A man of prodigious fortune, coming to add his opinion to some light discussion that was going on casually at his table, began precisely thus: "It can only be a liar or an ignoramus who will say otherwise than," and so on. Pursue that philosophical point, dagger in hand.

--Michel de Montaigne, Of the art of discussion.



Stab back: cmnewman99-at-yahoo.com


Home

 
And now for something completely stupid. Terry Jones is at it again, proving that the style of reasoning he immortalized in film was no mere comedic affectation but the actual lens through which he views reality. Here's his most recent exercise in logic, printed as a letter in The Observer (England) on Sunday January 26, 2003. He spins out an analogy that purports to show the absurdity of Bush's position on Iraq. I'm sympathetic to this rhetorical approach in general, as analogy is an important technique not only of comedic but of serious moral reasoning. When one manages to combine the two effectively, it is potent indeed. But to do this, one has to take care in constructing an analogy that can be regarded as a valid proxy for the situation one is examining. Unfortunately, Jones does this in a way that only Sir Bedevere could be proud of. Here's his opening:

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!

For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.

See the problem with this Terry, is that it's only funny if you've had your head up your arse for the past thirteen or so years. (Or if your only news source is the BBC, which by some accounts may amount to much the same thing.) But surely you aspire to a broader audience than that! Python was always the humor group for intellectuals! Don't you want your witty references to be appreciated even by people actually familiar with the source material? If we're going to play this game, let's do a real analogy:

Mr. Johnson is a paroled felon living under a form of house arrest. This is because several years ago he got into an argument with his neighbor Mr. Patel over who really owned the health food shop. Not receiving what he regarded as a satisfactory answer from Mr. Patel, Mr. Johnson sent over one of his sons, heavily armed, to break into Patel's shop, put a gun to his head, and announce that from now on the Johnsons would be running things and taking most of the wheatgrass juice for their own disposal. Most of the rest of the neighborhood banded together and demanded that Mr. Johnson tell his son to get out of the shop and leave Mr. Patel in peace. Mr. Johnson refused. Seeing that there was no other way to free Mr. Patel, a group of neighbors braved the son's gunfire, entered the shop, and forced the son back out onto the street, whence he promptly fled unmolested into the Johnson residence. Not, however, before deliberately setting fire to the shop, just to make sure that if the Johnsons couldn't run it no-one else would get much use out of it for a long while either. At the same time the battle in the shop was taking place, Mr. Johnson was out on his roof, shooting rockets at the house of Mr. Smith down the street. Mr. Smith wasn't one of the members of the group that was trying to free Mr. Patel, but he was an unpopular guy who Mr. Smith hoped to provoke into fighting, because then maybe some of the neighbors who couldn't stand Mr. Smith would switch sides.

The neighbors at this point would have been justified had they busted into the Johnson residence to grab Mr. Johnson and ride him out of town on a rail, but they didn't. They decided there had been enough violence for one day. For one thing, the neighbors didn't want to wind up unnecessarily harming the other Johnsons who lived with him, most of whom they figured to be decent people who they hoped would eventually stick the old coot in a nursing home and act like responsible neighbors again. So they told Mr. Johnson they'd let him stay there and live in the neighborhood on the condition that he get rid of all his guns and rockets so they could be sure he wouldn't use them on someone else. (The Patel incident hadn't been the first time Mr. Johnson had tried to take over a neighbor's property by force.) Mr. Johnson said he'd cooperate and let a representative from the neighborhood watch step in regularly to verify that he was getting rid of all the nasty things he'd saved up for possible use on his neighbors. But soon after the neighbors dispersed to their various homes, Mr. Johnson broke his word. He let the representative in a few times, but became more and more difficult, coming up with constant excuses for not letting him look into certain rooms or closets. "My wife is changing in there right now, you see." Eventually the representative gave up and stopped going, because he knew he was being given the runaround. We don't know exactly what all Mr. Johnson has in there, but we do know that he used to have quite a lot of nasty stuff (including things much worse than guns or rockets), and he's given us no reason to believe he's gotten rid of it.

Back to you, Terry.

As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.

Another bad move, Terry. If this thing turns on whether Saddam is a Mass Murderer, Bush has never said not to ask him how he knows. You can have access to all the sources you want on that question. In fact, you don't even have to ask Bush for them. Ask these people, who presumably you trust more. I hate using that classic condescending Chomskyean ploy of announcing "there is no serious debate on this point," but there really isn't. Oh, you can find some debate over one particular incident of mass murder, (a debate I think Saddam's defenders lose pretty handily), but our knowledge of the Anfal genocide campaign is based on quite a bit more than anybody's bare say-so. Now, you might still question whether Bush should advocate using military force just to enforce an arbitrary preference that millions of people not be ruled by mass-murderers. Fair enough. Let's try that one out for humor value "Why, everyone knows that Mr. Patel likes to make snuff films starring his children. So why shouldn't I barge in and stop him?" Oh, you'll get some real belly laughs from that riff.

Or you might get a little more clever, and ask why out of all the mass murderers in the world we should start with this particular one. Why not try something like this: "Sure, there is Mr. Kim down the street. He's beastly to his kids as well, and has even nastier toys than Mr. Johnson, but why worry about him when I know Mr. Johnson has a lovely record collection I'd love to get my hands on. Oh, and then there was that South American chap I used to be pals with. He was something of a kiddy diddler too, but he did use to slip me a fiver under the table at the pub now and again till he up and left. God, how I miss the chap. But never mind. I've got a Moral Compass, and here it is: I hereby solemnly announce that I am really and totally committed to the extirpation of all mass murderers in the neighborhood, except for those who I happen to be friends with at the time, but particularly including those whose houses contain Extremely Valuable Objects."

We're getting a little warmer here, now aren't we? It still needs work, but I can at least see the glimmerings of a chuckle. I would still think the point was wrong ultimately, but it would require a little work to explain why, and the joke would at least have some bite to it. Would it have taken so much effort to make a move like that, Terry? I mean, I know that the papers will run any half-assed thing you dash off because of your status as ex-Pythonite Comic Laureate of England, but I'd have expected a bit more pride in your craft. Or is the real problem that by adding the extra layer, all you accomplish is to make fun of Bush for sounding inconsistent and hypocritical? That's not enough, is it? I mean, he's a politician. Sort of like making fun of a fish for having gills. What a waste of your brilliant comedic acumen to convey nothing more than, "Bush may be advocating something morally justifiable, but he's not terribly consistent given the history of American foreign policy." No, what you wanted to do was demonstrate that Bush is advocating something utterly unjustifiable, and indeed insane. Well, I'm afraid we've got some more work to do, my good knight. Grab those coconut shells and saddle up.

Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous. The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people. Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently that's been a little difficult. Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!

Proof of what, Terry? As I've said, we do have proof he's a mass-murderer. Alright, it was a few years ago, perhaps we should let bygones be bygones unless we can come up with a fresh charge. But we have that as well. Remember Terry, Mr. Johnson is on parole. When you're on parole, just failing to check in with the parole officer is itself an offense for which you can be arrested, regardless of whether your failure is because you were out knocking over a liquor store. Remember when Bush made his speech to the UN a few months back? That was him going to the police with evidence of a list of proven charges as long as your arm. Nobody disputed those charges—and every time Mr. Blix has reported to the UN he's confirmed that Saddam is still violating the terms of his parole. The only quibbling that's going on now is not about whether there's proof Saddam has committed a crime, but about whether the police are worried enough about the next one he might commit to bother fulfilling their duty to arrest him now.

Here's a comedy sketch you should write, Terry. You go to the police complaining that your neighbor Mr. Johnson, a paroled mass murderer who had been ordered to stay under house arrest, is now out wandering the streets. And the police talk in those funny French accents and refuse to arrest him: "Well, 'ee may be wandring about as you say, but ee azn't urt anyone in zee past day or two, 'az 'ee, you pee-shooter for brains cowboy-yankee type? Why should we muss our pretty designer uniforms just because 'ee used ze terms of eez parole to wipe his bottom? Can you prove eez going to urt anyone eef we just leave him be? Eef we try to arrest eem, 'ee may get angry! And then ee'd really be likely to hurt someone, you dyslexic son of a silly SNL impersonation! Oh, so you think eez carrying a pistol under that overcoat of his, eh? Can you prove it? No, we won't geef eem a strip search, you Texan pig-dog knigget! I tell you what we weel do. We 'av manners, unlike you peanut-butter barbecuing pretzel chokers. We weel ask Monsieur Johnson very politely to open one side of eez coat and geev us a peek. Then we geev him his privacy, and ze next day, we peek under ze other side. Eef he does not cooperate, we weel pass a resolution to fart een eez general direction. I'm sure that will keep him from planning anything rash. Eef not, zere eez always ze comfy chair."

I'm sure you could do a much better job of this than me, Terry. If you just put some effort into it. Instead of giving us crap like this:

And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security. The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us.

Now we're abandoning the pretense of the comedic analogy and asserting direct, outright falsehoods. What Muslim countries that have never threatened us has Bush advocated bombing, Terry? I hope you have some alleged target in mind besides the Taliban. Or are we really going to have to argue over whether providing room and board to people who fly planes into our skyscrapers counts as a "threat?" Or is it that you think Saddam has never threatened us? Well, I guess you've got a point there, Terry. Except for invading two neighboring countries, and trying to kill one of our presidents, and officially praising the 9/11 bombers, and subsidizing terrorism in Israel, he's never threatened us. Come to think of it, in the years before WWII Germany had never threatened England either. It was that crazy Winston fellow who insisted on starting a war over Poland.

That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first! That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.

Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.

Oh, it's Mr. Johnson's wife and kids you're worried about. And well you should be. Cause if you think you know how to deal with unacceptable looks, you've got nothing on ol' Mr. J. Of the kids that aren't already buried out in the yard, he keeps several of them tied up in the basement with electrodes attached to their nuts, and if his wife burns dinner he makes her watch while he revs the generator up. That or he rapes her with a broken broom handle. I don't know about you, but I personally feel really bad about this, because at one time we whispered in her ear that if she and her sons would just stand up to the old thug, we'd give them a hand to get rid of him. Only when they followed our advice, we studiously looked the other way while he beat the living shite out of them. That kind of makes me feel like we owe it to them to get this guy off their backs, even though I'm frankly not sure whether it's in our own best interest to be the ones doing it.

Of course, it's true that trying to get the bastard now will be dangerous for them as well. No denying it. The main danger is that he'll deliberately booby trap the house so that if he goes down he'll take as many of them as he can with him just to make us look bad. That is worrisome. But if we know the wife and kids are in the garage, we won't blow it up if we can avoid it. We have pretty good aim most of the time. Still, I suppose there is an argument to be made that they're better off living with him than risking death to get rid of him. Better bled than dead, one might say. This is a serious question, as is that of who's going to take over the family once Mr. Johnson's been got rid of. But these are the kinds of serious questions whose existence you're simply refusing to acknowledge.

Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead? But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists, being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.

Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?

Brilliant, Terry. You run circles around yourself logically. Except that Bush has said repeatedly and rather emphatically that he doesn't regard all Muslims as potential terrorists, so once again your schtick, while just shy of amusing, is miles from any resemblance to that of the guy you're straining so ineptly to ridicule. Actually, it's quite simple to be a terrorist before committing an actual act of terror. If we had put together all the evidence as to what Mohammed Atta was planning before he managed to do it, and arrested him just before he got on the plane, he would still be a terrorist. And of course, as you slyly admit in an underhanded sort of way, not all terrorists blow themselves up in the process. Bin Laden was (is?) quite content to stand back and direct the suicide squad's choreography without joining the dance. And to be a really effective terrorist, you need people who are taking active, identifiable steps to help you—like providing money, weapons, places to train. So there are probably a good many terrorists one can identify with quite satisfactory certainty before sinking into the pressing metaphysical quandary you've so cleverly identified.

It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.

Funny, right now Bush is under a lot of criticism precisely because he doesn't show much interest in wiping out other the other people who look at him funny. Remember that Mr. Kim we talked about earlier? It's that discarded consistency point again. But at least you're consistent, Terry. You consistently attribute to Bush things that he's never advocated.

My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States. That shuts her up.

Have you considered that this might be because she realizes there's no point in arguing with someone who seriously believes this to be logic? Me, I'm just a glutton for punishment.

Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me. I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.

It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street.

Just what "street" is Bush proposing to bomb, Terry? What does that even equate to in your slipshod analogy? I'm afraid that all you've proven is that standards of sanity are much lower when one is playing to a mob of...

PROTESTORS (dragging George Bush):
A terrorist! A terrorist! We have found the real terrorist!
TERRY JONES:
How do you know he is a terrorist?
PROTESTOR #2:
He looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
JONES:
Bring him forward.
BUSH:
I'm not a terrorist. I'm not a terrorist.
JONES:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
BUSH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
BUSH:
And this isn't my Hitler moustache. It's a false one.
JONES:
Well?
PROTESTOR #1:
Well, we did do the moustache.
JONES:
The moustache?
VILLAGER #1:
And the uniform, but he is a terrorist!
PROTESTOR #2:
Yeah!
JONES:
Did you dress him up like this?
PROTESTOR #1:
No!
PROTESTOR #2 and 3:
No. No.
PROTESTOR #2:
No.
PROTESTOR #1:
No.
PROTESTORS #2 and #3:
No.
PROTESTOR #1:
Yes.
PROTESTOR #2:
Yes.
PROTESTOR #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
PROTESTOR #3:
A bit.
PROTESTORS #1 and #2:
A bit.
PROTESTOR #3:
A bit.
PROTESTOR #1:
He has got a ranch.
RANDOM:
[cough]
JONES:
What makes you think he is a terrorist?
PROTESTOR #3:
Well, he orchestrated a silent genocide in Afghanistan leading to the deaths of millions!
JONES:
Millions?
PROTESTOR #3:
Uh…they got better.
PROTESTOR #2:
He's still a terrorist!!
PROTESTOR #1:
Terrorist!
JONES:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether he is a terrorist.
PROTESTOR #1:
Are there?
PROTESTOR #2:
Ah?
PROTESTOR #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
JONES:
Tell me. What do you do with terrorists?
PROTESTOR #2:
Appease them!
PROTESTOR #1:
Appease!
CROWD:
Appease them!...Appease!
JONES:
And whom do you appease apart from terrorists?
PROTESTOR #1:
More terrorists!
PROTESTOR #3:
Shh!
PROTESTOR #2:
Dictators!
JONES:
So, why do you appease terrorists?
[pause]
PROTESTOR #3:
B--... 'cause they're really dictators?
JONES:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
JONES:
So, how do we tell whether he is a dictator?
PROTESTOR #1:
See if he's represented on the UN Commission on Human Rights!!
JONES:
Ah, but are not democracies also represented there?
PROTESTOR #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
JONES:
Tell me. Do dictators have warm relations with the French government?
PROTESTOR #1:
Yes. Yes.
JONES:
Who also has influence in France?
PROTESTOR #1:
Diplomats who keep their mouths shut!
PROTESTOR #2:
Book banning Muslim immigrants!
PROTESTOR #3:
Uh, very angry poodles!
PROTESTOR #1:
Jerry Lewis!
PROTESTOR #2:
Uh, sna-- snails!
PROTESTOR #1:
Le Pen!
PROTESTOR #2:
Pepe Le Piu!
PROTESTOR #3:
Cote D'Ivorians!
PROTESTOR #2:
Eastern europeans!
A PASSERBY:
The oil industry!
CROWD:
Oooh.
JONES:
Exactly. So, logically...
PROTESTOR #1:
If... he... has ties... to the oil industry,... he's a dictator.
JONES:
And therefore?
PROTESTOR #2:
A terrorist!
JONES:
We shall examine his rolodex.

So you see, the protestors were right. Bush is the real terrorist.

Q.E.D.
posted by CMN at 10:17 AM
0 stab(s) back