War? War.

Is it just me, or have we started getting ourselves into new wars on just about a weekly basis? I'm starting to have trouble keeping it all straight, and I can't imagine I'm the only one, so I thought I'd put together this simple guide to the various wars Americans are fighting right now:^[*]

Hope that helps.

* In the interest of space I had to leave a few out, but let's not forget about those whose lives have been affected by the wars on abortion, adulthood, adverbs, Alzheimer's, America, Amish dairy farmers, anonymity, apostrophes, Arianna Huffington, Arizona, art, Asian carp, atheism, babies, bodily fluids, California's medical marijuana industry, cameras, capitalism, the Catholic Church, civility, climate change, cloud storage systems, coal, cockroaches, comparative effectiveness research, conservative women, conservatives in general, content farms, contraception, cookbooks, "copywrong", coral, Craisins, crony capitalism, democracy, Democrats, doctors, driving, the EPA, errorism, Facebook, fertility, Fox News, fracking, fraternities, frisée, fun, gay teens, general purpose computation, grandfathered unlimited users, graymail, GRUB, guns, happiness, headaches, heavy metal, hunger, hyperbole, I-4, icky lady parts, illegal immigrants, immigrants, infographics, invasive plant species, IsAnyoneUp.com, isolationism, journalism, the judiciary, leaks, lemonade stands, liberals, libertarians, Libertarians, liberty, light bulbs, linguistic diversity, men, microbes, "Mommy", money, mosquitoes, NDAA indefinite detention, the 99%, NLRB employees, the Oakland Raiders, Obama's faith, obesity, Occupy Wall Street, offshore wind, oil, organized labor, Orlando, Florida, pajamas, particulate emissions, peace, photoshopping, police, the porn industry, poor children, potholes, prehistoric peace, prostitution, PTSD, pubic hair, Reagan's defense policies, religious freedom, Republicans, Rod Blagojevich, Ron Wyden, the rule of law, the safety net, salt, schools, science, secrecy, sex, sharia law, snoring, SOPA, SpongeBob SquarePants, standardized tests, StubHub, supersized "alcopops", the Tea Party, teachers, teen sexting, Terra, Tim Tebow, the trifecta of tyranny, truckers, the truth, unemployment, veterans' benefits, vitamins, voter fraud reform, voting, Walmart, want, the War on Christmas, the war on the War on Christmas, the war on the war on the War on Christmas, the war on the war on the war on the War on Christmas, waste, weed, weeds, whistleblowers, Wisconsin's wind industry, wolves, workers, wrinkles, and, of course, war.

The Anti-Immigrant Republicans

In a recent column for Townhall.com, Bruce Bialosky took issue with a Wall Street Journal editorial on immigration:

They finish the editorial by stating – and here is where the WSJ editors join hands with the left – “Immigrants bring vitality and skills to the U.S. economy.” This clearly implies what liberals have alleged for years: that Republicans are anti-immigrant. I have never once seen a statement by a Republican presidential candidate against immigrants, and the editorial did not (and could not) cite one.

He makes an interesting point. We all know the default setting for a Republican candidate is extreme and uncompromising intolerance for illegal immigration, but is it really fair to call them anti-immigrant in the more general sense?

Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich have expressed support for establishing English as the official language, a non-solution to a non-issue that would serve primarily to reinforce the misconception that many who come here don't bother to learn English. Promoting the learning of English isn't inherently anti-immigrant, I suppose, but intentionally promulgating a false stereotype probably is, so that one's kind of a wash.

Herman Cain has been making what may or may not be jokes about lining the border with terrible death traps, but, you know, it's not like there'd be any visa-holders among the fatalities. Cain is also in favor of Alabama's new immigration law, which is a disaster in many, many ways. But, again, the law doesn't target legal immigrants—parts of it target undocumented workers, and parts of it target everyone with an accent or brown skin, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.^[1]

And then there are the sins of omission. The current immigration system is woefully ineffective—many who hope to immigrate legally are forced to wait in absurdly long lines, and even more are told there's no line they're eligible to wait in—and with a few exceptions (most notably Gary Johnson), the Republican candidates have shown no signs of giving a crap. For all their talk in other contexts of market forces and supply and demand, they've been inexcusably ignorant (or willfully dismissive) of the connection between economic conditions and immigration patterns.^[2]

Of course, even the candidates who use the harshest rhetoric on "illegals" are careful to avoid saying anything that can be construed as hostile toward legal immigrants—they're running for office, for Pete's sake—but they haven't said much in support of expanding the avenues for legal immigration either. Instead, they play into fears about illegal immigrants streaming across the border and having babies and taking our jobs and wallets and healthcare and whatever else isn't bolted down, offering only the occasional "first we need to get illegal immigration under control, and then we can talk about the dysfunctional visa process", as if there isn't a causal link between the two.

This is all to say that I think the Republican approach to immigration is, at best, severely misguided, and at worst, a shameful case of exploiting and exacerbating a genuine humanitarian problem for political gain.^[3] But hey, that's just my opinion, and it still doesn't answer the doubly-subjective (in terms of both policy and semantics) question of whether it's fair to characterize the hard-liners as anti-immigrant.

I found my answer when I went to the candidates' websites to see what they said on legal immigration. Not a whole lot, as it turns out, other than a few vague reaffirmations of their general support for the concept, but something else caught my attention:

Rick Perry:
As part of a broader tax reform strategy, I will also ask Congress to eliminate direct subsidies and tax credits that distort the energy marketplace. My plan levels the playing field, ending Obama’s anti-growth policies and opening a competitive marketplace to benefit American citizens.

Mitt Romney:
President Obama has neglected the fundamental tasks of creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, he’s focused his efforts on an anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda that has significantly expanded the role of the federal government.

Michele Bachmann:
Researchers, entrepreneurs and investors across America have been paralyzed by this president’s anti-business policies that have created severe uncertainty. As president, I will signal by way of leadership to innovators, that the time has come to once again unleash the genius of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ working to create the wealth of the nation.

Newt Gingrich:
The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policies.

As long as the Republican candidates consider Obama anti-jobs/business/growth for favoring policies likely to be ineffective, or that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, or that come off as thinly-veiled attempts to distract and deceive voters, I'm going to go ahead and call them anti-immigrant for exactly the same reasons.

Seems fair to me.

1. The provision requiring law enforcement officers to check a detainee's immigration status applies only "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States", and officers aren't allowed to consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Alabama". This is in no way the same as saying officers aren't allowed to consider race, color, or national origin.

2. And yet, they seem to think there is a connection between the ability of people to move to where economic conditions are better and the height of the physical obstacles we put in the way.

3. Politicians love issues that (a) people are ill-informed about, (b) arouse strong emotions, and (c) allow them to blame problems on groups lacking political power, and immigration is all three. If only there were some way to depict that graphically.

The "Evil Rich"

I was skimming over one of Neal Boortz's recent diatribes on the subject of class warfare—skimming, not reading, because I've seen it all before, but he said something a few paragraphs in that caught my attention (emphasis added):

Let’s take a moment to look at these selfish, cold-hearted rich people, shall we? In November of 2010, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch released a study on philanthropy among high net worth households .. or as the progs like to call them, the evil rich.

My immediate impulse wasn't to wonder if he's wrong, but to wonder just how wrong he is. I did a Google search for "evil rich" (in quotation marks),^[1] and I scanned through page after page of results until finally, at hit #68, I found the first non-facetious use of the term. It's a post on a forum called Surfing the Apocalypse, arguing (sincerely, as far as I can tell) for some sort of class action suit "against the evil rich people to stop them from doing the evil deeds they do to everyone else."

Pressing on, I found one more at #90: A post on a gaming forum that refers to Rupert Murdock as a "Super evil rich guy".

And…that's it for the top 100.^[2] Two. Neither of which come from sites overflowing with influence and credibility, to put it politely. In the remaining 98 results—excepting a four-year-old New York Post article about the arrest of an "evil rich" Syrian arms dealer (who, by all accounts, is in fact both evil and rich), a handful of cases where "evil" ends a sentence and "rich" begins the next, and one baffling LinkedIn profile—the term is used exactly as Boortz used it. Not to denounce the wealthy for perceived immorality, but to mock and criticize those who support progressive policies.

Moving on to a more inherently political setting, I found four cases of the term being used on the House or Senate floor in the last 20 years. One is off-topic for the same reason as that Post article.^[3] Here are the other three:

Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA), Dec. 20, 1995
Here are 89 percent of the people in America who will benefit from the $500 per child tax credit, and almost 90 percent have a family income of $75,000 or less. These are the rich people. So I guess what the extreme left is telling us is that if you make $75,000 or less, as the gentleman from California said, if you got a job, they do not like you. You are one of those big, bad, evil rich.

Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), July 22, 1997
Madam Speaker, the Republican Congress has passed real tax relief for all middle-class taxpayers at every stage of their lives, from child tax credits to estate tax reform. We are doing the right thing. Meanwhile, the President is trying to change the debate with this new `imputed rental income formula.' But the truth is in the numbers; and no amount of imagined, imputed income will turn hard-working middle-class Americans into what the President calls the evil rich.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), July 29, 2011
To suggest that a debt crisis triggered by $14.3 trillion in debt can be fixed by taxing the luxuries of evil rich people is so childish and lacking in seriousness that the President should have been called out on it immediately. But he wasn't. He was allowed to get away with it.

All Republicans, all conservative, all mocking their ideological opponents—none of whom, as far as I can tell, actually called rich people evil. So yeah, I think Boortz is wrong. It's a little overwhelming, really, how flagrantly wrong he is. And I haven't even brought up all the times the phrase has been used by Boortz himself on his own site.

Not to get all this-seemingly-minor-thing-is-a-microcosm-of-a-much-more-serious-problem here, but this seemingly minor thing is a microcosm of a much more serious problem. And it's not the shameless strawmanning—that's just a regular-size problem. The bigger problem is that I'm not sure conservatives even realize they're doing it anymore. It's like they've forgotten that these strawmen aren't real.

Liberals, for their part, portray conservatives as inhabitants of a fantasy world where the free market always works and the rich are always job creators, and that's not entirely fair either, but it shouldn't be overlooked that the demons conservatives do battle with are often imaginary. Nor should it be overlooked that they created these demons in order to condemn the politics of class warfare—that is, the politics of fostering divisiveness by demonizing those who are different.

1. Could I have reached more meaningful conclusions by opening up the searches to slight variations in the phrasing? Probably, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to go down that rabbit hole, and I doubt the results would have been substantially different.

2. I thought I had another one with hit #70, a post on a Minneapolis-St. Paul forum:

This evil rich man has a mansion and his kids are long grown and out. He has an indoor pool that doesn't get used. So this past weekend my sister's kids wanted to go swimming so I drove all the way to Orono to use this man's pool. We get to the door and he sees us with our floats and says "what the F#ck?" right in front of the kids. I demanded since he is so rich that he needs to let us in to use his pool. We get into an argument and now the kids are crying. His wife called the police and they showed up like I was a bank robber.

That's just part of an outlandish, implausible story that reeks not of progressivism, but of a narrow-minded conservative attempting to channel a progressive's thought process. Sure enough, later in the thread:

Thank you to all that replied!

This post was created as part of a study for my class. We were told to put up similar posts on random forums - in key business markets around the country to get reactions from the masses.

When this was posted in business friendly areas (low taxes, right to work, etc) like major metro areas in AZ, FL, TX, TN, SC, etc, there was a far better rate of reply. More importantly those replies would immediately condemn the liberal entitlement mindset. . . . In areas like Minneapolis people are either to afraid to speak out against this persons illegal actions and entitled mindset, or sadly support it.

3. According to Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), the people who hunted down and killed bin Laden "sent a powerful message to any other evil rich person that wants to target the United States of America that such targeting is an act of suicide." Like I said, not really what we're talking about here, though the reference to bin Laden's wealth does seem a bit superfluous. Would he have been treated differently if he had been poor?

An Elaborate Ruse

When is a call for civility not really a call for civility? When it's actually an elaborate ruse intended to manipulate millions of decent, hard-working Americans. This is according to someone (or something) known as The Right Scoop, who, in a recent article for Hot Air, filled in the details:

The civility narrative that grew legs after the shooting in Arizona is really just a ruse to keep Republicans from calling Democrats what America knows they are – Socialists.
…
What is really at work here is the Left trying to control the speech of a small group of impressionable people – Republicans.^[1] They could care less about how civil the nation is but if they can keep the Republicans from name calling, they end up looking better than they would if Republicans constantly reminded America of their socialist agenda.

Ok, first of all, the call for civility is not a ruse—nor is it a scam, a ploy, or any variety of shuck-and-jive. If there's anything unsavory going on, it's that the call for civility is somewhat undermined by the unfounded belief among those making the call that they don't need to listen, because they're civil enough already. That's about as bad as it gets.

But I'm more interested in the "Democrats don't want us to know they're socialists" stuff, because I've been hearing a lot of that lately. I won't waste time on the question of how, exactly, Obama and the rest of the Democrats are socialists. That's easy—they support things like federal spending to build up the infrastructure, mandatory health insurance, and a progressive tax rate. Clearly, they've taken a few pages from notorious socialists Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush.

Oh, right, those three aren't notorious socialists—they're notorious Republicans.^[2]

In other words, it doesn't quite compute. If the essence of socialism is that the government has the power to interfere with commerce and tell people what to do, then of course the Democrats are socialists, and so are the Republicans, just to a lesser degree (in theory, if not in practice).

There's nothing earth-shattering about that observation. I'm not the first to make it, and I doubt anyone this side of Sean Hannity would be obstinate enough to disagree. But somehow we've reached the point where, to conservatives, socialist is synonymous with "Democrat," and to liberals, socialist is synomymous with "there go the conservatives again, calling the Democrats a bunch of socialists." How did that happen? Why does the S-word make us think of Democrats, but not Republicans?^[3]

As usual, I don't have the answer, but I re-read the article quoted above and noticed something interesting. If the idea of an elaborate ruse intended to distract from the truth seems absurd, it's probably because the theoretical ruse in question requires Democrats to be (a) willing to shamelessly and intentionally exploit a tragedy for political gain, and (b) organized. I won't speculate on which of those is less likely, but I wouldn't bet heavily on either.

But look at what happens when I go through the same excerpts, and, without altering the original structure, change a few key phrases:

The Democrats-are-socialists narrative that grew legs after the election of Obama is really just a ruse to keep people from calling Republicans what America knows they are – also socialists.
…
What is really at work here is the Right trying to dictate the public's perception of a small group of impressionable people – Democrats. They could care less about how big the government is but if they can keep the "socialist" label squarely on the Democrats, they end up looking better than they would if Americans were constantly reminded of their own socialist agenda too.

It's still the kind of wild conspiracy theory I prefer to avoid, but doesn't my version seem a lot more plausible?

1. Because if there's one thing we know about Republicans, it's that they have weak convictions. I guess that's why they just go along with whatever the Democrats say, without even bothering to put up a fight.

2. That's notorious in the neutral sense (i.e. widely known), not in the negative sense (i.e. widely despised). Except for Nixon.

3. Well, when I put it like that, it probably just makes us think of Sean Connery.

An Argument I Cannot Condone

As if secretly trying to crush any lingering hope that we could maybe do something—anything—without descending into embarrassing partisan bickering, last week the Republicans decided to read the Constitution on the House floor. Philip Rucker and David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post described the ensuing controversy:

House Republicans, who orchestrated the symbolic exercise as an early gesture to the tea party movement, touted it as a way to bring the new Congress, and the people they represent, back to America's roots.

But they didn't want to go all the way back.

…

The version read aloud was missing at least seven passages that remain etched in faded ink on the Constitution kept at the National Archives. Most are eye-glazing: procedures for electing senators, the workings of the electoral college.

But two, in particular, reflect a painful reality: The nation's founding document condoned slavery.

One, the "three-fifths compromise," counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of divvying congressional districts. The second dealt with runaway slaves—if they escaped to a free state, the Constitution required that they not be freed but rather "delivered up" to their owners.

Both were negated by the 13th Amendment but necessary to ratifying the original document, according to historians.

Any problems with that account? Maybe they sound a bit critical of Republicans, but not in an inaccurate way, or in a way that strikes me as unfair.^[1] I don't see much worth complaining about. Prominent Republican and Townhall.com columnist Ken Blackwell, on the other hand, is incensed. In an article titled "The Constitution Did Not Condone Slavery," he writes:^[2]

The Rucker-Farenthold article was nowhere labeled analysis, but who expects anything but front-page editorials these days, anyway? They waded right in to a two-hundred twenty-two year old controversy when they flatly stated that the original Constitution "condoned" slavery.

Abraham Lincoln did not agree. He revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words slavery, slave, African, or Negro was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them. They hid it away, Lincoln said, as "an afflicted man hides a wen or tumor."

Abolitionist editor and orator Frederick Douglass also did not agree. He emphasized eloquently that not one word would have to be changed in the Constitution if only the states would follow George Washington's example and voluntarily give up slavery.

Lincoln and Douglass were right. James Madison explained why there was no mention of slavery in the Constitution. The framers were unwilling to admit in the federal charter there could be property in men.

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

I'm sure he has more at his disposal somewhere, but Blackwell's reaction represents the combined effort of approximately two neurons—the one that loves the Constitution, and the one that's convinced liberals don't. The neuron that knows what "condone" means, though, was apparently not consulted. Here are a few definitions:

• To give tacit approval to. By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
• To accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
• To approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

So, to reiterate, the same person who wrote this…

[Lincoln] revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words slavery, slave, African, or Negro was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them.

…also wrote this, three paragraphs later:

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

What else is there to say? That the Constitution contained "a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery" is exactly what "condoned" means, right? If not, what should've been used in its place? Ignored, excused, and allowed all seem worse than condoned. Condemned, denounced, and decried all seem inaccurate, as the Constitution did none of those things.

In other words (so to speak), "condoned" strikes me as a perfectly cromulent word for the Post writers to use to make their point. And, by the way, the point itself—that despite whatever misgivings the Founders may have had about slavery, it was not prohibited under the Constitution—is indisputable. If there's anything historically- or semantically-flawed about saying the Constitution condoned slavery, I haven't figured out what it is. So, what triggered Ken Blackwell's column-length rant about liberals seeing the Constitution as "an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence"?^[3]

I wouldn't accuse Blackwell of not knowing what "condone" means (after all, in the same column he uses words like "phalanx" and "tendentious," and rather artfully at that). I'd say what's happening here is that he's so committed to the conservative mantra that they are the proud defenders of the Constitution—the last line of defense protecting American values and the rule of law from those who (in their minds) would do away with both in a second, given the chance—that he just didn't bother to think about what "condone" really means, or what the Post writers meant when they used it. He read an article written, presumably, by liberals, in which the Constitution was discussed in not-entirely-positive terms,^[4] and that's all the fuel he needed.

This is where I'd normally write some sort of conclusion—something concise and witty that also reinforces the point I'm trying to make—but there's no need. While I was working on this post I came across a conclusion to another article that serves those purposes beautifully. I hope Ken Blackwell doesn't mind if I borrow it:

Let's rejoice that we have come this far. Let's not use the reading of the Constitution as an occasion for scoring cheap—and false—political points. Let's proceed as Lincoln proceeded: With malice toward none.

1. Personally, I say leave the archaic sections out. Not because they're objectionable, but because I thought the point of the reading was that people—members of Congress and private citizens alike—might benefit from being reminded that the Constitution has a lot of important stuff in it and, by the way, is still legally binding. I don't see how it serves that purpose to read the parts that are no longer in effect.
    Still, would it have been too much to ask for somebody (John Lewis, perhaps) to kick things off with a short speech about the history of the controversial provisions? Alternatively, would it have been too much to ask for the Democrats to just stop complaining for an hour and a half?

2. Blackwell also has some thoughts about the Post's take on the Three-Fifths Compromise. I, in turn, have some thoughts about Blackwell's thoughts about the Post's take on the Three-Fifths Compromise. All these thoughts eventually grew too large to reasonably cram into this footnote (and even began sprouting footnotes of their own), so they'll show up as a separate article within a few days.

3. Oh, almost forgot the requisite disclaimer: Just because I disagree with some parts of Blackwell's article, doesn't mean I see the Constitution as immoral or unworthy or reverence or…I'm already tired of writing this sentence. It's a powerful, ground-breaking document, but it also has its flaws, because so did the world that created it. Can we all agree on that?

4. Interestingly, Blackwell doesn't comment on this line in the Post article, which is the only part that jumps out to me as containing legitimate inaccuracies:

To some African Americans, skipping those passages was a stinging omission that overlooked the fact that under the original Constitution they would not have had a right to vote, let alone serve in Congress.

The original Constitution didn't restrict voting rights. It didn't say much about voting at all, really, other than the constitutional requirement that members of the House of Representatives be, in some non-specific way, chosen by the people. Determining who could vote and what they could vote on was, and still is (although Amendments XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI established a few more ground rules), left up to the states. In a lot of states—you can probably guess what general part of the country we're talking about—free black men have been voting since the 1700s, and I'm pretty sure they were allowed to run for federal office, too.

Lies About "Lies"

Is there some kind of anti-thesaurus out there, funneling the English language's rich vocabulary into a Newspeak-ian handful of terms too broad to retain any real meaning? Anything liberals support (and/or anything conservatives find silly) is politically correct; any time a non-white person has a race-related complaint, it's an accusation of racism; anything Democrats do is socialist,^[1] and so on. The list gets longer every day, and I'd like to add one more—lie, as in lies, lying, liar, and any other inflected forms in the title of that Al Franken book.

It should be obvious by now where I'm going with this: A substantial amount of so-called "lies" are, in fact, anything but. To be clear, this is very much a problem on both sides, but I've made a commitment to keep this blog biased and unfair, and I'm not about to change that now. So, without further ado (alright, one more parenthetical ado, because I just can't resist), let's get to some examples:^[2]

This is perhaps the most fundamental, important lie in Obama’s entire speech: the recession we’re going through right now was caused by Republicans’ economic policies.

The "lie" in question is this snippet of the speech Obama recently gave in Ohio:

The flawed policies and economic weaknesses of the previous decade culminated in a financial crisis and the worst recession of our lifetimes.

Ok…where's the lie? Even if we go along with the unfounded inference that Obama was referring specifically to Republican policies, I don't think anyone would try to argue that the Republicans are absolutely blameless.^[3]

His promise of not resting [until the oil spill is stopped] can be added to the pack of lies…

Alright, so Obama should've been more sensitive to the negative attention he'd surely incur by publicly doing anything fun while the Gulf continued filling up with oil, but how is it not clear that "I'm not going to rest…until the leak is stopped" is not to be taken literally? I'm pretty sure he didn't expect to drink a ton of coffee, spend all night locked in his office, and have everything taken care of by the next morning.

Why isn't everyone jumping on Obama for LYING and saying he visited 57 states-Hillary cannot embellish a story without a pitt bull attack from rabid Obama worshippers?

Ha ha, just thought I'd throw this one in. I have no idea what's going on in the second half of that question, but the first half is a reference to the time Obama appeared to claim he had campaigned in seven more states than humanly possible. Maybe he misspoke, or maybe he actually didn't know the maximum number of states in which one can campaign,^[4] but, either way, it was about as far from a lie as a statement can be without being true.

Still, it's fun to consider that maybe he was lying. What could possibly have been his motive for trying to convince the public that there are (at least) 57 states? And didn't it occur to him that his sinister plot to misinform would be met with resistance from the few remaining Americans who know better? Why not lay the groundwork by distributing some revised maps, or hiring some Hollywood friends to stage a campaign appearance in East Dakota, or having CNN announce polling data from Freedonia? Just a shoddy effort, all the way around.

Anyway, end of digression. Moving on to something of a slightly higher caliber than Yahoo! Answers:

[F]or Obama and the New York Times to mislead the American people into imagining that the White House has celebrated iftar all the way back to 1805 is simply a straight out lie.

Hey, it's Warner Todd Huston again! At least this time I can tell what he's upset about. Apparently, 205 years ago Thomas Jefferson met the ambassador from Tunisia, a Muslim, for a meal, which was eaten after sunset in accordance with traditional Muslim observance of Ramadan. Meanwhile, various online sources define an iftar, rather unanimously, as (1) a meal (2) eaten by Muslims (3) after sunset (4) during the month of Ramadan. Barack Obama described the 1805 meeting as an iftar. That, to Huston, is not only a lie, but a "straight out lie."

Ugh. What Obama said was, at worst, spin, and, at best, accurate. He took a set of facts—the truth of which, as far as I can tell, is not in dispute—and framed them in a politically-favorable way. That kind of thing is not, and has never been, a lie.

So, to review, the sort of statement that, in today's discourse, might draw shouts of "You lie!"^[5] could actually be a defensive reaction to a perceived slight, an idiomatic expression interpreted literally, an innocent mistake, or plain ol' political spin. The only one of those things even remotely worth getting worked up about is spin—i.e. legitimate information used in arguably illegitimate ways—but still, it's counter-productive to combat misleading statements by conflating them with lies.

Why? Because someone who has been misled is well-armed with facts that sort of support their beliefs, and will thus be clung to with astonishing persistence. Tell them their beliefs are based on lies, and they'll double-check the facts and conclude that it is you whose pants are at risk of bursting into flames. But tell them their beliefs, while not indefensible, are based on misleading interpretations of the facts, and maybe, just maybe, they'll re-evaluate things. Probably not, but maybe.

1. I have no problem with Democrats being labeled socialists, as long as we can agree that they're only, like, 20% more socialist than Republicans.
2. I've written a few articles already in the here's-something-to-think-about-and-here-are-some-examples-that-don't-really-prove-anything-except-that-I'm-not-totally-making-shit-up format, and others are in the works, but this was by far the easiest to research. There's just so much of this junk out there.
3. Because if they did, they would be objectively, incontrovertibly wrong.
4. Call me a mindless ObamaZombie, if you like, but my money's on the former.
5. Interestingly, the most famous accusation of lying in recent years may, shocking immaturity aside, have been a fair one.

Amnesty

I’m fascinated by words—how we use them, how we misuse them, and what they sometimes reveal about our own prejudices. I’m especially fascinated by the way terms with largely positive connotations can devolve into vitriol-inspiring buzzwords. I even use a few of these in my header—tolerance, diversity, and compassion—in a counter-intuitive attempt to make my site more provocative.

Well, guess what? I believe in amnesty too. Not unequivocally, of course, but there are times when it's the appropriate thing to do. And yet, when amnesty is brought up in the context of immigration, certain people (you know who you are) react like the plan is to open the borders and empty the jails, flooding the streets with murderers and terrorists who—as if it isn’t bad enough already—don’t even speak English!

The thing is, not all forms of amnesty are alike. Take the cleverly-titled Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. Under the DREAM Act, an alien who entered the U.S. before age 16, has been in the country for at least five years, has graduated high school, and meets the vaguely-defined “good moral character” requirement, would be able to obtain conditional permanent residency. Six years later, if they’ve spent at least two years in college or the U.S. military, they could apply for a green card.

That’s a slam dunk, right? A path to legal status for aliens who were brought into the country as children, have spent a significant part of their lives in America, and are educated and (otherwise) law-abiding. If we agree on nothing else as a society, can we at least agree that this is the right thing to do?

No, of course not. Here's Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX):

The DREAM Act represents a dual assault on law-abiding, taxpaying American citizens and legal immigrants.

You know, conservatives often become defensive about being seen as heartless. “We don’t hate poor people,” they say, “we believe the best thing for poor people is an economy that rewards hard work and ingenuity—entitlement programs, on the other hand, serve to perpetuate poverty by discouraging those things.”

They could certainly do a better job of selling it, but I think that makes a lot of sense. In fact, most of the seemingly heartless things conservatives do can be supported on similar grounds. Taxes shouldn’t be disproportionately high on the rich because the rich stimulate the economy and provide jobs for the not-so-rich. A market with minimal regulation is good for consumers because it keeps prices low, and good for businesses because it encourages innovation. We shouldn’t overdo it with the foreign aid because it doesn't encourage long-term stability. Et cetera.

Opposition to the DREAM Act, however, is just plain heartless.^[1]

Think about what has to be done to avoid breaking a given law. Murder? Don’t kill anyone without a good reason. Seems manageable enough. Arson? Don’t intentionally set a building on fire. Hard to imagine a problem there, either. How about, say, insider trading? Wikipedia says you'd have to avoid making trades "based on material non-public information in violation of some duty of trust." A little tougher, perhaps, but still totally doable.

Now, what would it take for an alien eligible under the DREAM Act to avoid breaking the law? To begin with, a time machine (and not the kind that only goes forward). Upon arrival in 1975-2005, the alien, who at this point would be somewhere between ages 0 and 15, would have to either convince his or her parents (or whoever) to stay in Mexico (or wherever) instead of relocating to the United States, or stay behind alone.

Of course, I probably could’ve stopped at “time machine.” Realistically, all the alien can do is try to minimize the consequences of the violations that have already occurred.^[2] That means returning to Mexico (or wherever) upon turning 18 and applying to enter the country the right way, like any other law-abiding immigrant. Nevermind that most of the people we're talking about are more familiar with life in the United States than Mexico (or wherever)—they’ll have plenty of time to get assimilated while they wait.^[3] Processing times depend on what type of visa (if any) a particular alien is eligible to file for, but most can expect it to take several years. For some visa categories, the government is just now processing applications that were filed in 1992.

And that’s if they leave the country right away. One year of unlawful presence prohibits an alien from applying for a visa for ten years. The clock starts at age 18, so if they’re still here on their 19th birthday they might as well leave for good.^[4] Would that make everybody happy? To get rid of all those (otherwise) law-abiding, English-speaking college students that are such a drain on the economy? I guess we have to—anything short of that would be amnesty, and conservatives absolutely hate amnesty.^[5]

This article, after taking a few shots at those of us who feel empathy for “law breakers,” at least agrees that they should have an opportunity to obtain citizenship—but only after re-paying all the money the government has spent on them (because they weren't responsible for being brought to America, but somehow are responsible for the fact that our government loves to pay for stuff). Whatever. I’m more interested in some of the comments:

I-L-L-E-G-A-L
No amnesty for law breakers OR THEIR KIDS.
NOT our fault the parents broke our laws for them.

Illegal means "broke the law" and you want to not just ignore and give them amnesty but reward people for coming to the US illegally?

What punishment they suffer for violating the law? We're giving them citizenship and we're going to force the schools and or military to pay forit, yeah that's some punishment, NOT.

My God. What I wouldn’t give to deport these people instead.

1. Or, in the case of some congressional Democrats, part of an infantile strategy to pass comprehensive immigration reform or nothing at all. Actually, I think that qualifies as heartless too.

2. This is not, by any means, an exhaustive review of all the alternatives—and their various requirements—available under the immigration laws, in part because I’m hardly an expert, and in part because, trust me, you wouldn’t want to read it if it was exhaustive. The point is, while some aliens who would be eligible under the DREAM Act may have other feasible paths to legal residency, the vast majority do not.

3. Take language, for example. Contrary to popular belief, non-anglophones who come to the U.S. do learn English, and the more time they spend in America, the less likely they are to retain their proficiency in Spanish (or whatever).

4. Because I’m sure every unauthorized alien child is fully aware of the severe consequences of violating one of these arbitrary rules.

5. To be fair, the DREAM Act does have some bi-partisan support. The House version has five Republican co-sponsors, almost half of whom represent districts that aren't in South Florida. Following Mel Martinez's resignation, the bill's bipartisan support in the Senate starts and ends with Indiana's Richard Lugar, who once met Ashley Judd.