November 1, 2000
J. Davis

November 7th is right around the corner and although I was getting worried that some of our politicians had softened up, and put their mud-slinging tactics aside. I'm glad to announce that it's back to business as usual, or more appropriately, politics as usual. A recent incident occurred last weekend which makes me question the moral integrity of politicians everywhere [was their moral ineptitude ever not in dispute?]. A certain political candidate running for Senator in New York State has made a public statement which reveals such a degree of asininity that it nearly brings tears to my eyes.

The only thing more cagey than the statement itself, was the continued belligerent behavior by this candidate when confronted. The statement is so underhanded, that I am forced to address the internet public and launch into a brief but intense analysis to discredit its validity. The following, statement was made by Mr. Lazio:

"They are taking funds from groups who are closely associated with people who believe in terrorism and violence as a tool for political ends."

Let's take a look at this statement. The use of the word "They" is important, and should not be overlooked; as a pronoun to replace "Hillary Clinton's campaign" it is the means by which Mr. Lazio avoids the pitfall of later being accused of making personal attacks on Mrs. Clinton - and to avoid being subject to litigation for slandering her. If confronted by such an accusation Mr. Lazio can claim his innocence just as surely as Bill Clinton can claim that he never had "sex" with "that woman" [in using the phrase "that woman" Mr. Clinton can always claim he was referring to... Christie Brinkley]; in the eyes of the law, Mr. Lazio is innocent [as was Mr. Clinton] - the average tax payer will conclude otherwise.

Now, we must move on to the way in which Mr. Lazio links Hillary Clinton to the terrorist attack on the USS Cole. Make no mistake, Mr. Lazio is a politician; the goal of his statement was to strike fear into the voting public as a means to further his political aspirations. He used the recent deaths of 17 Naval officers and the suffering of their families to draw out a passionate public objection to terrorism, and thus an objection to Mrs. Clinton. By using the word "terrorism" in the same sentence as "they" [remember this is not a personal attack, its just "their" fault] Mr. Lazio succeeded in presenting the most rudimentary and easily comprehended form of logic: the "if - then" connection. From a very early age, we learn that "if this," "then that;" it represents the most basic process of deductive reasoning.

However, we must remember that Mr. Lazio is a public official and as stated above, he cannot slander the First Lady. He cannot [and did not] simply say that Mrs. Clinton is herself a terrorist; this would evoke even BI-partisan laughter. And Mr. Lazio cannot state that Mrs. Clinton is an adamant supporter of terrorism [this would evoke only partisan chuckling]. In order to effectively link Mrs. Clinton [they] and "terrorism," Mr. Lazio provided the voting public with an example of one of the most logically flawed and obtuse statements of this campaign season. Let's diagram this statement for dissection:

They [accept] Money [from] Groups [associated with] People [who believe in] Terrorism

The first fallacy of this statement is that in accepting the money, Mrs. Clinton also supports the socio-political agenda of these "groups" [terrorism]. In Washington, it might seem a 1:1 correspondence between money and favors, but it is absurd to suggest that if elected, Mrs. Clinton would use her political position to support international terrorism or even begin a terrorism campaign of her own [as Mr. Lazio has in his attack on Mrs. Clinton].

The second problem arises with the way in which Mr. Lazio connects "They" to "Terrorism"; again, we know that he cannot slander his opponent to make this connection. The word "group" is used to specify an unidentified number of people or an organization; this "group" [Arab Americans "sympathetic" to terrorist groups] is then "associated with" people who "believe in terrorism and violence as a tool for political ends." Arab Americans everywhere should be appalled; Mr. Lazio has allowed his bigoted views to undermine his credibility. This broad, bigoted generalization about the link between Arabs and Terrorism would be the same as erroneously generalizing a link between African Americans and Violent Crime; Mr. Lazio has racially profiled Arabs. Mr. Lazio has made a broad and erroneous generalization about the Arab ethnic group, and this is appalling. Let's think for a moment how we could use the same logic to accuse Mr. Lazio of praetorian behavior:

"They [Mr. Lazio's campaign] are taking funds from groups who are closely associated with people, who believe that the killing of Jews during the Holocaust was justified."

Can you believe this?!? Mr. Lazio! How could you?!? I can't believe it! Mr. Lazio killed Jews during the Holocaust. This is not funny.

In accepting money from a "group" of one or more Austrian-Americans or Austrian businesses [proving this fact is not any more difficult that perusing information that is already public record] Mr. Lazio thus supports their socio-political agenda [I am using Mr. Lazio's line of logic]. Some of the individuals of this group, [again, using Mr. Lazio's line of logic] are "closely associated with people" who are "sympathetic" to Austrian Nationalism [Joerg Haider-esque]. To confirm this association, I would only have to find one person who has some Pro-Nationalist magazine sitting in a wicker basket next to the loo; I'm certain this would not be the only confirmation.

Above, using the same logic as Mr. Lazio's statement, I have used a broad and erroneous generalization about the Austrian ethnic group [culture] to make a point about the absurdity of Mr. Lazio's statement [and my own]. I have made a fallacious [and grotesque] statement; yet I have done nothing more obtuse than Mr. Lazio did. But all the same... if I'm capable of such distortion of truth even in jest, aren't you glad I'm not running for office?... maybe he shouldn't be either.