Ethos, Pathos, Logos

Blackframes.net

The Greek Philosopher Aristotle divided persuasion into three categories: Ethos; Credibility , Pathos; Emotional, Logos; Logical.  All acts of persuasion contain at least one, if not all three.  A person who produces such appeals does so to justify the light that the author wants to shed on the circumstance to the audience.  Right or Wrong. Fact laden or absent.  Deceitful or forthcoming.  None of that truly matters, for these are simply tools that are used to build the arguments that manipulate mankind.  Tools have no morality: their end product will be a reflection of the will behind them.  Joshua Holland, writer for the Smirking Chimp, attempts all three in his blog titled "5 Reason's GOP's Attack on Birth Control Screws Men."

With the title itself being logos inspired, Mr Holland delves right into his argument, offering first examples of organisms capable of asexual reproduction, to highlight the absurdity of a odd "linguistic quirk" society has about women becoming pregnant. The first paragraph is amusing and on point though after this paragraph ends is where the blog quickly devolves into more of an unsubstantiated bashing of conservative individuals then it does to actually further his argument.  He offers no real substance, other then scattered statistics, in his vain attempt to justify his "reasons." It is what is not said that undermines this whole piece. The author links to all of his statistics, yet conveniently leaves out any source to explain his denigration of character, as though anyone who reads this should take his word on the moral fiber of the individuals spoken about.  He even goes a step further then this by using blanket statements (i.e."Any red-blooded straight dude should be absolutely appalled by such a prospect" pathos), the specific to argue the general (i.e. "While there was never a more "innocent" time when people only had sex within the bounds of matrimony..." logos ), and promoting the  mindset that one member's actions is reflective of a group as a whole (i.e."that's just a cherished conservative myth" ethos).  His list of reasons can be reduced down to two, with those two being the baser humans drives to reproduce (sex) and the need for security (economic prosperity) are cornerstones on which they are built.

 While there is merit to be found in these, to present them in this way as though they are a foregone conclusion and not open for any debate is deplorable at best, and a downright mockery of any reader's intellect.   The author's ideals for society standards preaches tolerance and open-mindedness of all as long as those individuals agree with him.  Then it is ignominy for all others, and that theme is prevalent throughout ( i.e. "you should be outraged that social conservatives are trying to shame women for using birth control, and thus trying to put a crimp in your game".) The greatest tragedy is the fallacious way in which his presents the "conservatives" argument about the whole ordeal, for those whom read this may not even question the validity of any statements, since the peppering of statistics adds factual value in a paragraph and distracts the reader from questioning what they had just read.  The conservative viewpoint seems to be one of that tax money should not be spent to pay for birth-control, unless when it is deemed a medical issue, or forcing any institution or individual to cover the  expenses for someone else, hence the legislation.  The baseline argument being presented by "the right" is that of self -reliance for birth control, not the dictation of one's actions by another man's will, which the author tries to convince the readers of by taking the espousing of their community standards and construing it as an attack on every one's personal liberty. 


With that aside, a question arises of why this is now an issue.  Title X, an amendment in 1970  to the Public Health Service Act of 1944  makes available birth-control to those  "in need".  Tax money is already paying for these services, why is this not good enough? Why do certain "Liberals" feel the need to inflict their collective will on the populace?  Is it a lost concept that  ultimately with more tax money spent means increased cost for all, instead of localizing the expense to out of pocket for the people whom are not "in need"?  This may be a nothing more then a manufactured distraction, a stunt in which to capture our attention away from the real issue in which started this all, which was the Federal Government trying to force a religious institution to provide birth control. For those whom are familiar with the Sandra Fluke Ordeal with Rush Limbaugh (a great example of someone being taken out of context ), may not know these facts about her, since when one takes into perspective the motivation and character of the people involved, a different story begins to emerge. As, Emma Bull  once said "Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys."


Remember:  Big Brother is Watching

Facta Non Verba

Deeds, not words, should be the empyrean guideline in which judgment is passed on the events of history. In the book "1984" there operated a government agency called the "Ministry of Truth."  It was with words that this agency changed the history of the past by rewriting articles and changing the meanings of terms, to what the author George Orwell called "double-think".  Strange times indeed, when reality begins to mirror fiction, nonesuch as illustrated with the ironically titled editorial "Reviving the Constitution".  The author, Andrew Rosenthal, an Editor for the New York Times, praises the Obama administration whilst under the guise of attacking them.  He does a bait and switch style of argument presentation, by pulling a reader in with a particular statement only to use statements counter-intuitive to the original argument. For example, he writes  in the opening paragraph
                                                                           
  "Ever since the George W. Bush administration decide to trash the constitution, the Geneva conventions and federal law, the thought of a government lawyer talking aboutjustice in the age of terrorism has made me cringe.  Although I hoped to lose this automatic reflex when Barack Obama took office, I’ve been distressed by many of his national security moves"

At this moment he is stating to his audience that the Bush presidency was evil and menacing, and was doing everything it could to trample and destroy America.  Yet despite what utopia he had envisioned would happen, here is the new administration ultimately doing the same thing, and even though he mentions he had been "distressed by many..moves" he does not say what these are and he is careful to not let it become an outright attack of their actions.
                                                                         "Some of what they said troubled me.  They both seemed  reject any role of civilian courts in deciding when to kill American Citizens suspected of terrorism. I am not as enamored of military tribunals as Mr. Holder or Mr. Johnson are."

Though declaring that murder of American Citizens as only "troubling,"  he later in the article cites a speech in which the Attorney General made a powerful case for such federal actions.  He makes the argument that the "bad" actions of the Bush Administration were now permissible for continuation since the current Justice Department had found a path to justify such actions under the Constitution.  Mr. Rosenthal  attacks Bush once again by stating the former President only used "legal opinions" to provide merit-able cause, yet fails to  describe what that means exactly. He also undermines any attempt to declare the Obama Administration's actions as being proof of an existence of a global "war on terror", since the term "war" brings actual constitutional considerations.  This is of no surprise since nearly three years ago, the administration sent out in email that the term "war on terror" was no longer to be used, that it would now be called "overseas contingency operation".  A contingency operation does not have the same rules since it is not called a war.  Mr Rosenthal left this out on reason as it serves only to counteract his faux argument. Interestingly, he makes no mention of the NDAA at all in this article, though it now gives the government the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere that is suspected of being a terrorist without a trail, which is an argument central at the heart of his editorial piece.  Nor does he make no mention of Operation Fast and Furious , the botched operation in which the government was intentionally trying to manufacture a crisis in which to undermine the Constitution by legislating gun control.  He also repeatedly shifts attention and blame away from the Obama Administration by mentioning President George Bush five times, in comparison to only twice for President Obama.  Also noteworthy is how he refers to the former President as "Mr. Bush" and Obama as "President."  
               
By the content of the piece, it is very clearly intended for a liberal audience. Unfortunately for liberals, this does not cast them in a positive light, for what does it says about said audience when any person whom pays attention to world and national events can clearly see that this article is lacking in information, offers no real reasoning behind approval for the execution of American citizens,  and is an unapologetic bashing of people who have not been in power for over three years. In one hand, the argument it is full of half truths and talking points to deceitfully argue that the killing of American citizens without a civilian trial is wrong.  Yet, on the other hand, he argues that is now alright since they've changed the terminology and claim the actions to be "constitutional."  This is the definition of Double-Think.

The article is pure propaganda, justifying the nefarious actions for the administration.  There is no "reviving" of the constitution in these actions; it is the pretense of the usurpation of  American principles. As George Orwell fatefully declared " Who controls the past. controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."  

Remember: Big Brother is watching