Strictly Politics

Obama cartoon in the New Yorker

2008-07-14T19:24:00.001-07:00

I don't get it. No, not the image, I get that, I don't get the reaction to the image. OK, I get that too, but for some reason I completely understand where the cartoonist is coming from with this caricature.

It's an attack against those who unjustly, unfairly and constantly criticize Obama from no other perspective other than racial or religious. It seems to be all they got, but then what's an election without conservative Republicans trying to scare you about the "enemy" candidate's personal life/lifestyle? Heck, what would an election year be without Democrats trying to scare you about what the "enemy" candidate will do once in office through their policy positions?

OK, so what if Barack Obama is black; so what if Obama is or is not Muslim; so what if his wife bumps fists; so what? Seems like the right has not a whole hell of a lot other than caricatures to throw at the Obama's and that is the irony of the cartoon.

What it really is saying is that if all you can do is try to sling mud, trying to attack the "blackness" or the "whiteness" of Barack Obama, then you don't have a heck of a lot of ammunition. What it says is that conservatives/Republicans have one card that they hope to trump this election with and it's the same old tired race card.

They are counting on people on the hidden face of long standing feelings about race and religion to sway the day in their favor and they may get the desired result. What they don't realize is that they don't need to inspire caricatures such as with their fervent insipidly transparent antics to achieve their goals.

If they pay attention, they will realize that long time Democrats who have supported every Democratic candidate unwaveringly for as long as they can remember will not support Barack Obama. The idea of a black man in office, a black family in the White House- and then to top it all off, he may even have been or be Muslim...Good God in heaven forbid!

It's an ugly little thought, a disgusting realization that this dynamic is at play, but you know what will be blamed...do you know what they will say? They will say, "I am a Democrat but I didn't support Obama because he's not Hilary." They will say, "I don't like the way Hilary was treated by the media and Barack did nothing about it, so I am going to vote McCain!" As if McCain uttered any words and sprang gallantly to Hilary's defense against the arguably evil media.

No, that will be the excuse, but it will not be the truth. My thought on this is a little simpler than boiling the whole thing down to race. We certainly need to know the mettle of candidates and their personal lives are certainly in bounds; but come on! Dig up some dirt, did they cheat on their wives, their taxes, their SATs? Did they commit any grossly indecent or immoral acts? Do they beat their children or crucify small animals. I mean come on! Stop making yourselves the targets of caricaturist and cartoonists and tell me the really good stuff.

Obama Backlash

2008-06-23T20:38:00.001-07:00

I am not understanding the backlash against Barack Obama for refusing public financing for his campaign. It's like being mad a t a politician for supporting welfare but not being on it. If he can afford to opt out he should.

The only way for public financing to be a fair way to run an election is if all the candidates were held to responsible to it. We do it here in Canada and it seems like a fair and reasonable compromise. It's definitely past the time for a reasonable restraint to the first amendment in America.

Ugly!

2008-06-02T17:04:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24938572/
"WASHINGTON - NASA's press office "marginalized or mischaracterized" studies on global warming between 2004 and 2006, the agency's own internal watchdog concluded."

Who does this sort of thing?...Oh yeah, the Bush administration.

Democrats vs Republicans

2008-04-08T17:00:00.000-07:00

What's the difference?

Simple.

Democrats work from a world view outward to inward. Republicans work from inward to outward.
What's good for the world is good for America according to the average Democrat even if it hurts America in the short term. What's good for the individual American is all that matters to the average Republican.

Muslims and Blacks

2007-01-07T19:09:00.000-08:00

Muslims and blacks seem to share a few things in common. Both are believed to either be fully complicit in their own destruction or are completely indemnified by circumstances. In other words, some people will never blame Muslims for what Muslims do as is the with blacks. While others believe Muslims are in complete control of their own destiny and should own up to the hand they have been dealt, as with blacks...They are both wrong.

Muslims and blacks can only do what is in their power to do. When the deck has been stacked against them by the powers that be, blaming them for the results is unfair and counter-productive.

A few simple rules when debating

2006-12-20T12:25:00.000-08:00

Constructing a Logical Argument

Introduction

There is a great deal of argument on Usenet. Unfortunately, most of it is of very poor quality. This document attempts to provide a gentle introduction to logic, in the hope of improving the general level of debate.

Logic is the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference [Concise OED]. Logic allows us to analyze a piece of reasoning, and determine whether it is correct or not. To use the technical terms, we determine whether the reasoning is valid or invalid.

One does not need to study logic in order to reason correctly. However, a little basic knowledge of logic is often helpful when constructing or analyzing an argument.

Note that I am not claiming that logic is universally applicable. That issue is very much open to debate. This document only explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the job.

Note also that this document deals only with simple boolean logic. Other sorts of mathematical logic, such as fuzzy logic, obey different rules. When people talk of logical arguments, though, they generally mean the type being described here.

Basic concepts

The building blocks of a logical argument are propositions, also called statements. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false; for example:

"The first programmable computer was built in Cambridge."
"Dogs cannot see colour."
"Berlin is the capital of Germany."

Propositions may be either asserted (said to be true) or denied (said to be false). Note that this is a technical meaning of "deny", not the everyday meaning.

The proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the particular arrangement of words used. So "A God exists" and "There exists a God" both express the same proposition.

What is an argument?

An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition". There are three stages to an argument: Premises, inference, and conclusion.

Stage one: Premises

One or more propositions will be are necessary for the argument to continue. They must be stated explicitly. They are called the premises of the argument. They are the evidence (or reasons) for accepting the argument and its conclusions.

Premises (or assertions) are often indicated by phrases such as "because", "since", "obviously" and so on.

(The phrase "obviously" is often viewed with suspicion, as it can be used to intimidate others into accepting dubious premises. If something doesn't seem obvious to you, don't be afraid to question it. You can always say "Oh, yes, you're right, it is obvious" when you've heard the explanation.)

Stage two: Inference

The premises of the argument are used to obtain further propositions. This process is known as inference. In inference, we start with one or more propositions which have been accepted. We then derive a new proposition. There are various forms of valid inference.

The propositions arrived at by inference may then be used in further inference. Inference is often denoted by phrases such as "implies that" or "therefore".

Stage three: Conclusion

Finally, we arrive at the conclusion of the argument, another proposition. The conclusion is often stated as the final stage of inference. It is affirmed on the basis the original premises, and the inference from them. Conclusions are often indicated by phrases such as "therefore", "it follows that", "we conclude" and so on.

Types of argument

There are two traditional types of argument, deductive and inductive. A deductive argument provides conclusive proof of its conclusions; if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. A deductive argument is either valid or invalid.

A valid argument is defined as one where if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true.

An inductive argument is one where the premises provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments are not valid or invalid, but we can talk about whether they are better or worse than other arguments. We can also discuss how probable their premises are.

There are forms of argument in ordinary language which are neither deductive nor inductive. However, this document concentrates on deductive arguments, as they are often viewed as the most rigorous and convincing.

Here is an example of a deductive argument:

Every event has a cause (premise)
The universe has a beginning (premise)
All beginnings involve an event (premise)
This implies that the beginning of the universe involved an event (inference)
Therefore the universe has a cause (inference and conclusion)

Note that the conclusion of one argument might be a premise in another argument. A proposition can only be called a premise or a conclusion with respect to a particular argument; the terms do not make sense in isolation.

Recognizing an argument

Sometimes an argument will not follow the order described above. For instance, the conclusions might be stated first, and the premises stated afterwards in support of the conclusion. This is perfectly valid, if sometimes a little confusing.

Arguments are harder to recognize than premises or conclusions. Many people shower their writing with assertions without ever producing anything which one might reasonably describe as an argument. Some statements look like arguments, but are not.

For example:

"If the Bible is accurate, Jesus must either have been insane, an evil liar, or the Son of God."

The above is not an argument, it is a conditional statement. It does not assert the premises which are necessary to support what appears to be its conclusion. (Even if we add the assertions, it still suffers from a number of other logical flaws -- see the section on this argument in "Alt.Atheism Frequently Asked Questions".)

Another example:

"God created you; therefore do your duty to God."

The phrase "do your duty to God" is neither true nor false. Therefore it is not a proposition, and the sentence is not an argument.

Causality is important. Suppose we are trying to argue that there is something wrong with the engine of a car. Consider two statements of the form "A because B". The first statement:

"My car will not start because there is something wrong with the engine."

The statement is not an argument for there being something wrong with the engine; it is an explanation of why the car will not start. We are explaining A, using B as the explanation. We cannot argue from A to B using a statement of the form "A because B".

However, we can argue from B to A using such a statement. Consider:

"There must be something wrong with the engine of my car, because it will not start."

Here we are arguing for A, offering B as evidence. The statement "A because B" is then an argument.

To make the difference clear, note that "A because B" is equivalent to "B therefore A". The two statements then become:

"There is something wrong with the engine, therefore my car will not start."

And:

"My car will not start, therefore there is something wrong with the engine."

If we remember that we are supposed to be arguing that there is something wrong with the engine, it is clear that only the second statement is a valid argument.

Implication in detail

There is one very important thing to remember: The fact that a deductive argument is valid does not imply that its conclusion holds. This is because of the slightly counter-intuitive nature of implication, which we must now consider more carefully.

Obviously a valid argument can consist of true propositions. However, an argument may be entirely valid even if it contains only false propositions.

For example:

All insects have wings (premise)
Woodlice are insects (premise)
Therefore woodlice have wings (conclusion)

Here, the conclusion is not true because the argument's premises are false. If the argument's premises were true, however, the conclusion would be true. The argument is thus entirely valid.

More subtly, we can reach a true conclusion from one or more false premises, as in:

All fish live in the sea (premise)
Dolphins are fish (premise)
Therefore dolphins live in the sea (conclusion)

However, the one thing we cannot do is reach a false conclusion through valid inference from true premises.

We can therefore draw up a "truth table" for implication. The symbol "=>" denotes implication; "A" is the premise, "B" the conclusion. "T" and "F" represent true and false respectively.

Premise Conclusion Inference
  A        B        A=>B
----------------------------
  F        F         T
  F        T         T

-- If the premises are false and the inference valid, the conclusion can be true or false.

   T        F         F

-- If the premises are true and the conclusion false, the inference must be invalid.

   T        T         T

-- If the premises are true and the inference valid, the conclusion must be true.

A sound argument is a valid argument whose premises are true. A sound argument therefore arrives at a true conclusion. Be careful not to confuse sound arguments with valid arguments.

Of course, we can criticize more than the mere soundness of an argument. In everyday life, arguments are almost always presented with some specific purpose in mind. As well as criticizing the argument itself, one can criticize the apparent intent of the argument. Such criticism is outside the scope of this document, however!

Fallacies

To delve further into the structure of logical arguments would require lengthy discussion of linguistics and philosophy. It is simpler and probably more useful to summarize the major pitfalls to be avoided when constructing an argument. These pitfalls are known as fallacies.

In everyday English the term "fallacy" is used to refer to mistaken beliefs as well as to the faulty reasoning that leads to those beliefs. This is fair enough, but in logic the term is generally used to refer to a form of technically incorrect argument, especially if the argument appears valid or convincing.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we define a fallacy as a logical argument which appears to be correct, but which can be seen to be incorrect when examined more closely. By studying fallacies we aim to avoid being misled by them.

Below is a list of some common fallacies, and also some rhetorical devices often used in debate. The list is not intended to be exhaustive.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarized as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.

For example:

"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man".

The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it.

For example:

"Atheism is an evil philosophy. It is practised by Communists and murderers."

Sometimes in a court of law doubt is cast upon the testimony of a witness by showing, for example, that he is a known perjurer. This is a valid way of reducing the credibility of the testimony given by the witness, and not Argumentum ad Hominem; however, it does not demonstrate that the witness's testimony is false. To conclude otherwise is to fall victim of the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

The circumstantial form of Argumentum ad Hominem is committed when a person argues that his opponent ought to accept the truth of an assertion because of the opponent's particular circumstances. For example:

"It is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. How can you argue otherwise when you're quite happy to wear leather shoes?"

This is an abusive charge of inconsistency, used as an excuse for dismissing the opponent's argument.

This fallacy can also be used as a means of rejecting a conclusion. For example:

"Of course you would argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when one alleges that one's adversary is rationalizing a conclusion formed from selfish interests, is also known as "poisoning the well".

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)

Examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when the arguer appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe. Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

Argumentum ad populum

This is known as Appealing to the Gallery, or Appealing to the People. To commit this fallacy is to attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"Pornography must be banned. It is violence against women."
"The Bible must be true. Millions of people know that it is. Are you trying to tell them that they are all mistaken fools?"

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses the admiration of the famous to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument is not always completely bogus; for example, reference to an admitted authority in a particular field may be relevant to a discussion of that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence.

The fallacy of accident

The Fallacy of Accident is committed when a general rule is applied to a particular case whose "accidental" circumstances mean that the rule is inapplicable. It is the error made when one goes from the general to the specific. For example:

"Christians generally dislike atheists. You are a Christian, so you must dislike atheists."

This fallacy is often committed by moralists and legalists who try to decide every moral and legal question by mechanically applying general rules.

Converse accident / Hasty generalization

This fallacy is the reverse of the Fallacy of Accident. It occurs when one forms a general rule by examining only a few specific cases which are not representative of all possible cases. For example:

"Jim Bakker was an insincere Christian. Therefore all Christians are insincere."

Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter

A sweeping generalization occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation in which the features of that particular situation render the rule inapplicable. A sweeping generalization is the opposite of a hasty generalization.

Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc

These are known as False Cause fallacies.

The fallacy of Non Causa Pro Causa occurs when one identifies something as the cause of an event but it has not actually been shown to be the cause. For example:

"I took an aspirin and prayed to God, and my headache disappeared. So God cured me of the headache."

The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before the event. For example:

"The Soviet Union collapsed after taking up atheism. Therefore we must avoid atheism for the same reasons."

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is similar to Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It asserts that because two events occur together, they must be causally related, and leaves no room for other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

Petitio principii / Begging the question

This fallacy occurs when the premises are at least as questionable as the conclusion reached.

Circulus in demonstrando

This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument. For example:

"Homosexuals must not be allowed to hold government office. Hence any government official who is revealed to be a homosexual will lose his job. Therefore homosexuals will do anything to hide their secret, and will be open to blackmail. Therefore homosexuals cannot be allowed to hold government office."

Note that the argument is entirely circular; the premise is the same as the conclusion. An argument like the above has actually been cited as the reason for the British Secret Services' official ban on homosexual employees. Another example is the classic:

"We know that God exists because the Bible tells us so. And we know that the Bible is true because it is the word of God."

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example is the classic loaded question:

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in cross-examination, when they ask questions like:

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

Similarly, politicians often ask loaded questions such as:

"How long will this EC interference in our affairs be allowed to continue?"

"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

Another form of this fallacy is to ask for an explanation of something which is untrue or not yet established.

Ignoratio elenchi

The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtably true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.

Sadly, such fallacious arguments are often successful because they arouse emotions which cause others to view the supposed conclusion in a more favourable light.

Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms

Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. For example:

"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely redistributable."

Amphiboly

Amphiboly occurs when the premises used in an argument are ambiguous because of careless or ungrammatical phrasing.

Accent

Accent is another form of fallacy through shifting meaning. In this case, the meaning is changed by altering which parts of a statement are emphasized. For example, consider:

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

and

"We should not speak ill of our friends"

Fallacies of composition

One Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property shared by the parts of something must apply to the whole. For example:

"The bicycle is made entirely of low mass components, and is therefore very lightweight."

The other Fallacy of Composition is to conclude that a property of a number of individual items is shared by a collection of those items. For example:

"A car uses less petrol and causes less pollution than a bus. Therefore cars are less environmentally damaging than buses."

Fallacy of division

The fallacy of division is the opposite of the Fallacy of Composition. Like its opposite, it exists in two varieties. The first is to assume that a property of some thing must apply to its parts. For example:

"You are studying at a rich college. Therefore you must be rich."

The other is to assume that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item. For example:

"Ants can destroy a tree. Therefore this ant can destroy a tree."

The slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

For example:

"If we legalize marijuana, then we would have to legalize crack and heroin and we'll have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

These fallacies occur when one attempts to argue that things are in some way similar without actually specifying in what way they are similar. Examples:

"Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of history?"
"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of Christianity?"
"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"

Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implication given earlier.

Denial of the antecedent

This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false". The truth table for implication makes it clear why this is a fallacy. Note that this fallacy is different from Non Causa Pro Causa. The latter has the form "A implies B, A is false, therefore B is false", where A does not in fact imply B at all. Here, the problem is not that the implication is invalid; rather it is that the falseness of A does not allow us to deduce anything about B.

Converting a conditional

This fallacy is an argument of the form "If A then B, therefore if B then A".

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it is old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it is the fallacy of asserting that something is more correct simply because it is new or newer than something else.

Argumentum ad crumenam

The fallacy of believing that money is a criterion of correctness; that those with more money are more likely to be right.

Argumentum ad lazarum

The fallacy of assuming that because someone is poor he or she is sounder or more virtuous than one who is wealthier. This fallacy is the opposite of the argumentum ad crumenam.

Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true the more often it is heard. An "argumentum ad nauseam" is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something.

Bifurcation

Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

This fallacy occurs when a questioner demands a simple answer to a complex question.

Non sequitur

A non-sequitur is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which are not logically connected with it.

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when irrelevant material is introduced to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points being made, towards a different conclusion.

Reification / Hypostatization

Reification occurs when an abstract concept is treated as a concrete thing.

Shifting the burden of proof

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise. For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.

Straw man

The straw man fallacy is to misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, then to knock down that misrepresented position, then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

The extended analogy

The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other.

This fallacy is best explained using a real example from a debate about anti-cryptography legislation:

"I believe it is always wrong to oppose the law by breaking it."
"Such a position is odious: it implies that you would not have supported Martin Luther King."
"Are you saying that cryptography legislation is as important as the struggle for Black liberation? How dare you!"

Tu quoque

This is the famous "you too" fallacy. It occurs when an action is argued to be acceptable because the other party has performed it. For instance:

"You're just being randomly abusive."
"So? You've been abusive too."

This is a personal attack, and is therefore a special case of Argumentum ad Hominem.

Audiatur et altera pars

Often, people will argue from assumptions which they do not bother to state. The principle of Audiatur et Altera Pars is that all of the premises of an argument should be stated explicitly. It is not strictly a fallacy to fail to state all of one's assumptions; however, it is often viewed with suspicion.

Ad hoc

There is a difference between argument and explanation. If we're interested in establishing A, and B is offered as evidence, the statement "A because B" is an argument. If we're trying to establish the truth of B, then "A because B" is not an argument, it is an explanation.

The Ad Hoc fallacy is to give an after-the-fact explanation which does not apply to other situations. Often this ad hoc explanation will be dressed up to look like an argument. For example, if we assume that God treats all people equally, then the following is an ad hoc explanation:

"I was healed from cancer."
"Praise the Lord, then. He is your healer."
"So, will He heal others who have cancer?"
"Er... The ways of God are mysterious."

Argumentum ad logicam

This is the "fallacy fallacy" of arguing that a proposition is false merely on the grounds that it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument. Remember always that fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions.

mathew

War

2006-12-12T14:51:00.000-08:00

In a war between ideological demagogues, the first victims are truth and common sense.

A CU Debate

2006-12-05T12:07:00.000-08:00

A CU debate

[QUOTE=DumbAss Tanker]I have tried to derive some meaning from that word collision, and as best as I can tell, you mean that moral equivalency is never the proper standard to use in war.
In the first place, you're wrong, since even under international law, reprisal is to some degree acceptable as a justification for use of weapons (like WMDs) which are otherwise proscribed, though of course with due care to minimize damage to nonmilitary objects and personnel in the target area to the extent feasible and consistent with the weapon. What is reprisal if not moral equivalency? And yet it is enshrined in international law. Go figure.
In the second place, it is not "moral equivalency" to recognize that your enemy simply does not care about your view of your own side's morality, and will proceed to do repugnant things because they WANT to and it is entirely permissible under the 'morality' which governs their actions, be it radical Islam or Bushido. Further, that all our own moral constraints will accomplish in such a situation is to operate as self-imposed limits, though to be sure there are such limits we would not and should not reach. Fighting down to those limits against such an enemy is not a matter of moral equivalency, it is a matter of moral irrelevancy. The only difference your moral view of such a battle makes is the degree to which we choose to tie our own hands through worrying about that view, and thus provide safe harbors to avail the enemy. In fact, no course of conduct we could adopt would be able to get over the sliding moral bar Leftists would set, since their goal is to create failure in the policy arena, not to see a successful but morally-sufficient conflict resolution. Your view of moral equvalency is therefore irrelevant to the conflict, since it is merely a stalking horse to impose so many conditions that it will ultimately induce failure in the conduct of operations. The proper standard is to determine what basic moral lines do we refrain from crossing, and the proper answer from a military operational point of view is simply basic compliance with Geneva/Hague.
Therefore the extent to which we need to adhere to moral principles in this is a matter of cleaving to basic principles of the Law of War, e.g. refraining from wantonly annihilating villages and killing men, women, and children for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or outrages of that sort. Unlawful combatants (i.e. under arms against us and behaving in contravention of the Geneva/Hague treaties) are another story entirely, and we would be well within international law to kill every one of them as soon as we properly determined they were indeed unlawful combatants. Except to the extent they have intelligence value, I'm all for that option, which is both moral and legal. Unfortunately, we are choosing to tie our own hands in dealing with them, under some misguided idea that if we let them violate the Law of War long enough, they will get tired of it, adopt some Canadian version of Pixieland morality, and start complying with Western standards. Which is stupid, immorally stupid, since that transformation obviously isn't going to happen, and pretending it will is costing young Soldiers and Marines their lives.[/QUOTE]I think we are on the same page here. What I am saying, is that although there may be no absolute right or wrong in this conflict and there is blame enough to go around, the world still saw Bin Laden as the "evil" force and America as the "good" vis-a-vis September 11th.
No one I know condones the 9-11 attacks, no one I know saw it as an act of "good." Everyone I know felt that America had every right to respond against the perpetrators. No one I know felt that America was in any way culpable for the attack, nor would be indicted harshly for any appropriate response.
Most everyone I know feels that Afghanistan was an appropriate response. Most everyone I know feels Iraq was not. For me there is no moral equivalency here; America simply did not deserve Sept 11.
Bin Laden had completely ceded the moral high ground to America and damaged Islam in the process. But with her actions, America is slowly giving up the moral high ground not necessarily to Bin Laden but to anyone who feels justified in using whatever means they need to fight what they feel is a beast that has grown too large, too corrupt, too influential in their lives.
Today, by not trying to maintain that moral high ground- by rushing into a war, by lying/deceiving or even mistakenly believing it was necessary- America is where it is at. Namely at war with an enemy that did not attack, did not threaten to attack, and had no means by which to attack. America is in a foreign country and will forever be known as the invaders vs liberators- though opinions on that may change 100 years from now.

Justice For Titasheen Mitchell

2006-11-29T13:39:00.000-08:00

This myspace page has been created by the friends and family of Titasheen Mitchell as an objection to her unfair treatment and prosecution by the Town of Stratford and the State of Connecticut.

This is not a story on racism- though the local media has attempted to portray it as issue of rasism- it is merely the story of a troubled, aggressive police officer mishandling an already volatile situation. Based on news reports and first hand witness accounts, here is that story.

On March 21st, 2006 Titasheen Mitchell was in her mother's store when an altercation broke out in a nearby business.

At some point, a police officer (Officer Gugliotti) entered the store ostensibly looking for two of the alleged melee participants that had been seen entering the store. Once inside, the officer in a rude and brusque manner began addressing one of the young ladies.

Concerned with the negative image that this represented coupled with the effects that the aggressive officer's mannerisms were having on her nearby sibling, Titasheen Mitchell politely asked the officer if he could please lower his voice. Apparently this reasoned question from a 14 year old girl displeased the officer.

The officer then continued to exhibit behavior unbecoming of an officer of the law and was once more politely asked to lower his voice; the response was indirectly disproportionate to the manner with which the request had been made.

The officer proceeded to ask in a surly and exasperated manner, "What?!" The question seemed to have been asked in a tone of incredible disbelief cloaked in a fit of rage. It appeared that there was an air of disbelief from the officer that a 14 year old girl would deign to ask him if he could please lower his voice.

At this point, the enraged officer grabbed Titasheen Mitchell by the collars of her jacket, lifted her off the ground and headed towards the front door without a single explanation as to why. Concerned for her safety and without having an explanation from the officer as to why she was being manhandled by the 5'10" inch 285lb police officer, the 5'2" 115lb 14 year old girl resisted her brutal treatment. She did not resist with force, she resisted with the words, "Put me down! Put me down! Put me down!"

Once she had been carried to a patrol car, another officer had said to her, "Don't resist arrest." To which she did the following; she put her hands behind her back and said, "Ok, arrest me then." The officer then proceeded to arrest Ms. Mitchell but omitted to read her Miranda Rights.

Once at the station, Titasheen's mother, Marcia Mitchell-Davis, demanded that her daughter receive immediate medical attention because she had heard that her daughter had been struck by a police officer. This request was denied. Marcia Mitchell-Davis repeated her request every 15 minutes for 2 hours, and was repeatedly denied. In fact, she was told that if she were to make the request again, she would be arrested. She defied this threat and outward intimidation and continued to make the request that her daughter receive medical treatment, which 5 hours later was granted. She was brought to the Bridgeport Hospital by her mother for that treatment.

During the interval from arrest to her subsequent release for medical treatment, Titasheen's mother along with her request for medical attention for her daughter also asked to file a citizen's complaint against the police officer and was told by the Captain of the station that he was too busy to take her complaint and to return the following day.

Since the time of the arrest, the Mitchell-Davis family has been subject to routine harassment from the police department including but not limited to:

*Being followed by Stratford police, who would turn on their lights, force the Mitchell-Davis family to pull over and then speed off. *Forced to remove business signs by the police. *Supremacist groups distributing paraphenalia and literature outside the Mitchell-Davis business. *Threatening phone calls. *Police harassment of patrons of the Mitchell-Davis store.

From start to finish, the officer- if not officers- acted improperly and without restraint. They mistreated and abused a 14 year old girl, her mother, but more importantly, the system of justice that they have pledged to uphold. Once done, they then proceeded to blame the victims for their own mistreatment. Somewhere in this story, justice must and will prevail.

For more information please visit Justice For Titasheen Mitchell. From there you can read the blog entries and donate to her defense fund. Who I'd like to meet:
Senator Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, Senator Diane Feinstein, Queen Elizabeth, the Pope, Oprah Winfrey.

A thought on terror, terrorists, and our response

2006-11-29T07:02:00.000-08:00

If you believe that this so called war can be won by being worse than them or just a little bit better than them...then you are doomed to continued failure after failure after failure. You cannot win the war for hearts and minds by not maintaining the moral high ground, and as has oft been stated, this is supposed to be a war for civilization. They (the Al Qaeda terrorists) believe civilization requires one set of rules, we believe it requires a completely different set. If you believe that this is a war for freedom, for alues, for civilization then you must act like it. If they choose to act like animals killing civilians, murdering children, indiscriminately maiming, torturing, and committing all manners of grotesque evil...then so be it. The whole world will turn against them until, like Cain, they have nowhere to turn.

However, should they be able to point the finger and say that the only tool they have to use is terror in the face of a greater evil, and you choose to indulge the finger pointing with evil acts of your own, then the best you can ever hope for is a stalemate of perpetual war; for they will have their supporters willing to say that evil begets evil but what choice do we have against so mighty an enemy who can deliver the ultimate evils to our doorstep?

Stop kidding yourselves, this is a war for that moral high ground and we must regain and maintain it in order to prevail. If we have already abandoned it with no wish to regain it, then all is already lost.

The greater battle is not the bombs you can drop or the people that you can kill, but rather, the minds that you can change.

This is not to say that good people should not be vigilant in protecting their citizens, that is part and parcel of 'community,' just be careful about the manner you choose to proceed with to do that. Just as we know that murderers exist on our streets, we do not want to live in communities where the knowledge that murderers exist overcome our desire to walk freely in our own streets. We know too that terror and terrorists will forever be omnipresent in one form or another- it is the nature of a noun to exist in perpetuity; however we have no desire to live every day of our lives in total fear.

Race Day

2006-11-20T05:20:00.000-08:00

Just a few quick thoughts on a few different issues.

Natives
Blood is a big deal in the native community; it is the source of a governmental policy that retains the full backing of Native Communities. It is an explicit-exclusionary policy vs my thoughts that it should be a quasi-inclusionary policy.

My father once said something that I agree with; 'In 10000 years, if there is one Native person still remaining in Canada/USA with even an ounce of Native blood running through their veins; then that person retains the right to rise up and overthrow the government.' To my father, time was inconsequential to the absolute rights that the Natives hold, and I agreed.

The current policies are designed to ensure that someday there will be only one remaining native in Canada/USA.

Race in General
Every community is racist or bigoted, even- maybe even most especially- internally.

Iraq and the Misery Index

2006-11-18T09:51:00.000-08:00

Iraq and the Misery Index
By Richard Stoyeck

The other day it occurred to me that during Ronald Reagan’s run for the Presidency he created a “Misery Index”. This index represented a total of the rate of inflation, plus the prime rate, as an indicator of how the American people felt about how they were doing. No one has suggested resurrecting this index in recent years. My thought was to create a “Happiness Index”. How happy are you with the leadership of the country. The problem is that other than taking an outright poll, how do you determine happiness? Could you merely ask people if they are happy, or not with the way things are going?

Think about it for a moment, and try to objectively look at what’s been going on the last couple of years. For the last fifty years, the Republican Party successfully presented itself as the people’s choice for as a strong anti-communist party versus the former Soviet threat. Republican President after President was elected on the basis of toughness versus communism.

By 1992, communism was no longer an issue as Russia, and the satellites went democratic, and the Berlin Wall had fallen. Suddenly, the Republican Party felt its foreign policy legs come out from under it. The communist bogeyman which was real since 1917 was no longer an issue. A sitting Republican President, George HW Bush was defeated handily by Democratic Candidate, Bill Clinton who had NO foreign policy experience, or even an understanding of things foreign. During the campaign that followed, foreign policy was a NON-ISSUE. There was no communist bogeyman for the Republicans to pin their hopes on.

The tragedy of 9/11 changed everything. When the tragedy struck, the current President of the United States was handed terrorism on a silver platter as an issue. Terrorism could then be used as a replacement for communism as the next boogeyman. Anti-terrorism would serve as the underpinning of the Republican Party the same way anti-communism served for over 70 years.
The President attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan who had harbored Osama Bin Laden, and his allies for years. When it came to finishing the job, and surrounding Osama in the mountains of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, we let this mass murderer get away by leaving the job to foreign hired mercenaries, the anti Taliban Afkan nationals. I assume we simply did not want to take the American manpower losses that might have been demanded.

The President then committed the American army and wealth to destroying the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Our entry to this war was based on false premises. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We are now left with chaos and civil war in that country, and no EXIT STRATEGY. As Americans, not one of us, including the President has any idea how this war will finish. He, the President has now placed our country in the same position as we were in during Viet Nam - Quagmire.

When Americans enter a war, they need to know the objective. During WW II, it was the taking of Berlin in Europe, or the fall of Tokyo in Japan. In Viet Nam, there was no mission, except the ephemeral objective of keeping South Viet Nam from going communist. What does that mean? Depending on how you calculate it, the Viet Nam war went on for about 15 years. How long will Iraq take?

I believe the President has been notified by the American people in the recent Congressional election that he is on a “short leash” when it comes to Iraq. What is the objective in Iraq? It can’t be democracy any longer. These people do not understand democracy as we understand it. The concept of democracy in that part of the world has not existed in thousands of years.
Democracy is everybody’s SECOND choice in Iraq. The Shia and Sunni’s are killing each other on a daily basis in large numbers, some of which are unreported. Good, decent American troops, none of which are sons of any member of Congress, are dying in a war without an objective, except for “Stay the Course”.

These policies should be unacceptable to all of us as Americans. The Republican Party in Congress was a surrogate for President Bush in this election. The voters could not vent their ANGER at President Bush direct. The electorate chose instead, to vent their pent-up anger towards Republican incumbents, who took a “thumping” as the President said. Yes there were other issues like corruption, but Iraq was the emotional issue. Had President Bush been up for re-election, he would have been soundly defeated by even a paraplegic blind mute this time around.
Let’s get back to that “happiness index” I spoke about in the beginning of this article. Are any of us happier with the progress of our country over the last six years than we were before that period? Are we more optimistic about the future of our country now than we were a few years ago? Do any of us believe we are headed in the right direction, or even where we are headed at all?

I believe we are now facing MASSIVE UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS that if not addressed will get worse, and our present leadership is not even aware that they exist. America has moved from a farming economy pre 1900, to a manufacturing economy in the 20th century. It must now complete the move from a manufacturing economy, to a services / post industrial society in this the 21st century. This is going to be a tough move with big unanticipated downdrafts that can knock us for an economic loop.

China and the Asian rim want to manufacture everything, leaving us with nothing. Some of our brand name companies are more than willing to accommodate them. Nike manufactures nothing – everything comes from Asia. The massive oil companies in this country including Exxon, and others manufacture nothing – they are strictly distribution and marketing entities. GM and Ford can not compete against Asian manufacturing, and then there’s Wal-Mart, which really functions as a distribution arm for China. Eighty percent of everything Wal-Mart sells comes from China.
This President does not have his eye on the ball, and we are in danger of losing our economic fire power in the next decade. He is asleep at the switch, and must realize that we can no longer afford the loss of precious lives, and national wealth on wars without objectives in countries that none of us have ever been to.

We do not have a “Happiness Index” in this country, but if we did, I believe we are near a low in our emotional happiness in this country. Things have to change, and they have to change in a hurry. Time is NOT on our side. Other countries want to eat our economy for lunch, and displace us as the world’s only remaining superpower. This President would do well to act his act together, and start thinking about how to maintain national economic wellbeing in the face of the coming foreign economic threats that are looming.

Richard Stoyeck’s background includes being a limited partner at Bear Stearns, Senior VP at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Arthur Andersen, and KPMG. Educated at Pace University, NYU, and Harvard University, today he runs Rockefeller Capital Partners and StocksAtBottom.com

http://www.stocksatbottom.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Stoyeck

Proud Montrealer

2006-11-17T13:49:00.000-08:00

Having recently read about how the Mayor and hs staff feel about certain Montrealers, this "Neo-Montrealer" feels a need to respond.
My family started to emigrate to Canada in 1969, with Montreal being the bright shining city beckoning them from sunny Jamaica...if only they had known how cold it could be...and by that, I mean the people who today refer to them as "Neo-Montrealers.

First my mom came in 1969, followed quickly by my father, grandmother, sisters, and others. Montreal, Quebec, Canada soon became home to us all. Whenever we travel and are asked where we are from, we do not say Kingston, Jamaica, we say Montreal, Quebec. It's not that we have abandoned our heritage or forgotten it, Jamaica still beats strongly in our hearts; but the drums it beats on are fiercely proud Canadians, and the soulful song it sings is one of gratitude and love for Montreal, Quebec.

Democrats Beware

2006-11-13T09:03:00.000-08:00

My opinion, as lowly as it may be regarded, is for Democrats to beware the the extremes and to wield their new found powers judiciously. It may be a great idea to leave Iraq but do not do so in a hurry. Make sure that in leaving Iraq that you have thought through all relevant possibilities. Do not leave without considering all options.

Your predecessors failed to plan; they did not have any benchmarks by which to judge success or failure and left their mission open-ended and without alternatives. I say put together a plan that will alllow America to extricate itself from Iraq without harming:
A) Iraq
B) America

Establish a time frame and what needs to be accomplished in that time frame before leaving. Create alternate scenarios and contingency plans. Do ask the UN for help, indeed, force the UN to help. Despite what conservatives/right wing/republicans say, there is a place for the UN in all of this.

Leaving without considering all the options properly will make the democratic party look weak, unprepared, and sloppy with foreign affairs. So again, no knee-jerk reactions, no leaving Iraq until you have a plan for peace, a plan for freedom, and a plan for success. Above all else, do the planning quickly.

The Kids Are Back In Charge - relieved?

2006-11-08T08:45:00.000-08:00

A few years ago I wrote an article titled, "Congratulations, Now You Own It," which was originally published at the Washington Dispatch. I feel the need to look back at it today in order to write this new article about the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections. Originally, the article was meant to serve as a wake up call to Republicans who had consistently dismissed the idea that the President was not king and that power should not be abused but used with all due humility. I wish to echo the same warnings to the other side of the debates.

There was one line that I wrote that drew my particular attention, this one, "With your votes and with your voices- you have bought it, you now own it." To see the entire article, you can visit The Washington Dispatch. That one line carries over from election to election as a warning to be sure to vote for what is in the best interests of America and the rest of the world. America is to the world, what GM used to be to America. What's good for America is good for the world and what is good for the world is good for America. It is a crucial symbiosis which has been on vivid display over the last twenty plus years, if not longer.

There are those who would label people such as me and pigeonhole us into one stream of thought or another, whether it be liberal or conservative, left or right, Republican or Democrat. Personally, I do not believe that is what I do nor do I believe it to be useful to expect a commentator to espouse a point of view to satiate the public desire to hear only good things about "their team," which is what makes that one line important. I will do today what I did then and then is to call for accountability from those who are in power. If the mainstream media cannot hold up their end of the "bargain," the public trust suffers, therefore independent voices must pick up the slack. The mainstream media ought not be a cheering squad for one side or another.

A quick review of my old article tells me that I need to give credit where credit is due; that though the Republicans have suffered what can only be described as a massive defeat in the elections, their tenure did not result in whole scale catastrophes for America as a nation. They deserve their due credit that was promised. Unemployment has not spiraled out of control. The ecology did not suffer unbearably. The economy has not crumbled, in fact it is stronger- although some would argue that it is on a borrowed dime, therefore borrowed time. The world did not explode and the sky did not fall.

There are good reasons for the Democratic victory though; despite the good economy, there has been too much mistrust, mistakes, and misery in Washington to allow the party in power to stay in power. The Republicans had the world in America; The House, The Senate, The State Governors, The Judiciary, The Media and yet could not hold on to power...today they need to look within and ask why and not blame the voters for the decisions that were made. Think about it, the Democrats did not need to put forward any concrete plans about the war, the economy, or social issues; all they had to do was say, we are not them and we will not do as they have done.

The Democrats have inherited, the war on terror, a good economy, a growing deficit and the elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss, war in Iraq. The American people have voted and that line now holds true for all those that voted Democrat instead of sticking with "Stay the Course." So to all those that voted Democrat I repeat, "With your votes and with your voices- you have bought it, you now own it." What exactly are you expecting the Democrats to do? That question is the crux of the matter. There is no clear read from the electorate on what they expect other than they are expecting change and a shift away from two things; doublespeak and the destruction.

By doublespeak, they do not want to hear promises and empty slogans such as, "uniter, not a divider," which is then followed up by the most dismissive, abusive, and divisive tactics used in Washington politics over the last twenty plus years. The electorate is not stupid and they can see when a slogan like that was really meant as 'unite behind my team or I will destroy you.' Which brings me to destruction, it is not just the destruction caused by war which turned Americans off to the Republicans, it was that pledge from so many years ago to end the "politics of personal destruction," followed by active campaigns sanctioned at the highest levels to destroy anyone that:

a) stood in the way of policy

and/or

b) used as policy to attain a political goal.

The adults who were supposed to be in charge turned out to be corrupt and incompetent; not all of them, but enough for questions to be asked about the entire team. Due to these egregious acts and actions, the American electorate has turned to a party that has no clear leadership, that has no clearly defined goals for the economy, no clear plan for fighting terrorism, and no clear ideas on Iraq. I figured I could offer the "other party" a bit of advise on these pages.

The War on Terror

My opinion on this is that the Republican party made a huge lapse in judgment by believing that the way to fight terrorism is by limiting or restricting freedom for all. They tried to fight terror through the use of fear and thereby "terrorized" the US population. Republicans have made the war on terror a war on the liberties and freedom of Americans and have spread that war to other parts of the world. I am sure that the attempt to restrict freedom was not a mean-spirited one, but one that was made out of a good faith attempt to fight the evils of terrorism. The Democrats may try the same but is that it ought not be terror that is used to fight terror, but the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice. Freedom is not a product to be sold, it is an ideal and no amount of terrorism can ever defeat it. No amount of 911s could ever reduce the cravings of the oppressed to be free nor the desire of free people to have even greater freedoms.

The problem with fighting terror is that it can never be defeated, it will never go away; you can take steps to reduce it, but you will never ever stamp it out: so why throw what you believe in out? All it ends up doing, is making you more like "them."

If over the next two years, the Democrats cannot voice a comprehensive plan to protect Americans from terror attacks that does not involve less freedom, less liberty and less justice in particular for Americans, but by extension the whole world, then they will not deserve to also capture the Presidency in '08.

The Economy

If over the next two years, the Democrats cannot put together a plan that will strengthen the economy while reducing the deficit- it may involve tax increases, but it would be preferable if it did not- then they may not deserve the Presidency in '08.

Iraq

I dislike discussing Iraq because it is what it is and the choices are limited. For Democrats the issue should not be to pull out or not pull out, but rather what is the situation and what metrics should be used to decide when American troops can pull out. In other words, somebody has to craft a plan that has reasonable and attainable goals. A plan that has timetables and goals as well as a review process to establish if those goals are being met. If they are not, why or why not and what needs to be done to get back on track. Pulling out for the sake of pulling out does no one any good, after all, this is the part about ownership after invasion and occupation of a land and its people that did not threaten nor attack you. This is part and parcel of the "now you own it," votes in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

My personal opinion for solving Americas situation is a simple one, give the problem to the UN. At this point Iraq may need peacekeepers, educators, diplomats, and reconstruction experts more than it needs soldiers, planes and bombs. So America, take off the green helmets, green berets, and red berets and don the UN blue. Gradually, other countries can assume a larger role in the peace keeping efforts while lessening the load of America. While there may be bitter feelings from UN member nations, it is a pill that the UN now has to swallow since the situation is what it is. There is no turning back the clock to 2003, and the needs of the Iraqi people must jump to the forefront.

My personal opinions aside, if the Democratic party cannot formulate a plan or compromise on Iraq, then they will not deserve the Presidency in '08.

The Mood in Washington

If over the next two years, Democrats do not display a willingness to work with Republicans on solving issues. Democrats must display to the American public that bipartisanship is not just another feel good word to be thrown around whenever convenient. If they do nothing else but make a good faith attempt to work with their Republican counterparts and the President, they may not need to come up with anything on their own to win in '08.

I will conclude with a similar statement as was made in my article from 2004. America, you now own it. If in 2008 the economy has worsened, the situation in Iraq has worsened, the mood in Washington has worsened then you will not have much choice but to vote Republican. On the other hand should things improve then some of the 59 million that voted for Bush in 2004, need to jump ship and vote Democrat in 2008.

An Old Article - originally published at spintimes.com

2006-11-08T06:49:00.000-08:00

Congratulations, Now You Own It!

Commentary by Garfield Jones
November 4, 2004

Congratulations are in order to the American right for winning yet another national election. Conservatives and Republicans have this election thing down to a science and continue their ‘schooling’ of Democrats in a third straight election. They are connecting with America on a visceral level while the Democrats keep attempting to connect on a cerebral one- I wonder if Democrats have now figured out which one works?

Now, there are certain aspects of the election, which stink to high hell, but those issues are irrelevant. The Democrats need to learn certain lessons from that other competitive world, sports, where the motto is, ‘to be the champs, you gotta beat the champs!’ This is especially true in sports where judging of some sort is required; the close ones always go to the current reigning champ. Democrats and liberals have to face it, G.W. Bush and his NeoConservative/Republican base are the champs, and to beat them, they need to regroup, rethink, and react.

In any case for all those who know me and have read my work in the past- and have branded me a liberal - I have a deal, the same deal I offered to my Conservative friends; a truce. Here it is: from here on in, no more excuses! From here on in, Conservative/Republicans must take complete ownership for whatever occurs. There is to be no more blaming of Clinton and, no more blaming the Democrats!

If the economy completely tanks, do not blame Liberals/Democrats! If international affairs spiral out of control, do not blame Liberals/Democrats! If poverty escalates, do not blame Liberals/Democrats! If pollution levels become unbearably high and your children need to wear masks to go outside, do not blame Liberals/Democrats! If crime skyrockets, do not blame Liberals/Democrats!

If you lose a part of your body or your life to a product that is knowingly defective, and you find yourself with no recourse, do not blame Liberals/Democrats! If the sky should fall, do not blame Liberals/Democrats! It is yours now. With your votes and with your voices- you have bought it, you now own it.

With the house firmly in Republican hands; with the senate firmly in Republican hands; with the judiciary firmly in Republican hands; and with the Presidency firmly in Republican hands there is no more blame to pass around. Should everything go all to hell by 2008, remember how you got there and accept complete responsibility for the choices you made in 2004. Also, do not be fooled again if the people that have broken it tell you they are the only ones qualified to fix it.

On the flip side, for all the Liberals/Democrats out there, if the next four years produce the best economy in the last 100 years, give credit where credit is due. If the world becomes more peaceful, more harmonious, and safer, give credit where credit is due, vote Republican in 2006 and especially in 2008. None of it may happen, things may get worse, but give Bush a chance to disappoint the 59 million that voted for him. If he does not, then a few million of the 55 million that did not vote for him should jump on the Conservative/Republican juggernaught.

Bush Speak

2006-11-01T13:29:00.000-08:00

I am amazed at conservatives and at Bush in particular. There I am listening to Bush say that 'anyone in a position to lead the country ought to understand the consequences of words.'

This has got to be the most hypocritical statement I have ever heard coming from someone. Here is a man, the POTUS, who throughout the last 6 years has had to have people (his team) pooh pooh away his so-called Bushisms as irrelevant since we ought to know what he really means. Now he has the nerve to basically tell someone else to think before he speaks?!!!

This is truly outrageous!

2006-10-30T08:47:00.000-08:00

Ronn Cantu asks a very interesting question in the blog Iraq Veterans Against the War; he wants to know, "What, Exactly, Are We Dying For?" I am going to try to answer that question.

First, let me dispense with the obvious, you should not have been there to begin with. It would be nice to say that you are there fighting terror, avenging the deaths of 3000+ people - not all of whom were Americans as the favored rhetoric goes since 911. It would be nice to blame Osama Bin Laden and some nebulous, loosely affiliated group of parasitic beasts called, "Al Qaeda," but their acts nor words had anything to do with civilians and soldiers being killed in Iraq.

Before continuing, a word about "Al Qaeda." "Al Qaeda" is a marginalized movement in the Arab/Muslim world given greater significance by American politicians elevating them to the level of an evil Arab/Muslim force. They have been given undue credibility by linking them to the Arab/Muslim mainstream. Arabs/Muslims have never had any love for "Al Qaeda," considering that Arabs/Muslims more often than not, have always been the favorite target of "Al Qaeda." When things go boom and "Al Qaeda" claims responsibility, you can usually be sure that it is in an Arab/Muslim nation; though admittedly, not always the case. What's interesting is that "Al Qaeda" is to Arabs/Muslims what groups that worship The Turner Diaries is to America's world, extremely fringe.

Part of the "misunderstanding" between the American public and the Arab/Muslim public is that we do not involve ourselves in each other's media to any great extent. I put quotations around misunderstanding since that is effectively what it is. We do not hear those in the Arab/Muslim world who speak out against Al Qaeda because we do not read their newspapers, we do not watch their TVs, we do not listen to their radio, we do not read their blogs or ezine publications. When we do read about Arabs/Muslims that do condemn groups such as "Al Qaeda" and their actions, it is invariably in English and in our media. The thought never really occurs to us that there are just not that many Arab/Muslim voices in our media to reach the crescendo of condemnation that we figure we are owed, thus, we form the impression that there are more Muslims who must agree with Bin Laden, than who disagree.

We count on other people to tell us what the Arab/Muslim world is saying and if all they ever tell us is what Bin Laden wants us to say, then we are only really hearing what they want us to know. The truth is, America has more friends in the Arab/Muslim world than enemies, yet the perception is that "they all" want to destroy us. This may be a useful tool to some but obviously detrimental to all.

Blame is a two way street in this issue, the Arab/Muslim world feels that the entire western world is against them for the same reasons, they do not read our newspapers, they do not watch our TV, they do not listen to our radios nor read our blogs and ezine publications. They rarely hear the rational because or journalists, publishers, etc do not cater to their audience...nor should they have to. They hear the same thing we hear, the loud, the obscene, the fringe. They hear when noted American public figures say things such as, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert their people." They hear when Americans that speak loud enough talk of clashes of civilizations, denounce their religion, way of life, and ridicules all that they hold to be holy. They rarely hear when those same people are ostracized as being out of touch or fringe or marginal; just as we never hear the same. So fundamentally, misunderstandings are at the root of all evil on every side.

The twisted truth though, is that a misunderstanding is not the answer to "What, Exactly, Are We Dying For?" The answer to that is, when evil confluences, major evil happens, and the invasion of Iraq was a major evil. There is just no other way to describe how the US administration manipulated the misunderstandings of the public through propaganda (a willing media shares a large part of the responsibility) to create the circumstances which allowed congress to sandbag its constitutional duties, and for a large portion of the American public to become a bloodthirsty, war-mongering, throng.

I suppose it is instructive to think back and remember the mood after 911, the whole world cried out for justice, the whole world cried out for blood, and the whole world went after it; first, by demanding that the Afghan government produce Bin Laden, and second, by invading Afghanistan when they did not comply. Allow me to segue for another moment with regards to Afghanistan. We went there, not to build a nation, not to free a people, but to topple a government in order to find one man. The overriding concern there though was that one man who everyone acknowledges is no longer there. The fighting part of that mission should have ended a long while ago and we (the Western World) should be there as nothing more than peacekeepers at this point.

After 911, after Afghanistan, the US administration turned its attention to Iraq. They made allegations, assured a skeptical world that they were right, and demonized anyone and everyone that stood in the way of "their truth." Remember freedom fries, freedom wine, Natalie Maines, Democrats, Max Cleland...this list could go on and on, but you get the point. The tactic was despicably evil and un-American, but it worked, so it continued. It was interesting to watch a Fox News show on a Sunday morning, hear the latest catch phrase or attack and then watch it spread to every conservative newspaper, radio show, blog, forum, newsgroup, and affiliated television station within days.

Whether it was an attack or a defense, it was and is a well-oiled machine that disseminated information to the rank and file at a blistering pace. The rank and file was just not any rank and file, theirs were hungry, eager participants in any deception that was asked of them, ready and willing to regurgitate anything that was fed to them happily- why? Because they were team players and they were on the winning team. They were doing the beating and not being the beaten and in this new world of "for us or against us," there could be no inkling of being for anyone that was not on "MY" team, not on God's team. When you mix all that with that heady dash of religion, that God is on our side and nobody else's, you now have the ingredients for a free people, willingly making idiotic blunders in the name of truth, freedom and the American way, using lies, oppression, and decidedly un-American tactics to get their way.

The thing I find odd is that goodness, justice, right, and God is on everyone's side. I remember reading recently, with stunned incredulity, a statement made by Kim Jong-Il that justice was on his side and that because of that, the DPRK would and could withstand any challenge. Bin Laden claims God his on his side. Hussein claimed that God was on his side. George Bush claims that God is on his side. Everyone claims that God and/or justice is on their side- and they know it without a shred of doubt- and that they are, in fact, acting justly and honorably. Gentlemen, God is on her own side!

The beautiful part about what they did and how they did it is some of the creative rhetoric and blatant manipulation that they employed. Nowadays, should I dare ever bring up the present circumstance in Iraq to try to square it with what was being argued at the time, the answers I get- usually in the form of questions- would lead me to believe that we all just jumped into it holding hands. They would have you believe that there was no debate at the time, that we all agreed that invading Iraq was the right and only thing to do. They cannot remember answering concerns with obfuscations, they cannot remember answering evidence with lies (nor producing lies as evidence), they cannot remember answering doubt with fear mongering, they cannot remember their own complicity. Though I must admit, the last part of that statement applies less and less since there are many who willingly admit, that today they realize that they had been lied to and manipulated.

I am moving off topic way too often, so let me conclude this with my actual answer to Ronn Cantu:

At this point you are there in Iraq because somebody…not going to name names here…somebody came up with reason after reason of why Iraq was dangerous. Somebody, said, “You are either with us, or against us.” Somebody said, “…Axis of evil,” “mushroom clouds,” “Terrorism,” “9 1 1,” “Terrorism,” “3000 dead,” “Saddam Hussein,” “He gassed his own people,” and so on. I like the last one best considering that they never mention where he got the gas from and they never mention how they reacted when he allegedly did so. They also never mention the disputes with regard to this, disputes that they were complicit in concocting.

Anyways, you are there because at this point not being there may be far worse than making a political about why you should not have been there in the first place. Americans put on the blinders and allowed their leadership to manipulate them into a situation that cannot be manipulated out of. Now Iraqis and Americans are paying a high price in blood that cannot be stopped any time soon.

The interesting thing is that some estimates have Americans killing as many Iraqis in 5 years as they had for Saddam killing people over a 35 year span; it kind of begs the question, are the Iraqis better off? Some Americans would argue that it’s a high price but a worthy price to pay for freedom and democracy. Yet if you were to ask the question, would you be willing to see 300000 Americans die to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq or Iran or North Korea, how many would say it’s a terrible price to pay but one that is worth it?

Strictly Politics

Obama cartoon in the New Yorker

Obama Backlash

Ugly!

Democrats vs Republicans

Muslims and Blacks

A few simple rules when debating

Constructing a Logical Argument

Introduction

Basic concepts

What is an argument?

Stage one: Premises

Stage two: Inference

Stage three: Conclusion

Types of argument

Recognizing an argument

Implication in detail

Further reading

Fallacies

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad misericordiam

Argumentum ad populum

Argumentum ad numerum

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The fallacy of accident

Converse accident / Hasty generalization

Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter

Non causa pro causa / Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Petitio principii / Begging the question

Circulus in demonstrando

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

Ignoratio elenchi

Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms

Amphiboly

Accent

Fallacies of composition

Fallacy of division

The slippery slope argument

"A is based on B" fallacies / "...is a type of..." fallacies / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

Affirmation of the consequent

Denial of the antecedent

Converting a conditional

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

Argumentum ad novitatem

Argumentum ad crumenam

Argumentum ad lazarum

Argumentum ad nauseam

Bifurcation

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

Non sequitur

Red herring

Reification / Hypostatization

Shifting the burden of proof

Straw man

The extended analogy

Tu quoque

Audiatur et altera pars

Ad hoc

Argumentum ad logicam

War

A CU Debate

Justice For Titasheen Mitchell

A thought on terror, terrorists, and our response

Race Day

Iraq and the Misery Index

Proud Montrealer

Democrats Beware

The Kids Are Back In Charge - relieved?

An Old Article - originally published at spintimes.com

Bush Speak