in situations where the stereotype represents a valid inductive inference.

In case the foregoing argument is of interest, it may also be interesting to note the common reaction of people who hear it. I have, on several occasions, been privy to a faulty accusation of prejudice, of the kind discussed, and I have occasionally taken it upon myself to politely explain that the allegation seems to refer to the exact opposite of a prejudice. One might expect that such a revelation would be surprising to the accuser, and, if they agreed with the argument behind it, this might lead them to some reconsideration of their views. However, in my experience, people using the concept of prejudice in this way seem quite unperturbed by the fact that they are using it to describe its polar opposite. If this is pointed out to them, their reaction is usually to regard this correction as horribly pedantic and trivial. They react as if someone is playing a clever semantic trick on them. "Well sure, I guess that technically that's what prejudice actually means, but still!"

This attitude stems in large part from the view that stereotypes and other kinds of judgments viewed as prejudicial are certainly bad, even if the appellation "prejudice" does not correctly describe them. Thus, when informed of their misuse of the concept in deriding someone else's judgment, the attitude of many people is that the judgment they have disparaged is definitely worthy of indictment, even if the indictment itself needs to change. Even if the relevant facts have all been considered, assertions that lots of Native Americans like to gamble or that lots of Irish guys like to get drunk offend the feelings of people who are reflexively hostile to empirical statements about groups of people. Prejudice is sometimes the preferred indictment, but the actual complaint is usually the opposite ­ that these are a priori wicked statements that cannot be true, and that the appeal to empirical evidence on such matters is itself wrong and sinister.

But this is not merely an issue of semantics. The faulty view of prejudice is a matter of substance, and not some benign triviality, relevant only to English-language pedants. It actually has some very bad consequences. In particular, this faulty understanding of rational judgment leads people to disparage experience and empirical judgment as some kind of impediment to reason. It causes them to reject stereotypes without any examination of their foundation and, most importantly, whether they are true!

Philosophically, this attitude stems from the so-called "rationalism" associated with philosophers like Spinoza and Leibniz -- the view that all knowledge can be derived intellectually through deduction, without any appeal to experience. More specifically, it stems from the false view that groups of people must be equal in all empirical characteristics and behaviors (a fortiori if these have any normative implications) regardless of what the actual facts show us.

It is only through empirical judgment that we form beliefs as to what characteristics commonly go together, and what do not, such that we can make rational predictions about what to expect from people we know little about. For example, the Chris Rock joke I mentioned at the start of this essay is rife with stereotypes and the so-called "prejudices" that we have just discussed, but it is actually evidence of proper empirical observation and inductive reasoning. The humor in the joke derives from the contrary nature of the facts arrayed and their collective improbability compared to historical patterns ­ it is funny because most of the best rappers are black, most professional golf players are white, most of the tallest basketball players are not Chinese, and certain German (and earlier Prussian) governments' have had a less-than-stellar record for peaceful foreign affairs. It is precisely because stereotypes are true in large numbers of individual cases that the situation highlighted in the joke (though cherry-picked) is both surprising and humorous.

Of course, if one were to drastically underestimate the probability that, despite the common trends and useful stereotypes, there could be a highly popular white rapper, a champion golfer who is black, or a very tall Asian basketball player, then this would indeed be reason to reexamine one's inductive reasoning. Similarly, if one were to refuse to recognize the present situation as evidence that goes against the stereotype (and therefore weakens its predictive ability) then this would also be a reason to reexamine one's inductive reasoning. But to even understand the joke requires one to know that there are group trends in behavior and characteristics that are predictive of individual cases. This is what lets us know that the current circumstance referred to in the joke is uncommon and therefore funny.


Conclusion

Don't be prejudiced about prejudice! Make sure you look at the facts, and consider the basis on which judgments are formed. Instead of following the outlook of those who disparage experience, we are much better to listen to Voltaire, who understood that "prejudice is opinion without judgment."[8]



Ben O'Neill is a lecturer in statistics at the University of New South Wales (ADFA) in Canberra, Australia. He has formerly practiced as a lawyer and as a political adviser in Canberra. He is a Templeton Fellow at the Independent Institute,
where he won first prize in the 2009 Sir John Templeton Fellowship essay contest.



Notes

[1] See Chris Rock quotes. Basketball player Charles Barkley is attributed with a very similar quotation. It is not clear to the present author which is the original.

[2] The modern word "prejudice" is derived from the Latin "praejudicium" which is the conjunction of "prae" (before) and "judicium" (judgment) (see Harper, D. (2001) Online Etymology Dictionary. The etymology of the term makes clear that it has always referred to the making of a judgment before the consideration of some fact.

[3] In the foregoing examples, I have included an element of coarseness in the empirical assertions that could rightly be a basis for legitimate criticism, depending on the context. I do this because it is often the case that group judgments like this are expressed in a vague or unrefined way, without proper stipulation of the exact meaning of the assertion or any relevant caveats. Nevertheless, it is usually clear from the context that such statements, even when presented coarsely, are empirical assertions of correlations in group behavior or characteristics. Thus, if someone says that "Irishmen are a bunch of drunks" they actually do not intend to assert a literal one-to-one relationship; they are saying that the incidence of drunkenness is substantially higher among the Irish than among other groups. Similarly, if someone says that "women can't drive" they would not intend this literally (since clearly women can drive); rather, they are saying that the average driving proficiency is substantially lower amongst women than men. Hence, I take such statements to be coarse statements of correlation.

[4] Empirical support for the proposition that (on average) native Americans are more likely to gamble than others can be found in several sources. Anecdotal evidence can be found from the presence of many casinos run by native Americans (though this also has other historical and political causes). Empirical studies of gambling also lend some support to this proposition (see e.g., Welte, J.W., Barnes, G.M., Tidwell, M.O. and Hoffman, J.H. (2008) The presence of problem gambling among US adolescents and young adults: results from a national survey. Journal of Gambling Studies 24, pp. 119-133.)

[5] Recent research shows higher rates of alcohol abstinence, but also higher rates of binge drinking in Ireland compared to other European countries (see Ramstedt, M. and Hope, A. (2004) The Irish drinking culture. http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/5841/1/2396-2528.pdf). Empirical support for high levels of alcohol induced problems amongst Irish people can also be found in earlier sources, though there is some conflicting evidence regarding different measures (see e.g., Lynn, R. and Hampson, S. (1970) Alcoholism and alcohol consumption in Ireland. Journal of the Irish Medical Association 63(3), pp. 39-42; Walsh, D. (1970) Alcoholism in the Republic of Ireland. British Journal of Psychiatry 115, pp. 1021-1025; Walsh, B.M. and Walsh, D. (1973) Validity of indices of alcoholism: a comment from Irish experience. British Journal of Preventative and Social Medicine 27, pp. 18-26).

[6] The most compelling empirical evidence for this assertion is the racial composition of basketball teams and leagues in countries such as the United States, which have a very high proportion of black men compared to their proportion in the general population. (Empirical support for this assertion can also be found in a novel piece of research on the likes and dislikes of different self-identified racial groups on an internet dating site (see OKTrends (2010) "The REAL 'Stuff White People Like'").

[7] For a more precise account, we can turn to statistical inference and decision theory. This tells us that a decision-maker should take account of all presently known information, and should seek out further information to improve the decision in cases where the expected value of the additional information exceeds to costs (e.g. inconvenience) of acquiring the additional information. The expected value of the additional information is the difference between the expected benefit of the decision without the additional information, and the expected benefit of the decision with the additional information. Hence, the value of additional information will depend on the usefulness of this information in improving the decision in question, and the importance of the decision in conferring a benefit (or avoiding a loss) to the decision-maker, or others.

[8] Emphasis added.

http://mises.org/daily/5090/What-Is-Prejudice