Time Magazine online
http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/22/the-third-debate-perfect-symmetry/
Context:
Joe Klein's review of Mitt Romney and Barak Obama performances in the 3rd Presidential debate
And Romney lost in similar fashion: he seemed nervous, scattered, unconvincing — and he practiced unilateral disarmament, agreeing with Obama hither and yon … on Iraq (as opposed to two weeks ago), on Afghanistan (as opposed to interviews he’s given this fall), on Libya and Syria and Iran. He didn’t have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought and, indeed, seemed foolish at times, using the word peace about as often as George McGovern in 1972 (not that McGovern was foolish, but Romney has run so hot and aggressive on foreign policy that he seemed a sudden convert to transcendental meditation or Yoko Ono’s secret consort). Romney did have some strong moments — but they were, once again, on the domestic economy. And Obama didn’t have a single weak or unconvincing moment.
Assertion: Romney didn't have a single creative or elegantly stated foreign policy thought.
The two words that stand out are the buzz words creative and elegantly. My response is to ask for clarification of these two words. What is a creative foreign policy comment? Why is it superior. I would think that the POTUS would weigh the facts, study the history of the situation at hand, weigh the consequences for US intervention or lack of intervention, and committing to a national policy and line of action. Elegant statements sounds elitist and perhaps erudite rationalization for action.
Assertion: Romney sound foolish for using the word peace.
Again, I find this allegation troublesome. What does this mean? Is war somehow wise Is peace stupid? Why?
Assertion: Conflating Romney with George McGovern.
This sounds far fetched and insensitive. Romney has what characteristics in common with McGovern? McGovern died his week. Why has name been invoked in this context?
Assertion: Conflating with Yoko Ono.
This snarky remark has subtext. Is Klein deliberately attempting to make Romney sound eccentric. Is that his meaning when bringing up the pacifist political commentaries of Yoko Ono. The song "Imagine" by Yoko Ono's "consort" comes to mind. Romney is a Beatle-esq radical?
My thoughts:
Ordinarily I like Klein's thoughts and editorials. He has a strong grasp on American thoughts and politics. This particular set of commentaries seems out of character from my previous readings. I get that he has comparable political thoughts with President Obama, and I respect that. He may have misgivings with Romney's changing public statements on many American issues. This particular piece, however, does nothing to convince me of Romney's incompetence because he seems to be attacking Romney's pacificism or eccentricities.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Daryl Metcalfe on challenges to Voter Supression
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/09/art-voter-turnout
The art of voter turnout
If America had compulsory voting, would Democrats win every election?
Article in The Economist, Sept 28, 2012
Quote:
It's not even debatable that certain individuals in society have an entitlement mentality, and think they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their neighbours' labours. If they are too lazy to do what they have to do to secure that ID, that is not the state's responsibility. The state can't fix lazy.
Context:
Daryl Metcalfe serves as the prime sponsor of a bill in Pennsylvania to require certain types of ID in order to vote. I do not know why the article is using British spellings.
The quote came in response to a question during a television interview.
Assertion: not debatable that individuals have entitlement mentality.
Is it debatable? What is debatable is his definition of the word entitlement. Does he claim all social security and medicare payments as entitlements? Are those elderly people and those who are sidelined for physical or mental disabilities guilty of wanting freebies? The statement is clearly in need of a little qualification. It goes after the ethics of the assertion he is making. Is unemployment an entitlement? What about other government programs? By isolating some programs, maybe the public would agree with him. Is a government subsidy to a business and entitlement? The word is so problematic, that his assertion becomes meaningless because it is black and white fallacy in a ad hominem attack.
Assertion: They (want) to enjoy the fruits of their neighbour's labours.
This assertion is tied to the first assertion. It drives the ad hominem even deeper. So the elderly nursing home patient is enjoying her stay, especially since the neighbors are paying for it. False cause and effect.
Assertion: They are to lazy to get ID.
Has name calling added to his use of ad hominem. There are more reasons for a lack of an ID than laziness, although laziness could certainly be one of the reasons. It could be elderly people born at home without a birth certificate, for instance. It could be someone who doesn't know about rule changes because of a break down in educating the populace. Are there already laws dealing with acceptable voter ID? The allegation in the assertion is simplistic and does not spell out how it works. It may be true, but it may be false. It needs evidence. Opinion over fact--needs fact checker.
Assertion: Not the state's responsibility.
I want to know what the state's responsibility is, according to Metcalfe.
Assertion: State can't fix lazy.
Has his argument really strayed this far? He goes along a rambling path and ends up here?
My Conclusions:
I doubt anyone would challenge the notion of someone misusing taxes by giving the revenue to lazy people. The concept is definitely repugnant and reprehensible. Mr. Metcalfe has done nothing to really prove his point that this is occuring--with voting. He does not convince that the voter too lazy to get an ID. Evidently that same lazy guy is motivated to vote, however.
I have no problem with presenting picture ID to vote, or to get on voting rolls. The laws need to be fair and just, allowing for voters who have every right to vote. Because of the complexity, legislators must demonstrate the need for certain requirements, and the appearance of trying to target certain voters is wrong, unless it is proven that they should not be there--for example, voter fraud. This allegation against laziness stinks and does not belong in the discussion.
I think a careful reading and analysis of this kind of argument might actually help states, if they want to improve voter laws to discard the types of reforms that harm rather than fix the potential voter problems.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Tony Blair on Barak Obama
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/sep/02/tony-blair-obama-mccain
"It's one of the oddest things about modern politics. The paradigm imposed, usually by a particular media view, completely disorients the proper analysis. I used to smile at the way the Obama/McCain election of 2008 was framed: Barack was the man of vision, John the old political hack. One seemed to call America to a new future, the other seemed a stale relic of the past. This was a paradigm that determined the mood and defined the election."
"Actually, it was John who was articulating a foreign policy that could be called wildly idealistic for the cause of freedom. Barack was the supreme master of communicating a brilliant vision, but he was a practitioner of realism, advocating a cautious approach based on reaching out, arriving at compromises and striking deals to reduce tension. For these purposes, leave alone who is right. It's just a really interesting feature of modern politics that the mood trumps the policy every time."
Assertion: The media disorients the proper analysis of politics.
Mr Blair has a buried argument that the media manipulates the public, and his use of the word "mood" highlights the use of pathos in order to capitalize on modes of communication. His assertion definitely expresses the futility of trying to get accuracy into an analysis, if it runs counter to the decisions made by the media, whoever that might prove to be. He illustrates his idea with the general labeling of Obama and McCain. Mr Blair is probably advocating a correcting analysis by someone to contrast with the ideas promulgated by media sources.
Assertion: The paradigm used by the media defined the election (of Obama).
Mr Blair views the election of Barak Obama as the end effect of the American media to have him elected. The voting public was cued to vote for Obama.
Assertion: The mood trumps the policy every time.
The media follows a predictable path in the 2008 American election. This "mood" called the results of the election, in the face of reality. Mr Blair sees a twisting of the real Obama, the idealist, and McCain, the realist. Does this mean that reality stands superior to idealism? Blair has not really state which side he has chosen, but it seems to favor McCain's position. This "mood" has taken the preference in the political paradigm?
My observations:
I still believe that the election of a Democrat in 2008 occurred more from a reaction than as an ideological shift in American voting. Americans had grown so weary of the Bush era communications apparatus, that any change looked like an improvement. Would this fit in with Blair's assertions" Did the media decide we were tired of Bush and get the US to follow their lead? If 2012 serves as a continuance of this paradigm, does it portend that the media has chosen Obama over Romney over similar biases and decisions. How does Fox News fit in with this criticism?
I have grown quite skeptical of politics. I find it difficult to accept credible sources for reference. All too often the greatest messages of reality come from the third party candidates that have long had a hard time assuming any credibility, and who suffer permanent damage for even suggesting a need for alternative voices. Has the public seriously considered Perot, Gritz, Paul, Jackson, Johnson, Anderson, and a host of othe?
"It's one of the oddest things about modern politics. The paradigm imposed, usually by a particular media view, completely disorients the proper analysis. I used to smile at the way the Obama/McCain election of 2008 was framed: Barack was the man of vision, John the old political hack. One seemed to call America to a new future, the other seemed a stale relic of the past. This was a paradigm that determined the mood and defined the election."
"Actually, it was John who was articulating a foreign policy that could be called wildly idealistic for the cause of freedom. Barack was the supreme master of communicating a brilliant vision, but he was a practitioner of realism, advocating a cautious approach based on reaching out, arriving at compromises and striking deals to reduce tension. For these purposes, leave alone who is right. It's just a really interesting feature of modern politics that the mood trumps the policy every time."
Assertion: The media disorients the proper analysis of politics.
Mr Blair has a buried argument that the media manipulates the public, and his use of the word "mood" highlights the use of pathos in order to capitalize on modes of communication. His assertion definitely expresses the futility of trying to get accuracy into an analysis, if it runs counter to the decisions made by the media, whoever that might prove to be. He illustrates his idea with the general labeling of Obama and McCain. Mr Blair is probably advocating a correcting analysis by someone to contrast with the ideas promulgated by media sources.
Assertion: The paradigm used by the media defined the election (of Obama).
Mr Blair views the election of Barak Obama as the end effect of the American media to have him elected. The voting public was cued to vote for Obama.
Assertion: The mood trumps the policy every time.
The media follows a predictable path in the 2008 American election. This "mood" called the results of the election, in the face of reality. Mr Blair sees a twisting of the real Obama, the idealist, and McCain, the realist. Does this mean that reality stands superior to idealism? Blair has not really state which side he has chosen, but it seems to favor McCain's position. This "mood" has taken the preference in the political paradigm?
My observations:
I still believe that the election of a Democrat in 2008 occurred more from a reaction than as an ideological shift in American voting. Americans had grown so weary of the Bush era communications apparatus, that any change looked like an improvement. Would this fit in with Blair's assertions" Did the media decide we were tired of Bush and get the US to follow their lead? If 2012 serves as a continuance of this paradigm, does it portend that the media has chosen Obama over Romney over similar biases and decisions. How does Fox News fit in with this criticism?
I have grown quite skeptical of politics. I find it difficult to accept credible sources for reference. All too often the greatest messages of reality come from the third party candidates that have long had a hard time assuming any credibility, and who suffer permanent damage for even suggesting a need for alternative voices. Has the public seriously considered Perot, Gritz, Paul, Jackson, Johnson, Anderson, and a host of othe?
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Joe Biden on Unions
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/09/22/biden-i-ve-never-ridden-anywhere-without-teamsters-0
Joe Biden makes the assertion that unions have led to a middle class. A long history of labor and unions extending back into the middle ages illustrates the relationship between the middle class and unions or guilds. This article features Joe Biden as a hero to the working class, and Biden pushes this image hard. The uses a great deal of pathos in his speeches, which has both made strong supporters and vehement opposition.
His sub--comment about mistakes is interesting, but he dismisses it as fast as he brings it up.
Having been a union member for many years, I find his comments essential in this current election year, especially given the Wisconsin incidents. He preaches to the choir, and he is effective in building support.
"There is a middle class because of the word union -- that's why there's a middle class!" he forcefully asserted.
Alluding to the imperfect history of unions, which have been declining in membership, the vice president said, "We've all made mistakes - unions make mistakes, politicians make mistakes - but the rock bottom beginning in my hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania with my great grandfather and grandfather was all about giving people a voice, giving them a voice in their own lives and that's what unions did."
Joe Biden makes the assertion that unions have led to a middle class. A long history of labor and unions extending back into the middle ages illustrates the relationship between the middle class and unions or guilds. This article features Joe Biden as a hero to the working class, and Biden pushes this image hard. The uses a great deal of pathos in his speeches, which has both made strong supporters and vehement opposition.
His sub--comment about mistakes is interesting, but he dismisses it as fast as he brings it up.
Having been a union member for many years, I find his comments essential in this current election year, especially given the Wisconsin incidents. He preaches to the choir, and he is effective in building support.
Friday, September 21, 2012
David Letterman on Mitt Romney
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/21/14011123-bill-clinton-talks-romneys-whack-a-mole-methods-on-daily-show?lite
“The man is delusional,” Letterman said. “If he thinks we hate him … We are not in the hate business. We are here looking to make friends. … Now, Mitt Romney has been on the show many, many times. Let me ask you something, Mitt. If we hated you, why do we keep begging you to be on the show?
“Let me go out on a limb here and say … Mitt Romney or his little buddy, the vice president, who’s the little guy (referring to Paul Ryan) … Gilligan, his little buddy Gilligan … they have an open invitation to be on the show anytime, on short notice. You want to be here tomorrow? Fine. You want to be here Monday? Anytime, I don’t care. Bring in Mitt Romney, bring in Paul Ryan, bring in Mitt and Mrs. Mitt, bring in the kids … bring in everybody. We don’t hate you, Mitt! We don’t hate people!”
Context:
Bill Clinton comes as a guest on David Letterman's show. David Letterman sounds off on a prevailing story that Romney goes on Leno's show often, but not on Letterman's because Letterman dislikes him.
Assertion: We are not in the hate business.
Proving hate is a difficult thing here. Letterman mocks everybody, but he also allows people to speak and to express their points and opinions. Generally speaking, he has shown great respect for his guests (while together on stage). He has shown that he will use comments or events for future comic routines--remember the insanely funny depictions of McCain after a canceled appearance in 2008. Letterman's refutation makes it clear, officially, that the show does not function as a trap. Hate does not motivate it.
Assertion: Romney's comments are delusional.
This indicates that Romney or his people have a deep fear that the comic spin could hurt the candidate. Mitt has avoided many opportunities to go live on TV. He knows the power of gaffes. He uses them against President Obama, and his own gaffes have fueled intense criticism.--remember that business entities are people, too. The word delusional is an example hyperbole, but definitely paints Romney's concerns as inaccurate. Letterman acts with a comic's interests. He does satire. Satire can hurt. It can help.
Assertion: Invitation to come on anytime.
Probably accurate. Such high-profile guests fuel better ratings. The public gets to see a candidate at a relaxed time, under relaxed conditions. The dangers are what happens during spontaneity.
My reactions:
Mitt can counter humor with humor. He can understand the context, its helpful and its dangerous aspects. Mitt looks like he has chosen to project his own feelings about the two comics, that he feels more threatened by Letterman than Leno. Does this impact the elections? Perhaps, because it informs the public how this man enters a dangerous room, but dangerous or not, a generally relaxed environment. According to Letterman, Letterman's comedy does not set traps to ruin people.
Many politicians deprive the public from seeing them in these types of situations. Clinton played a sax and answered questions about marijuana usage and underwear preferences. He has endured years of public mocking for this, but he has rolled with it. The candidate cannot edit the tape.Instances of inconsistent opinions and policy can plague the guest. Comedy can become one of the most powerful motivations for a voter by establishing he person as human and engaging.
Romney's appearances on both shows has humanized him to my thinking, and have raised my opinions of him.
“The man is delusional,” Letterman said. “If he thinks we hate him … We are not in the hate business. We are here looking to make friends. … Now, Mitt Romney has been on the show many, many times. Let me ask you something, Mitt. If we hated you, why do we keep begging you to be on the show?
“Let me go out on a limb here and say … Mitt Romney or his little buddy, the vice president, who’s the little guy (referring to Paul Ryan) … Gilligan, his little buddy Gilligan … they have an open invitation to be on the show anytime, on short notice. You want to be here tomorrow? Fine. You want to be here Monday? Anytime, I don’t care. Bring in Mitt Romney, bring in Paul Ryan, bring in Mitt and Mrs. Mitt, bring in the kids … bring in everybody. We don’t hate you, Mitt! We don’t hate people!”
Context:
Bill Clinton comes as a guest on David Letterman's show. David Letterman sounds off on a prevailing story that Romney goes on Leno's show often, but not on Letterman's because Letterman dislikes him.
Assertion: We are not in the hate business.
Proving hate is a difficult thing here. Letterman mocks everybody, but he also allows people to speak and to express their points and opinions. Generally speaking, he has shown great respect for his guests (while together on stage). He has shown that he will use comments or events for future comic routines--remember the insanely funny depictions of McCain after a canceled appearance in 2008. Letterman's refutation makes it clear, officially, that the show does not function as a trap. Hate does not motivate it.
Assertion: Romney's comments are delusional.
This indicates that Romney or his people have a deep fear that the comic spin could hurt the candidate. Mitt has avoided many opportunities to go live on TV. He knows the power of gaffes. He uses them against President Obama, and his own gaffes have fueled intense criticism.--remember that business entities are people, too. The word delusional is an example hyperbole, but definitely paints Romney's concerns as inaccurate. Letterman acts with a comic's interests. He does satire. Satire can hurt. It can help.
Assertion: Invitation to come on anytime.
Probably accurate. Such high-profile guests fuel better ratings. The public gets to see a candidate at a relaxed time, under relaxed conditions. The dangers are what happens during spontaneity.
My reactions:
Mitt can counter humor with humor. He can understand the context, its helpful and its dangerous aspects. Mitt looks like he has chosen to project his own feelings about the two comics, that he feels more threatened by Letterman than Leno. Does this impact the elections? Perhaps, because it informs the public how this man enters a dangerous room, but dangerous or not, a generally relaxed environment. According to Letterman, Letterman's comedy does not set traps to ruin people.
Many politicians deprive the public from seeing them in these types of situations. Clinton played a sax and answered questions about marijuana usage and underwear preferences. He has endured years of public mocking for this, but he has rolled with it. The candidate cannot edit the tape.Instances of inconsistent opinions and policy can plague the guest. Comedy can become one of the most powerful motivations for a voter by establishing he person as human and engaging.
Romney's appearances on both shows has humanized him to my thinking, and have raised my opinions of him.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Obama on Changing Washington
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-biggest-failure-immigration-reform-change-washington-univision-2012-9
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."
"That's how I got elected. That's how the big accomplishments like health care got done — because we mobilized the American people to speak out. That's how we were able to cut middle-class taxes. So, something I'd really like to be able to concentrate on in my second term is being in a much more constant conversation with the American people, so that they can put pressure on Congress to move some of these issues forward."
Assertion: You can only change Washington from the outside.
This is the gaffe line, at least according to some Republican commentators. They retort--then he can change it from outside. What Obama actually meant, according to himself--it will take pressure outside Washington to force a change, namely the people. This latter statement appears as a very credible observation, for both parties, and has been so for many years. Reagan used a connection on several occasions to get the population to pressure elected officials. Clinton also used this force effectively.
Assertion: We mobilized the American people to speak out (and got health care).
This one needs some proof. The ACA passed along partisan lines, a majority ramming it through against the fury of the sizable minority. Even now the public does not seem to have a loyalty to ACA, mostly because there is no reason to feel such a passion except for a couple notable exceptions--pre-existing conditions, and coverage until age 26. I don't buy the assertion.
Assertion: The American people can put pressure on Congress to move issues forward.
Probably an accurate observation. The pressure could work; however, the public has as many reservations and partisan positions as does the Congress.
My reflections:
I believe the President is seeking for an effective way to govern. If reelected, he may very well go public for some of his most wanted items. To succeed he will need to garner a great deal of energy from the public. Although possible, Obama has no proof that it will work. If the method works, why hasn't he already done this.
"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside."
"That's how I got elected. That's how the big accomplishments like health care got done — because we mobilized the American people to speak out. That's how we were able to cut middle-class taxes. So, something I'd really like to be able to concentrate on in my second term is being in a much more constant conversation with the American people, so that they can put pressure on Congress to move some of these issues forward."
Assertion: You can only change Washington from the outside.
This is the gaffe line, at least according to some Republican commentators. They retort--then he can change it from outside. What Obama actually meant, according to himself--it will take pressure outside Washington to force a change, namely the people. This latter statement appears as a very credible observation, for both parties, and has been so for many years. Reagan used a connection on several occasions to get the population to pressure elected officials. Clinton also used this force effectively.
Assertion: We mobilized the American people to speak out (and got health care).
This one needs some proof. The ACA passed along partisan lines, a majority ramming it through against the fury of the sizable minority. Even now the public does not seem to have a loyalty to ACA, mostly because there is no reason to feel such a passion except for a couple notable exceptions--pre-existing conditions, and coverage until age 26. I don't buy the assertion.
Assertion: The American people can put pressure on Congress to move issues forward.
Probably an accurate observation. The pressure could work; however, the public has as many reservations and partisan positions as does the Congress.
My reflections:
I believe the President is seeking for an effective way to govern. If reelected, he may very well go public for some of his most wanted items. To succeed he will need to garner a great deal of energy from the public. Although possible, Obama has no proof that it will work. If the method works, why hasn't he already done this.
Senator Tom Coburn on Veterans and Congress
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/sen-coburn-says-he-cant-face-cowardly-congress/
“There needs to be a renewed sense of awareness of what the real problems are facing this country. And a redoubling of our commitment to shed partisan robes and get down to fixing the real problems in front of us. And parochialism has no place in that discussion. The political careers of members have no place in that discussion. The real future of our country is at risk.”
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floorstatements?ContentRecord_id=17ef79f0-b98b-4178-8917-5b1c51bf4ca1
“There needs to be a renewed sense of awareness of what the real problems are facing this country. And a redoubling of our commitment to shed partisan robes and get down to fixing the real problems in front of us. And parochialism has no place in that discussion. The political careers of members have no place in that discussion. The real future of our country is at risk.”
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floorstatements?ContentRecord_id=17ef79f0-b98b-4178-8917-5b1c51bf4ca1
When we find ourselves $16 trillion in debt and we're going to pay for another bill over five years by ten years of changes, we never get out of the problem. We make the problem worse. What are we doing? And who are we doing it for?
And are we really thinking about veterans when we don't solve the bigger problems, and we have manifest presence in this bill of the very problems we say we need to be addressing but yet we're making them worse with this bill? We're making the financial problems worse with this bill.
Context: Senator Coburn is going into several arenas to explain his reluctance for not supporting and not voting for a Veteran-friendly jobs bill. Democrats are crying obstructionist. Coburn is calling for restraint. I want to pursue the points made by Coburn when, on the surface, a bill looks like a no-brainer.
Assertion: We need to "shed partisan robes."
Mr Coburn has here established a piece of circumstantial evidence; however, he does not illustrate the point or give credence to either party's core values or goals in the gridlocking public conflicts. To understand this is to give the history of each position separately. Many other circumstantial pieces of evidence will emerge when and if he does. The comment has merit, but it really calls for a larger discussion, a discussion that he appears to avoid. The result would produce an outcome that would undoubtedly undermine both major positions. It is really easy to make a snark, but it does not help if one stops before he does the work.
Assertion: Member of Congress are more concerned with political careers.
Without a person to person interview and a careful analytic investigation of each elected representative or official, the comment has no merit. This is like beating up on society. Ultimately, we are all society.
Assertion: The real future of our country is at risk.
Too general to be of use.
Mr Coburn has here established a piece of circumstantial evidence; however, he does not illustrate the point or give credence to either party's core values or goals in the gridlocking public conflicts. To understand this is to give the history of each position separately. Many other circumstantial pieces of evidence will emerge when and if he does. The comment has merit, but it really calls for a larger discussion, a discussion that he appears to avoid. The result would produce an outcome that would undoubtedly undermine both major positions. It is really easy to make a snark, but it does not help if one stops before he does the work.
Assertion: Member of Congress are more concerned with political careers.
Without a person to person interview and a careful analytic investigation of each elected representative or official, the comment has no merit. This is like beating up on society. Ultimately, we are all society.
Assertion: The real future of our country is at risk.
Too general to be of use.
Assertion--Rhetorical Question: Are we really thinking about veterans?
Too general to be of use. It is a generalized opinion, applied blindly, with little or no specifics.
Assertion: Is this bill making them (problems with the national debt) even worse?
Here again, someone who starts this debate must follow it wherever it might lead.
Conclusions:
I think Mr Coburn's comments are really statements of frustration. They do not solve any problems. They do not have antecedents for the public to learn their purpose. It could be a self positioning projection of his own views. The problem here is that it is really a call for a larger discussion, but then it shuts down before the actual conversation. I admire Mr Coburn's integrity and his service, but I cannot see how these current statements help him or the country. They are more descriptive than useful.
Too general to be of use. It is a generalized opinion, applied blindly, with little or no specifics.
Assertion: Is this bill making them (problems with the national debt) even worse?
Here again, someone who starts this debate must follow it wherever it might lead.
Conclusions:
I think Mr Coburn's comments are really statements of frustration. They do not solve any problems. They do not have antecedents for the public to learn their purpose. It could be a self positioning projection of his own views. The problem here is that it is really a call for a larger discussion, but then it shuts down before the actual conversation. I admire Mr Coburn's integrity and his service, but I cannot see how these current statements help him or the country. They are more descriptive than useful.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
William Kristol on Mitt Romney
http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/william-kristol
"It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses tostep down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that Romney's comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are stupid and arrogant.
Indeed: Has there been a presidential race in modern times featuring two candidates who have done so little over their lifetimes for our country, and who have so little substance to say about the future of our country? "
Assertion: We deserve a Ryan-Rubio ticket
Who is we? Conservatives? Americans? What qualifies these men for the presidency? This assertion coming from such a prominent conservative thinker indicates a total disgust for Mitt Romney? Considering the idea expressed that a Romney win is important for the country, this is not a very passionate endorsement. The Pathos is missing. The likelihood of Romney stepping down? This sounds like a wail of defeat.
Assertion: Romney's comments like Obama's four years ago are stupid and arrogant.
So, to Kristol, Romney equates to Obama four years ago? But it is "important to defeat Obama?" Only a dutiful statement stated in irony because the idea of a Romney presidency would destroy the Republican party? A hopeless race?
My Conclusion:
For conservatives it is 4 more years in the wilderness. Gear up for 2016? Better to defeat Romney so that the whole liberal-moderate political landscape can go away? I think the leading conservatives have just endorsed Obama because Romney is unpalatable. There are more questions than answers.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Rush Limbaugh on Romney
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81343.html?hp=l1_b1
“This is such a golden opportunity,” Limbaugh said on his radio program Tuesday, according to a show transcript. “This could be the opportunity for Romney and for that campaign to finally take the gloves off and take the fear off and just start explaining conservatism, start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don’t have to be in that 47 percent.”
This comment quoted in Politico gives the reaction of commentator Rush Limbaugh to the Romney remarks about the 47%.
Assertion: A golden opportunity for Romney to present conservatism.
True. Romney has the attention of the media. He does have the microphone to speak. Now the other side of this assertion--what about the conservatism message? It is an unfinished assertion. Limbaugh is actually giving a cue to Romney to speak.
Assertion: Start explaining what liberty really means.
This has some Derrida/Barth-like deconstructionist messages. A recessive argument within the larger context? I would be interested to hear this definition of liberty. The statement by Limbaugh parallels the comments of Romney about the "victims" within the 47% by sounding condescending. Those who do not understand the conservative world view are out of touch with reality and the principles of liberty? I see an ethical argument coming.
My conclusions:
Frankly, I have never liked the arguments of Rush Limbaugh because he has a very Juvenalan satirical style. His long history of biting snarks do not lead to easy compromises and understanding. This particular statement sounds unusually tame, but then he is coaching the republican nominee. I am disturbed that someone feels that the population, especially the 47%, needs special lessons in liberty. Elitist.
Undoubtedly this particular argument is under construction. As this fits into the context of a presidential campaign, it appears that we are about to have a national discussion about such topics as personal responsibility, the role of conservatism, and the relationship between the wealthy and the poor.
“This is such a golden opportunity,” Limbaugh said on his radio program Tuesday, according to a show transcript. “This could be the opportunity for Romney and for that campaign to finally take the gloves off and take the fear off and just start explaining conservatism, start explaining liberty to people and what it means, and explain that they don’t have to be in that 47 percent.”
This comment quoted in Politico gives the reaction of commentator Rush Limbaugh to the Romney remarks about the 47%.
Assertion: A golden opportunity for Romney to present conservatism.
True. Romney has the attention of the media. He does have the microphone to speak. Now the other side of this assertion--what about the conservatism message? It is an unfinished assertion. Limbaugh is actually giving a cue to Romney to speak.
Assertion: Start explaining what liberty really means.
This has some Derrida/Barth-like deconstructionist messages. A recessive argument within the larger context? I would be interested to hear this definition of liberty. The statement by Limbaugh parallels the comments of Romney about the "victims" within the 47% by sounding condescending. Those who do not understand the conservative world view are out of touch with reality and the principles of liberty? I see an ethical argument coming.
My conclusions:
Frankly, I have never liked the arguments of Rush Limbaugh because he has a very Juvenalan satirical style. His long history of biting snarks do not lead to easy compromises and understanding. This particular statement sounds unusually tame, but then he is coaching the republican nominee. I am disturbed that someone feels that the population, especially the 47%, needs special lessons in liberty. Elitist.
Undoubtedly this particular argument is under construction. As this fits into the context of a presidential campaign, it appears that we are about to have a national discussion about such topics as personal responsibility, the role of conservatism, and the relationship between the wealthy and the poor.
Mitt Romney on the 47 %
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/18/wonkbook-mitt-romney-vs-the-47-and-himself/
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
Inherent assertions: A rather complicated conflation of several assumptions.
47% will vote for the president no matter what.
The polls tend to support this assumption. It is otherwise not provable.
47% are dependendent upon the goverment.
Are they? Are 47% receiving government dole? This figure needs to be broken down, and it needs to be explained. If it is so high, who are they? What are their demographics? Are they (as the work force and tax base are concerned) "productive citizens? This particular assertion is blunt and it is opportunistic. I do not expect 80 year olds or 3 year olds to be victims, reliant on the government. Too much of a glittering generalization.
47% consider themselves victims.
This is a argument to the people with a tinge of all or nothing thinking. One could actually argue that 47% simply vote for the President because they lean towards the Democrats. Their reasons for voting do not necessarily come because they take government aid.
That (the programs to aid these people) are an entitlement.
An equivocation argument. Set up a new definition (entitlement for government handout), then place a term for display on anyone who receives a check. An entitlement equals a government hand out. X receives a hand out. X is taking an entitlement. This logic fails because. X is not identified. Age? Voting record? Also. If X has payed taxes, then the whole concept of entitlement suddenly needs a definitional correction.
These people pay no income tax.
Flat not true. If someone has had a job, and he has payed taxes, then he is breaking the basic definition for the argument. One cannot be both A and B.
My Synthesis:
Mitt Romney's quote contains enormous a priori assumtions. He has an unstated assertion that those who work and pay taxes are naturally somehow a majority who have no responsibility to support the unproductive 43 %. He does this without a credible profile of the 43%. This number includes a consider number who do not vote because of age or physical condition. It takes a broad swipe at the unemployed. It abuses the term entitlement. Does this persuade me to vote for against Mr. Romney? Probably not, because, the argument is more a partisan stance than a meaningful point for debate. It is overstated, and it needs clarification. It indicates directions of thinking that, if elected, Mr. Romney would need to address. It does him damage, because it becomes easy to apply this line of reasoning on many of his co-Republicans. When I step into a voting booth, I will consider very different issues in my choice. This is a philosophy of government that reality would dictate any way. Tempest in a teapot.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.”
Inherent assertions: A rather complicated conflation of several assumptions.
47% will vote for the president no matter what.
The polls tend to support this assumption. It is otherwise not provable.
47% are dependendent upon the goverment.
Are they? Are 47% receiving government dole? This figure needs to be broken down, and it needs to be explained. If it is so high, who are they? What are their demographics? Are they (as the work force and tax base are concerned) "productive citizens? This particular assertion is blunt and it is opportunistic. I do not expect 80 year olds or 3 year olds to be victims, reliant on the government. Too much of a glittering generalization.
47% consider themselves victims.
This is a argument to the people with a tinge of all or nothing thinking. One could actually argue that 47% simply vote for the President because they lean towards the Democrats. Their reasons for voting do not necessarily come because they take government aid.
That (the programs to aid these people) are an entitlement.
An equivocation argument. Set up a new definition (entitlement for government handout), then place a term for display on anyone who receives a check. An entitlement equals a government hand out. X receives a hand out. X is taking an entitlement. This logic fails because. X is not identified. Age? Voting record? Also. If X has payed taxes, then the whole concept of entitlement suddenly needs a definitional correction.
These people pay no income tax.
Flat not true. If someone has had a job, and he has payed taxes, then he is breaking the basic definition for the argument. One cannot be both A and B.
My Synthesis:
Mitt Romney's quote contains enormous a priori assumtions. He has an unstated assertion that those who work and pay taxes are naturally somehow a majority who have no responsibility to support the unproductive 43 %. He does this without a credible profile of the 43%. This number includes a consider number who do not vote because of age or physical condition. It takes a broad swipe at the unemployed. It abuses the term entitlement. Does this persuade me to vote for against Mr. Romney? Probably not, because, the argument is more a partisan stance than a meaningful point for debate. It is overstated, and it needs clarification. It indicates directions of thinking that, if elected, Mr. Romney would need to address. It does him damage, because it becomes easy to apply this line of reasoning on many of his co-Republicans. When I step into a voting booth, I will consider very different issues in my choice. This is a philosophy of government that reality would dictate any way. Tempest in a teapot.
Monday, September 17, 2012
Scott Howell (D) on Orrin Hatch (R) Utah
http://www.bayoubuzz.com/component/k2/item/91810-sen-hatch-opponent-%E2%80%98hatch-is-not-a-bad-guy-but-he-is-an-old-guy-%E2%80%99
Howell, who's challenging longtime Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch this November, sent a fundraising email to supporters this week that warned voters of "the risk of an 80-year-old man taking office, only to retire or die before his term is through." (Hatch is 78.) "Look, Orrin Hatch is not a bad guy. But he is an old guy, and he's a lifer politician," Howell wrote in the email, which Daily Caller reporter Matt Lewis posted on Twitter .
Senator Hatch's office has expressed outrage over Mr. Howell's comments.
Assertions:
A risk of an 80 year assuming a Senate term. He would age from 78 to 84 during the term.
The reader can quickly verify the facts here. Mr. Hatch has increasing risk as he ages. However, in fairness, the Senator has continued his service with excellent health and has a youthful vigor. So, the risk would appear real, but not particularly relevant in the short term. The assertion centers around the word risk.
Give away:
He is not a bad guy.
This assertion tends to build a good guy ethics into the opponent's bid for office. He's a good guy, but he's old.
He's a lifer politician.
This is a weak assertion. It suggests a negativity to long-term public service. It gives no evidence, only innuendo.
My synthesis:
If a voter considers Mr Hatch as a viable candidate, then this whole line of reasoning collapses. No alternative is given. It almost says, "Vote for me. I'm younger. I'm a good guy. I'm new." The underlying fallacy is an argument against the person. I'm reading no reasons of any political importance why I should vote against Hatch other an argument against his age.
(In other parts of this article, Howell does take issue with Mr. Hatch on education issues. He criticizes Hatch for wanting to eliminate or reduce Pell grants, and for his inadequate support of educational goals that involve money.)
Will this convince me to vote to send Hatch home? Not for these reasons. I felt that I needed to examine this after listening to an analysis on KSL's Nightside program. The commentators were examining the ethics of calling someone old.
Howell, who's challenging longtime Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch this November, sent a fundraising email to supporters this week that warned voters of "the risk of an 80-year-old man taking office, only to retire or die before his term is through." (Hatch is 78.) "Look, Orrin Hatch is not a bad guy. But he is an old guy, and he's a lifer politician," Howell wrote in the email, which Daily Caller reporter Matt Lewis posted on Twitter .
Senator Hatch's office has expressed outrage over Mr. Howell's comments.
Assertions:
A risk of an 80 year assuming a Senate term. He would age from 78 to 84 during the term.
The reader can quickly verify the facts here. Mr. Hatch has increasing risk as he ages. However, in fairness, the Senator has continued his service with excellent health and has a youthful vigor. So, the risk would appear real, but not particularly relevant in the short term. The assertion centers around the word risk.
Give away:
He is not a bad guy.
This assertion tends to build a good guy ethics into the opponent's bid for office. He's a good guy, but he's old.
He's a lifer politician.
This is a weak assertion. It suggests a negativity to long-term public service. It gives no evidence, only innuendo.
My synthesis:
If a voter considers Mr Hatch as a viable candidate, then this whole line of reasoning collapses. No alternative is given. It almost says, "Vote for me. I'm younger. I'm a good guy. I'm new." The underlying fallacy is an argument against the person. I'm reading no reasons of any political importance why I should vote against Hatch other an argument against his age.
(In other parts of this article, Howell does take issue with Mr. Hatch on education issues. He criticizes Hatch for wanting to eliminate or reduce Pell grants, and for his inadequate support of educational goals that involve money.)
Will this convince me to vote to send Hatch home? Not for these reasons. I felt that I needed to examine this after listening to an analysis on KSL's Nightside program. The commentators were examining the ethics of calling someone old.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Paul Ryan on Obama
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/paul-ryans-prepared-remarks-to-right-wing-values-voter-summit.html
"It is true that President Obama had a lot of problems not of his own making. But he also came in with one-party rule, and the chance to do everything of his own choosing. The Obama economic agenda failed, not because it was stopped, but because it was passed.
And here is what we got: Prolonged joblessness across the country. Twenty-three million Americans struggling to find work. Family income in decline. Fifteen percent of Americans living in poverty."
Among the assertions:
A concession: President Obama had a lot of problems, not of his own making.
A nice throw away. Mr. Ryan does not enumerate these problems. Let's help him with it. He is most interested in two directions, foreign policy and economic policy. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush the republican party's foreign policy has mostly been one that becomes more coalesced around the "Bush Doctrine," a preemptive form of military interaction with would-be international crisis. So, we exercise actions based on a suspicion that another will act. With economics we are quite aware of his stance of lowering taxes. We also saw a great deal of spending under a "one party rule" (in this case Republican). Much of this money was done with borrowing, and to grow non-government entities such as Halliburton. When the economy did collapse, the remedy first used was stimulus.
Assertion: Obama's plan failed. Because it was passed.
What does "fail" mean here? His foreign policies have not followed the Bush doctrine? Thus we have Afghanistan and Middle East troubles? Economically? His stimulus, largely repaid, has largely recaptured the losses of the stock market. But no jobs? Can that be consigned to his responsibility? Is it really shared by both parties and to outside influences such as businesses and global trends? Passage of Obama's policies? Which policies? Obamacare?
Assertion: His policies have led to poverty.
This assertion conflates with other voices. "Food stamp president", the derisive name for this president, underlines the beliefs that President Obama has somehow given the government over to socialistic forces. So, Mr. Ryan, we need a better understanding of how poverty correlates with Mr. Obama's policies. This appears to look like a cause effect argument. Much is spoken of a president who uses strawman arguments at every turn. This appears like an ad hominem argument. I am open to the evidence. Show the relationship between the 23 million jobless people and the 15% poverty rate and Obama's policies.
My own synthesis:
Mr Obama's policies policies have been largely a result of events outside of his control. Some are a direct reaction to the events that confronted him in January 2009.
Attacks by Mr Ryan make President Obama and the Democrats responsible for strengthening the negative forces of the Great Recession. The assertions are drive-by attacks. Instead of giving reasons for the assertions, Mr Ryan joins others in ad hominem attacks. He conflates many of the dissenting opinions. The rhetoric is partisan and nonspecific. The voter must look further, and the statements do not really help in making a choice for the 2012 election. This does not align me with Republican views, and it does not dissuade me from voting Democrat, so I think the assertions are simply neutral.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Prowling for Arguments
We live in an age of tremendous misuse of the available media, whether we consider the more traditional forms of newspapers and periodicals or if we follow newer social media, such as Facebook or Twitter. I want to see more parsing of the arguments. Following the general principles of formal logic and rhetoric, and applying them to statements made by decision makers, I hope to gain a deeper understanding of the messages of public figures. So, I will be on the prowl for provocative statements by decision makers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)