The inimitable Marie Gryphon catches Naomi Wolf in a very odd statement--at least, odd if you're Naomi Wolf:
Naomi Wolf's eulogy for American democracy in today's Washington Post contains the following, very curious passage:"Few young Americans understand that the Second Amendment keeps their homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world; few realize that "due process" means that they can't be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely."Has the third wave feminist and former Gore campaign consultant suddenly discovered the importance of the right to keep and bear arms?
I assume she was referring to the Fourth. But then, once you've seen one amendment, you've seen 'em all . . .
There's no confusion about which amendment is relevant if you're of the opinion that the second is the people's guarantee that all the others will remain intact due to the threat of popular revolt.
Where the real cognitive dissonance sets in is when you perceive the strong correlation between boosters of the second amendment and those most willing to grant the executive powers that shred the protections offered by the fourth.
Sounds like she's referring to both the fourth and fifth (and the fourteenth, but extension). Funny that that error managed to get through.
Interesting that Wolf is the object of /forced/ criticism when she, among few, are willing to state facts not often welcomed into the mainstream's 'evidence'..
"But this distressing situation isn't just George W. Bush's fault. Young Americans have also inherited some strains of thought from the left that have undermined their awareness of and respect for democracy. When New Left activists of the 1960s started the antiwar and free speech student movements, they didn't get their intellectual framework from Montesquieu or Thomas Paine: They looked to Marx, Lenin and Mao. It became fashionable to employ Marxist ways of thinking about social change: not "reform" but "dialectic"; not "citizen engagement" but "ideological correctness"; not working for change but "fighting the man.""
Also, her use of the semicolon is proper and does not necessarily indicate she was referring to the same amendment..the independent clauses need only be 'closely related'
http://www.wisc.edu/writing/Handbook/Semicolons.html
Actually, thats a reading of the Second Amendment very consistent with pro-gun advocates.
Whether Naomi Wolf intended that kind of a reading is debatable. And the idea that heavily armed populaces are immune to tyranny is contradicted by many examples. But every once in awhile, declare peace.
There's no real point in attempting a defense here, there is no conceivable way she intended to cite the Second Amendment.
N.B. "Due process" refers to the 5th amendment, not the 4th.
To anyone with half a brain and above a fifth grade reading level, it is clear that Naomi is not referring to the Fourth amendment. This is the sentence before the passage cited: "As a result, teenagers and young adults often have no clue why the United States is different from, say, Egypt or Russia; they have little idea what liberty is."
Obviously, she is using the passage that Gryphon cites to support her claim that "teenagers and young adults...have no clue why the United States is different from, say, Egypt or Russia."
This took 30 seconds of research.
I don't see where you have standing to point out the minor mistakes of others, Megan.
Tell us again how Paul Krugman is in trouble on Jan 21st, 2008.
Wolf's article is also interesting for this sentence: "A survey released by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in September found that U.S. high school students missed almost half the questions on a civic literacy test."
I'm quite sure this was the test covered by this blog a few months ago. The test and the ISI are both rather right-leaning; Ms. Wolf is getting ecumenical.
N.B. "Due process" refers to the 5th amendment, not the 4th.
That's amazing.
Ordinal numbers are too bourgeois for Ms. Wolfe to concern herself with.
"To anyone with half a brain and above a fifth grade reading level, it is clear that Naomi is not referring to the Fourth amendment."
Rickm- First of all, that kind of vitriol doesn't belong her. But more importantly, really, you think so? Let's parse:
"Few young Americans understand that the Second Amendment keeps their homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world;"
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Makes perfect sense that this would be a useful distinction from countries in which police can enter private residences at any time and seize evidence. Next...
"few realize that "due process" means that they can't be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely."
5th Amendment: No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
The first part of Wolf's sentence makes the most sense, BY FAR, as a reference to the fourth amendment, and the second part makes the most sense referring to the fifth amendment.
Alternatively, we could say that "due process" applies better to the Bill of Rights in the collective sense, in the sense that the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states.
Either way, let's not obscure the real truth here- which is that it takes a supremely circuitous argument to apply Wolf's logic to the Second Amendment, and that it is basically inconceivable that a liberal commentator would write something like that and actually mean the Second Amendment.
Drew-
Its obvious that you did not read my whole post. You are still taking the Wolf quote out of context--which was what my whole complaint was about.
This is the passage in full: "As a result, teenagers and young adults often have no clue why the United States is different from, say, Egypt or Russia; they have little idea what liberty is.
Few young Americans understand that the Second Amendment keeps their homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world; few realize that "due process" means that they can't be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely.
This dangerous ignorance is confirmed by the Knight Foundation, which has found an alarming decline in student support for the First Amendment"
How one could interpret what Wolf is saying in the way that Gryphon does, and McArdle endorses, is beyond me. They are either being dishonest or stupid. Either way, the vitriol is deserved.
I think in Megan's case its just stupid.
Megan, tell us again why Krugman's going to be in trouble on January 21, 2008?
She's insinuated that the Second Amendment deals with due process before. Look at minute 23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Rickm--
Your reading of Wolf's op-ed makes no sense. In the three paragraphs you cite, Wolf makes two related points. The first paragraph makes the point that history and civics education is being neglected, resulting in ignorance of basic constitutional protections. The second two paragraphs attempt to illustrate (and confirm) this basic ignorance. The irony, of course, is that Wolf herself appears to be ignorant of constitutional protections, evidently confusing the Second Amendment (which protects the right to bear arms) with the Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures). The most natural reading is McArdle's (and Gryphon's).
Moreover, I don't understand what your problem is. Are you really so invested in Naomi Wolf being correct? If so, a better argument is that the Washington Post simply messed up in copyediting.
djs
djs-
I think you should Mark Hoffer's link to the proper use of a semicolon. It is clear that Wolf is using the semicolon as a divider to two unrelated independent clauses.
You're not reading carefully. I don't care about semicolon usage. I'm not talking about due process; I'm talking about the difference between the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.
This is the only Wolf phrase I care about:
"Few young Americans understand that the Second Amendment keeps their homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world[.]"
So where's the mistake?
To review:
The Second Amendment, in full, states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Fourth Amendment, in full, states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Wolf, in her above quoted sentence, was referring to the Fourth Amendment, not the Second. But she mistakenly wrote the "Second." The only point I'm making (and the same goes for both McArdle and Gryphon) is this: it is ironic that Wolf, in decrying ignorance about the Constitution, made such a basic (ignorant?) mistake. Is it a big deal? No, not really. Does it undermine her argument. No. It's just sort of funny. But I think you've managed to drain the humor from it.
Did anyone even bother to do a 5 minute google search on Naomi Wolf's opinions concerning the 2nd ammendment? She does not support gun control Her interpretation is that it was designed to ensure that paramilitary forces could not be deployed against the general population. It is all in her book, The End of America.
Megan, sometimes I wonder how you call yourself a professional writer. You just link to someone who said something (inaccurate) about another person whom you don't even bother to know anything about. Why do you get paid for this?
djs, she also has said, repeatedly, in print and in public appearances that she believes that the 2nd ammendment was designed to protect ordinary citizens from being harrassed by the government, or from armed and unelected militant groups. She once believed in gun control as a practical measure, but is now opposed to it.
If you don't want to buy her book, watch the video that was linked to above. Just try to stifle your guffawing over someone's "misprint" until you have your own facts straight.
' "due process" means that they can't be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely': that surely isn't right? Doesn't "due process" mean that they can be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely, but only if they've gone before a court first? Presumably what such a court deems constitutional depends on the current doctrines of SCOTUS and its whimsical interpretations of the Constitution.
"Due process" appears in two amendments -- neither of them the Fourth.
But then, once you've seen one amendment you've seen them all!!
If I was a liberal living in America I would definately be packing heat. Too many conservative crazies down there.
"Megan, sometimes I wonder how you call yourself a professional writer. You just link to someone who said something . . ."
You know, this *is* a blog.
few realize that "due process" means that they can't be locked up in a dungeon by the state and left to languish indefinitely.
That's funny, because what I learned in Con Law was that "due process" meant the right to be sodomized using a condom right after having a partial-birth abortion.
Maybe if the Supreme Court were clearer on what "due process" means then students would also be clearer on it.
Rickm wrote: To anyone with half a brain and above a fifth grade reading level, it is clear that Naomi is not referring to the Fourth amendment.
To anyone with a whole brain and above five minutes to actually exercise the associated cognitive capabilities, it is clear that she was probably confusing amendments in a passage lamenting civic ignorance. The irony is bound to hit you one way or another, so you may want to take up wearing a hard-hat full time -- this anvil could really clobber you.
djs wrote: Is it a big deal? No, not really. Does it undermine her argument. No. It's just sort of funny. But I think you've managed to drain the humor from it.
Agreed on all of those points. Regrettably in regards to the latter, it seems to be his primary reason for even showing up around here.
As pedestrian and Marcus have shown, after a couple minutes of using teh google, Naomi Wolf believes that the second amendment allows people to protect themselves from government intrusion into their home. So her statement is not confused or mistaken, and one would have to hastily rush to judgment or assume stupidity on the writer's part (probably a decent assumption in these parts) to see it any other way. No matter how pretentiously anony-mouse wants to frame it, it is not "clear that she was probably confusing amendments."
No matter how pretentiously anony-mouse wants to frame it, it is not "clear that she was probably confusing amendments."
Well, today I was shooting for "Al Gore" pretentious, and tomorrow I may attempt to effect a "Paris Hilton". I live to entertain and I'm here 'til Thursday, folks!
At any rate, Ms. Wolfe may well think what you claim, but if one is going to discuss claims about the amendments that are outside of the immediate reading of said ammendment and readily conflated with an immediate reading of another in the context of a newspaper editorial, and at that an editorial lamenting others' ignorance, one is well advised to actually include that context.
As djs noted, it's not even that big of a deal, just kind of funny. Until you showed up with your patented Humor Vacuum 5000, that is.
Rick, pedestrian and Marcus haven't shown anything, they have only asserted it.
I would be be very interested to find Wolf's views on the second amendment, but my five-minute google search (plus another 5 minutes searching her new book) didn't turn up anything helpful. Could one of you google wizards post a couple tinyurl links?
Thanks!
From what I could glean from her book, Wolf seems to think that the founders saw state militias as a counterweight to the potential powers of a central executive, and that she thinks it is unfortunate that the President now has direct authority to call out the National Guard.
However, I couldn't find anything indicating that she believes that the Second Amendment currently "keeps [Americans'] homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world." It is fascinating to think that Wolf might believe that, so I'd love to see some links.
J Mann-
If by "asserted" you mean, linked to a youtube where she explicitly argues that the Second Amendment allows citizens to fight against paramilitary groups--she mentions the brownshirts. Or take her book. Are you telling me that in five minutes of perusing her book, you didn't stumble across the title of the fourth chapter "Develop a Paramilitary Force" as one of the "Ten Steps" to the abandonment of democracy? Or how about the first page on that chapter, in the third paragraph--right there--she writes:
"Because the colonists had experienced abuse at the hands of the soldiers of an occupying army, the Founders set up our system to prohibit the rise of unaccountable armies on our soil. That is why the Founders gave the states the rights to establish Militias accountable only to the people. In contrast, a would-be dictator never bypasses the step--key among the ten steps--of creating a paramilitary force accountable only to himself."
J Mann-
Here's the link where it clearly shows she believes thatthe Second Amendment currently "keeps [Americans'] homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world."
http://tinyurl.com/2vkeke
It is fascinating to think that Wolf might believe that, so I'd love to see some links.
I wrote to the email address at the bottom of the op-ed, and will forward any response I get. Until then, please go back to calling each other morons in the absence of any meaningful facts either way.
Rick, thanks for the link. Isn't that the same Wa Po article that we have been discussing? I meant, what other sources exist to clarify Wolf's views on the second amendment.
As for the chapter in her book, "Develop a Paramilitary Force," yes, I did read it before I posted.
From what I can tell, Wolf isn't advising the "young patriot" to establish a paramilitary force, she is complaining that the existence of Blackwater indicates that Bush is a fascist. Nowhere in that chapter does Wolf suggest that the young patriot even should own a gun, much less that she should protect the right of others to do so.
From what I can tell, Wolf thinks that it is wrong that the US President has ultimate authority over the National Guard, but I don't see anything suggesting that Wolf believes that the existence of the National Guard, or the personal ownership of firearms, is currently responsible for protecting our homes from searches.
Hey now, I actually didn't assert anything. I just provided a link. I report, you decide!
J Mann, if you want to find something that shows that "she believes that the Second Amendment currently keeps [Americans'] homes safe from the kind of government intrusion that other citizens suffer around the world," scroll to the top and follow the link. The article that everybody's discussing shows that. As does the video of her lecture.
Pedestrian, what does it matter if she opposes gun control? The funny thing is that she thinks the Second Amendment deals with due process. This is only true if you take the entertainingly broad view that all of our rights depend on our ability to credibly threaten to shoot the police. If this is true, then the right to freedom of speech is also found in the Second Amendment.
That's going on my Amazon wish list, I gotta get me one of those.
Your days of going through a phase
are finally lashing back at you
there's more to shut up and ignore
but there's even less and less to do
and there's nothing to say, and they're looking away
what have you got yourself into?
One little miss apprehension got you
now they're lining up around the block
to watch you screw yourself up
for this bitter cup, which pains you the most
when it's too late to say you're sorry
and pretend that it's a toast-- Naomi
You struggle with the reality myth
when you're talking on the tv screen
about choke chains and mary janes
in Seventeen Magazine
and you're thinking of your JC Penny lingerie
that nobody has ever seen
No one understands your comments
or why you're so obsessed with undergarments
from multi-cultured pearl to Glamour girl
took less than a day
and your Wonderbra world of Disney
was just a make-over away
Naomi, it's just a matter of time
What's that they're saying now?
Oh wow, she looks good in tears
that you can't allow
but now you haven't looked this young in years
You look sweet walking down the street
but no one's even slowing down
they can't decide, should they offer you a ride
or the head of Helen Gurley Brown
Naomi, it's just a matter of time.
liberalrob wrote: That's going on my Amazon wish list, I gotta get me one of those.
Definitely. The Humor Vaccuum 5000 maintains a petulant discontent all day long without overheating. It's a vast improvement over the model 4000, which had an annoying whine and tended to turn shrill after fifteen minutes of rigrous abuse. And if you're still trying to run the model 3000? Get out, that thing's stuck in the Clinton years. You can't even get parts for it now because of all the recent design changes. All new, all improved -- the 5000 is where it's at!
Megs - Just want to correct something - Naomi Wolfe did not err - She is just being intentionally provocative by referring to the 2nd amendment and assuming everyone knows that's about well-regulated militias, not Blackwater militias.
She has spoken about this - maybe other commenters noted it above.
Despite the caracture of her drawn by slobs like Matthews and others on cable, Wolfe is an intelligent woman.
Marie Gryphon made another lazy mistake - A casual reader of her post would think that Gore was an opponent of gun rights. Not even close.
She probably just assumed that - because she is or whatever.