Yesterday's Paul Krugman [at right]...Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state’s political turmoil. He started a blog, “Scholar as Citizen,” devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin’s Republican governor has turned his back on the state’s long tradition of “neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.”This type of bullying and intimidation is not exactly new to the hard right. It's a technique they have learned over the years from some of the world's most diabolical regimes and dictators that they ironically claim to hate so much even as the mimic them in their actions. And if they gain more power expect even more of this kind of behavior as they are emboldened by a vulnerable electorate that is increasingly fueled and fed a generous supply of fiction and fable by Fox News and conservative talk radio.
So what was the G.O.P.’s response? A demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon’s university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word “Republican” and the names of a number of Republican politicians.
If this action strikes you as no big deal, you’re missing the point. The hard right — which these days is more or less synonymous with the Republican Party — has a modus operandi when it comes to scholars expressing views it dislikes: never mind the substance, go for the smear. And that demand for copies of e-mails is obviously motivated by no more than a hope that it will provide something, anything, that can be used to subject Mr. Cronon to the usual treatment.
The Cronon affair, then, is one more indicator of just how reflexively vindictive, how un-American, one of our two great political parties has become.
.
15 comments:
So, I'm confused by your claim that seeking public records is "bullying."
As someone who's webzine is more or less based on the ability to collect and publish emails, and other public documents, does that make me a bully for doing so?
Or is the ability to seek emails limited to only those folks with whom you agree?
You feature a number of individuals on this blog, who in one way or another, back up their claims and arguments with emails and other public documents, so obviously you don't disagree with the concept, only with who's got the right to exercise their First Amendment Rights.
That's both the beauty and pitfall of a strong public records law. It allows EVERYONE to use it for their purposes.
al crespo
You really think it's okay for a public employee to be targeted for investigation simply because they don't agree with the thinking of the current administration?
This isn't about a "public records request," Al, and for you to defend this attempt to smear someone's reputation is, well, rather surprising.
.
Making a "public record request" is not the argument. The argument is about the right to defend the public records law when you disagree with the purpose of the person who's doing the exercising is someone who you disagree with.
The law is the law. It gives - EVERYONE - the right to seek the emails, writings and documents generated by people who are on the public payroll.
Whether I agree with the person's politics is beside the point. It's always easy to justify support for a law when you agree with the people who are going after records that you want to see exposed.
I didn't see anyone opposing the efforts of the AP to go after ALL of the emails received by the Governor after he claimed that he was receiving emails favoring his position on abolishing the rights of public employees on collective bargaining.
It's always easy to be a vegetarian between meals.
The First Amendment, and open government laws are laws that require being supported most when someone you disagree with is exercising them, because if you don't, then someday, you too will be on the unpopular side, and then who'll support your rights.
As to smearing someone's reputation, because of what the professor wrote - which no one can claim to know at this point - begs the question about being willing to own your words.
Personally, from the first word I ever posted on the internet I've always owned my words. My name, my phone number, my address, and my photo have, or are on my website, as well as a very detailed biography which details my past as a bank robber.
I don't hide, nor am I ever embarrassed by what I write. If I was, I wouldn't write it. At 69, I've figured out pretty much what I believe about the world and my relationship with it, and have developed a pretty broad base of knowledge to support those beliefs.
Even when I make mistake, I'll own up to it. Show me how many people in the local blogsphere headline their mistakes, like I have?
Again, the law is what requires support, and to do so sometimes means doing so even if you disagree with the motives of the individual using it.
Even Krugman agrees that the party hacks are probably "within their rights" in demanding the emails. That's not the point of his column, which is to highlight the unsavory motivation of the demand, and rue the intimidation factor it presents to non-political persons whose work has ramifications on policies of significance to parties who do.
If the GOP hierarchy were even vaguely interested in the academic merits of Cronon's position, they would conduct a thorough review of his essay, checking facts, challenging arguments, suggesting alternative explanations, etc. But they're not. Their game is character assassination, which is easier as well as more contemptible. However, as Krugman notes, look how well it worked with global climate experts when very little else had even a fraction of the success.
Basically, they're seeking ad hominum arguments -- shameless playground politics on the national stage.
The other issue this column was most decidedly not about is Al Crespo, although that's not easily appreciated by his responses here.
It seems "within their rights," is only an unchallenged concept when it's your right, or the rights of people who you agree with are involved.
If it's a "right," then motivation is irrelevant.
There's a big problem in this country that people only love the First Amendment, the Flag, or any of our other rights and/or symbols as long as it's their version of those right and symbols.
"Ad hominum" attacks are never a substitute for a rational evaluation of he facts, even when they're directed to me.
Al....I would love see how your lofty principles would fair if Chief Regalado decided to start going into all the email accounts of his enemies in the PD or your buddy Sarnoff decided to root through the desks of city employees who didn't agree with him while they were out of the office. It may all be totally legal but it's wrong and vindictive and smells of authoritarianism at its worse.
And yay! for "headlining your mistakes," Al. You are definitely so much better than everyone else in the blogosphere.
.
Hang onto your hat Rick. I agree with you 100%.
Yes, it is legal, but it is a form of intimidation. What professor is going to sound off now, knowing that his or her entire email history could be made public?
It is just wrong.
If the Chief of Police were to do what I, or you, or anyone else can do, which is to file a public records request - which incidentally happens more than you think - then I say, let him go for it. In fact, I have copies of emails by several public officials who have done just that in recent months.
As for Sarnoff rooting through desks while people are out of the office, you're really going in the weeds there because if you don't know that's against the law - 4th Amendment - violation of Search and Seizure, then you really need a remedial class in basic civics.
As for my headlining "my mistakes," that was meant just for you, since you made such a deal in pointing out some months ago when I wrote that my site and others had been blocked by the City's IT Department.
If you'd like, you're welcome to come over to my house any time and I'll show you how my emails are being blocked even now, but then again, I don't want a little thing like truth to get in the way of your attitude.
The bottom line is that in a political fight, the side that you, and others - and even I disagree with - has decided to use a legitimate, time honored way to try and mine for information that they might be able to use to further their side of the argument, and everyone's gotten their shorts in a bunch.
This, without knowing what, if anything, of real value to the other side might be in any of those emails.
Nobody stuck a gun to that professor's head and told him to get in the fight. He chose to do so, and chose to put up a website to further his position.
When you step into the ring, then it's your responsibility to try and make sure you stay in the middle of the ring, and to defend yourself.
Whining about a "right" like making a public records request being used against you is not a defense. I wonder how many public records requests the professor used to gather information to bolster his argument.
I didn't hear anybody from the other side whine about any of that.
Like I said before. A "right" is a "right." If you can't support that "right" being used by someone you disagree with, then you're no different then the people who you claim are vindictive and most especially authoritarian.
As for the claims of "intimidation," a lot of you are just living a fantasy land. You wouldn't know what it means to really be intimidated over anything you've ever written.
I'm not better than anyone, but the one thing I am is a lot more honest than people who play pretend and hide behind the anonymity of fake names, and write piddle paddle bullshit.
If you're not afraid of being a big, bad defender of free speech, start by using your real names!
Al, if you're going to comment, follow the rules that are posted above the comments box. Since you spent so much time on that response, I'm not going to delete it this time. Please observe the rules.
.
Gosh, AlCrespo -- you almost made it through before making it about yourself again.
I guess you don't fully digest Krugman's specific mention that it isn't about "rights," let alone my recitation of same. That just isn't what this is all about, no matter how hard you try to swing it that way. Just as wearing guns to political rallies isn't really about the 2nd amendment, and burning flags isn't about the 1st, even though both are always cited.
Invoking one's constitutional rights doesn't make right the motivation to do so. You don't get this. It's the old "The devil cites Scripture to steal innocent souls" in secular lingo. Get real.
PS Please go to the NYTimes website to read some of the 500+ comments for a clearer argument than I can articulate here.
My real name is Clem Edwards and I'm alcoholic...so now I am automatically credible and can call other bloggers out who are not using their real names to blog. This is going to be fun.
Dear Squathole,
“Invoking one's constitutional rights doesn't make right the motivation to do so.” Now that’s an mouthfull if I ever heard one.
Just who would you argue is entitled to make the decision on what constitutes “correct” and acceptable motivation when it comes to invoking my or your constitutional rights?
More to the point, what’s motivation got to do with it? The people who wrote the public records laws in this country were overwhelmingly correct to leave “motivation” completely out of the criteria. Perhaps it might do you good to read Florida’s public records law, just so you’ll appreciate what and how these laws were crafted in order to allow for the broadest possible exercise of this “right.” http://www.myflsunshine.com/
Mob rule – even so august a mob as “500 people on the New York Times website, doesn’t necessarily make them right.
As best as I can determine from the arguments you posted here, if you and your friends exercise the public records law, that’s okay, because your motives are pure. If “they” use the same law, then its wrong because they are engaging in “intimidation,” and a smear campaign for disagreeing with people you agree with.
What I would agree is that what you are really attempting to argue is academic freedom, and that argument would be on stronger grounds if the professor had being attacked for his classroom comments. The professor however, chose to exercise his own first amendment rights by wading in with both feet into a political battle over collective bargaining by creating a blog and staking out a political position, largely – if not totally - with research that was paid for by taxpayer dollars. That’s what’s opened him up for the public records request.
I notice that no one is questioning the professor’s motivation, nor should they. He was exercising his “constitutional right” to free speech. The people seeking his emails are exercising their “constitutional right” to public records.
It’s a slippery and dangerous slope to argue in opposition to people exercising their constitutional rights because of their motivation. It’s bad law, and worse public policy.
You still don't get it, Alcrespo, and by now it's clear that you won't. I'm not arguing about exercising rights, and neither is Krugman -- he specifically says as much (as I futilely pointed out already). So why are you still rabitting on about this?
If the examples of burning a flag or carrying a gun to a political rally -- both exercises of constitutional protections -- don't clear this up for you, then somebody else needs to complete the spoon feeding you require.
Wrong. I got you the first time. I just wanted to illustrate to a couple friends that I could engage in a sustained debate on the issue of “motivation” impacting a public policy issue with someone with the nom de plume of “Squathole” without asking, what motivated you to call yourself “Squathole.” But, alas, I guess I can only go so far down that road.
So, what about it? With a language so rich, and the psychological implications so evident, what’s up with that?
To spare you the effort – although don’t let me hold you back - I would hope you would respond that it’s an indication of a high level of intellect, and motivation has nothing to do with it. That’s how I figure people of high intellect should always respond to people who want to question anyone’s pursuit of their constitutional rights, no matter whether it’s burning the flag, carrying a gun, abortion, or most especially seeking public records.
And to save you the effort, this one was definitely all for me.
'I just wanted to illustrate to a couple friends that I could engage in a sustained debate on the issue of “motivation” impacting a public policy issue with someone with the nom de plume of “Squathole” without asking, what motivated you to call yourself “Squathole.”'
Aah. Silly time.
I'm truly impressed, Alcrespo. You have friends. By the couple, no less.
I guess I could respond by asking you why you nicknamed yourself Fuzzy. Or Wrinkly, depending on the dialect of Italian you favor.
Anything you want to know about me as Squathole you can learn by reading my blog, if you're so inclined. I promise you won't find it as mentally challenging as the issue we had been discussing.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.