Dishonest Arguments 101

Over at TNR's Plank, Isaac Chotiner makes the following statement...

That Pew poll [PDF] about Muslim attitudes in America has been getting a lot of press for the fact that 13 percent of those surveyed think that suicide bombings can be justified "often/sometimes" or "rarely" to "defend Islam." On its surface this seems disturbing, although I wonder how many Christians or Jews would say that similar actions are justified to "defend" their faith.

Chotiner goes on to make the eminently reasonable point that it's distressing that in another part of the same poll, only 40% of Muslims think that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks. I agree with him here.

But let's step back and take a look at the comment he makes at the end of the first paragraph, shall we? He "wonders" how many Christians or Jews would say that suicide bombings may be justified to "defend" their faith.

I hate pathetic statements like that. Chotiner effectively uses his wondering to imply that one might reasonably find a percentage of Christians or Jews in the U.S. who think the same way as Muslims with regard to suicide bombing, and that percentage is similar to the 13% of Muslims in the Pew poll. Of course, he has no evidence of that.

Look, I'm not a Christian. I'm not a Jew. Full disclosure, I am married to a Christian (Catholic, to be exact), and I have a number of friends who are Christian. I also have a number of friends who are Jewish, not to mention friends who are Muslim. Clearly, I would be pretty shocked if any of them, of any faith, thought this way.

But let's look at this on a larger scale. There are plenty of Muslims in the Middle East who have employed suicide bombings as a tactic that they believe is in defense of their faith. We have empirical evidence that there are a large number of Muslims in the Middle East, though by no means a majority, who carry out, support and celebrate this tactic and see it as justified in "defense" of their faith. It's not hard to imagine that there may be a much smaller contingent of Muslims in the Western world who might believe these actions are justified in some circumstances as well, although we can still find it distressing as well.

Now, let's see -- when's the last time I saw a Christian or Jewish suicide bomber?

Still waiting.

Look, this isn't so say that there aren't Christians or Jews who might approve of this tactic. There are certainly Christians in other parts of the world -- see Northern Ireland -- who committed terrorist actions that are similar to suicide bombings. But I don't really see where there's evidence to speculate that Christians in the U.S. approve of those tactics, let alone suicide bombing. That's why I find Chotiner's throwaway line intellectually dishonest. It's a bit like asking if there are writers at the Plank who might approve of child molestation. There might be, but what evidence do I have to leave that question hanging out there?

Look, if Chotiner wants to make a point that religious extremism may lead to violence, and that the history of other religions and of practicioners of their faith demonstrate that Islam may not be unique, go ahead. But his manner of leaving that question out there is demeaning and insulting.

I'm Sooooooo Disillusioned, Part III

I may need to have a new feature on the continuing antics of ethically-challenged (no, I'm not questioning his patriotism) of Pennsylvania's pork king extraordinaire, Congressman Jack Murtha...

On May 16, Democrat lawmakers held a news conference in Washington, DC, where more than two dozen freshmen announced a push for stronger ethics enforcement. The members followed up that event with local media, garnering widespread attention for vowing to reform Congress.

"Members of Congress must know that if they break the rules,” Ohio’s Zack Space told C-SPAN, “they will be caught and punished.”

But when Space was given the chance to punish one of his own, Pennsylvania Democrat Jack Murtha, he refused. Murtha contributed $2,000 to Space’s campaign last fall.

Murtha was accused in a privileged resolution sponsored by U.S. Representative Mike Rogers, R-MI, of violating House ethics rules. According to Rogers, Murtha threatened him when Rogers opposed a $23 million Congressional earmark to fund a controversial project in Murtha’s district.

“I hope you don’t have any earmarks in the appropriations bills,” Murtha is reported to have said, “because they are gone and you will not get any earmarks now and forever.” Murtha has not denied the exchange.

The House Code of Official Conduct states that a Member “may not condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a congressional earmark…on any vote cast by another Member.”

Rogers sought a reprimand of Murtha by the House for the apparent ethics violation. On an overwhelmingly party line vote, Democrats tabled the Rogers’ resolution, effectively killing it. Two Democrats, Earl Blumenauer, D-OR, and Jim Cooper, D-TN, voted against their party’s leadership.

Among those refusing to reprimand Murtha were the 23 Democrats who last week vowed tougher ethics enforcement.

“One of the messages voters sent last November was that the time had come to change the way business was being done in Washington,” Iowa’s Bruce Braley said on May 16. “The American people deserve to have the highest confidence that their Representatives are doing their jobs in a professional and ethical manner.”

Like Space, Braley voted against reprimanding Murtha. He, too, received $2,000 from Murtha last fall.

Another freshman publicly calling for tougher ethics enforcement was Connecticut’s Chris Murphy.

“Too often the ethics process has been used by Congress to protect its own,” Murphy told his hometown paper, the New Britain Herald. "People are tired of the scandalous headlines coming out of Washington, and Congress should move forward soon to clean up its act.”

Murphy, who claimed in that interview to have “organized and led…the freshman class” on ethics reform, also voted to kill the reprimand; and, like his colleagues, collected $2,000 from Murtha in 2006.

In fact, twenty-two of the twenty three freshmen who spent last week promoting tougher House ethics voted on Tuesday to kill the reprimand. One, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, voted “present.” Shuler did not receive any funds from Murtha during his campaign.

In addition to the members already mentioned, the following freshmen who vowed tougher ethics rules, yet refused to rebuke Murtha, received the following contributions from the Pennsylvania Democrat. They are: Patrick Murphy, PA, $7,000; David Loebsack, IA, $4,500; Peter Welch, VT, $4,000; Yvette Clarke, NY, $4,000.

(hat tip: Instapundit) Heath Schuler's vote in Congress on this issue sounds suspiciously close to his Redskins' career -- he was present, and little more can be said that's any good (Gus Frerotte clearly would have voted for the reprimand). With that joke out of the way, kudos to the two Dems who decided that Murtha's sleazy actions were worthy of a reprimand. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little praise we can offer any other Democrat. in fact, their tenure in Congress is starting to resemble the late 1990's Redskins -- a lot of bluster, a lot of money spent, and little to show for it.