I like to boldly split infinitives as much as von. But I write in praise of another grammatical antihero—the passive voice.
It’s just so useful. It can defend the indefensible, obscure meanings faster than a speeding bullet, erase responsibility in a single stroke….
(Or rather: defense of the indefensible has been enabled by it. Significant contributions to obscuring-of-meanings and responsibility-erasing related program activities have also been made.)
For example, this:
I also think that the rather transparent effort to use this against Bush — often by people who think nothing of cozying up to the likes of Castro, for whom torture and murder are essential tools of governance — has caused the Abu Ghraib issue to be taken less seriously than perhaps it ought to be.
sounds much better than this:
People are criticizing Bush about the Abu Ghraib scandal. Some of them—I won’t say who, or give any examples—once cozied up to Fidel Castro, or someone like him, or they would given the chance. Therefore, I will not take seriously the evidence of torture by U.S. troops, or the possibility that the Bush administration condones torture.
Unfortunately, my junior high English teachers taught me never to use the passive voice. So I was left telling my mother:
My sister’s room is dirtier and you don’t yell at her! And I was GOING to clean my room, but now I won’t because you’re nagging me so much so THERE!!!” (stomp stomp stomp) (slammed door)*
when this would have sounded so much nicer:
The irrationally hostile tone of your voice, coupled with the transparent neglect of the far greater disarray of my sister’s room, has led the clothes-all-over-the-floor situation to be taken less seriously than perhaps it otherwise would have been.
More seriously, not that Glenn Reynolds will ever read this in a billion years:
People are attacking the Bush administration over this because there is an awful lot of evidence implicating them. They’ve written legal memos justifying torture and unlimited presidential power, one of which was signed by the head of the office of legal counsel. They’ve deported an innocent** men to torture in Syria, based on “confessions” extracted from other men tortured in Syria. The Deputy Attorney General, acting as Attorney General, signed the order deporting Arar. There is probably a “presidential finding” signed by Bush authorizing “extraordinary renditions.” There were no JAG officers at Abu Ghraib, and not because JAG officers were not available. They ignored warnings from the Red Cross. I’m not even going to get into all the incriminating details about Abu Ghraib; see this post for more. They did not apologize for any of this until pictures came out. They still haven’t admitted any mistake that hasn’t been illustrated with pictures. And they still won’t tell the public anything about what they’re doing.
Saying “I’m against torture” is all well and good. But abstract opposition is not worth much, when your response to credible allegations that your government condones torture is to ignore the evidence, blame the messenger, and change the subject.
And if none of that convinces you, I’ve even graciously provided ammunition for an argument that it’s Bill Clinton’s fault!
*Dramatic reenactment; may not have happened.
**don’t know this for a fact, but I’m pretty sure.
NICE rant!
Perhaps you need greater education in reading comprehension.
He clearly states that he believes that the rather transparent effort to use this against Bush has caused the Abu Ghraib issue to be taken less seriously than perhaps it ought to be.
In the middle of that sentence, he decided to criticize some of Bush’s critics on this for hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, in that they support Castro even though he engages in torture.
He explicitly says that it has been treated less seriously than it, perhaps, deserves.
You put those words in his mouth in your active voice interpretation. He, perhaps incorrectly, speaks about what he thinks that many others are thinking.
Yes, mistakes were made.
(but not by anybody around here)
“Perhaps you need greater education in reading comprehension.”
Perhaps you need to discuss ideas, not make ad hominem attacks.
I am the one making personal attacks? Choice words.
“I am the one making personal attacks?”
Did I misquote you?
Shorter Glenn Reynolds:
Bush should not be held accountable for the criminal activities of his administration, and anybody that says he should take responsibility is gettting in the way of me taking this issue seriously. And also they love Castro.
Terry Jones is God.
Gary, he’s referring to you calling him a apologist for the SS – which,
(taking off official I Can Ban People Here hat)
might I add, is something that you really should either apologize for, or correct your statement so that it isn’t referencing him anymore. It’s really not something that you want me to notice when I’m wearing my hat.
Moe
Let’s assume, for a moment, some people are using Abu Ghraib to attack Bush politically. And let’s assume, again for a moment, that these same people are huge fans of Fidel Castro.
How on earth does that mitigate the fact torture, sexual abuse and assault, rape and murder is being perpetrated in the name of each and every merican citizen?
I suspect people who don’t take these crimes seriously because it’s used against this appointed administration probably don’t the crimes seriously in any case.
Reynold’s Castro snark was an an hominem watering down of a potentially otherwise keen observation.
{putting on deconstruction helmet}
Pulling the two apart:
1. I also think that the rather transparent effort to use this against Bush…has caused the Abu Ghraib issue to be taken less seriously than perhaps it ought to be.
What RG is really arguing here I believe (and K’s 100% right that his use of the passive voice makes it more ambigous…and that’s probably intentional), is that defenders of the president will, in response to seeing him attacked, soften their own perceptions/judgements about the torture in order to come to his defense.
This may be human nature, but it’s hardly admirable under the circumstance.
2. effort to use this against Bush…often by people who think nothing of cozying up to the likes of Castro, for whom torture and murder are essential tools of governance
Ad hominem supreme. And totally useless as he’s not saying the supposed Castro supporters are the ones taking Abu Ghrais less seriously than they should. It is a throwaway snark, not supporting his main point in the slightest. Again, K nails it though, in that his use of the passive voice (thereby releasing him from the duty of identifying those he’s charging so they can dispute it) is particularly creepy.
Honestly, I don’t think Nathan’s comment is over the line. He didn’t call me illiterate or whatever. It’s not as nice to say I have trouble with reading comprehension as that I’m misreading Reynolds, but when I just compared Reynolds to a seventh grade girl, I don’t think I should be oversensitive.
As for his point:
I am 95% sure that Reynolds is speaking for a group that includes himself, especially when you consider the context and other things he’s said (and not said). But no, I can’t prove that–that’s the whole point of the passive voice used like this: the hidden subject.
And the argument is ridiculous. Even leaving the unsupported stuff about Castro out of it–he’s dismissing criticism of the President on the grounds that it criticizes the President.
I don’t know Eddie, not unusual for politics to play a role in the metric used in abhorent behavior.
Castro is a hero (or at the very least a compelling historical figure) to many on the left for a variety of reasons. Yet, Castro is also a fascist, in the true sense of the word.
Abu Ghrais is serious situation and is being treated as such. The systemic abuse in Cuba is a serious situation but it is ignored because Castro is such a fascinating and compelling fascist.
The Castro love affair by the left is nothing new. Stalin and Walter Duranty immediately come to mind regarding Stalin’s policy of forced collectivization which the left reveled in.
Katherine, he isn’t dismissing the criticism, he is dismissing the critics and rightfully so.
I’ll cut through the jungle of history* and hair-splitting, Timmy, and jump right to the question at hand: Who exactly is Reynolds accusing of both criticizing the President and supporting Castro?
Until he identifies that person/group, his charge is useless.
*I would like to revist this though, as it’s fascinating from many perspectives.
Actually Eddie, if memory serves me, there have been a number of people from west LA (directors, actors, activists) who have recently visited Castro and spoke effusively about the man and who have been critical about the prison abuse.
One can easily acknowledge their concerns about the prison abuse, yet be critical of the individual.
Names, Timmy. Even one (so long as you confirm with Glenn that’s who he’s talking about). As it stands, you and Glenn are leaving it to each and every critic of the President’s handling of the torture scandal to defend themselves against charges of being pro-Castro. That’s a red herring.
Eddie, please define pro-Castro for me. Cuz if you leave the definition up to me, it will be expansive as will my list.
Eddie, please define pro-Castro for me.
Let’s use Glenn’s statement (with all the room for interpretation it provides):
Actually, Katherine, I think that my tone was a little sour, so I am sorry. It could have served well without the reading comprehension remark.
I just think that you were changing what he was actually saying in your transfer from passive to active voice, and that it made his opinions on the whole affair seem less respectable.
Nathan: I just think that you were changing what he was actually saying in your transfer from passive to active voice, and that it made his opinions on the whole affair seem less respectable.
Well, then, if you perceive a flaw in Katherine’s translation from passive to active voice, please translate more accurately what Glenn Reynolds was saying in passive voice, into active voice.
Jesurgislac,
“People are rather transparently trying to skewer Bush with the Abu Ghraib scandal. I find this hypocritical because some of them say nice things about Castro, and those like him, even though he regularly engages in torture. I think that these people are making the Abu Ghraib scandal appear less important than it may well be.”
Obviously, I modified Katherine’s statement. As I have little formal training in such things, I hope that I have accurately used active voice.
Thanks, Nathan. Yes, that looks like a reasonable translation from passive to active.
It doesn’t change the points that Katherine was making in her post, though: people are criticizing Bush for Abu Ghraib because there is considerable evidence that the Bush administration has been condoning torture in US military prisons, and considerable circumstancial evidence that they have in fact been endorsing and encouraging torture.
Further, as you may have noticed yourself, the assertion that some few unnamed people who criticize Bush but speak in praise of Castro are somehow responsible for the Abu Ghraib crimes not being taken seriously as they ought to be is absurd: if these people exist, what power do they have to prevent Abu Ghraib being taken seriously? (While writing this paragraph it did occur to me that there is a certain terrible irony in this claim of Reynolds, since Bush & Co’s defense of Guantanamo Bay’s legality rests squarely on the claim that as Guantanamo Bay is in Cuba, the prisoners there have only what rights they would have under Cuban law, not under the US justice system…. )
Phrased a little differently, and in active voice, Reynolds could be saying something I’d agree with: that the question of torture committed by US soldiers is too big an issue to be partisan over. I find the hands-rubbing attitude that “this will kill Bush” more than a little distasteful. But this goes both ways: it’s also distasteful to see Reynolds attempting to claim that it’s the fault of Bush’s opponents that the Abu Ghraib scandal isn’t being taken as seriously as it should be. It’s the Pentagon and the Justice Department who need to take it seriously, and it’s hard to see how unnamed Castro supporters could possibly prevent them from doing so.
If Bush is in any way responsible for the torture memo, then this goes far beyond his loss of the upcoming election: if he wanted to find out how he could legally justify the use of torture, or believed that as President he was above the law, he deserves to be impeached.
Yet, Castro is also a fascist, in the true sense of the word.
Only if by “true” you mean “ahistorically revisionist”. He’s a Communist [specifically Stalinist, IIRC] dictator which is not, contra recent claims, the same as being a fascist.