Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Flak-Catchers and Comparative Protests

--Leslie <;)))>< 
(I was going to continue with my mini-seminar on photo-fakery and a famous scandal, but the sheer volume of irrational news this week obliged me to write this instead.)

Do you know what a “flak-catcher” is?  It’s a person, action, object or even image intended to outrage and absorb the attention of social/economic/political enemies – particularly enemies of the emotional, biased sort.  It’s intended as a sacrifice, something to let your opponents shoot down and feel righteous about defeating, so that they’ll leave the rest of your people, actions, etc. alone – and, hopefully, reveal something about themselves to the public during the shooting.  Other terms for this are “red herring”, “bait”, “goat”, and “target-man” – which I’ve written a song about. 

A classic example of an artistic flak-catcher was the tactic used by a Hollywood scriptwriter, who worked for a big studio with a script-editor who was notorious for always meddling with any script that came across his desk.  The scriptwriter made a habit of always adding a totally-unnecessary grossly hot sex scene to every script, so that the editor could happily blue-pencil the scene – compared to which the rest of the script looked perfectly tame – feel that he’d done his duty and earned his paycheck, and would leave the rest of the script alone. 

A fine example of a political flak-catcher is the team of cabinet members that Trump has proposed to Congress.  A large number of them are right-wing fundies, obviously incompetent for their proposed jobs, guaranteed to outrage the Liberal Democrat crowd and middle-of-the-road Republicans – while making Trump look good to the foaming-fundie wing of his supporters.  Congress is already busy shooting them down, with much righteous fanfare: Mnuchin, for example, and DeVos, and I’m surprised that Sessions has made it this far.  When they’ve been cleared off, Trump can go to his supporters and speechify about having done his best but being blocked by “enemies” (he’ll doubtless choose a fancier label), which his extremist supporters will understand, if not like.  Then he’ll choose a second team of actually competent and sensible people whom Congress will have less reason (and passion) to object to.  Already the more reasonable of Trump’s picks have been accepted with little fanfare.  Note that Ben Carson was deemed acceptable as chief of Housing and Urban Development, although he has no experience with either and has proven woefully ignorant on some subjects (the pyramids were not built to store grain!);  probably this is because Carson is demonstrably not a bigot, a stupid man could not have become a successful brain surgeon, and ignorance is easily curable while stupidity is not.

The same holds true for a lot of Trump’s executive orders, but with an added twist.  His assorted “gag orders” to various federal departments are practically guaranteed to be shot down on Constitutional grounds, and couldn’t sensibly have been written except to please the Consevative crowd, test the political waters, draw the howling outrage and absorption of the anti-Trump crowd – and incidentally give Trump an excuse to save federal money.  Note how many Democrat/Liberal mayors, from Seattle to Baltimore, insisted that their cities would remain “sanctuary” cities and would not obey Trump’s orders to actively hunt for and deport illegal aliens.  Because they’re quite literally defying a presidential order, he’s legally justified in not giving them any federal money – for anything.  Then he can honestly tell the citizens that he’s already saved them several hundred millions in federal spending – at least until his executive orders are shot down by Congress or the Supreme Court.

His order about immigration is the interesting one, and not just because this was a big part of his campaign.  If you read the actual order, you’ll note that it’s very clear and carefully worded;  this is surprising coming from Trump, who’s usually a sloppy and thoughtless speaker, much given to exaggeration.  Despite the outraged squawks of CAIR and its un-indicted co-conspirators, the order is actually reasonable – as various Reform Muslim groups agree – and legal, under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.  The FBI and DoJ can tell you of at least 5 terrorist attacks done in America in 2016 alone, by “refugees” from those named countries – if the bureaucrats actually take the effort to look them up.  Police and citizens all over Europe can tell you of crimes and damage done by “refugees” from all seven of those mentioned countries – and that list was originally drawn up by Obama.  As for the three not mentioned, which are the sources of terrorists who have done attacks in America – Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia – they can always be added later;  remember that this order only bans immigration from those seven for a limited number of months, after which the list can be changed.  This order too is intended to provoke reactions: please the Conservatives, outrage the Islamophile Liberals, see who actually considers it thoughtfully, and consider just what their resulting tactics are.  This is a testing of the waters for a more comprehensive immigration bill to follow. 

A somewhat different case is Trump’s Supreme Court choice, actually a reasonable man and a very intelligent speaker.  If the Senate accepts him, the court will go back to what it was doing during Obama’s reign, with the same political balance and Gorsuch merely taking Scalia’s place.  Already, the Democrat bell-wethers are denouncing Gorsuch on CNN, accusing him – with no citations – of being pro-corporations, anti-woman, anti-Gay, anti-environment, Islamophobic, etc., etc., down the standard list of Democrat policy sins.  It’s beginning to sound a little repetitive, a little stereotyped, a bit of a bore.

In that sense, Trump’s strategy of tossing out a horde of flak-catchers – enough to provoke the Democrats into repeating the same tactics, the same reactions, even the same phrases – can’t help but pay off.  The public has learned to notice boilerplate, and be suspicious of it.

More to the point, the Liberal/Democrats’ reactions to Trump, ever since the election, have been not just repetitive but hysterical – almost exactly mirroring the hysterical tactics the foaming-fundie Right used against Obama for the past eight years: the blizzard of lawsuits and demands for investigations, the barely-half-true-at-best accusations, the demands for legislative roadblocks and logjams, the knee-jerk opposition to anything he proposed, the out-in-the-weeds speculations based on next to nothing.  Haven’t we seen this before?  “Trump is a Nazi” = “Obama is a Muslim”, “Trump is too friendly to Putin” = “Obama is too friendly to the King of Saudi Arabia”, “Trump will sell us out to the corporations” = “Obama sold us out to the government bureaucrats”, and on and on.  The parallels are a little too noticeable, and what was laughable paranoia when the enemy said it doesn’t look that much better when your own officers say it.

The one tactic which is almost exclusively the province of the political left is the public demonstration, usually in the form of a protest march, ending in a rally, with speeches.  Its origins lie in medieval Britain, where seriously distressed subjects would march to the capital to appeal to the king for relief.  Over the centuries it evolved into something more forceful than an appeal, was often met with armed force, and from there could escalate into anything from a riot to a revolution.  In America, where the ultimate executive traditionally changed every four to eight years, it didn’t get beyond the riot stage and rarely even that far. 

Nonetheless, demonstrations are to be noticed.  The word “demonstration” comes from Latin, and means a “showing” or “pointing out”;  if nothing else, a public political demonstration is a showing of your numbers, in that sense a symbolic invasion – just as an election is a symbolic civil war.  The problems start when people lose sight of this, and start mistaking the symbol for the reality.  Unfortunately, this is where the Left has settled right now: assuming that public displays of numbers and passions have some actual political power in themselves, that enough showings and speeches and loud enough shouts will make the political machinery move the way the protesters want it to. 

If anyone remembers the Ferguson, Missouri protests of a year ago, that’s an example of the tactic gone wrong;  when various protest marches didn’t bring the desired change immediately, the demonstrations deteriorated into riots – plain threats of Give Us What We Want Or We’ll Trash Your Town.  Historically, this has been answered with force and damned little sympathy.  This does your cause no good unless you’re trying to play the Victim card, and even then it’s unlikely to work unless you have a really vast and efficient propaganda system.  The contemporary left – and the Arab world – does have a vast and efficient propaganda system, but even that has its limits.  As Lincoln – another Republican president whose election drove Democrats into frenzies – said, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

This belief in the power of public protest grew out of the work of a forgotten but tremendously effective organization from the ‘60s: the Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam, commonly called the Mobe.  The Mobe was a collection of old labor organizers and working-class pacifists who pooled their money and experience, and concentrated on just one goal – “stop the war now” – and just one tactic: organizing big marches ending in rallies in Washington DC.  Their rules were simple;  march, speak, be always non-violent (although you can defend yourself passively, as with Aikido).  Their techniques were simple too;  in those pre-Internet days they simply wrote to every college and church and known pacifist group in the country, setting a date and promising to arrange transportation if the local group would tell them how many numbers to expect.  Then the Mobe would arrange permits, announcements, parking – and later medical clinics, porta-potties, crash space, legal services, food and drink, and training for anyone who wanted to be medics or “Mobe Marshals”: people who knew the route and schedule and service locations,  carried bullhorns and identifying helmets, marched on the perimeter of the crowd where they could see the environment clearly, advised the crowd on changes in the area, and – important point – isolated provocateurs.  The helmets were necessary, since the cops made a point of targeting Mobe Marshals and even medics, thinking they were march organizers, when in fact their chief purpose was communications.

It was at these big marches in Washington that I learned that the difference between a “mob” and an army is communications.  A crowd is not stupid;  it is primarily blind and deaf.  People who are not on the perimeter of the crowd can’t see or hear much beyond their neighbors and don’t know what’s happening out there.  The people on the perimeter – like the Mobe Marshals – must be the eyes and ears for the crowd;  they have to respond to changes by translating the information into one- or two-word chants, and shout that information into the crowd, who then pass it on.  When this is done well, you can see, as well as hear, the “information wave” passing through the crowd.  I saw this done with messages of: “Cops!  Cops!  Cops!” (along with a gesture pointing in the direction of the attack) or “Keep close!  Keep close!” when the police tried to spread us out, or “Sit down!  Sit down!” when they tried to drive us off our route.  As for slogan-chants (“Stop the war now!”) sections of the crowd would generate those for themselves;  the Mobe Marshals never had to do it.  The famous marches in Washington were effective because they could show numbers in the hundreds of thousands, all well organized and nonviolent and on point.  The Mobe was able to pull this off because those old union organizers had the sense to keep it simple: stick fiercely to their one task and their one goal. 

In time other groups with different complaints – civil rights, women’s lib, ecology, counter-culture, etc. – joined the big marches, and thereby gained reliable communications with each other, but the reliable unifying goal was simple and universal: Stop The War Now.  That’s why various little would-be Caesars – Bill Ayers comes to mind – were never able, despite their best efforts, to take over the movement and run it to their own agenda.  That’s why, when the war finally ended and the marches stopped, the whole Countercultural movement fragmented and scattered – but the fragments always retained some contact, and were able to coalesce quickly when the next war started. 

Some of those fragments – Bill Ayers comes to mind -- went off and joined the Democrat party, became the Obama backers, and decided to revive the old tactics when Trump was elected.  But there were significant differences this time around.

For one thing, the Internet today makes it quick and easy to check and verify anybody’s story – and associations, and past history – if you want to;  this means that emotional speeches with lots of logical fallacies can’t spread their effect as far as they used to.  For another, the Internet also makes it quick and easy to organize protest demonstrations – and everybody knows it;  this makes people a little more cynical about the political motivations of supposedly-spontaneous protests.  Third, the Internet (again!) has revealed the political backers behind the current wave of protests, and their connections to certain big-money manipulators – Ayers and Soros both come to mind.  Fourth, although the first wave of protests were hastily labeled Feminist, it was obvious that their real point was We Don’t Like Trump – and you can’t build a real grassroots political mass movement around a goal as narrow as that.  The march organizers themselves admitted that “we’ve got to maintain momentum” and “build a sustainable movement”, because they knew that just dislike of a politician, or even party, won’t long excite a politically experienced and cynical populace.  Even at the height of the anti-war movement, when half the country devotedly hated Lyndon Baines Johnson, they didn’t hate the rest of the Democrat party.  Soros’ money, Ayers’ ambitions, and Democrat hysteria simply aren’t enough to create a real political mass-movement – especially when the speeches begin to sound not just hysterical but repetitive.  No, this is not your daddy’s protest movement, and people can see the difference.    

What I see happening here is a wide and artful game of Red Herring.  The Bourgeois-Liberal crowd are wearing out their hysteria on flak-catcher after flak-catcher, thereby whittling away the sacrificial goats of the Fundie-Conservative crowd, and eventually coming around to accept the more reasonable of the Republican contenders and policies until Trump winds up with a team that’s competent to run the country if he does nothing else whatever but make speeches and cut ribbons.  Trump winds up the winner, despite all the flak the Left can throw.  I’ve seen bosses who ran their (successful) businesses like that!    

Now given the bumbling and sloppy speech and manners of Trump, and a good number of his team and supporters, the question is whether he’s really doing this deliberately or just blundering his way from lucky break to lucky break.  All I can say is that the proof is in the outcome, and that Trump is really not a stupid man.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Faked Photos and photo-analysis, continued

--Leslie <;)))><

Going on with "Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos" at www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560 --

The second picture from the top appears much more graphic.  On a gray concrete floor with a tan wall to the left and a large wooden box to the rear right, a naked man with his face clearly visible lies stretched on the floor, grimacing, apparently in pain.  He has thick dark hair on his head and chest, and a close-shaven beard.  His crotch is coyly blurred so as to completely conceal his genitals;  this is such a common media convention that the average reader wouldn't stop to think that this shows that the picture is at least partially photo-shopped.  

The man's arms are behind his back, and the one we can see is held -- with a splayed-finger grip -- by a man standing bent over him.  This man wearing tan military-style boots, uniform pants, a black jacket and a helmet covered with a white cloth cover.  We can't see the right arms of either man, but the position of the visible arms -- and that splayed-finger grip -- suggests that the naked man's wrists are cuffed behind him.  The naked man's left leg is held at the foot, just below the ankle, by a third man -- of whom we can see only his left hand, with a wedding ring, and arm, clad in a white sleeve.

The naked man's left leg is smeared with red fluid which appears to be blood, and wrapped with a strip of white cloth tied in place with a strip of black plastic, just above the knee.  His right leg, not wrapped with anything, is banded with a symmetrical strip of matching-colored red fluid that expands into a shapeless smear on the side near the floor -- as if the blood had spilled evenly over his right leg and pooled under it while the man was lying on his right side.

In the foreground are some scraps of paper and black plastic, and smears of what looks like more blood -- but in different amounts, shapes and colors.  The largest, darkest, and closest smear, with a piece of paper lying in it, has an interesting shape: the leading edge is somewhat rounded and amorphous, but the rear edges are straight lines, meeting at a distinct angle -- which any fan of CSI would recognize as a "void".  If the blood came from the naked man, then it could only have spilled out of his left leg while he was lying on his right side, with his right leg bent.  This is also how that symmetrical stripe of blood came to spill over his right leg and pool under it.  Also, he lay in that position long enough for that amount of blood to run out of him.

So how did he come to be lying a couple feet behind that spot, and where did that small, thin, slightly paler smear between them come from?  The only possibility is that his legs at least were picked up and carried backward for a few inches, but then the side of his right leg was dragged along the floor the rest of the way to his current position.

Further details: there is a thin, faint smear of red on the side of the wooden box behind the naked man.  To the left, behind the uniformed man, extending several feet back, the floor is stained with a pool of mottled watery pink and green patches, the same green as the paint along the baseboard of the wall. This could be water reflecting the paint and thinning out more of the red fluid;  if the red fluid is blood, then it was spilled at a different time from the blood in the foreground.  Standing in the pool, a few feet behind the uniformed man, are what appear to be three mismatched bottles against the wall.

Now, given the example of the modestly blurred crotch, we must first ask "Is it real, or is it PhotoShop?"

Evidence for fakery includes the color of that red fluid.  Anyone who has studied Biology, or worked in the medical business, can tell you that the color is subtly wrong.  Oxygen-loaded arterial blood is a bright scarlet, blood returning in the veins is the purple-brown of prune juice, and spilled blood drying in the air turns steadily brown.  At no point is it the cranberry-juice purplish red of the fluid in that picture.

On the other hand, given the state of digital cameras -- particularly phone-cams -- ten years ago, it's reasonable that the coloring could be off.  Looking at the rest of the picture we see that, yes, the color contrasts are a little too garish, and with a slightly blue tone.  Yes, the color of those blood-smears is realistic.  The clutter on the floor is too random to have been posed.  Also the lighting is naturalistic, coming from the direction of the camera, and the resolution is very tight and clear.  We can assume that this picture is real.  So what does it really show?

The caption reads (emphasis mine): "An Iraqi detainee appears to be restrained after having suffered injuries to both legs at Abu Ghraib.  It is unclear whether his injuries are from dog bites."

There's an obvious fallacy in these statements from the start;  only one of his legs is bandaged.  The blood on his right leg clearly spilled on it, and wasn't shed by it, as can be deduced from the pattern of the bloodstains. There is only one injury: to his left leg.  The amount of blood spilled -- not counting the amount in the earlier, watery stain further up the hall -- indicates that the injury severed a good-sized (therefore deep) artery, even though it's small enough to be covered by that single narrow bandage.  A single deep, small, narrow wound is not characteristic of a dog bite but of a gunshot, and there is no dog in evidence.  Whoever wrote that caption was, at best, a poor observer.

From the evidence we see it's more likely that someone else produced the earlier, hosed-down bloodstain further down the hall.  The prisoner we see was shot in the leg and left to bleed for a few minutes -- why? -- then picked up for a moment while his leg was quickly pressure-bandaged to stop the bleeding.  Before the wound could be washed or treated any further, the prisoner was quickly set down again and dragged backward across the floor.  At some point his arms were pulled behind him and cuffed, and his uninjured leg was seized.

At this point it helps to review the army's and the Red Cross' investigative reports, which tell an interesting tale.  It seems that well before the scandalous Abu Ghraib pictures were "leaked", there was an attempted prison-break.  Local imams, allowed in to provide "spiritual comfort" to the prisoners, had sneaked in a few loaded handguns.  The prisoners, with or without clothes, had shot at the guards and made a break for the doors.  The guards quickly put down the attempt, usually by shooting the prisoners in the legs rather than kill them, but a few of the prisoners died anyway -- usually of bleeding out before medical help could reach them.  Once the fighting was over, the army medics and assisting guards did their best to treat the prisoners' wounds -- although some of the prisoners resisted, preferring to die as holy martyrs, which obliged the guards to restrain them for treatment.  Even the Red Cross couldn't fault the guards' behavior.

The lack of clothes was part of the prison intake procedure.  When first brought to Abu Ghraib the prisoners were stripped naked and put in cells that were bare of anything but toilets, with the lights turned off.  They were left in that state for the first 24 hours, and if they behaved themselves -- no screaming curses for hours, no throwing food or feces or urine, etc. -- then the next day the lights would be turned on.  Another day of good behavior and they'd get bedding.  It took at least three days to earn clothes, and those clothes were chosen by the staff.  This means that any prisoner who appears naked in any Abu Ghraib picture had consistently misbehaved.

From all this we can conclude that the prisoner shown in this picture was a bad actor who had participated in the jail-break and been shot in the leg.  From the evidence we can also conclude that he resisted medical treatment and had to be restrained -- and dragged away from the blood-smear -- to be treated.  More evidence for this conclusion appears in the next picture, the third down from the top.

In this picture we see a medium close-up of the lower body of an otherwise-naked man, who looks very much like the prisoner in the previous picture, lying on his back with an orange cloth spread over his crotch,  his arms behind his back underneath him, and a small but blood-smeared wound on his left leg a little above the knee.  At the top of the picture we see booted feet and a lower left leg, clad in the same pale-tan military boots and camouflage pants that we saw in the previous picture.  One of those booted feet is planted on the nearly-naked man's chest, firmly holding him still on the floor.  It's reasonable to assume that these are the prisoner and guard we saw in the previous picture.

In the foreground crouch a man, to the left, and a woman, to the right.  Both of them are wearing knitted black watch-caps that cover their hair, and rubber surgical gloves: the man's blue, the woman's white.  The man is also wearing a camouflage-patterned shirt with epaulet straps, and the woman is wearing a brown civilian shirt and a tan military flak-vest.  The man is holding a thin thread in his left hand and pulling it taut, while his right hand is pressed to the wound on the nearly-naked man's left leg.  The woman, who has a black symmetrical tattoo partly visible on her right wrist, is holding a pair of fine medical pliers of the sort called a hemostat in her right hand, at an angle which indicates she is pulling something taut, something too slender to be seen by the camera.  The woman is smiling at the camera and holding her left hand in a "thumbs up" sign of success.  The wound on the prisoner's leg is a straight-sided gash with a round hole in the center, still oozing blood but much cleaner than in the previous picture.  It looks exactly like a gunshot wound, from which the bullet has been extracted, being sutured closed.  If the patient is the same man as in the previous picture, then the woman's "thumbs up" indicates that she and the other medic have successfully closed up the torn artery that caused the large blood-smears in that picture.  The resolution of the picture is sharp and clear, and the shadows show that the light is coming from above and right.

The caption for this picture reads (emphasis mine): "A US soldier gives the 'thumbs up' sign as she appears to be stitching up a prisoner's leg wound.  It is unclear whether the injury was from a dog bite."

This is an obviously biased notation, since there is far more evidence that the man and woman are stitching up a deep wound than there is for any dog bite.  The author(s) of these captions appear to be obsessed by dog bites for which there is no evidence.

The Red Cross investigators reported that prisoners "vigorously" complained to them about being bitten by guard dogs, and showed the investigators what they claimed were dog bites.  On observation, the investigators found that the bites had been made by human teeth, in fact the prisoners' own teeth.  Other wounds which the prisoners likewise displayed proved to be made by human tools.  Why, then, did the media editors who supplied the captions on these pictures obsess on dog bites?  No one else -- except the prisoners, their sympathizers and their fellow Jihadists -- did.

So why were these two photos taken in the first place?  Clearly to document that the military guards did indeed make great efforts to save the lives and treat the wounds of the prisoners, even the bad actors who had participated in the prison-break, regardless of how hard the wounded tried to refuse treatment.  Note particularly the lighting and resolution of these pictures, which were intended to be seen clearly -- perhaps used as evidence in a legal investigation.  Compare these technical details with those of pictures which will be shown later in this series.  Also note the faces that we've managed to see clearly so far;  we'll be seeing them again as the illustrated story unfolds.  And bear in mind that the prison-break occurred several weeks before the pictures of the "prisoner abuse" were leaked to the media.

There's more of the story to come.  Stay tuned!    




Monday, January 2, 2017

Fake News, Faked Photos, and how to identify them

--Leslie <;)))><  

Professional news reporters, to say nothing of editors, are supposed to check out their stories: examine their sources, verify their facts, before publishing -- let alone editorializing.  Editors, at least, are supposed to do the same with photographs.  Journalism professionals are supposed to have the skills and the training to do just those things.  Seeing how many of these professionals have gotten sloppy on the job lately, I think it's a good idea if more people learn more critical thinking and verification skills for themselves.

As a training exercise, let's look at a famous scandal.  Google search "Abu Ghraib Photos", carefully set aside the initial prejudices created by the media, and view with a critical eye.  ...Hmm, it would also help to do one's homework;  read the investigative reports on Abu Ghraib done by the US Army and the Red Cross.  A little knowledge of 2006-level digital photographic technology would also be useful.  Okay.  Ready?  Hit the search button and let's go.

The first site, "Images for Abu Ghraib", features a chaotic mix of photos ostensibly taken at Abu Ghraib prison, political cartoons, photos clearly PhotoShopped, photos purported to be from the brig at Guantanamo Bay, pictures of political protests, and portraits from news reports -- a blizzard of them in no particular order.  The only unifying narrative is outrage over US military abuse of prisoners, and the only verification is the citations of where the pictures were published.  Since many of these are re-posed and/or PhotoShopped versions of each other, they clearly can't be trusted for much accurate information.  Let's move on.

The next entry is "Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos - by news - Antiwar.com", which labels its editorial position clearly, cites the Washington Post as at least one of its sources, and shows that it would necessarily exercise some editorial caution.  Going to the site, we find the photos dated to February 17, 2006 and updated to June 11, which gives us a reference point.  The headline reads: "The Washington Post has released new photos along with new information about the use of dogs on prisoners."  This phrase neatly shapes our expectations while giving precious little information.  Think: just where did the WP get those "new photos" and "new information"?  How are they verified?  We know what that phrase makes us expect, but just how are the dogs used on prisoners?  Let's take a clear-headed look at the first photo.

The picture shows a wide, plain, concrete corridor lined with multiple plain metal doors, one partly open and the rest shut.  There appear to be bundles of cloth part way down the corridor and squarish light-sources above three of the doors and the end wall, but the picture is so grainy and the resolution so coarse that we can't see any detail to be sure.  There are three men positioned in the middle of the corridor, the two nearer wearing army-style boots, desert-cammo pants and dark jackets, one sleeveless, and what seem to be knit caps -- but again, the picture is so grainy that we can't be sure about the right-hand man.  The man on the right has his hands in his pockets, and the man on the left is holding a dog by a short leash.  The dog is black and looks somewhat like a Alsatian;  its nose is pointed toward the third man, its ears are up, and it looks curious or eager.  The third man, positioned between the other two and just under ten feet further down the corridor, is crouched over with his hands raised defensively, looking toward the dog.  He appears to be either naked or wrapped in clear plastic;  again, the picture is so grainy that the viewer can't tell.  There are no injuries visible on the third man.  Although there are no windows, the corridor is surprisingly well lighted -- yet the shadows are very soft, vague, and non-directional.  That's what we see.

The caption under the photo reads, cautiously (emphasis mine): "An unmuzzled dog appears to be used to frighten a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  Two military dog handlers told investigators that intelligence personnel ordered them to use dogs to intimidate  prisoners."  Obviously the viewer is supposed to conclude that the dog is threatening to bite the prisoner -- but what are we really seeing?

The devil is in the details -- such as, why is the picture so very grainy, or so well lit, and exactly what direction is the light coming from that casts those muzzy shadows?

According to an old friend who used to do professional photography, that graininess is consistent with digital cameras -- including phone-cameras -- of ten years ago, especially if used with an integral flash-device.  The flash had to come from the camera, but in that case the shadows would have been more clearly directional and sharply defined -- unless washed out by those over-the-door ceiling lights.  If those lights were bright enough to wash out the camera-flash, there would have been no need for the flash in the first place -- unless the whole point was to create that extreme graininess, the bad resolution that ruins the details in the picture, and incidentally makes the face of the prisoner unidentifiable.  The faces of the other two men are concealed.

By the way, Mohammed hated dogs, especially black dogs, so good Muslims are supposed to regard them as "unclean", only a little less than pigs.  A pious fundamentalist Muslim would fear any contact with the animal, not necessarily bites.  Of course, the reason Mohammed hated dogs, especially black ones, is that he made a lot of his early fortune leading a robber-band to attack caravans, particularly at night.  If the caravan included dogs, the animals would smell Mohammed and friends sneaking up and sound the alarm.  Even if Mohammed and cronies could shoot the dogs with arrows to keep them quiet, black dogs would be hard to spot in the dark.  This paints a less-than-virtuous picture of Mohammed, but the pious can always come up with an excuse for their hero.

More details later;  there are plenty of other pictures to examine.               


Thursday, December 22, 2016

Hypocrisy, Hysteria, and Trump

Sorry to check in so late, but the holiday frenzy as been keeping me busy.  Anyway--

I thought I'd seen the Democrat/Bourgeois-Liberal media dive as low as it could go in the hysterical propaganda department for the month after Trump's election -- but this month they managed to outdo themselves, heeling over into the downright absurd.  Apparently dismayed because they couldn't convince most of the public that Trump is a Nazi (because a handful of southern bigots liked him better than Hillary, Bernie, the Libertarians or the Greens -- a favor which he did not return), the Democrats got the help of the FBI (not surprising;  historically the FBI has served and protected Democrat administrations, just as the CIA has served and protected Republican ones) to claim that the Russians "manipulated" the election and Trump is a Commie dupe.  Obama is calling for an investigation, and the Dems are hoping that will somehow invalidate the election.  Wow.  Democrats, Red-baiting?!  Joe McCarthy's spirit must be laughing in Hell.

When you track the story down (an easy Google-search), what it shows is that during the past summer a pair of hackers, whose location was tracked to Russia, dug up lots of private emails doubtless discussing election strategies and tactics from the computers of the Democratic National Committee.  It's assumed (no proof) that either Putin ordered the hack or the two nerds informed him afterwards.  In any case, what the hackers did with their juicy booty was send all or most of it to Wikileaks -- which, of course, published it where anyone in the world could see it.  The information is supposed to have "influenced" the voters, and thereby "manipulated" the vote, in favor of Trump.  Trump has, in the past, mentioned that he respects Putin's political smarts.  That's supposed to prove that Trump is a Commie dupe, which might explain why the old KGB man wanted to elect the penultimate capitalist.  Uh, right.

Beg pardon, but doesn't this story sound just a little farfetched to you?  For one thing, couldn't a wily old KGB man think of a better use for those strat-and-tac information emails than to dump them onto Wikileaks, of all things?  Second, how many American voters even saw, let alone bothered to read, or believed the Wikileaks?  (I didn't.  Did you?)  Third, how many of those readers actually changed their minds, or their votes, because of what they read there?  Really after the blizzard of crap about both Trump and Hillary that's been flying around the Internet for the past year, how much evidence is there that the Wikileaks leaks didn't get lost in the shuffle?  You really should remember Lincoln's comment about the impossibility of fooling all the people all the time.  Also bear in mind that modern communications may make it quicker and easier to spread false news, but they also make it quicker and easier to verify or disprove a story;  nothing but mental flabbiness, laziness, or just plain willingness to believe keeps anyone -- including entirely too many reporters these days -- from checking a story out. 

As for respecting Putin's smarts, anyone who's studied his career -- especially against the background of Russia's history over the last 20+ years -- would, however grudgingly, do the same.  Putin is no fool, or he wouldn't have survived this long.  Neither is Trump, or he wouldn't have been successful this long.  More to the point, both of them know quite a bit about the nitty-gritty of dirty economics and economic warfare.  This is a topic on which very few Democrats have much expertise.  It's understandable that a couple of experts, like a pair of professional boxers, would size each other up and respect each other's skills -- even though they're very likely to wind up on opposite sides of the ring soon enough -- more than they'd respect some loud and inept sports-commentator.  That's also a possible reason, the only one I can think of, why Putin would rather deal with Trump than Hillary.

The Dems/liberals/media either don't understand this or just plain don't care -- and blithely assume that the American public doesn't either.  This explains why they can't seem to make up their minds whether Trump is a Nazi, a Commie, or some inexplicable mix of the two -- based on some clearly flimsy evidence and attenuated Tinkers-to-Evens-to-Chance guilt-by-association.

I honestly don't know whether to laugh at the Democrats' increasingly hysterical illogic in their assorted attacks on Trump, or to be furious that they think the majority of voters will blindly believe such crap.  Seriously, there are plenty of real complaints we could make against Trump -- his shady business practices, his tendency to thoughtlessly shoot off his mouth, his incompetence at politics (other than campaigning), his ignorance of federal law and international politics, among others -- that the Democrats don't need to invent hysterical fancies like this.  Their insistence on doing it reveals a disturbing contempt for the intelligence of the voters -- which is part of what cost them the election in the first place.  

--Leslie <;)))>< 



Tuesday, December 6, 2016

A Handy Guide For Liberals Who Are Suddenly Interested In Gun Ownership

I was originally going to continue with my propaganda-techniques expose', but this article is just so damn good that I had to re-post it.  Enjoy!

--Leslie <;)))><

A Handy Guide For Liberals Who Are Suddenly Interested in Gun Ownership

That title isn’t joking. This post is aimed at my liberal readers. I’m a libertarian leaning Republican and gun expert, who thinks you are wrong about a lot of stuff, but I’m not writing this to gloat about your loss. For the record, I disliked all the presidential candidates.

Judging by your social media over the last few days many liberals have been utterly terrified that your government might turn tyrannical or that evil people will now be emboldened to hurt you. I’m going to let you in on a little thing the other half of the country is familiar with to keep those unlikely, yet catastrophic, events from happening.

And that my lefty friends, is 2nd Amendment. Having just gone through a war against a tyrannical government, the Founders understood that governments can go bad, so they made sure to note our God given right (or we’ll say naturally occurring right, since a bunch of you are atheists) to keep and bear arms in order to defend ourselves. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or “sporting purposes”, it’s about having weapons that you can fight with. As an added bonus, being able to protect yourself from a tyrannical government means that you’re a lot better equipped to deal with any common criminal who decides to hurt you. Before I get into the details about how to enjoy your newly discovered 2nd Amendment rights, let me just say that I get you’re sad, angry, bitter, and fearful. But just like my people over the last few elections, you’ll get over it. The really hyperbolic freak outs about Literally Hitler make you sound just like the Alex Jones crowd worried that Obama was going to herd Christians into FEMA camps last time. So take a deep breath and relax. Your friends and neighbors are the same as they were last week. The vast majority weren’t voting because racism, they voted against the status quo and a really unlikable Democrat. And no, they aren’t going to round you up into cattle cars.

But in the off chance they do, let’s get you prepared!
I’ll start out with the far more likely threat, violent criminals who would assault, rape, or murder you, and how to deal with them.

Many of you have been sharing every second hand account, rumor, and urban legend about some random doofus in Somnambulant, Wisconsin or Bumfight, Louisiana, shouting an ethnic slur or spray painting a swastika on a wall. Newsflash, in a country with a third of a billion people, some percentage of them are going to be assholes. I hate to break it to you, but the assholes were there before, and they will be there forever. Just right now the news has a self-serving incentive to report about these assholes in particular.

But Correia! You’re not a marginalized Mexican transsexual Muslim! What do you know!?

I know that anybody can be “marginalized” if they walk into the wrong neighborhood. Violence can happen to any of us, and it does, all the time. Whether your odds of being a victim are good or bad, it still sucks when you draw the short straw and somebody tries to hurt you. Whoever you are, you are correct to be concerned for your safety. Anybody can be attacked, and everybody should be prepared to deal with it.
Since this is addressed to liberals, spare me the usual nonsense about “Victim Blaming”. We don’t have time for silliness. If you’re banking on the goodwill of evil people to keep you safe, you are a sucker. If I urge you to look both ways before crossing the street, I’m not victim blaming, I’m trying to keep your stupid ass from getting hit by a bus.

Whether you are being attacked because some jerk doesn’t like your head scarf and you voted for Hillary, or getting pulled out of your car and beaten because the local hooliganry thinks you voted for Trump, or some dude with no coherent political philosophy beyond the voices in his head told him to murder you and rape your dog, it doesn’t matter… There are evil people in the world, and they will hurt you simply because it amuses them.

So there are bad people who want to hurt you. Now what do you do?

Regardless of what you worship, who you love, or you skin tone, you have the unalienable right to self-defense. The 2nd is an equal opportunity amendment.

Calling the cops is awesome. If they get there in time they will be happy to save your ass, but that’s assuming they get there in time. Violent encounters usually happen very quickly. Good police response time is measured in minutes. You can be dead in seconds. Plus, your side is the one that doesn’t trust the cops anyway. It isn’t Republicans out there protesting the police. So why is it you expect agents of the state to risk their lives to save you? Gratitude?

What most of us in the right side of the country understand is that responsible adults need to be able to defend themselves. That means owning guns and learning how to use them. (To be fair, many on the left have also come to this same conclusion already, but they have to keep that opinion to themselves so the rest of you don’t yell at them).

Unarmed self-defense is great, when it works. I’m a fan. Less-lethal devices like pepper spray are great, when they work. But trust me on this, everybody who does this professionally, who has spent years learning about how violence really works, we all have guns.

You’ve probably been taught that guns are frightening murder rods, just itching to go shoot up a school. You want to survive, get over that nonsense. I know that most of the stuff liberals think they know about firearms is flat out wrong. I’m here to tell you as a retired professional firearms instructor that sadly everything Occupy Democrats memes have taught you is incorrect. Whatever you think you know, check those preconceived notions at the door, because it is probably biased garbage.

Firearms are not magic. They are neither evil nor good. They are just tools that throw a projectile. That’s it. There’s no voodoo involved. They are items that allow a physically weak person to survive a confrontation against somebody who is stronger, or there’s more of them, or whatever other nightmare scenario you come up with. I know many of you are scared of guns, but just think of them like fire extinguishers, but for murderers.
Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean that you can just go and shoot whoever you feel like. I see this pop up all the time amongst my liberal friends. Like if a redneck sees a black dude, he can just blast him because the redneck felt uncomfortable. First off, no, that’s not how the laws work. Second off, maybe if you’d quit proclaiming everybody who isn’t part of your clique is a racist murderer, you’d win more elections.

Here is another article where I go into a great deal of detail about when it is legal to shoot somebody. http://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/25/the-legalities-of-shooting-people/ I taught this stuff for a living. Trust me, I know more about this than the staff writers at Salon. Almost everything I’ve ever seen from a liberal publication concerning self-defense laws is incorrect. And I’m not just talking like I enjoy guns and they don’t, I mean they have such a basic, elementary misunderstanding of the legalities of shooting people that we aren’t even inhabiting the same reality. My reality is the one that the jury instructions will be issued from.

The short version is that in order to be justified in using lethal force against another human being, they need to be demonstrating the ability to seriously harm you, the opportunity to do so, and acting in a manner that a reasonable person would believe they are an immediate threat.

So no, you can’t just shoot somebody walking down the street in a Trump hat. That would be Murder. Or considering most liberals don’t understand basic marksmanship, more likely Attempted Murder. However, if somebody dressed entirely in Confederate flags walks up, screams DIE GAY ABORTION VEGAN and tries to stab you with his commemorative Heinrich Himmler SS dagger, it’s game on (don’t blame me, I’m basing this hypothetical scenario on what most of your facebook feeds sound like).

Go read that article. As a bonus once you understand how use of force laws actually work, you won’t be able to get as spun up with outrage over every shooting that makes the news.
Now that you’ve decided that you should be able to protect yourself from sexist war bands, and you know the basics about when it’s okay to shoot people, you want to go get strapped. But hold your horses there, Che. Guns are tools, but they are also very unforgiving of stupidity, and the last thing I want to have happen is one of you liberals shoot somebody on accident, because then you’ll be trying to pass more laws to punish people like me. First you need to learn how to be safe.

Seek out your local gun range. Sadly, for those of you living in deep blue areas, this will be difficult because the politicians you have voted for have run off most of your local gun ranges. Now that you’re afraid the state can’t/won’t protect you, I hope you realize that was a bad call.

But if you do have one in driving distance, most ranges will have ads posted for upcoming basic classes. Contrary to what you’ve been told about the ultra evil National Rifle Association, the majority of what the NRA does is conduct basic safety training to keep newbies from shooting themselves in the foot. They will walk you through the fundamental rules of gun safety, mechanics, and storage.

Here is another mind blowing factoid for you liberals, the NRA was actually started by Union army officers to train recently freed blacks how to defend themselves from the Democrat KKK. The first gun control laws in America were racist in origin, and aimed at disarming “undesirables” like blacks or the Irish. So in that respect, not much has changed.

For those of you in the LGBTWTFBBQ community, in the aftermath of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting, a transsexual friend of mine started Operation Blazing Sword. https://www.facebook.com/OperationBlazingSword/ It is a network of firearms instructors across the country who are volunteering to help out gay and trans people who are new to guns learn about basic safety and firearms familiarization. I helped them get started. Check their map. They’ve probably got somebody near you willing to help.
If you haven’t blocked all of them yet for having dissenting opinions, you can ask your gun owning friends and family for advice. I would still recommend talking to actual experts though, just because we know what we’re doing, and we personally haven’t had to listen to you talk about how we’re all baby murdering psychopaths over Thanksgiving dinner. But if they love you, they’ll be happy to help you learn about how guns work. If you don’t have any friends who own guns, you may want to ask yourself how you live in such an echo chamber.

Again, most of what you’ve been told about the gun culture is a myth. We want you to be able to defend yourself, and we want you to be safe and responsible doing it.
Now it gets really complicated. And that’s entirely your fault. See, traditionally Democrats don’t like the 2nd Amendment and historically have done everything in their power to screw with it. Your gun laws are going to vary dramatically based upon where you live. It might be really difficult and expensive for you to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights, or it might be relatively easy.

But you’re scared right now! Well, that’s too bad. Because for the most part Democrats have tried to make it so that citizens have to abdicate their responsibilities and instead entrust that only state can defend everyone… That doesn’t seem like such a bright idea now that you don’t trust who is running the state, huh?
You might get attacked in your home, but let’s be realistic, you’re way more likely to be attacked out in public. Accordingly, democrats have made it way harder to have a gun where you are most likely to need it. If your state is red or purple, you probably have an inexpensive way to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon so that you can be armed everywhere. The bluer your state, the more unlikely/expensive that becomes, and in the most exclusive cities, unless you are a politician, movie star, or body guarding a politician or movie star, you are basically out of luck.

Oh yeah, it kind of goes without saying by this point, but most of what you think you know about what gun laws do is wrong. I know you think you’ve been helping with your demands to Do Something, but you aren’t. I wrote this article a few years ago in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. It is one of the most widely read articles on gun control laws ever written. http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/06/23/an-opinion-on-gun-control-repost/

I am a big fan of concealed carry, and if you are honestly worried about murderous racists being emboldened, then you should be too. If your state has a concealed weapons permit, I would recommend taking that class. Even if you are not personally ready to take that big step of actually keeping a firearm on your person, the class should provide a great primer on your state and local laws.

There are thousands of onerous little gun laws. I won’t overcomplicate this, but you guys have been sticking extra gun laws on the books all over the country at every opportunity. In your area you might not be able to buy certain guns, or you’ll have to lock them up in a specific manner, or you’ll have to register them with the state. (now that you’re worried about the state rounding you up, having a registry of which of you own guns seems kind of dumb huh?)
Now that you understand basic safety and marksmanship, let’s get you armed.

Contrary to what Barack Obama told you, Glocks are not easier to get than books. Hell, I’ll trade an autographed copy of each of my published novels for a Glock if you’ve got any spares lying around.
If you haven’t completely alienated all of your pro-gun friends by blaming them for every mass murder that’s ever happened, now would be a great time to ask them to come shopping with you.

Find your local gun store. Go there. Ask the nice people behind the counter questions about what is the best gun for you needs. They are usually very helpful, however, don’t tell them that you are a liberal, because since you’ve previously tried to ban everything you’re now buying, they will probably laugh at you. That’s expected, because your people do kind of malign them constantly and have repeatedly tried to ruin their livelihood. Oh well, live and learn. You know better now.

Shockingly, you will quickly discover that the gun best suited for your home self-defense needs is probably one of the guns that the news would call “assault weapons”. In reality that’s a gibberish term to scare newbs, but remember, most of what you’ve been taught is complete bullshit. You want the best tool for the job. Yes. It looks scary. That’s kind of the point.

If you live in a place with concealed carry laws, you will probably want one of those deadly high capacity assault pistols too. In regular America we just call those handguns. Have the experts help pick one out that suits your lifestyle and manner of dress. Then make sure you get a good holster to carry it safely. Common newb mistake is to get a decent gun and a crap holster. Don’t do that.

Once you’ve picked your firearms, you will need to fill out a federal 4473 form, provide ID (gasp! Racist!), and the shop will call in your background check to make sure you aren’t a felon, illegal alien, or otherwise prohibited person. Since this check is computerized it only takes a few minutes.

Now that is how it works in most states. If you are lucky enough to live in a blue state liberal paradise, then you may have to deal with extra laws. Like mandatory waiting periods, special permits, or you’ve got to jump through a bunch of other onerous hoops before you are allowed to defend yourself… But hey, you voted for that. Suck it up, buttercup.
Now you need to learn to shoot. It doesn’t work like the movies.

There are a lot of people out there who do what I used to do, so find the professional firearms instructors in your region and take some classes. Your local ranges and stores will know who is teaching or will have ads posted. A good instructor won’t just teach you how to hit the target, but will teach you basic tactics, and when/how to use your gun. I spent a big chunk of my time teaching people how to avoid fights and not make stupid decisions.

The more you shoot, the more you train, the more comfortable you will become. Your confidence will grow. If something awful happens you can be part of the solution instead of just another victim. You won’t rise to the occasion, you will default to your lowest level of training. So get trained.

Oh yeah, this training part gets expensive too. Government regulations have driven up the cost of ammunition. You get one guess which party is responsible for that. And around the blue cities you’ve closed all of your shooting ranges because guns are scary and loud (oh yeah, we could fix that, but Democrats made it illegal or really expensive to make guns quieter), so you’ll have to drive further in order to train. Let me check… Nope, I’m still fresh out of pity.
Now the elephant in the room. I’ve seen a lot of you going on about how terrified you are for all your “marginalized” friends, that the government is going to turn tyrannical and genocidal, and murder them by the million. I don’t think that’s actually going to happen, but let’s say it did. We’re talking full on Gestapo Stasi jack boots and cattle car time. Bear with me through this hypothetical situation, that stuff about ability/opportunity/immediate threat is actually happening, but it is systematically being carried out by agents of the state against its own citizens. I’m talking war in the streets.

I keep seeing you guys saying that you’re going to “fight harder”. No offense, but bullshit. What are you going to do? Call more innocent bystanders racists? Post more articles from Salon even harder? Have a protest and burn your local CVS? Block more freeways with your bodies? Guess what. If the government has actually gone full tyrannical they’re just going to machinegun your dumbass in the street. They are going to drive through your roadblock, and your bodies will grease the treads of their tanks.

That’s what actual tyrants do. So despite your bitching, virtue signaling, and panic attacks, we’re a long way off of that.

There is a saying that has long been common in my half of the country. There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty, soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. You can debate, vote, and go to court in order to get things changed. You only go ammo box when those other things no longer work, because once you do, there is no going back.

God willing, America never gets to that point, because if we ever go to war with ourselves again, then it will be a blood bath the like of which the world has never seen. We have foolishly created a central government so incomprehensibly powerful, that to stop it from committing genocide would require millions of capable citizens to rise up and fight.

Congratulations. Now you understand why the Framers put the 2nd Amendment in there. It is the kill switch on the Republic, and everyone with a clue prays we never have to use it.

Right now you guys are angry and talking a lot of shit. This is all new to you. My side is the one with the guns, training, and the vast majority of the combat vets, and we really don’t want our government to get so out of control that this ever happens. Only fools wish for a revolution. But that big red button is still there in case of emergency because if a nation as powerful as America ever turned truly evil then the future is doomed. As Orwell said, if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.

That’s the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment. So don’t screw around with it. If you do you’re no better than the fat wannabes running around the woods in their surplus camo and airsoft plate carriers… You don’t get that, but all my gun culture readers know exactly who I’m talking about. They are the morons CNN trots out whenever they need to paint all gun owners as irresponsible inbred redneck violent dupes for your benefit.

And spare me the typical talking points about how an AR-15 can’t fight tanks and drones… It’s way beyond the scope of this article, but you don’t have a flipping clue what you’re talking about. Every HuffPo guest columnist thinks they are Von Clauswitz. They aren’t.

This Doomsday option is something we never want to use, but which we need to maintain just in case. It is also another reason Hillary lost. One motivator for Americans to vote for Trump was that Hillary hates the 2nd Amendment. Her husband put the biggest gun ban we’ve ever had in place, and she has been exceedingly clear that she hates guns and would get rid of all of them if she could.

And doing that would push that big red button.

When the already super powerful government wants to make you even more powerless, that scares the crap out of regular Americans, but you guys have been all in favor of it. Take those nasty guns! Guns are scary and bad. Don’t you stupid rednecks know what’s good for you? The people should live at the whim of the state!

But now that the shoe is on the other foot, and somebody you distrust and fear is in charge for a change, the government having all sorts of unchecked power seems like a really bad idea, huh?

Absolute power in the hands of anyone should terrify you. The 2nd Amendment is there to make sure some of that power always remains in the hands of the people.
So that’s it. That’s how you go down the path of responsible gun ownership.

I don’t care how marginalized you think you are. Get armed. Get trained. Be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones. That’s part of being a responsible adult.

And quit trying to disarm the rest of us.


--Larry Correia
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms

Friday, November 25, 2016

Warnings From an Old Propagandist

First, my bona fides: 

I got involved in civil rights ‘way back in junior high school.  There weren’t any picket-lines or demonstrations within reach, so I volunteered my labor as a writer for the cause.  I wrote leaflets, pamphlets, editorials, petitions and letters to various politicians, and learned the art of sneaking political/legal arguments into articles on other subjects, such as music and movie reviews.  I also learned to write protest songs.  Since I proved to be good at this, I kept it up in high school and college and afterward, for other causes – such as women’s lib, Gay lib, free speech, the anti-war movement, the ecology movement, the pro-space movement, marijuana legalization, Anarchism, the radical labor movement, and so on.

Since these involved a lot of grassroots political work, I also took unofficial training in things like debate, rhetoric, logic, investigative research and critical thinking.  I noticed that these subjects are almost never taught in the public schools (they’re usually taught only in law schools), and eventually I learned why.  In a democracy, politicians who want to keep their jobs do not want the citizens educated enough to see the fallacies in their arguments, or knowing how to dig up facts.  In fact, they don’t want citizens to learn adult emotional self-control, let alone mental self-reliance, lest they notice when someone is appealing to something other than their intelligence. 

Now propaganda – the art and science of pushing your own political-or-related point of view to as wide an audience as possible – is most challenged when dealing with intelligent, educated and cynical people, as I was.  With such an audience, you have to use only verifiable facts, avoid the Master List of Logical Fallacies (which I’ll add to the end here), and argue damned well.  Presenting your argument with wit and beauty certainly helps.  In this sense, all art is in some sense propaganda – as in Picasso’s “Guernica”, or Leonard Cohen’s “The Old Revolution”.  I’ve done this myself, with many of my songs.  Advertising certainly is propaganda, and “public relations”, though of what I’d consider an inferior form. 

As an old propagandist myself, I have nothing but contempt for those who play fast and loose with the facts, exploit logical fallacies, and not only whip up blind emotions but do their best to keep people blindly emotional and incapable of thinking critically – so that they can’t tell how bad the argument and how downright clumsy its presentation is.  That’s not only immoral, it’s bad art.    I’ve seen an insulting amount of it all over the news media lately.

For example, see the Democratic National Committee’s – and its loyal media’s – attempts to paint the unloved Trump and his cabinet appointees as Nazis.  First they fine-combed his known actions for any evidence of racism/sexism/anti-semitism, and not finding anything they could use, they went over all his public statements.  Here they had better luck, finding small gems of “insensitivity”, since Trump – who really wasn’t expecting to win – was a sloppy and thoughtless speaker with a bullish habit of promptly hitting back, with anything handy, at anyone who attacked him.    

Still, that wasn’t enough.  Since Trump wouldn’t conveniently hang himself, they brought in guilt-by-association.  Anyone familiar with the originally FBI/CoInTelPro tactic of the False Flag would wonder if the infamous David Duke had been paid (and how much) to publicly, and repeatedly, express his adoration for Trump – who never returned the favor.  In fact, nobody could find any connection between Trump or any of his family and Duke’s KKK.  Worse, Trump’s daughter married a smart Jewish guy – even converting to Judaism herself for him – whom Trump welcomed into the family.  That didn’t fit the stereotype.  (Neither did Trump’s real supporters, but never mind them.)  So, how to call somebody a Nazi without literally calling him a Nazi, which can be readily disproven?

Next tactic: the old reliable trick of changing labels – with a bit more false-flagging.  Before this election campaign began, how many of you had heard of the term “alternative-right”?  What about “white nationalist”?  Until distinctly pro-Democrat news shows began promoting them, I never heard those slightly-foggy terms.  An internet search traced their origin to a tiny bunch of southern white racists, who occasionally quote Nazi comments but insist that they aren’t Neo-Nazis, whom nobody but the SPLC had ever heard of – until the media began focusing on them. 

Now there are plenty of still-accurate terms for the various positions on the political right: conservative, reactionary, religious right, racist, sexist, fascist and Neo-Nazi.  Why weren’t these terms sufficient?  Maybe because they provably don’t fit Trump?

Recently a bunch of the original alt-right reactionaries (about 100 of them) managed to collect enough money to hire a hall where they all met, cheered Trump’s election, and gave what looked like the ‘Seig Heil’ salute – which the media gleefully covered.  Trump himself knew nothing about it, and no one has found any real connection between him and this mini-gang.   

I recall how, a few decades ago, a nut-case named Andrea Dworkin came up with enough funding, following, and media-attention for her man-hating rants to completely discredit and ruin the National Organization for Women – in what turned out to be a classic CoInTelPro campaign.  I think I can guess where the money for this “alt-right” convention came from, and only wonder how the participants were paid and persuaded to pull that stunt.

This is a neat way to discredit Trump’s latest appointee, Bannon, who worked on a conservative website named after its founder, Breitbart.  Bannon was a curmudgeonly writer who’s opposed to illegal immigration, and the media would love to call him a Nazi – but the problem is that Breitbart himself was Jewish, the site is very supportive of Israel, has praised prominent Black conservatives such as Dr. Sowell, Ben Carson, and Colin Powell, and has showcased libertarian women writers.  No anti-Semitism, no racism, no sexism: it doesn’t fit the stereotype and provably can’t be called Neo-Nazi.  But calling it “white nationalist” (with no solid evidence) suggests (through the unattributed Wikipedia definition) Nazi connections.

As I said, I’ve seen this game played before, and as a professional I find it contemptible. 

Now here’s the list I promised you:

Master List of Logical Fallacies
 Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that prove nothing. Fallacies often seem superficially sound, and they far too often retain immense persuasive power even after being clearly exposed as false. Fallacies are not always deliberate, but a good scholar’s purpose is always to identify and unmask fallacies in arguments 
·         Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.  
·         Appeal to Closure. The contemporary fallacy that an argument, standpoint, action or conclusion must be accepted, no matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled and those affected will be denied "closure." This refuses to recognize the truth that some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps forever. (E.g., "Society would be protected, crime would be deterred and justice served if we sentence you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure.") (See also "Argument from Ignorance," "Argument from Consequences.") 
·         Appeal to Heaven: (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one's own standpoint or actions so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., "God ordered me to kill my children," or "We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.") A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history. 
·         Appeal to Pity: (also "Argumentum ad Miserecordiam"). The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand (e.g., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos. See also Playing to Emotions.
·         Appeal to Tradition: (also "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has "always" been that way, because people have "always" thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations). (E.g., "In America, women have always been paid less, so let's not mess with long-standing tradition.").  The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the "Appeal to Novelty," e.g., "It's NEW, and [therefore it must be] good, or improved!"
·         Argument from Consequences: The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., "Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry," or "Doctor, that's wrong! I can't have cancer, because if I did that'd mean that I won't live to see my kids get married!") 
·         Argument from Ignorance: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is  literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Your arguments are false! That proves I'm right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning. 
See also "Argumentum ex Silentio."
·         Argument from Inertia (also “Stay the Course”). The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action even after discovering it is mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting one's decision (or one's leader, or one's faith) was wrong, and all one's effort, expense and sacrifice was for nothing, and that's unthinkable. A variety of the Argument from Consequences or the Appeal to Tradition.
·         Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives). The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim. E.g., "Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!" Even evil people with corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (and even those who have the highest motives are often wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. 
The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator's purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., "He's a good Christian man; how could you accuse him of doing something like that?")
·         Argumentum ad Baculam (also "Argument from the Club"). The fallacy of "persuasion" by force, violence, or threats. E.g., "Gimmee your money, or I'll knock your head off!" or "We have the perfect right to take your land, since we have the guns and you don't." Also applies to indirect forms of threat. E.g., "Believe in our religion if you don't want to burn in hell forever and ever!"
·         Argumentum ex Silentio (Argument from Silence. See also, Argument from Ignorance). The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter. E.g., "Science can tell us nothing about God. That proves God doesn't exist." Or "Science admits it can tell us nothing about God, so you can't deny that God exists!" Often misused in the American justice system, where, contrary to the 5th Amendment,  remaining silent or "taking the Fifth" is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., "Mr. Hixel has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler's Inn, murdering his wife with a hatchet!" In today's America, choosing to remain silent in the face of police officer's questions makes one guilty enough to be arrested or even shot.
·         Bandwagon (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): The fallacy of arguing that because "everyone" supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., "Everyone knows that undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!" Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Snith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”
·         Begging the Question (also Circular Reasoning): Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent spiritual crisis in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A corrupt argument from logos. See also "Big Lie technique."  
·         Big Lie Technique (also "Staying on Message"): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., "What about the Jewish Question?" Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no "Jewish Question," only a "Nazi Question," but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that.  
·         Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the "Team Player" appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (a President, expert, one’s parents, one's own "side," team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth,  above one's own reason and  above conscience. In this case a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining "That's what I was told to do," or “I was just following orders." 
·         Blood is Thicker than Water (also Favoritism, Compadrismo, "For my friends, anything."). The reverse of the "Ad Hominem" fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a statement, argument or action is automatically regarded as true, correct and above challenge because one is related to, or knows and likes, or is on the same team as the individual involved.  (E.g., "My brother-in-law says he saw you goofing off on the job. You're a hard worker, but who am I going to believe, you or him? You're fired!")
·         Bribery (also Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of "persuasion" by bribery, gifts or favors, the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculam. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely "stays persuaded" unless the bribes keep on coming in and increasing with time. 
·         The Complex Question: The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g., "Just answer me "yes" or "no":  Did you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the consequences?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos.
·         Diminished Responsibility: The common contemporary fallacy of applying a specialized judicial concept (that criminal punishment should be less if one's judgment was impaired) to reality in general. E.g., "You can't count me absent on Monday--I was hung over and couldn't come to class, so it's not my fault."  Or, "Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway and killed a guy, but I was buzzed out of my mind and didn't know what I was doing, so it didn't matter that much." In reality the death does matter very much to the victim, to his family and friends and to society in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all since the material results are the same.
·         Either-Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, Black / White Fallacy). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible alternatives even though a broad range of possible alternatives are always really available. E.g., "Either you are 100% straight or you are queer as a $3 bill--it's as simple as that, and there's no middle ground!" Or, “Either you’re in with us all the way or you’re a hostile and must be destroyed!  What's it gonna be?"
·         ”E" for Effort. (Also Noble Effort) The contemporary fallacy that something must be right, true, valuable, or worthy of credit simply because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See also Appeal to Pity, Argument from Inertia, or Sob Story.). 
·         Equivocation: The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one's terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sexual relations with "that woman," meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand his statement as "I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.") This is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.
·         Essentializing: A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at its core will always be the way it is right now (E.g., "All terrorists are monsters, and will still be terrorist monsters even if they live to be 100."). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way "by nature," an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. (E.g., "Americans are cold and greedy by nature," or "Women are better cooks than men.")
·         Excluded Middle: A corrupted argument from logos that proposes that since a little of something is good, more must be better (or that if cutting down on something is good, none at all is even better). E.g., "If eating an apple a day is good for you, eating an all-apple diet is even better!" or "If a low salt diet prolongs your life, a zero-salt diet should make you live forever!"
·         False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., "Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal person can’t be tied down to one single lover." 
·         Finish the Job:  The dangerous contemporary fallacy that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of the action or standpoint) may not be questioned or discussed because there is "a job to be done," falsely assuming all "jobs" are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize ("buy into") the "job" and make the task a part of their own ethos.  (E.g., "Ours is not to reason why / Ours is but to do or die.") Related to this is the "Just a Job" fallacy. (E.g., "How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the mirror?  But, I guess it's OK because for them it's just a job.")   (See also "Blind Loyalty," "Argument from Inertia.")
·         Guilt by Association: The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone's standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates or of a group, religion or race to which he or she belongs. A form of Ad Hominem Argument. (E.g., "Don't listen to her. She's a Republican so you can't trust anything she says.") 
See also "They're Not Like Us."
·         The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information). A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Ju├írez, Mexico is one of the world's fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”) 
·         I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation.. E.g., "What can we do about high gas prices? As Secretary of Energy I wish I had a magic wand, but I don't." [shrug] 
Or, "No, you can't quit piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don't, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing." The parent, of course, ignores the possibility that the child may not want or need to learn piano. See also, TINA.
·         Just in Case: A fallacy by which one’s argument is based on a far-fetched or completely imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. This plays on pathos (fear) rather than reason. E.g., "What if armed terrorists were to attack your county grain elevator tomorrow morning? Are you ready to fight back?  Better stock up on assault rifles just in case!"
·         Lying with Statistics: Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. "College tuition costs have never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, getting a college education is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!"). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth,  Snow Job, and Red Herring.)
·         MYOB (Mind Your Own Business; You're Not the Boss of Me; The Appeal to Privacy), The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily terminating any discussion of one's own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one's actions. A corrupted argument from ethos (your own). (E.g., "Sure, I was doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Mesa Street--what's it to you? You're not a cop, you're not my nanny It's my business to speed, and your business to get the hell out of the way.  Mind your own business!" Or, "Yeah, I killed my kid. So butt out!  It's none of your business!") (See also, "Taboo.") Rational discussion is cut off because "it is none of your business!"
·         Name-Calling: A variety of the "Ad Hominem" argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against your standpoint or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., "My stand on abortion is the only correct one. To disagree with me, argue with me or  question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are." Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid, without proving why it is invalid.  See also, "Reductionism."
·         Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out purple five-dollar bills! Purple!”). (See also Red Herring.)
Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to have special knowledge of why God is doing certain things. E.g., "This week's earthquake was sent to punish those people for their great wickedness."
·         Overgeneralization (also Hasty Generalization). The stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases (e.g. “Some college student was tailgating me all the way up North Main Street last night. This proves that all college students are lousy drivers and that we should pull their driver’s licenses until they either grow up, learn to drive or graduate!”).
·         The Paralysis of Analysis (also, Procrastination): A postmodern fallacy that since all data is never in any conclusion is always provisional, no legitimate decision can ever be made, and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos. 
·         Playing on Emotion (also, the Sob Story): The classic fallacy of pure argument from pathos, ignoring facts and calling on emotion alone. E.g., “If you don’t agree that witchcraft is a major problem just shut up for a moment and picture in your mind all those poor moms crying bitter tears for their innocent tiny little children whose little beds and tricycles lie cold and abandoned, all because of those wicked old witches! Let’s string’em up!”
·         Political Correctness ("PC"): A postmodern fallacy that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name. E.g., "Today we strike a blow against cruelty to animals by changing the name of ‘pets’ to ‘animal companions.’" or "Never, ever use the word 'victim' because it sounds so negative, helpless and despairing. Instead, call them 'survivors.'" (Of course, when "victims" disappear then the perpetrators conveniently vanish as well!)
·         Post Hoc Argument: (also, "post hoc propter hoc" argument, or the "too much of a coincidence" argument): The classic fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second. E.g., "AIDS first emerged as a problem during the exact same time that Disco music was becoming popular--that's too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco caused AIDS!" 
·         Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., "In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead: Sky-high taxes! Vote for me! I'll cut your taxes!"
·         Reductionism: (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences. E.g., "If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit." Or, "Vote for Snith. He's tough on crime!"
·         Reifying: The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material "things." (E.g., "Back in the day, the biggest struggle in youth culture was between Goths and Emos.") Sometimes also referred to as "Essentializing" or “Hypostatization.”
·         Scare Tactic (Also Paranoia): A variety of Playing on Emotions, a raw appeal to fear. A corrupted argument from Pathos.(E.g., "If you don't do what I say we're all gonna die! In this moment of great crisis we can't afford the luxury of criticizing or trying to second-guess my decisions. Our very lives are in peril!  We need to be united as one!")
·         Sending the Wrong Message: A dangerous fallacy that attacks a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary, because it will "send the wrong message." In effect, those who use this fallacy are publicly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies. E.g., "Actually, we're losing the war against drugs hands down, but if we publicly admit it we'll be sending the wrong message." 
·         Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance)  A fallacy that challenges  opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., "Space-aliens are everywhere among us masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you prove it isn't so! See?  You can't!  That means  what I say is true." 
·         Slippery Slope (also, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that "one thing inevitably leads to another." E.g., "If you two go and drink coffee together one thing will lead to another and soon enough you'll be pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the projects," or "If we close Gitmo, pretty soon armed terrorists will be on our doorstep!"
·         Snow Job: The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand. This is a corrupted argument from logos. See also, "Lying with Statistics."
·         Straw Man (also "The Straw Person"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, ridiculous version of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand. E.g., "Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!"
Or, "Pro-choicers hate babies!" Or, "Pro-lifers hate women and want them to spend their lives barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove!"
·         Taboo: The fallacy of unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be "sacrosanct" or not open to discussion, or arbitrarily taking some standpoints or options "off the table" beforehand. (E.g., "Don't bring my drinking into this," or "Before we start, I won't allow you to attack my arguments by claiming 'That's just what Hitler would say!'")
·         Testimonial (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority): A fallacy in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid to make the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internet-shouldn’t you?"). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Winter Olympics!”)  This is a corrupted argument from ethos. 
·         They're Not Like Us: A badly corrupted, racist argument from ethos where facts, arguments, experiences or objections are arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down without consideration because those involved "are not like us," or "don't think like us." E.g., "It's OK for Mexicans to earn half a buck an hour in the maquiladoras.  If it happened here I'd call it brutal exploitation and daylight robbery, but way down south of the border they're not like us."  Or, "Sure, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but in Asia they're not like us and they don't think about life and death the same way we do ." A variety of the Ad Hominem Argument, most often applied to non-white populations.
·         TINA (There Is No Alternative. Also "That's an order," "Get Over It," or the "fait accompli"). A very common contemporary extension of the either/or fallacy, quashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant, or announcing that a decision has been made and any further discussion is insubordination, disloyalty, or simply a waste of valuable time when there's a job to be done. (See also, "Taboo;" "Finish the Job.")
·         Transfer: A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated standpoint (e.g. putting a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an advertisement for mattresses, using Genghis Khan, a Mongol who hated Chinese, as the name of a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to sell cars or pickups that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Kyoto)..  
(See also "Testimonial.")
·         Tu Quoque ("You Do it Too!"; also Two Wrongs Make a Right): A corrupt argument from ethos. The fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one's own bad action by pointing out that one's opponent's acts or personal character are also open to question, or are perhaps even worse than one's own. E.g., "Sure, we torture and kill but we don't cut off heads off like they do!" Or, "You can't stand there and accuse me of corruption! You guys are all in politics and you know what you have to do to get reelected!" . Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument. 
·         We Have to Do Something: The dangerous contemporary fallacy that in moments of crisis one must do something, anything, at once, even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or makes the situation even worse, rather than "just sit there doing nothing." (E.g., "Banning air passengers from carrying ham sandwiches onto the plane and making babies take off their little pink baby-shoes probably does nothing to deter potential hijackers, but we have to do something to respond to this crisis!") This is a corrupted argument from pathos. (See also "Scare Tactic.")
·         Where there’s smoke, there’s fire (also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion). The dangerous fallacy of drawing a snap conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence. E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard and a turban and speaks a funny language. Where there's smoke there's fire. That’s all the evidence we need that he's a terrorist! Let's burn his store down!” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy.

See how many you recognize.

--Leslie  <;)))><