by Eric Martin
This brief excerpt from Sarah Palin’s speech at the RNC rather concisely encapsulates much of what is wrong with the Republican Party’s approach to Constitutional protections and individual freedoms:
Al-Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … [Obama’s] worried that someone won’t read them their rights? Government is too big … he wants to grow it.
The second phrase highlights some of the internal contradictions in "small government" conservativism. First of all, the government that is deemed "too big" by Palin is the same government that was enlarged exponentially under a Republican president and a compliant Republican Congress. So the rhetoric, even in terms of fiscal discipline and budgetary matters, varies wildly from the actual policies.
Second, this statement betrays the lack of regard for individual liberties that undermines the GOP claim to the small government mantle. For the modern Republican Party, there is little fear expressed with respect to a government being too "big" when it comes to employing police state powers that encroach on rights enshrined in the Constituion (other than Second Amendment rights, to be fair). In fact, not only is the GOP mute on these matters, it is the party implementing the "big" government policies that weaken individual rights. When it comes to the GOP’s views on executive authority and police powers, bigger is apparently better.
Getting back to Palin’s speech, the first phrase from that excerpt reveals one of the fundamental misconceptions about the purpose and effect of Constitutional freedoms. Arguing that suspects deserve habeas corpus rights is not the same as arguing that al-Qaeda terrorists deserve habeas corpus rights (even if, in the process of granting such rights to the accused, some al-Qaeda terrorists will be granted them). The argument is that when people are accused of a crime, they deserve the basic protections of a legal system that recognizes the incontrovertible fact that sometimes innocents will be detained, and thus the accused deserve a right to an attorney, the right to know the charges being leveled against them, the right to confront witnesses, etc. You know, innocent until proven guilty. Republicans, focusing on the reprehensible nature of the criminals sought ("terrorists"), seek to usher in a legal regime that treats anyone accused of terrorism as, by virtue of that accusation alone, an actual terrorist.
Hilzoy recently discussed the case of 17 Chinese nationals that were wrongly detained at Guantanamo and are might finally going to be released after a long an ongoing battle through a Kafka-esque legal system implemented by the Bush administration*. These Chinese prisoners were not the only innocent people that we have detained at Guantanamo, and elsewhere, who were denied basic legal protections.
This type of demagoguery in the service of curtailing liberty is not, by any logic, necessarily limited to the realm of law enforcement/executive action in response to terrorism. It is easy to imagine a determined politician introducing rights-stripping legislation under an emotionally charged title like, say, the "Child Rape and Child Murder Prevention Law." Under that law, those accused of the heinous crimes of raping and murdering children would be denied some or all of the following: habeas corpus rights, the right to an attorney, the right to confront witnesses and evidence and other protections that are currently denied "terrorists."
Think of the enormous potential for serious and irreversible injustice. Countless innocent people would be destroyed, without recourse. Yet, if and when some politicians oppose this Child Rape and Child Murder Prevention Law, the Sarah Palins and John McCains of the world could stand up and say:
Rapists and murderes still plot to savagely assault your children… [Obama’s] worried that someone won’t read them their rights?
And if you think my hypothetical is too fanciful, I invite you to review the recent "developments" in the area of anti-drug laws.
The same type of "presumed guilty" rationale, and commensurate demagoguery of opponents, underlies the push for warrantless wiretapping and other forms of domestic surveilance that erode our search and seizure rights. Again, as should be obvious, these programs do not infringe on the rights of terrorists alone, so when one is concerned about their impact, that is not the same thing as concern for terrorists. For example, earlier this week, we learned of this:
The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.
Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July.
"The names don’t belong in there," he told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. "It’s as simple as that."
The surveillance took place over 14 months in 2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists "fringe people."
Today, more news:
Despite pledges by President George W. Bush and American intelligence officials to the contrary, hundreds of US citizens overseas have been eavesdropped on as they called friends and family back home, according to two former military intercept operators who worked at the giant National Security Agency (NSA) center in Fort Gordon, Georgia.
"These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA’s Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003.
Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."
But we were assured that the Bush administration would only be listening to terrorists, or at least individuals for which there was a reasonable basis to suspect involvement with terrorism. Why concern yourselves with the rights of terrorists? After all, if you’re not a terrorist, you have nothing to hide, right?
Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator’s computer.
"Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’," Faulk told ABC News.
The spin continues:
In testimony before Congress, then-NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden, now director of the CIA, said private conversations of Americans are not intercepted.
"It’s not for the heck of it. We are narrowly focused and drilled on protecting the nation against al Qaeda and those organizations who are affiliated with it," Gen. Hayden testified.
The truth:
NSA awarded Adrienne Kinne a NSA Joint Service Achievement Medal in 2003 at the same time she says she was listening to hundreds of private conversations between Americans, including many from the International Red Cross and Doctors without Borders.
"We knew they were working for these aid organizations," Kinne told ABC News. "They were identified in our systems as ‘belongs to the International Red Cross’ and all these other organizations. And yet, instead of blocking these phone numbers we continued to collect on them," she told ABC News.
As for me, I’m just glad that our national press corps so admirably fulfilled their ethical mandate by asking the tough questions and showing an appropriate level of skepticism toward those people that …suggested these provisions might violate our freedoms.
Bravo press corps. Bravo "small government" conservatives. Take a bow. You should be proud.
*(edited as per CharleyCarp’s comment)
“First of all, the government that is deemed ‘too big’ by Palin is the same government that was enlarged exponentially under a Republican president and a compliant Republican Congress.”
This seems to be a misuse of “exponential.” It does not mean “much bigger.”
I blogged earlier about the NSA news, btw. 🙂 Note also the the ongoing FBI guideline revisions.
Fine post, of course. I tend to take that for granted with you and Hilzoy.
Republicans, focusing on the reprehensible nature of the criminals sought (“terrorists”), seek to usher in a legal regime that treats anyone accused of terrorism as, by virtue of that accusation alone, an actual terrorist.
A modest proposal:
The Democrats in both the House and Senate should draw straws to pick one from among them.
That person should attach, to each and every piece of legislation that curbs the constitutional rights of anyone in the name of national security, the following rider:
“Anyone suspected of participation in, or support for, terrorist activity, will be prohibited from owning or carrying a firearm of any kind”.
That will be the end of that Congressperson’s career, which is the reason for drawing straws.
But it will also stop any such legislation dead in it’s tracks.
Thanks –
That person should attach, to each and every piece of legislation that curbs the constitutional rights of anyone in the name of national security, the following rider:
“Anyone suspected of participation in, or support for, terrorist activity, will be prohibited from owning or carrying a firearm of any kind”.
Brilliant.
PS: Thanks Gary. Will re-edit.
Wait, Gary, it can be used as an adverb to describe the rate of growth. Admittedly, it is a bit of an exaggeration because the government didn’t grow at an actual exponential rate, but I claim poetic license.
Arrest that J.Swift guy for betrayal of state secrets to the public.
it is a bit of an exaggeration because the government didn’t grow at an actual exponential rate
oh now….
an exponent can be any number (fractional or whole, negative or positive, rational or irrational, real or imaginary).
10 ^ 10 = 10,000,000,000
10 ^ 1.05 = 11.22
10 ^ -5 = 0.00001
Eric,
There is a point about habeas corpus that hardly anyone ever makes: it’s not about a terrorists’s rights, it’s not about a suspect’s rights, it’s about my rights. If the government which purports to act in my name locks somebody up, then I have the right to know the reason why. Allowing the prisoner to challenge his detention before a judge serves my right, as a citizen, to keep an eye on my government.
Russell,
Love your modest proposal. I’d add IRS audits to it, myself 🙂
–TP
Cleek is right that I am right.
TP: Excellent point, and one that I had not previously considered. Thank you.
an exponent can be any number
Hang on a minute. There are numbers, and there are functions; and if you’re talking about growth, you’re talking about functions – and not every function is exponential.
… not every function is exponential.
But any function is the sum of appropriately weighted sines and cosines, and those are exponential functions, so there 🙂
–TP
But any function is the sum of appropriately weighted sines and cosines, and those are exponential functions, so there 🙂
What are you, some sort of engineer? There are lots of functions that cannot be represented as weighted sums of complex exponentials.
The excellent rider concerning the banning of gun ownership for suspects in terrorism (of any kind) does not need straws to be drawn.
There are safe Dems, progressive and safe Dems who can repeatedly add such a rider without losing their seat.
These safe and sound progressive Dems in BOTH Houses of Congress could alternate which of them sticks the rider on with every vote.
Of course, it must be made clear what “terrorism” includes: abortion clinic bombings, threats against reproductive health workers/doctors/nurses, threats against women using such clinics, etc.
TP, if you want to regard perpetual oscillation as exponential growth, well, you’re a complex person.
OT: more loverly McCain supporters
The incidence of math humor on this blog seems to be periodic. (Talk about a square wave….)
The problem is that the notion of “size” of government is ambiguous. Does it refer the power of the government, or to the number of government organizations and government employees? These concepts don’t necessarily go together. Indeed, to the extent that the bureaucracy is aimed at limiting abuses by the government, they’re anithetical.
Just ask yourself this: What’s the smallest possible government, in terms of number of people involved?
That’s right: A dictator.
“What are you, some sort of engineer? There are lots of functions that cannot be represented as weighted sums of complex exponentials.”
Fine, the function needs to be integrable (condition for Fourier Transform). I think what tony meant to say is that any polite function can be expressed as the weighted sum.
[I want to say that sine and cosine are complete on L^2]
Eric:
You could really make Gary’s head explode, and describe the growth of government as “geometric.” 🙂
Looks like exponential growth to me, by the way…
OT: more loverly McCain supporters
Pinko commie?
Get a job?
What’s next, “get a haircut”?
It’s 1971 all over again.
When they buried Nixon, they apparently forgot to drive the stake through his heart. His zombie children still walk the earth.
Thanks –
Just ask yourself this: What’s the smallest possible government, in terms of number of people involved?
That’s right: A dictator.
This is true only if you exclude every member of the military, police and secret police from the government. But then, how is said dictator supposed to maintain control?
Further, dictatorships don’t really, historically speaking, cut down on the number of non-police/military organs, they just control them as extensions of their totalitarian, fascist, sultantate, etc. entity.
The closest you can come in modern times to “small government” in the sense of few government employees would be something like Somalia or Taliban era Afghanistan.
But other famous dictatorships – Hitler’s for example, Mussolini’s, Soviet style, Iranian style, South American flavor, etc. have quite bloated public payrolls.
nobody’s in government, in an anarchy
But other famous dictatorships – Hitler’s for example, Mussolini’s, Soviet style, Iranian style, South American flavor, etc. have quite bloated public payrolls.
The best example would be the GDR.
“Admittedly, it is a bit of an exaggeration because the government didn’t grow at an actual exponential rate, but I claim poetic license.”
Copyeditors will beat you.
A rare time even a right-winger can be right.
Seriously, ask any copyeditor, or consult any usage guide; it’s a well-known misusage. It’s innumerate.
American Heritage Guide To Contemporary Usage:
Etc. No professional copyeditor would let it pass.
Meanwhile, I heart Gail Collins.
McCain is now mentioning Ayers. Stephen Hayes:
At first, I was confused, Gary, thinking of Gary Collins. And why not? Love Boat, Charlie’s Angels, Vegas, Fantasy Island. How can’t you heart that?
As it happens, I was just talking with my sweetie about Love Boat the other night, as we were watching neo-Battlestar Galactica, and considering the possibilities for a spin-off featuring the luxury ship “Cloud 9.” Would it be Gopher who was the Cylon, or Isaac?
I think insisting on an exclusively literal use of concepts would unduly limit our language. Also, you’ll seldom get all the experts in a field to agree on the literal meaning of anything, so what one ends up with is a rather shallow dictionary definition at best. I suck at maths, so I cannot weigh in on the meaning of “exponential”, but I could provide plenty of examples from philosophy.
Also, you’ll seldom get all the experts in a field to agree on the literal meaning of anything, so what one ends up with is a rather shallow dictionary definition at best.
That’s true for some things, but not for others. For example, exponential really does have a precise well understood meaning that people who do math and science for a living agree on.
Copyeditors will beat you.
A rare time even a right-winger can be right.
I don’t see anything in those links that says that “exponential” is correct for y=x^2 but not y=(x^2)/10, they only say that it’s incorrect to use it to describe rapid, steady growth.
I agree that it’s something that’s used sloppily and best avoided but I’d like to see a style guide that defined just how steep the curve needs to be before it’s applicable.
“I think insisting on an exclusively literal use of concepts would unduly limit our language.”
And so it would, if anyone insisted that all writing be treated alike. As it happens, that’s not what professional editors or copyeditors do.
McCain is now running an Ayers ad.
Who knew that Walter Annenberg ran a “radical educational foundation”?
I demand to know what Richard Nixon was thinking of when he appointed Annenberg Ambassador to Great Britain!
And everyone who ever read TV Guide is suspect! You’ve all been exposed to radical propaganda!
Annenberg was a good friend of Ronald and Nancy Reagan! At last, Reagan’s radical links are exposed!
You can’t make this sh*t up.
Whoops, here is the actual Annenberg link.
Hilzoy recently discussed the case of 17 Chinese nationals that were wrongly detained at Guantanamo and are finally going to be released after a long battle through a Kafka-esque legal system implemented by the Bush administration.
Would that it was so.
For example, exponential really does have a precise well understood meaning that people who do math and science for a living agree on.
The fact that a word is used in a precise, agreed-upon way in one context doesn’t mean it isn’t used in less precise ways in other contexts.
Quantum, as in e.g. quantum leap, is another example from science; I doubt many of the people who use it in non-scientific contexts understand what it means in physics. That doesn’t stop them from using it in new/changing/ imprecise ways; basically, no one — not even the Academie Francaise — can stop that process from happening.
I don’t see anything in those links that says that “exponential” is correct for y=x^2 but not y=(x^2)/10…
I hope not, because neither of those functions are.
Would that it was so.
Since we’re being pedantic: shouldn’t that be in the subjunctive?
[Normally I’d put a smiley there, but it’s too depressing to smile…]
The fact that a word is used in a precise, agreed-upon way in one context doesn’t mean it isn’t used in less precise ways in other contexts.
Janie, novakent’s original comment claimed that you would seldom get experts in a field to agree on the meaning of such terms. That’s the bit I was responding to. Your comment, while possibly correct, doesn’t seem relevant to that.
That doesn’t stop them from using it in new/changing/ imprecise ways; basically, no one — not even the Academie Francaise — can stop that process from happening.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that stopping the wholesale abuse of technical terms is possible; rather, I think the argument is that we should avoid abusing technical terms. It seems Gary and I agree on that point and novakent disagrees.
Turbulence, you’re right that my comment isn’t relevant to the specific question of whether there’s universal agreement among experts on the meaning of exponential. I was responding more to the wider question of whether, as you put it, “we should avoid abusing technical terms.”
Abuse is such a loaded word…. And who is the “we” that goes with this “should”? 😉
“Since we’re being pedantic: shouldn’t that be in the subjunctive?”
Would that it were so.
“That doesn’t stop them from using it in new/changing/ imprecise ways; basically, no one — not even the Academie Francaise — can stop that process from happening.”
But we can die trying.
I object to misuse of “quantum leap,” as well.
I’m a descriptivist far more than a prescriptivist, but my guiding light is always towards usage that increases clarity, and decreases confusion. I’ll speak up for usages that make a difference in clarity, and not care about those that do not.
It’s actually a simple lodestar to follow.
And who is the ‘we’ that goes with this ‘should’? ;)”
All people subject to our royal command.
All people subject to our royal command.
That’s what I thought. 😉
Abuse is such a loaded word….
You’re right. I’m not very subtle. 😉
I look it at this way: if you’re misusing those terms, you’re probably being unclear. Just like I would be unclear if I claimed my couch was Aristotelian; wtf does that mean? This imprecision in writing may reflect a larger imprecision in thought: when I read news articles that misuse technical terms, I question whether the author understands what they’re talking about. But worse than that, it scares off people who aren’t comfortable with math and science. Many Americans are functionally innumerate and a little scared of all things mathematical, so cloaking your federal spending analysis with words like “exponential” intimidates some of them and makes it harder for them to realize that you may be full of BS. That’s not really what we as a society need. I think we need clarity and as much simplicity as the data allows; the issues are complex enough as is.
And who is the “we” that goes with this “should”? 😉
I’d argue we includes anyone with enough of a technical background to know better and anyone whose writing has to get past a copy editor, but that’s just because I’ve given up all hope on the rest of humanity.
Never mind “exponential” or “quantum”. It’s the obscene misuse of words like “patriot” and “American” that’s going to kill us.
–TP
I think the argument is that we should avoid abusing technical terms. It seems Gary and I agree on that point and novakent disagrees.
Well, yes and no. My views on these matters have been shaped mainly by Quine and Eco, but unfortunately I’m way too knackered at the moment to elaborate on this.
More seriously … I also operate with a mix of descriptive/prescriptive reactions. I’m enough of a linguist to have taught a couple of courses (as an adjunct, and a very temporary one at that) at the college level, and enough of a copy editor to do a fair amount of editing (mostly volunteer, a little of it paid).
In the discussion of exponential and quantum, what’s driving my quibbling (or friendly needling?) is that I think these words do in fact already, probably long since, have widely understood and tacitly agreed-upon meanings that are different from the technical meanings. A quick google search yields these items from The Free Dictionary, the first for “exponential” and the second for “quantum leap”:
2. Informal very rapid
1. a sudden large increase or advance
And with that, I’m going to try to have the willpower to turn off my computer and go to bed. I’m in Brussels for the month, for work, and it’s almost midnight here, and I’m supposed to be at work at 9:00 or so like normal people, instead of keeping my usual outlandish working-at-home hours.
[Turbulence, I was responding to Gary@5:36 and didn’t see your latest till I previewed. I suspect we’ve already laid out the gist and there’s no need for me to go another round. But I’ll come back tomorrow if I think of anything I want to add. Nighty night.]
A nice piece on Obama’s state legislator days.
John McCain didn’t name Bill Ayers but spoke of him directly.
Let’s see if he says it to Obama’s face in the next debate.
My guess is that he won’t have the stomach for it, when it comes right down to it. In front of friendly audiences, or through other channels, sure. Face to face, not so much.
But you never know. He doesn’t have many options left.
“That one is friends with a terrorist”.
My friends, that will be entertainment we can all believe in.
Thanks –
Meanwhile, in Britain, the Interception Modernisation Programme.
Charlie Stross has more.
This thread gives going off on tangents a bad name [and now I expect one of you math literalists to tell me I used “tangent” incorrectly.]
BTW, russell your bill attachment idea is wicked excellent!
A modern dictatorship based on free market principles would of course outsource everything to contractors and have no need for public employees (apart from a private secretary). The king is the state is the government literally in this scenario.