Credentials That Matter
By Mitch Berg
Last week, I wrote about the left’s rather unimaginative reliance on “Gitmo” metaphors; it’s only gotten worse. Last week, I was in the Dunn Brothers on Grand Avenue, across from Macalester College (a local far-lefty hotbed). A rather aromatic twentysomething white boy with dreadlocks and a Che Guevara t-shirt tried to order free-range vegan Guatemalan coffee, but was told that they were out. The barrista asked the lad if he could wait two minutes while another pot brewed.
“What is this – Guantanamo?” the be-che’d fellow fumed [1]
At any rate, in a comment to that post, someone said:
With the frequency of the Gitmo moniker thrown about to mis-label every perceived wrong against liberal causes, someone should coin a “Godwin’s law”-style statement.
While I do appreciate the idea and take the point, adding another law to the books is, as with most things in the civil arena, not really the answer. “Godwin’s Law“, [“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”] – is a bad one to mimic, since it (like the Nazi comparisons themselves) are most often invoked by people with feeble understanding at best of the history or issues involved, and tends to be used to squelch even the (rare) literate, appropriate comparisons. The lower 80% of Godwin users tend to employ the law as a rhetorical Daisy Cutter, indiscrimimately mowing lines of conversation good and bad. Inappropriate reference to Godwin can cause problems in some serious cases. At one point, I even codified a corollary to Godwin:
Berg’s Fifth Law of Historical Illiteracy – 99% of the invocations of Godwin’s Law are done by 1% of the online population. Corollary: That 1% understands .000001% of the history required for a literate invocation of Godwin’s Law.
I minored in both History and German; hence, I invoke Nazi references both very sparingly and, when I do, with surgical aptness. And I get a little peeved when, after coming up with a thorougly impeccable comparison, some commenter bleats “Godwin’s Law! Godwin’s Law!” in a perfect duckspeak accent, not really knowing what they’d doing, but fatally hobbling the conversation anyway.
What we have, in summation, is two conflicting problems:
- Ill-informed, hamfisted use of inflammatory metaphors (Naziism, Guantanamo)
- Misuse of memes intended to nullify #1.
Being a conservative and free-marketeer (unlike too many Republicans), I believe I have a comprehensive, free-speech-enabled, market-based answer; a certification program that allows internet users to use these memes, while assuring the reader/consumer that the user is qualified and competent to use them.
I propose the following certifications:
- Certified Godwin’s Lawyer (CGL): Bearer of this certification will have exhibited an ability to discern between apt and inapt Nazi analogies in the application of Godwin’s Law to online dialog. Hopefully, as technology advances, blog posts, comments, podcasts and even Youtube videos written by non-CGL-credentialled users can be automatically filtered out.
- Registered Totalitarian Analogist (RTA): Registered Totalitarian Analogists have the necessary background in history, ethics and logic to appropriately and aptly employ Nazi, Communist, Maoist, Khmer Rouge, Klan and Fascism-related metaphors. (NOTE: Having used unironically, even once, the term “Bushitler” is a lifetime disqualification from this credential).
- Authorized Guantanamo Referrent (AGR): These Authorized Referrants will have sufficient background in current events, the law (especially the actual text of the Geneva Convention as re: combatants who are not members of a military or indigenous partisan group) to competently use “Guantamo” similes and metaphors. Additionally, AGRs will at least be aware of the irony behind the term “International Law” when referring to it.
I did note that this was a market solution. I am the market. To get your CGL, RTA or AGR, send $10 to my PayPal account. (Limited time offer: all three for $25!).
Thank you. That is all.
[1] The quote, like the story, is “fake but accurate.”
August 25th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hey, was at the fair yesterday. Wacky lefties were protesting in front of Macalister. And at the fair, Franken supporters were screaming nasty things to the Lord Fares (or however you spell her name) booth. And was suprised to see a lot of McCain and Coleman pins on people. J-Mac has a booth there.
Well, I have a lot of work to do today. This is just like Dachau.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Mitch,
You have been so consistently, increadibly and decidedly wrong on Gitmo, for you to admonish anyone on a incorrect usage of Gitmo metaphors is a joke.
Let’s recount shall we:
1. It’s entirely legal to hold ‘illegal combatants’ without charge – WRONG!
2. Its’ entirely legal to ingore the various treaties we signed regarding treatment of prisoners – WRONG!
3. It’s entirely legal to deny prisoners access to counsel – WRONG!
4. It’s entirely legal to deny them access to US courts in absence of other and/or timely trial – WRONG!
5. Torture wasn’t committed at Gitmo- WRONG!
6. Torture is acceptable – WRONG!
While you’ve only intimated at the last one – I had a lengthy discussion with you about why #5 and #6 weren’t good ideas – and you defended the administration and its conduct so I think it’s more than reasonable to say you supported both #5 and #6 because the conduct of the Administration was found to in fact be committing torture by our own standards, and of course torture was refuted as acceptable practice, including waterboarding, by Attny Gen Mukasey (although he didn’t have the stones to call waterboarding torture – it has been called that elsewhere by people with more political independence).
As for your qualifications – let’s through out another –
Transparent Opportunity Obfuscator for the Looney (TOOL) – Someone who makes comments like “Anti-Semitism is a key tenet of the left” – repeatedly implying the dark and sinister nature of the political opposition without real proof, and normally using examples that are applicable to oneself a hundred fold more frequently, while claiming to NOT engage in such hyperbole.
In fact Mitch, I can’t think of a single thing on Gitmo you were right about – but PLEASE, please lecture ‘the left’ who were FAR more right about Gitmo, collectively, than you were – please lecture them on your incidental anecdotes running into the relatively less informed. I’m sure I can’t think of ONE SINGLE PERSON on the right whom I’ve run into who has been wrong about Gitmo, well, except for you.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Mitch,
You have been so consistently, increadibly and decidedly wrong on Gitmo, for you to admonish anyone on a incorrect usage of Gitmo metaphors is a joke.
Let’s recount shall we:
1. It’s entirely legal to hold ‘illegal combatants’ without charge – WRONG!
2. Its’ entirely legal to ingore the various treaties we signed regarding treatment of prisoners – WRONG!
3. It’s entirely legal to deny prisoners access to counsel – WRONG!
4. It’s entirely legal to deny them access to US courts in absence of other and/or timely trial – WRONG!
5. Torture wasn’t committed at Gitmo- WRONG!
6. Torture is acceptable – WRONG!
While you’ve only intimated at the last one – I had a lengthy discussion with you about why #5 and #6 weren’t good ideas – and you defended the administration and its conduct so I think it’s more than reasonable to say you supported both #5 and #6 because the conduct of the Administration was found to in fact be committing torture by our own standards, and of course torture was refuted as acceptable practice, including waterboarding, by Attny Gen Mukasey (although he didn’t have the stones to call waterboarding torture – it has been called that elsewhere by people with more political independence).
As for your qualifications – let’s through out another –
Transparent Opportunity Obfuscator for the Looney (TOOL) – Someone who makes comments like “Anti-Semitism is a key tenet of the left” – repeatedly implying the dark and sinister nature of the political opposition without real proof, and normally using examples that are applicable to oneself a hundred fold more frequently, while claiming to NOT engage in such hyperbole.
In fact Mitch, I can’t think of a single thing on Gitmo you were right about – but PLEASE, please lecture ‘the left’ who were FAR more right about Gitmo, collectively, than you were – please lecture them on your incidental anecdotes running into the relatively less informed. I’m sure I can’t think of ONE SINGLE PERSON on the right whom I’ve run into who has been wrong about Gitmo, well, except for you.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Does anyone notice a droning, like an annoying fly?
August 25th, 2008 at 8:42 am
So Mitch,
What would you categorize Limbaugh as, who claims Naziism to be a liberal/leftist movement, because (to quote) “after all, it has Socialism in the name.”?
Do you think Facism is a left wing movement?
BTW Loren – I wrote maybe what – 150 words, how many did Mitch write making a meaningless, self-refuting (by his own and others conduct) point?
Oh, More? – yep, that’s what I thought.
Next.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Hey penigma2, why don’t you have SITD in your “blogs I visit” list on your blog?
You spend as much time writing here as you do there.
Maybe I just answered my own question.
List us under “Blogs where I Squat”
Thank you for your patronage.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Oh, what the hell. . . it’s Monday. . .
Mitch,
You have been so consistently, increadibly (it’s astonishing AND readable) and decidedly wrong on bacon, for you to admonish anyone on a incorrect usage of bacon metaphors is a joke.
Let’s recount shall we:
1. It’s entirely legal to hold ‘microwavable bacon’ without charge – WRONG!
2. Its’ entirely legal to ingore the various warnings and instructions on bacon packages – WRONG!
3. It’s entirely legal to deny people access to bacon – WRONG!
4. It’s entirely legal to deny them access to turkey bacon and other bacon derivatives in absence of other and/or regular bacon – WRONG!
5. Bacon wasn’t served at Woodstock- WRONG!
6. Bacon is acceptable – WRONG! I mean, RIGHT!
While you’ve only intimated at the last one – I had a lengthy discussion with you about why #5 and #6 weren’t good ideas – and you defended Big Bacon and its conduct so I think it’s more than reasonable to say you supported both #5 and #6 because the conduct of Big Bacon was found to in fact be committing bacon by our own standards, and of course bacon was refuted as acceptable practice, including watercressing, by Attny Gen Mukasey (although he didn’t have the backfat to call watercressing bacon – it has been called that elsewhere by people with more bacon independence).
As for your qualifications – let’s through (a derivative of “throw” and YOU KNOW IT) out another –
Particularly Incredibly Good Grease (PIGG) – Bacon that makes paper towels almost transparent after contact with bacon – repeatedly dabbing bacon with a paper towel, sqeezing the grease into a jar, and then putting a wick into the jar to create the most amazing smelling bacon candle in the world, which is in no way hyperbole.
In fact Mitch, I can’t think of a single thing on bacon you were right about – but PLEASE, please lecture ‘the porkers’ who were FAR more right about bacon, collectively, than you were – please lecture them on your incidental anecdotes running into the relatively less informed. I’m sure I can’t think of ONE SINGLE PERSON on the right whom I’ve run into who has been wrong about bacon, well, except for you.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:57 am
And because Peev posted twice. . .
Mitch,
You have been so consistently, increadibly (it’s astonishing AND readable) and decidedly wrong on bacon, for you to admonish anyone on a incorrect usage of bacon metaphors is a joke.
Let’s recount shall we:
1. It’s entirely legal to hold ‘microwavable bacon’ without charge – WRONG!
2. Its’ entirely legal to ingore the various warnings and instructions on bacon packages – WRONG!
3. It’s entirely legal to deny people access to bacon – WRONG!
4. It’s entirely legal to deny them access to turkey bacon and other bacon derivatives in absence of other and/or regular bacon – WRONG!
5. Bacon wasn’t served at Woodstock- WRONG!
6. Bacon is acceptable – WRONG! I mean, RIGHT!
While you’ve only intimated at the last one – I had a lengthy discussion with you about why #5 and #6 weren’t good ideas – and you defended Big Bacon and its conduct so I think it’s more than reasonable to say you supported both #5 and #6 because the conduct of Big Bacon was found to in fact be committing bacon by our own standards, and of course bacon was refuted as acceptable practice, including watercressing, by Attny Gen Mukasey (although he didn’t have the backfat to call watercressing bacon – it has been called that elsewhere by people with more bacon independence).
As for your qualifications – let’s through (a derivative of “throw” and YOU KNOW IT) out another –
Particularly Incredibly Good Grease (PIGG) – Bacon that makes paper towels almost transparent after contact with bacon – repeatedly dabbing bacon with a paper towel, sqeezing the grease into a jar, and then putting a wick into the jar to create the most amazing smelling bacon candle in the world, which is in no way hyperbole.
In fact Mitch, I can’t think of a single thing on bacon you were right about – but PLEASE, please lecture ‘the porkers’ who were FAR more right about bacon, collectively, than you were – please lecture them on your incidental anecdotes running into the relatively less informed. I’m sure I can’t think of ONE SINGLE PERSON on the right whom I’ve run into who has been wrong about bacon, well, except for you.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Can I be an OOB? Official Obama Basher?
August 25th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Doesn’t look like Peev is going to be buying any of your certifications, Mitch. Instead he’ll stay with his current designation of Scabrously Hostile Internet Troll (acronym not necessary).
August 25th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Peev,
As a repeated user of the term “neo-nutzie”, you are a prime offender, you forfeit standing to comment, and thus will be pretty much ignored for purposes of this topic.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Peev,
What would you categorize Limbaugh as, who claims Naziism to be a liberal/leftist movement, because (to quote) “after all, it has Socialism in the name.”?
It’s an oversimplification, but there’s a lot of truth to it.
Hitler admired the way Lenin seized control of society, and used many of Lenin’s methods. He saw the need to totally subsume society in his ideology, as Lenin did; he adapted Lenin’s tactics heavily to German society (Russia was a preliterate peasant society with no liberal tradition; Germany, while historically authoritarian, was industrial, educated and somewhat cosmopolitan, and needed a different approach to totalitarianism).
I’d suggest you read Modern Times, by Paul Johnson, which has an excellent account of Hitler’s intellectual relationship with Lenin.
Do you think Facism is a left wing movement?
I think that “right” and “left” are an overused metaphor, (I actually prefer a two-dimensional view based on views of personal and economic liberty), and that “fascism” has been used to imprecisely (by people like you) that it’s lost most of its meaning.
However, in fact Mussolini was by any rational definition a leftist (he nationalized industries, created a large complex entitlement state and controlled the media), albeit not a totalitarian (he didn’t use the state to supplant religion, the family and every other facet of society). He added to that intense nationalism and a “fascist” personality cult.
I do believe many leftists are intellectual thugs, yes.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Last week I proposed a “Fairness Doctrine” for comments at SITD, limiting each commenter to no more than the same number of words that Mitch used in the original post.
Now, I have another solution to the never-ending comment problem. Institute a Pay Per Word policy with all the money going to charity. You pay one cent for each word you use.
For most rational people, it would a pittance. A dime here, maybe even a quarter there. But it might give pause to certain commenters with a Biden-like ability to use 1000 words when ten would suffice. For example Leave it to Peev’s little Gitmo rant today would run him $3.52.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Our Precious Peev stampedes in with his mouth open and unknowingly “removes all doubt”, as the last half of the quote goes.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Chad, but those comments of Our Precious Peev (or as he may also be known, “Our Careless Dunce” or OCD for short) are hardly worth the three bucks and change.
You’d need to up the ante, as it were.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:26 am
YOu know, I thought I missed Peev, when he was gone, but I was wrong.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Peev’s blog is actually hilarious, if you read it with a Jimmy Stewart voice. It’s also hilarious from the perspective of how out-of-touch both Peev and his “commenters” are. In his most recent post, Peev mentions “Faux News,” and commenter “Hasslington” apparently thought it was the height of cutting-edge pun humor. Honestly, reading Peev’s blog and commenters, it’s not hard to imagine them all anxiously waiting for “Uncle Milty” to broadcast on the image tube.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Institute a Pay Per Word policy with all the money going to charity. You pay one cent for each word you use.
Iforonethinkthisisaagreaideaandamfullyinsupportofthisgreatconcept.
Thatismytwocentsliterrallyandfiguratively.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Yoss… you have just insulted both Jimmy Stewart and Milton Berle in one single comment.
Unintentionally, I’m sure. 😉
Speaking of Uncle Milty… unlike OCD, at least Berle knew to only “take out enough to win”.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Also, Peev, since your track record on legal matters in this comment section has been universally (to quote the sage) WRONG (I refer us back to the Scott Johnson v TIZA saga, your laughable understanding of Heller and your downright incomprehensibly garbled take on the Fairness Doctrine, in which you confused different bodies of law and talking points for the applicable law, all as evidence), pardon me if I don’t get to knotted up about your assessment of my assessment of Gitmo’s legalities.
You’re WR…er, wrong.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
If you used italics, Mitch, you’d be quoting the great John McLaughlin.
I’d love to hear someone use McLaughlin Mode to put OCD in his place. 😉
August 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Wow…look what I started!
Talk about unintended consequences…
August 25th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
A peevstorm. Legendary to habitue’s of Mitch’s blog. Nothing to do now but throw a little sawdust on the floor and sweep up the mess.
August 25th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
A response for Our Precious Peev (the OCD) for future “comments”:
“Your comment seems like canned reply, since it really wasn’t on point.”
Or, if Mitch wishes to use this…
“Please confirm you aren’t working as a paid advocate for [Oback Barama] sending pre-packaged messages on websites.
If you are, plese desist from doing so on my blog.
If you do not confirm as such, I will be required to block your posts in future.”
August 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Peev says: I wrote maybe what – 150 words
Wrong, Peev, you wrote 339 words in your opening comment on this thread.
Which you posted twice.