Rhetoric, Sophistry and Bad Argument; or, Confederate Yankee in a Nutshell

I've found the aftermath of Erik's illustrious award ceremony outrageously amusing if, sometimes, a little frustrating. With the bannings, the trolling, and all the harsh words, what I've found from those supporting Confederate Yankee, as well as the man himself, is a group of fools wrapped in intellectual clothing, doing their best to sound bright through bland, banal sophistry and half-assed arguments. You can't blame any of them; those they disciple have taught them how to prove their points. For me, ignorance is an unfaultable offense, but those who argue through their ignorance deserve the services of correction and understanding. So, to CY and all your buddies, this is for you.

I have little interest in baiting people into arguments that will undoubtedly go nowhere, so I'm going to stick with what is presented on this nice man's blog. Let's briefly look at the site itself.

First, the name. CY attempts to diffuse accusations of what his name implies. Does this name imply that he supports slavery? It can, but I have a hard time believing that CY actually does support such a policy (at least insofar as it's not at all socially acceptable to speak of this). That said, if I started a blog called "Concentration Camp Lover," I could well mean that I fully support summer programs to help ADD kids find ways to cope with their learning issues. I could say it's a play on words (as Bri defended CY's name on 10/3/06 in the comments of a post from Erik) even though the site banner shows a Nazi flag (similarly to CY's banner which is a barely hidden Dixie flag). If CY doesn't believe in the tacits of the Confederacy, he would do well to rethink his presentation.

Now, let's look at how he presents himself. Here you can find exactly what CY thinks about himself and his blog. Firstly, he addresses the name. The first two arguments come down to the conglomeration of the circumstances that have brought him to where he is today. Perfectly reasonable, although neither explains the Stars and Bars in the banner. The third is the play on words argument in which he states that he is a Twain fan and "is a subconscious nod to one of my favorite Twain stories, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." I love Twain myself, and he was one of the first people I ever read that taught me the principles of irony and satire. Given that you're such a fan, you've undoubtedly read The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg, one of my own personal Twain favorites. In it (in the event you haven't read the story, it is online here), a man comes to the sleepy, poor town of Hadleyburg with the promise of a huge cash sum for the protection of a treasure. This promise awakens the fear and greed of the townspeople and turns them against one another. It seems unfortunate that you don't see the same thing happening to you by the party policies you support and, more unfortunate that your disciples don't realize that you are doing it to them. Finally, on this note, CY proceeds to bolster his intellectual ego by 1) stating that "...people who can't compete with me in intellectual arguments often resort to ad hominem assaults against my character...." which implies both that he has intellectual (as opposed to emotional) arguments and character, 2) lists the jobs he has had, which are of varying kind and show him as a man of all seasons, and 3) brags that he was interviewed by the Washington Post and subsequently guest-blogged for them over four consecutive days. Congratulations go out to you, my friend; you have succeeded in what many of us have experienced here and there; that is, having an opportunity fall into your lap and taking advantage of it. No doubt this fact has increased your readership ten-fold.

All of this is circumstantial, however, as I don't know CY, nor can I know how intelligent he really is. All I can base my opinions on is the actual words he writes. So, let's have a little looky, shall we? In his post "...Not As They Do", CY appears to condemn "two conservative bloggers" for outing the reprehensible situation with Mark Foley (I will only mention in passing that he later in the afternoon wrote that this was all an elaborate prank, sourcing Matt Drudge who credits nothing or nobody to substantiate his claims), but then goes on to confuse the issue with two examples of Liberals doing their best to keep Democratic perverts in office. He uses two examples.

The first is the case of Mel Reynolds who, after serving Illinois in Congress from 1992 to 1995, was indicted in 1994 of having sex with a 16 year old campaign volunteer. Instead of bowing out in light of the accusations, which he tried to fight, he went on to, unfortunately, win the election and, later that year, was convicted on counts of sexual assault, child pornography and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to five years in prison but, near the eve of his release, he (along with his wife) was indicted on counts of bank fraud. He was subsequently sentenced to an additional 6 1/2 years in prison. When criminals are sentenced for multiple crimes at different times, the sentences are served consecutively. Reynolds served the entirety of the sexual assault sentence, as well as almost four years of the fraud charges, when Clinton commuted the remainder of the fraud sentence. He never was, nor will he ever be, exonerated for the sex charges.

The second is the case of Gerry Studds, representative of Massachusetts from 1973-1997. In 1983, it was revealed that Studds had a consensual sexual relationship with a male intern, who was 17 at the time which was, technically, the age of consent and so, in no way, illegal (though, don't get me wrong, there is nothing ethical or right about this situation). He was censured by Congress but voters decided that he belonged in office, despite the scandal, and served out an additional 14 years before retiring, but only after making great strides in gay rights. CY's contention is that Stubbs "refused to apologize" for his actions. I have no interest in justifying what Studds did, except to say that he admitted his actions. However, if he broke no law and didn't believe what he did was wrong, what point is there in an apology. Would a heartwarming "Sorry..." have kept conservatives from bringing the issue up when it was convenient? I have a hard time believing that.

CY, you finish your post by saying "Perhaps I could find Judd's outrage just a little more sincere if his party didn't have a track record of electing and re-electing the known sexual predators in their midst." My friend, it is sad that you don't see the contradiction in your statements. When Clinton accepts a bj from Lewinsky; when Reynolds has sex with a 16 year old; when Studds has a sexual relationship with an intern, it is an ethical issue. But, when Foley acts similarly (and no less reprehensibly), it is a political issue. You do not condone Foley's actions. For that, you deserve respect. You do, however, undermine your own point by bringing the past actions of certain select Democrats into the fray. This has nothing to do with the party Foley belongs to (although Fox News will say differently, trying to diffuse the heat against Republicans by changing Foley to a Democrat on their broadcast), it has to do with the reprehensibility of people, regardless of party, who use their powers to manipulate those weaker than them.

Sadly, your readers are less interested in clicking your links and following the trains of thought to the base arguments, and more interested in expounding the "truthiness" (thank you, Stephen Colbert, for the brilliant term) of your statements. I don't defame or challenge your intellectual rigor, CY, the facts do. I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you after all this time.