This is probably going to be an unpopular post, but most stands on ideals are when criticizing real world events.
President Obama recently said that anyone who did not support the decision to kill Osama "should have their head examined." (Fallacy- Ad Hominem; attacking the opposition instead of addressing the argument) This is similar to Bushites who declared anyone who did not support W (use of torture, gitmo, lying us all into a war in Iraq, criticism for fiscal insanity) was unpatriotic and a traitor.
On The Ed Show, this talk show host whom I often agree with, was way off base by attacking Michael Moore's pointed criticism that America's soul is missing pieces of itself when assassination is preferred over capture and a very public trial. What Ed uses is the very same tactics (ad hominem, straw man and false equivalency) that Liberals routinely face by our opponents (Corporate Right Wing Demogogues) intent on destroying America's ideals because it is politic to do so (in an attempt to puff out your chest and appear strong).
More after the fold.
Now that you have clicked on what is an uphill argument, why did you do so? Did you come read to attack characters (the usual suspects) or to deal with the very real problem of sacrificing ideals in practical matters?
Michael Moore's pointed criticism is based upon the current story of the Osama mission. (EDIT/UPDATE: with a changing story, new details are forthcoming, and
Now, the criticism on the right about the Osama mission is fairly hypocritical and without merit. They piled on the talk shows to claim credit for W and to minimize Obama's role in the decision. Now, some of the liberal talking heads (like Ed) are attacking criticism from the Left by mis-characterizing that criticism by;
1) saying that its our problem for voting for Obama in the first place (because Obama said he would order an assassination during a 2008 debate),
2) pairing the criticism from Bin Ladin's family (sympathizers of terrorists) with that of the Left (remember that dandy?)
3) Claiming that critics somehow are besmirching the troops (surely you recognize this one)
and 4) minimizing and marginalizing critiques to defend Dear Leader (another classic from the Bush era).
Here is what is argued; as more details come out, it seems more and more that killing Bin Ladin was more important than capture, and the kill/capture aspect of the mission was simply tacked on. EDIT/UPDATE: Please do not take this paragraph as an invitation to add more to it- that is called a Straw Man.
So, what does this mean? (a favorite of Martin Luther) We as a nation are approving the assassination of an enemy of the state, despite our own laws that favor capture/trial for those wanted for crimes.
Would we have simply killed Hitler or taken him prisoner at the end of WWII? (yes, he took the coward's way out and committed suicide in his bunker) If the answer is "Take him prisoner and put him on trial at Nuremberg" then how is a terrorist worst than a Nazi? If your answer is "Kill Hitler on the spot" well, I guess it's really easy to chuck your values regarding the rule of law.
Why is it so hard for Americans to believe in our system of government? Why is it so hard for today's TV addled generation to understand why ignoring laws are a terrible precedent? If we ignore Laws regarding Assassination, and we're ignoring Laws regarding Torture... really... why the fuck are bothering with laws in the first place?
Obama's comments seem to be once again, "Punch the hippy"; comparing Rule of Law critics to terrorists are a new low on the Left.
EDIT/UPDATE: True to form, most of the commentators missed the boat on this one. If you were one of the many who 1) used an ad hominem, 2) used a straw man (such as claiming that this post is accusing the President of being unlawful), 3) declared that the diarist does not support the troops, or 4) is a hypocrite for identifying similarities between fallacies used on the right and left...
The Boat has sailed on. You cannot be helped on this matter.
EDIT/UPDATE 2: Keith Olbermann weighs in on Ed Schultz's show (the same one I link above), and comes to much the same conclusion I did. Everyone deserves their day in court and Schultz is trying to silence Moore.