I forgot to include Obama's foreign policy in my previous post on critiquing his performance. I would rate his foreign policy as A- or A. After the Bush presidency, Obama is a true breath of fresh air. He chose just the right tack on the upheaval in Iran and policy vis-a-vis Iran since then. I think he should be removing troops out of Iraq quicker, but that is a minor quibble. He is probably doing the best that can be done in the Israel/Palestine problem. The Netanyahu government seems unmovable and domestic support for Israel is mostly irrational and unyielding. His latest approach on the Israeli blockade of Gaza is probably the best and only approach. It will take some time to revise US foreign policy in this area and bring about any real change. We may not see anything concrete until, hopefully, a second Obama term. We may need a change in Israel's government before any progress can be made.
As I mentioned in my earlier post on rating, too many people voice opinions without knowing what they are talking about. Thus, I have refrained from forming any conclusions about Afghanistan and Pakistan for several reasons. First, the situations may be intractable. As long as Karzai is in charge in Afghanistan, real progress may be very difficult or impossible, yet we cannot force him out; that would be worse. Pakistan is also difficult because of political instability and the fragility of the current government. Second, it is so hard to know what the facts on the ground truly are. I don't know if anyone really knows with precision where the various parties stand in relative strength. Last year I saw a couple of discussions about Pakistan with two different panels on separate occasions. Both panels had three commentators with extensive background and knowledge of Pakistan. The two panels reached pretty much opposite conclusions. One said that Pakistan is so westernized that it will be securely in the western camp for the future and will develop both economically and politically.. The other panel saw a nation in danger of disintegration and adoption of radical Islam. We have a Pakistani friend who recently visited Pakistan and I asked him his opinion. He was kind of in the middle. I still am not sure what to think.
The good news is that General McChrystal, in charge of counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, seems to really understand the problem. Whether that and 60,000 more troops will be enough to overcome the Taliban and mis-government by Karzai is an open question. I think that Obama is right to put a timetable on the operation. We can't afford these foreign misadventures any more. Whatever the situation in Pakistan, Obama has gotten more cooperation from Pakistan and the Pakistani military than Bush ever did. This has resulted in real progress against al-Qaida. Obama has also correctly recognized the importance of resolving the Kashmir question between India and Pakistan. Until there is peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistan military's effort towards its militants will be somewhat half-hearted. Although he may not be able to solve the problem, at least he recognizes it and is working on it, something that escaped the Bush administration. Also, unlike the Bush administration, Obama recognizes that terrorism is a political problem requiring a political solution, it is not a strictly military problem.
Finally, let me add something that seems to escape the Obama critics. Obama has restored diplomacy to its rightful place in American foreign policy. Diplomacy does not bring results over night, or even within a year, especially after 8 years of alienating both friends and neutrals. And yet we already have seen positive signs. As Churchill once said, it is better to jaw, jaw, jaw than to war, war, war. Military force rarely goes smoothly and almost always brings about unanticipated adverse consequences. Whatever diplomacy's failings, it should be the first resort and force the last resort.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
2009 AWARDS
Jeanne Kirkpatrick Award
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
Last year I began giving out two awards that I have long had in mind and almost forgot this year, so I'm a little late with these. As a reminder, the Jeanne Kirkpatrick award is given to someone who says something so stupid that he or she should immediately lose all credibility. I also give this award to those who should know better, but don't. Jeanne Kirkpatrick had a Phd. in Political Science and was US Ambassador to the UN, among other things. She thought the US should support Argentina, not England, in the Falklands War, gaining immediate infamy.
This year I give the award not to any individual, but a group of individuals--the Chicago School of economists. These well educated dunderheads continue to maintain that markets will self-regulate and need no government regulation. The support a completely libertarian philosphy and, as part of that philosophy, believe that people make rational economic decisions, on the basis of what is best for them economically. Thus, with their philosophy, bubbles are impossible because they are irrational. A recent special on PBS showed social science experiments where people behaved very irrationally, paying more than $20 for a $20 bill, for example, at an auction. When faced with the results of these experiments, the economists simply refused to believe them and just kept repeating this philosophical tenants like some religious chant. Of course there are hundreds of years of economic history which also invalidates their beliefs, starting with the Dutch tulip bubble of about 400+ years ago. But, let's not have facts get in the way of our beliefs.
The Bull Connor Award
This award is named after the sheriff in Alabama who so mistreated civil rights marchers in the early 1960's, that he probably did more to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than anyone. In other words, he screwed up so badly that he got the exact opposite outcome from what he intended.
I am giving this year's award to The Tea Party. This group of neanderthals is both extreme and extremely ignorant. Although we have not yet seen the fruits of their labors, I predict that they will succeed in driving the Republican Party so far to the right that they will alienate the vast majority of independents, greatly reducing Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections. The winner of the Republican Party primary in Nevada for US Senate to oppose Harry Reid is so ridiculous that Reid now has gone from being in real trouble to most likely victorious. This woman is against social security, fluoridation, thinks we should reduce regulations on oil drilling (what oil spill?), and so on. You have to be out of your mind to support these kind of policies.
ECONOMIC DANGERS
I suppose to protect myself I should say that I am not a financial adviser and the following is not financial advice. I have become concerned with recent economic developments. So-called deficit hawks, which seem to include most blue dog Democrats, seem to be in the ascendancy. An attempt to fund unemployment benefit payments and COBRA subsidies is floundering in the House, as is an attempt to provide states with $23 billion so that hundreds of thousands of teachers will not be laid off. The jobs /unemployment report for May included the information that 22,000 jobs were lost in that month in state and local government. In fact, because state and local governments have to have balanced budgets, they have cut back their spending by $150 to $200 billion over the last year or so. In addition, in Europe we see the same sort of attitude expressing itself in some countries, especially Germany and England. The result may very well to strangle the economic recovery, or at least slow it way down. You might be as well off putting your money under the mattress right now as investing it somewhere.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
Don't be misled by those who gravely warn of the dangers of the deficit and looming inflation. The Great Depression provides the perfect social science laboratory for what government policies to follow and what not to do. Under Hoover, before the Crash, the unemployment rate was estimated at 3%. After the crash Hoover insisted on balanced budgets, was strongly opposed to any government relief efforts (there was no unemployment insurance then, or food stamps, or anything on the Federal level, a few states tried to do something, but they quickly ran out of money). The result was that by March, 1933, when FDR assumed the presidency, the unemployment rate was an estimated 25% and the GDP had fallen about 40%. Under FDR unemployment fell and GDP rose every year, except one. That year was 1937, the only year that FDR ran a balanced budget. As soon as he balanced the budget the unemployment rate went up and the GDP fell. When he resumed deficit spending, the economy rose again.
I remember reading that a wag once said that if you teach a parrot how to say "supply and demand", you have created another economist. However, modern day conservative economists seem to believe that the key phrase should be supply and investment. They pretty much ignore the demand side of the equation. In a severe recession the demand side needs to be pumped up by government spending. The historical record is clear on this.
The famous economist John Maynard Keynes was once accused of flip flopping. He replied something like this. "When I get new information that calls into question my previous theories and/or conclusions, I re-evaluate those theories and conclusions and revise them on the basis of the new information when called for. What do you do?" What conservatives do is close their eyes and pretend the new information doesn't exist. So we get conservatives saying the stimulus bill didn't work, despite the fact that before the bill we were losing about 700,000 jobs per month. After the bill was passed job losses declined every month until January, 2010 when we had the first job gains in about two years. We have had job gains every month since then. Yet this is somehow "not working."
We need to keep deficit spending until there has been a major improvement in unemployment. Please write your congress person, your newspaper, internet news site, etc. to support continued government spending. The best way to balance the budget is to put people back to work, reduce defense spending, and re-institute a truly progressive income tax.
CRITICISM AND DISCOURSE--RATING OBAMA
As I have mentioned before, the Republicans have been seemingly taken over by the loony fringe.One of the problems with the internet today is that anyone with a computer can pollute the blogosphere with his or her opinions, whether founded in reality or not. I find this makes the job of the reasoned critic more difficult. If you criticize some particular action the wingnuts can seize on that as proof that you agree that Obama is illegitimate. Point out errors, even egregious ones, by the fringe and you get accused of "drinking the kool-ade." While many claim Obama is a socialist/communist/fascist/Kenyan/pro terrorist, or whatever, others claim he is no better than Bush. Nuance is not in style.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
Nevertheless, I will try to navigate the shoals between the Scylla and Charybdis of right and left. One thing which I have maintained for some time has been clearly illustrated in Obama's first year. Democrats get in trouble when they try to be Republican lite. The embrace of increased oil drilling, including offshore drilling is a perfect example. Pulling punches on financial reform and health care reform have the same problem. By trying to compromise and draw in "moderate" Republicans, the result has been convoluted bills that are seriously flawed. For health care reform, as I pointed out earlier, a Medicare for all option is much simpler and avoids a lot of complications found in the current legislation. For financial reform the answer could have been much simpler and more effective: re-instate Glass-Steagall, limit the size of banks, prohibit banks from using depositor money for investing, put limits on and require transparency for derivatives and credit default swaps, put limits on credit card interest for responsible users (say prime plus 6 percent.), set specific high reserve requirements, require banks to hold at least some of the mortgages they issue, and make payment to rating agencies independent of the company/security they are rating. The financial reform being worked on now in conference committee is only a decent first step toward really meaningful reform. If it is not improved, you can bet that problems will happen again in the future.
The problem, as I see it, is that Obama is not really a progressive and his community organizer background colors his leadership style. He seeks compromise and agreement and puts it above necessary reform. I remember a city councilman who, when faced with a choice, would choose no loaf to half of one. I never understood why someone would do that. I guess he felt good about standing for principle. With Obama, if given the choice between half a loaf with some support from opponents and three quarters of a loaf and pissed off opponents, Obama chooses the former, but ends up with opponents who try to sabotage him anyway.
One thing is sure. At the beginning of Obama's term I felt that he faced even more problems than did FDR in 1933. With the Gulf Oil Spill now becoming the worst environmental disaster in US history, there can be no doubt that Obama faces even more difficulties than FDR did his first year and a half.Thus, although I have been disheartened by the administration's approach on many different issues, when you consider all the problems, the implacable opposition, and the legislative record, he still rates a B+ so far.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND DEBATE
Before I really get started, I want to correct something. The OMG book, Cadillac Desert which I recommended, was written by Mark Reisner.
As I was listening and watching today to a couple of commentators, I was struck by how even people who should know better fail to properly challenge people and/or fail to engage in critical analysis and debate. So, I thought that I would include some pointers for times when you are engaging in debate with someone of another outlook, whatever that may be.
First, become informed. As I mentioned before, the answer to almost anything is never more than a couple of mouse clicks away. I heard Stephanie Miller, a radio talk show host, say about six months ago, "facts have that well-known liberal bias." This is so true; I am never afraid to argue on the basis of facts because facts overwhelmingly support my point of view. It's why I have my point of view, I base my opinions on facts, not beliefs.
If you don't know the facts, don't try to fake it, just say you'll look into it and do the research. Similarly, don't take assertions by others on face value. As it has been said before (by Senator Moynihan I believe), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Also, you will often find problems with the sources that your opponent cited. Someone gave me a reference arguing that FDR's policies didn't make any economic progress. When I read the article, I found that the authors compared the US economy in 1940 with that in 1929, before the crash. From 1929 to 1933 the US GDP dropped 42%, so if you don't take that into account, then FDR's policies weren't successful. In short, that argument was totally bogus since it ignored the crash and a 42% drop.
This gets to the next point--challenge facts, assertions, and assumptions. Most people don't know what they are talking about or else get their information from a single, often unreliable source. You don't have to be obnoxious, just say, "Where did you get that information, I'd like to look into it myself." Other challenges include, "Did you consider all the variables? Which are dependent and which are independent variables? What evidence is there that there is a cause and effect relationship?." Don't let the other side oversimplify. Most social/political problems are complex and can't properly be reduced to simple answers. Here's another example. If someone says Obama is a socialist, you can ask--what kind? A Leninist, a Stalinist, a Maoist, a Fabian, a Utopian, a social democrat, or something else? And what policies of his qualify him as that type? You don't have to know the answer, but put the pressure on them to give specific evidence to back up their claims.
Don't let the other side frame the debate. Here's a good example I hear/read often. "Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about and he's just trying to make a lot of money with global warming." They want the issue to be Al Gore, not the science or the scientists. Is it Al Gore who came up with the idea of global warming? The answer is no, he just publicized what scientists have been saying for decades. The argument is with climate scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore was born rich and made a ton of money with his cable channel, he doesn't need more money. Also, who has more at stake, fossil fuel companies who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year, or independent scientists and alternative energy companies who have maybe one thousandth as much at stake? So, tell me, how are climate scientist wrong, and what is your educational background that allows you to make an informed judgment as to the accuracy of their work?
Other common things which conservatives do include using straw men and improper conflation or comparison. A straw man argument is picking out an example and using that to claim that it represents the views of a whole group. They usually will take something outrageous, so the answer is to say, "I don't agree with that, what evidence do you have that it represents the opinion of the majority of (fill in the group--liberals, Democrats, politicians, whatever)? Always put the onus on the other person to provide evidence to support their argument; don't let them get away with unsupported assertions.
Conflation means saying that if one thing is so, then so is another thing. An example would be "Since Democrats don't support off shore drilling, they want us to pay more for oil." First, not all Democrats oppose off shore drilling. Second, you can say that Democrats who don't support off shore drilling support alternatives that are less damaging to the environment and thus less expensive in the long run. If this spill is going to cost billions of dollars to clean up and destroy thousands of jobs in the gulf coast, how is that saving us money? Why can't we use natural gas, which we have in abundance on land, instead of oil, for a lot of things? Challenge the assumptions and then point out alternatives and make it clear that one thing does not necessarily equate to another thing.
I read a recent example of unfair comparison that was actually published in the New York Times. The writer said that Obama is engaging in "vilification" even though he calls for bipartisanship. His examples include Obama complaints about the health care companies, Wall Street, and big oil. First, in what way were Obama's criticisms incorrect? Is it vilification to criticize policies that damage the country? Remember, truth is the ultimate defense. Secondly, this author wants the reader to equate Obama's criticism with that of his opponents who have branded him a Nazi, a socialist, someone who wants the terrorists to win, etc. (see my previous post on the views of rank and file Republicans) How many times have we heard the charges that Democrats are unpatriotic , don't love our country, and /or are soft on terror? And yet conservatives would try to equate complaints about policies with these types of personal attacks.
Another common tactic is to compare apples and oranges. I don't think I need to give an example as this is a common tactic and yet, people get away with it all the time. Always insist that comparisons are of the same things.
Next, there is the throw the baby out with the bathwater argument that is made often and rarely challenged. Another way to put it is to differentiate between concept, structure, and execution. For example, for a government program to succeed, you need a useful concept, a workable structure, and good execution. If any one of these things is lacking, you can have failure or only partial success. The usual conservative response is to deny the validity of the concept even if the problem is the structure or the execution. A good example was on the Hardball Show today with Chris Matthews. Arizona just passed a law banning ethnic studies classes in public schools in the state. Speaking in favor was the state superintendent of schools for Arizona, opposed was a professor from Columbia University. The state superintendent cited a passage from a textbook saying that Latinos were oppressed. So they argued over whether or not that was a bad thing to teach, but no one raised the question, "Have Latinos ever been oppressed in the United States?" In other words, was it inaccurate? Even more importantly, if the problem is a couple of different passages in a textbook, why not revise the textbook or get another textbook? They never addressed the basic question of what is the purpose of ethnic studies, is it a valuable purpose and, if it isn't, can it be changed so that it is? If the problem is the execution and/or the structure, why not get a better textbook, issue specific guidelines on how to teach the course, and make sure that those teaching it are qualified? Banning that type of class is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Finally, a very common approach is to classify an anecdote as a fact. In the above argument, the superintendent stated how one student said that after an ethnic studies class she concluded that Latinos were oppressed and she hadn't thought that before. Nobody asked, "Have you done any studies to see how common this attitude is? Do other students have different opinions or results? One anecdote does not make a fact or a trend and yet most people will accept it as one. Challenge them to provide evidence that the anecdote represents reality, or is it just one person's experience (as is often the case). This morning I had a woman tell me that he daughter was paying 56% in income tax. I explained to her that the top Federal rate is 35% and gave her other data. Yet people continue to believe propaganda and anecdotes. We need to challenge the misinformation whenever and wherever possible.
One of the biggest problems today, in my opinion, is the lack of critical thinking and analysis. I hope this provides you with some ideas on how to challenge bogus arguments.
As I was listening and watching today to a couple of commentators, I was struck by how even people who should know better fail to properly challenge people and/or fail to engage in critical analysis and debate. So, I thought that I would include some pointers for times when you are engaging in debate with someone of another outlook, whatever that may be.
First, become informed. As I mentioned before, the answer to almost anything is never more than a couple of mouse clicks away. I heard Stephanie Miller, a radio talk show host, say about six months ago, "facts have that well-known liberal bias." This is so true; I am never afraid to argue on the basis of facts because facts overwhelmingly support my point of view. It's why I have my point of view, I base my opinions on facts, not beliefs.
If you don't know the facts, don't try to fake it, just say you'll look into it and do the research. Similarly, don't take assertions by others on face value. As it has been said before (by Senator Moynihan I believe), everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Also, you will often find problems with the sources that your opponent cited. Someone gave me a reference arguing that FDR's policies didn't make any economic progress. When I read the article, I found that the authors compared the US economy in 1940 with that in 1929, before the crash. From 1929 to 1933 the US GDP dropped 42%, so if you don't take that into account, then FDR's policies weren't successful. In short, that argument was totally bogus since it ignored the crash and a 42% drop.
This gets to the next point--challenge facts, assertions, and assumptions. Most people don't know what they are talking about or else get their information from a single, often unreliable source. You don't have to be obnoxious, just say, "Where did you get that information, I'd like to look into it myself." Other challenges include, "Did you consider all the variables? Which are dependent and which are independent variables? What evidence is there that there is a cause and effect relationship?." Don't let the other side oversimplify. Most social/political problems are complex and can't properly be reduced to simple answers. Here's another example. If someone says Obama is a socialist, you can ask--what kind? A Leninist, a Stalinist, a Maoist, a Fabian, a Utopian, a social democrat, or something else? And what policies of his qualify him as that type? You don't have to know the answer, but put the pressure on them to give specific evidence to back up their claims.
Don't let the other side frame the debate. Here's a good example I hear/read often. "Al Gore doesn't know what he's talking about and he's just trying to make a lot of money with global warming." They want the issue to be Al Gore, not the science or the scientists. Is it Al Gore who came up with the idea of global warming? The answer is no, he just publicized what scientists have been saying for decades. The argument is with climate scientists, not Al Gore. Al Gore was born rich and made a ton of money with his cable channel, he doesn't need more money. Also, who has more at stake, fossil fuel companies who have hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue every year, or independent scientists and alternative energy companies who have maybe one thousandth as much at stake? So, tell me, how are climate scientist wrong, and what is your educational background that allows you to make an informed judgment as to the accuracy of their work?
Other common things which conservatives do include using straw men and improper conflation or comparison. A straw man argument is picking out an example and using that to claim that it represents the views of a whole group. They usually will take something outrageous, so the answer is to say, "I don't agree with that, what evidence do you have that it represents the opinion of the majority of (fill in the group--liberals, Democrats, politicians, whatever)? Always put the onus on the other person to provide evidence to support their argument; don't let them get away with unsupported assertions.
Conflation means saying that if one thing is so, then so is another thing. An example would be "Since Democrats don't support off shore drilling, they want us to pay more for oil." First, not all Democrats oppose off shore drilling. Second, you can say that Democrats who don't support off shore drilling support alternatives that are less damaging to the environment and thus less expensive in the long run. If this spill is going to cost billions of dollars to clean up and destroy thousands of jobs in the gulf coast, how is that saving us money? Why can't we use natural gas, which we have in abundance on land, instead of oil, for a lot of things? Challenge the assumptions and then point out alternatives and make it clear that one thing does not necessarily equate to another thing.
I read a recent example of unfair comparison that was actually published in the New York Times. The writer said that Obama is engaging in "vilification" even though he calls for bipartisanship. His examples include Obama complaints about the health care companies, Wall Street, and big oil. First, in what way were Obama's criticisms incorrect? Is it vilification to criticize policies that damage the country? Remember, truth is the ultimate defense. Secondly, this author wants the reader to equate Obama's criticism with that of his opponents who have branded him a Nazi, a socialist, someone who wants the terrorists to win, etc. (see my previous post on the views of rank and file Republicans) How many times have we heard the charges that Democrats are unpatriotic , don't love our country, and /or are soft on terror? And yet conservatives would try to equate complaints about policies with these types of personal attacks.
Another common tactic is to compare apples and oranges. I don't think I need to give an example as this is a common tactic and yet, people get away with it all the time. Always insist that comparisons are of the same things.
Next, there is the throw the baby out with the bathwater argument that is made often and rarely challenged. Another way to put it is to differentiate between concept, structure, and execution. For example, for a government program to succeed, you need a useful concept, a workable structure, and good execution. If any one of these things is lacking, you can have failure or only partial success. The usual conservative response is to deny the validity of the concept even if the problem is the structure or the execution. A good example was on the Hardball Show today with Chris Matthews. Arizona just passed a law banning ethnic studies classes in public schools in the state. Speaking in favor was the state superintendent of schools for Arizona, opposed was a professor from Columbia University. The state superintendent cited a passage from a textbook saying that Latinos were oppressed. So they argued over whether or not that was a bad thing to teach, but no one raised the question, "Have Latinos ever been oppressed in the United States?" In other words, was it inaccurate? Even more importantly, if the problem is a couple of different passages in a textbook, why not revise the textbook or get another textbook? They never addressed the basic question of what is the purpose of ethnic studies, is it a valuable purpose and, if it isn't, can it be changed so that it is? If the problem is the execution and/or the structure, why not get a better textbook, issue specific guidelines on how to teach the course, and make sure that those teaching it are qualified? Banning that type of class is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Finally, a very common approach is to classify an anecdote as a fact. In the above argument, the superintendent stated how one student said that after an ethnic studies class she concluded that Latinos were oppressed and she hadn't thought that before. Nobody asked, "Have you done any studies to see how common this attitude is? Do other students have different opinions or results? One anecdote does not make a fact or a trend and yet most people will accept it as one. Challenge them to provide evidence that the anecdote represents reality, or is it just one person's experience (as is often the case). This morning I had a woman tell me that he daughter was paying 56% in income tax. I explained to her that the top Federal rate is 35% and gave her other data. Yet people continue to believe propaganda and anecdotes. We need to challenge the misinformation whenever and wherever possible.
One of the biggest problems today, in my opinion, is the lack of critical thinking and analysis. I hope this provides you with some ideas on how to challenge bogus arguments.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
OMG BOOKS
I like to read and I read a fair amount. Over the years I have been greatly influenced by some books, books I call OH, MY GOD books because of astounding information that leaves you saying, Oh, my God! I want to recommend the following.
Although it has been superseded, at the time The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer was the first book to comprehensively look at the horrors of the Nazi regime. It is still worthwhile.
If you want to learn of the incredible stupidity and wastefulness of World War I and the leading generals, read In Flanders Field by Leon Wolf. It is an astounding expose, especially of General Douglas Haig.
Having been brought up at a time when cowboys were good and Indians were bad and the popular view was that simple stereotype, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown is a revelation. If you don't want to go out and scalp a white man after reading it, there's something wrong with you (I exaggerate, of course).
Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips opened my eyes to the structural problems of the US economy. Written in 2002, it practically predicted the economic crash we have seen.
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine ranks way up there as a book telling you important stuff you had no idea was going on. Highly recommended, relevant, and very recent.
One of the bad things about having so many books is that sometimes I can't find something when I want it. The next book is Cadillac Desert and I can't remember the author's last name. It's Marc and his last name starts with S. A highly entertaining book about water policy in the West, another important subject which few people know about, even though they should. By the way, if you go to Amazon books or Abe Books web sites and enter the title, you can find the book and author's name.
Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk is a great book about the Lebanese "civil war." If you want to learn about the Middle East, you should start with this book.
So many books, so little time.
Although it has been superseded, at the time The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer was the first book to comprehensively look at the horrors of the Nazi regime. It is still worthwhile.
If you want to learn of the incredible stupidity and wastefulness of World War I and the leading generals, read In Flanders Field by Leon Wolf. It is an astounding expose, especially of General Douglas Haig.
Having been brought up at a time when cowboys were good and Indians were bad and the popular view was that simple stereotype, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee by Dee Brown is a revelation. If you don't want to go out and scalp a white man after reading it, there's something wrong with you (I exaggerate, of course).
Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips opened my eyes to the structural problems of the US economy. Written in 2002, it practically predicted the economic crash we have seen.
Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine ranks way up there as a book telling you important stuff you had no idea was going on. Highly recommended, relevant, and very recent.
One of the bad things about having so many books is that sometimes I can't find something when I want it. The next book is Cadillac Desert and I can't remember the author's last name. It's Marc and his last name starts with S. A highly entertaining book about water policy in the West, another important subject which few people know about, even though they should. By the way, if you go to Amazon books or Abe Books web sites and enter the title, you can find the book and author's name.
Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk is a great book about the Lebanese "civil war." If you want to learn about the Middle East, you should start with this book.
So many books, so little time.
HOW MANY TIMES?
Or the Decline and Fall of Conservative Thought
(With apologies to Bob Dylan) How many times must some people err, before they are forever scorned? The answer my friend is blowin' in the b.s. , the b.s. of conservative spin.
With the latest news, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and almost 300,000 new jobs created in April, once again the vacuity of present day conservative thought is exposed to anyone with half a brain. How many times have conservatives railed against the failure of the stimulus bill, warned of the dire consequences of budget deficits and looming inflation? Drill, baby, drill, it is perfectly safe, we were told over and over again. Time after time their policies have proven, at best ill-advised, at worst, absolutely disastrous. And yet they continue to pontificate in denial of reality, ignorant of facts, and still have their views propounded widely, often without any critical analysis.
I recently saw a scene from a rather execrable movie from 40 years ago or so, called A Guide for the Married Man, or something like that. I had seen it originally and found it distasteful, and re-viewing part of it, it has now become dated and even more unpleasant than I remembered. However, the scene I saw is reminiscent of the approach that conservatives take nowadays. A character played by Walter Matthau, as I recall, is advising his young associate on what to do if his wife catches him cheating. Matthau's wife walks in on him in bed with another woman and starts yelling at him. Matthau, totally unperturbed and calm, gets out of bed and dresses himself while his paramour does the same. All the time Matthau responds quietly to his wife, denying everything and expressing surprise at what she is saying until he is fully dressed and the other woman has left. Then he tells his wife she must be imagining everything and lo, and behold, the bed is made, the woman is gone and Matthau is fully dressed and his wife begins to wonder if she is crazy and did imagine it. This seems to be the policy of the GOP, especially conservatives. Shortly after the crash Greenspan admitted that his policy of no regulation was wrong. Now he's saying it wasn't his fault, it was congressional policies, etc. With the oil spill, what have conservatives done? Re-evaluated their position? No, criticized Obama for reacting too slowly, never mind that a recent AP analysis shows that the administration reacted quickly, as soon as problems became known. The conservative mantra is something like "Whatever you do, don't look behind the curtain, I am the Great Oz."
Early in FDR's presidency one of his top advisers, Raymond Moley, said to FDR, "You realize, then that you're taking an enormous step away from the philosophy of equalitarianism and laissez-faire?" FDR responded, "If that philosophy hadn't proved to be bankrupt, Herbert Hoover would be sitting here right now."(1) This should be true today, de-regulation and laissez-faire have been shown once again to lead to disastrous consequences, but conservatives won't or can't admit it. Here's a widely quoted remark by "a senior Bush official", which sounds an awfully lot like something Karl Rove would say. Talking to a journalist, the official said that guys like him are "in what we call the reality-based community"--people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." (2)Unfortunately, the Iraqis didn't quite see it that way and didn't care what Bush's reality was.
The Republican party has been taken over by people who have firmly rejected a reality based view. In case you missed it, two different surveys found almost the same exact numbers, so the following is about as accurate as polling gets. 24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the Antichrist (at least they leave some room for doubt!). 38% say that he is doing many of the things that Hitler did. 45% believe he was not born in the United States, 57% believe he is a Muslim, and 67% believe he is a socialist. (3) How shall I put this delicately? These people are bat-shit crazy.
Even so-called conservative intellectuals are unreliable. I used to respect George Will even though I disagreed with him. However, just within the past 6 months or so I have caught two major mistakes in columns and another case where he took something out of context so as to mislead his readers. Thomas Sowell, who has a Phd. in Economics, is a joke. He "proved" that Barney Frank was responsible for the economic crash by quoting something he said in 2003, ignoring the fact that Barney Frank had no power then since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. Also, what Frank said then was not inaccurate or dangerous since the abuses hadn't started yet. Sowell's analyses are sloppy and rarely rise above the level of propaganda. The same is true of Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of military history. When he comments about Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems as if his study of military history never included guerrilla war as he makes pronouncements that are ahistorical and border on hysterical. His comments on politics and internal policy are even worse.
The Republican Party needs another Jack Kemp. Someone who actually thinks and tries to devise solutions to problems using conservative policies. He seems to be the last creative thinker in the conservative camp. Now conservatism can be boiled down to a few simple ideas: cut taxes, reduce the size of government, except for defense, and attack/invade countries we don't like. If McCain had won the last election, we probably would have seen something akin to modern day Hooverism and the economy really in the tank. We also would probably have attacked Iran by now, setting off a new oil crisis, dwarfing what we saw in the 70's.
What's truly frightening is that at a time when you can find out the answer to almost any question, when information is available like never before with just a few clicks of your mouse, people seem more ignorant than ever.
(1) The Coming of the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., p. 98.
(2)The Fall of the House of Bush, Craig Unger, p. 243.
(3) The Daily Beast, March 23, 2010.
(With apologies to Bob Dylan) How many times must some people err, before they are forever scorned? The answer my friend is blowin' in the b.s. , the b.s. of conservative spin.
With the latest news, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and almost 300,000 new jobs created in April, once again the vacuity of present day conservative thought is exposed to anyone with half a brain. How many times have conservatives railed against the failure of the stimulus bill, warned of the dire consequences of budget deficits and looming inflation? Drill, baby, drill, it is perfectly safe, we were told over and over again. Time after time their policies have proven, at best ill-advised, at worst, absolutely disastrous. And yet they continue to pontificate in denial of reality, ignorant of facts, and still have their views propounded widely, often without any critical analysis.
I recently saw a scene from a rather execrable movie from 40 years ago or so, called A Guide for the Married Man, or something like that. I had seen it originally and found it distasteful, and re-viewing part of it, it has now become dated and even more unpleasant than I remembered. However, the scene I saw is reminiscent of the approach that conservatives take nowadays. A character played by Walter Matthau, as I recall, is advising his young associate on what to do if his wife catches him cheating. Matthau's wife walks in on him in bed with another woman and starts yelling at him. Matthau, totally unperturbed and calm, gets out of bed and dresses himself while his paramour does the same. All the time Matthau responds quietly to his wife, denying everything and expressing surprise at what she is saying until he is fully dressed and the other woman has left. Then he tells his wife she must be imagining everything and lo, and behold, the bed is made, the woman is gone and Matthau is fully dressed and his wife begins to wonder if she is crazy and did imagine it. This seems to be the policy of the GOP, especially conservatives. Shortly after the crash Greenspan admitted that his policy of no regulation was wrong. Now he's saying it wasn't his fault, it was congressional policies, etc. With the oil spill, what have conservatives done? Re-evaluated their position? No, criticized Obama for reacting too slowly, never mind that a recent AP analysis shows that the administration reacted quickly, as soon as problems became known. The conservative mantra is something like "Whatever you do, don't look behind the curtain, I am the Great Oz."
Early in FDR's presidency one of his top advisers, Raymond Moley, said to FDR, "You realize, then that you're taking an enormous step away from the philosophy of equalitarianism and laissez-faire?" FDR responded, "If that philosophy hadn't proved to be bankrupt, Herbert Hoover would be sitting here right now."(1) This should be true today, de-regulation and laissez-faire have been shown once again to lead to disastrous consequences, but conservatives won't or can't admit it. Here's a widely quoted remark by "a senior Bush official", which sounds an awfully lot like something Karl Rove would say. Talking to a journalist, the official said that guys like him are "in what we call the reality-based community"--people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out." (2)Unfortunately, the Iraqis didn't quite see it that way and didn't care what Bush's reality was.
The Republican party has been taken over by people who have firmly rejected a reality based view. In case you missed it, two different surveys found almost the same exact numbers, so the following is about as accurate as polling gets. 24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the Antichrist (at least they leave some room for doubt!). 38% say that he is doing many of the things that Hitler did. 45% believe he was not born in the United States, 57% believe he is a Muslim, and 67% believe he is a socialist. (3) How shall I put this delicately? These people are bat-shit crazy.
Even so-called conservative intellectuals are unreliable. I used to respect George Will even though I disagreed with him. However, just within the past 6 months or so I have caught two major mistakes in columns and another case where he took something out of context so as to mislead his readers. Thomas Sowell, who has a Phd. in Economics, is a joke. He "proved" that Barney Frank was responsible for the economic crash by quoting something he said in 2003, ignoring the fact that Barney Frank had no power then since the GOP controlled both houses of Congress. Also, what Frank said then was not inaccurate or dangerous since the abuses hadn't started yet. Sowell's analyses are sloppy and rarely rise above the level of propaganda. The same is true of Victor Davis Hanson, a professor of military history. When he comments about Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems as if his study of military history never included guerrilla war as he makes pronouncements that are ahistorical and border on hysterical. His comments on politics and internal policy are even worse.
The Republican Party needs another Jack Kemp. Someone who actually thinks and tries to devise solutions to problems using conservative policies. He seems to be the last creative thinker in the conservative camp. Now conservatism can be boiled down to a few simple ideas: cut taxes, reduce the size of government, except for defense, and attack/invade countries we don't like. If McCain had won the last election, we probably would have seen something akin to modern day Hooverism and the economy really in the tank. We also would probably have attacked Iran by now, setting off a new oil crisis, dwarfing what we saw in the 70's.
What's truly frightening is that at a time when you can find out the answer to almost any question, when information is available like never before with just a few clicks of your mouse, people seem more ignorant than ever.
(1) The Coming of the New Deal, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., p. 98.
(2)The Fall of the House of Bush, Craig Unger, p. 243.
(3) The Daily Beast, March 23, 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)