False Choices
Advertising
Expect ads to be one-sided presentations, intensifying their
own "good." Advertisers do not have to emphasize, nor even
tell you about, all of the other choices, the other ways you can use your time,
or products on which you can spend your money. As a consumer, a buyer, a reasonable
person, you need to consider your own
limits, priorities and values, needs and wants.
As consumers in a "free market," we have
agreed that government should have some regulations to prevent fraud
(FTC has a few restrictions on "deceptive advertising" ) and some
"disclosure laws" to prevent serious health and safety hazards
(FDA). Most efforts in "consumer education"
are done by nonprofit consumer groups (Consumers Research), but seldom systematically
in schools.
Politics
Expect political rhetoric to
be one-sided presentations, intensifying the own "good" about their
policies or programs.
Expect people in power to intensify their own "good" and downplay
their own "bad." Today, this is called "spin"
and "damage control." From the press releases and the "public
relations" department of the White House, the State House, and City Hall,
expect the only news to be "good news." Don't expect an Administration
in power (Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative) to be very forthcoming
about any problems or difficulties.
Degree varies. Usually, politicians are open to criticism
for their evasive wordiness (circumlocution), vague generalizations, and
over-qualifications (hedging, "weasel words"). On the contrary,
President George W. Bush was usually criticized for "begging
the question" (blunt assertions, without proof), "flag-waving"
(associating one's policies with patriotism ), and "false
choices."
As citizens participating in a democracy, however, we
have a different relationship with politics than with commercial ads. Unlike
commercial persuasion, where the audience can opt out (not buy the
product), as citizens we are all in a social compact to live under the authority
of the elected government.
In this situation, "free choice" by the voters (in electing
and then supporting an administration ) implies that it will be an informed
choice. Citizens must know other the options.
This is the importance of "freedom of the press":
the ideal situation is an independent, free press which
serves as "a watchdog rather than
a lapdog" to seek out, to uncover, or to expose the "bad"
-- that which has been downplayed. Even though the Establishment will reject
criticism as being "disloyal" or "unpatriotic" or "just
politics" -- As citizens, we should expect a free and open discussion
of issues and choices
The Fog of False Choices
Editorial: The New York Times December 20,2005
After five years, we're used to President Bush throwing up false choices to defend
his policies. Americans were told, after all, that there was a choice between
invading Iraq and risking a terrorist nuclear attack. So it was not a surprise
that Mr. Bush's Oval Office speech Sunday night and his news conference yesterday
were thick with Orwellian constructions: the policy debate on Iraq is between
those who support Mr. Bush and those who want to pull out right now, today; fighting
terrorists in Iraq means we're not fighting them here. But none of these phony
choices were as absurd as the one Mr. Bush posed to justify his secret program
of spying on Americans: save lives or follow the law.
Mr. Bush said he thwarted terrorist plots by allowing the National Security Agency
to monitor Americans' international communications without a warrant. We don't
know if that is true because the administration reverts to top-secret mode when
pressed for details. But we can reach a conclusion about Mr. Bush's assertion
that obeying a 27-year-old law prevents swift and decisive action in a high-tech
era. It's a myth.
The 1978 law that regulates spying on Americans (remember Richard Nixon's enemies
lists?) does require a warrant to conduct that sort of surveillance. It also created
a special court that is capable of responding within hours to warrant requests.
If that is not fast enough, the attorney general may authorize wiretaps and then
seek a warrant within 72 hours.
Mr. Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered a whole bag of logical
pretzels yesterday to justify flouting this law. Most bizarre was the assertion
that Congress authorized the surveillance of American citizens when it approved
the use of "all necessary and appropriate force" by the United States
military to punish those responsible for the 9/11 attacks or who aided or harbored
the terrorists.
This came as a surprise to lawmakers, who thought they were voting for the invasion
of Afghanistan and the capture of Osama bin Laden.
This administration has a long record of expanding presidential powers in dangerous
ways; the indefinite detention of "unlawful enemy combatants" comes
to mind. So assurances that surveillance targets are carefully selected with reasonable
cause don't comfort. In a democracy ruled by laws, investigators identify suspects
and prosecutors obtain warrants for searches by showing reasonable cause to a
judge, who decides if legal tests were met.
Chillingly, this is not the only time we've heard of this administration using
terrorism as an excuse to spy on Americans. NBC News recently discovered a Pentagon
database of 1,500 "suspicious incidents" that included a Quaker meeting
to plan an antiwar rally. And Eric Lichtblau writes in today's Times that F.B.I.
counterterrorism squads have conducted numerous surveillance operations since
Sept. 11, 2001, on groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Greenpeace
and the Catholic Workers group.
Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the power to spy on Americans. Fine, then Congress
can just take it back
DOONESBURY: Dubya’s Straw Man Straw
Poll | Slate.com | January 5, 2006
Whenever President Bush defends a policy, he always sets up a straw man as the
alternative, as if there were only two possible options. What has been your favorite
false choice?
____ Launching a bold, history-changing, preemptive strike against Iraq vs. waiting
until a mushroom cloud appears over America.
____ Decisively defeating the terrorists in Iraq vs. having to fight them in our
own country.
____ Persevering in Iraq until victory is achieved vs. a sniveling, cowardly,
white-flag surrender.