Many people when engaged in an argument often yell that the other person involved is reasoning fallaciously. "You're reasoning is fallacious" or "that's a fallacious argument." However, not many people actually understand what a fallacy is. A fallacy is simply a mistake in reasoning. Some fallacies are due to the form of the argument, and are known as formal fallacies. I will not be discussing those here. My focus will be on fallacies of content, or what is more commonly known as informal fallacies. There are hundreds of fallacies out there, but I will focus on a few that are very common in everyday discourse. And once these fallacies are known, they can be avoided in one's own arguments, and also identified in the arguments of others. I will discuss ad hominem, ad populum, appeal to tradition, begging the question, ad ignorantiam, and the false dichotomy. I will also provide two examples of each.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when the individual, instead of responding to the content of an argument, attacks irrelevant personal characteristics about the arguer. For example, a Nazi white supremacist claims that illegal immigration should be controlled. Most of us would respond in disgust due to the source, but the source is irrelevant. The argument lives or dies on it's own. It's just usually the case a racist making arguments that deal with ethnicity are usually bad. A second example would be if a scientist were to claim that climate change should be controlled, providing evidence along the way, and the response is "you are just a hippy who wants to protect turtles over people." It is irrelevant to the argument at hand, even if true.
Argument ad populum is extremely easy to fall prey to, and to use when constructing an argument. This fallacy is when an individual makes an argument and simply appeals to popular opinion to support it. If I say child rape is wrong, and 90% of people think so, I have given no support to my position. Or if 90% of people say God exists, it does not follow that God does exist. Mere numbers (who are not experts) prove nothing.
Appeal to tradition is convincing to some, and to others it is utterly unconvincing prima facie. When an individual makes the claim that "traditionally" something has been the case, and they are only using tradition as the support, then he/she has committed this fallacy. Tradition, if supplemented with reasons in favor of the tradition, is not fallacious. Two really prominent examples of this commonly seen in American discourse is arguing against homosexuality by simply saying "marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman" and "traditionally, schools have used test scores to evaluate students." Neither one of these ideas is very often adequately defended on any other grounds.
Begging the question is something we have all done from time to time. However, this one is a horrible fallacy to commit because there is not even an attempt at reasoning involved, whereas in the other cases discussed so far, weak attempts at reasoning have been made. One may have heard a reporter or political commentator say "this piece of information begs the question that..." This is an inaccurate use of the term. Begging the question means you assume in your reason what you want to prove in your conclusion, not that information raises a troubling or interesting question you feel should be answered. Examples of this are "The Bible is true because it says it's true" and a parent saying "Do this because I said so." It is also called circular reasoning.
Ad ignorantiam is when an arguer claims either something cannot be disproved, and is therefore true; or something cannot be proved, and therefore it is false. An example of the former is asserting that God cannot be disproved, therefore God exists. An example of the latter is claiming that God cannot be proved, therefore God does not exist.
A false dichotomy is when the individual claims that there are only two choices in a given situation, when in fact there are more than two. There could be three, four, five, or more. A famous example is when former President George Bush said "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists." I could be neutral. Or I could be on the side of the United States, and not agree with their methods for dealing with terrorism. Another example is "Cut taxes or stifle economic growth." Taxes and economic growth can both co-exist.
In conclusion, identifying these fallacies in your own reasoning and in that of others will increase your ability to think critically, and hopefully pave the way for the truth to rise amongst falsehood. Once these fallacies are learned, they seem to pop up everywhere, when in fact they were already being committed and just not noticed. Be cautious with your own reasoning, and that of others.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
How to Reason
Arguments are made everywhere and everyday. One can find them in the editorial section of the newspaper, on a cable TV news show, or among family and friends. However, what exactly is an argument? And how does one go about evaluating it?
To begin, an argument can be defined as a series of statements or claims that are trying to prove another claim is true. For example, if I make the claim that an individual should vote for a particular political party, I would need to supply reasons for that claim. If I am a Democrat I would say social programs and environmental issues are moral issues that every society should deal with in a constructive way. If I were a Republican, I would say people should be able to keep the money they have earned and that aborting a fetus is rarely the way to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.
Now that an argument has been defined, the next step is to evaluate an argument. There are three main ways to do this. Firstly, try to imagine if all of the reasons given in support of the claim can be true, and the conclusion false. For example, can social programs be desirable and environmental issues important, and a person still not support a Democratic candidate? Or vice versa with the hypothetical Republican candidate. If you cannot imagine a situation where all the reasons are true, and the conclusion could still be false, then the argument is called valid. If you can imagine a situation such as this, then the argument is invalid.
Secondly, check for any fallacies. These can be found easily with a simple google search, and they are so numerous it would take up an entire article just to list them all. However, one of the most commonly used is known as the ad hominem fallacy. This is when a person, instead of responding to the argument, attacks the person instead. For example, if Uncle Bob makes the claim that marijuana should be legalized, and Aunt Sue says Uncle Bob is just a free loader that wants to get high all day, she has not even come close to evaluating the claim, and instead attacked Uncle Bob personally.
And finally, check for vague or ambiguous terms. Vague simply means a word has such a wide variety of definitions it's hard to know what the person using it means, and ambiguous means there are two distinct definitions of a word, but it's unclear which is meant by the term or phrase. So an example of vague would be calling someone a liberal or a conservative, and not explaining anything about what they mean by those terms. An example of ambiguity would be the statement "I ate lunch by the bank." Does this mean a river bank, or a commercial one? From the statement alone, it is unclear. Often ambiguity can be cleared up with context. So if the person works at a bank, and there are no river banks nearby, it is probably safe to assume they ate lunch just outside of the bank, at say a restaurant or a park.
To quickly sum up, an argument is a series of claims that attempts to prove another claim is true. And arguments must be evaluated on logical (valid or fallacious questions) and semantic grounds.
To begin, an argument can be defined as a series of statements or claims that are trying to prove another claim is true. For example, if I make the claim that an individual should vote for a particular political party, I would need to supply reasons for that claim. If I am a Democrat I would say social programs and environmental issues are moral issues that every society should deal with in a constructive way. If I were a Republican, I would say people should be able to keep the money they have earned and that aborting a fetus is rarely the way to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.
Now that an argument has been defined, the next step is to evaluate an argument. There are three main ways to do this. Firstly, try to imagine if all of the reasons given in support of the claim can be true, and the conclusion false. For example, can social programs be desirable and environmental issues important, and a person still not support a Democratic candidate? Or vice versa with the hypothetical Republican candidate. If you cannot imagine a situation where all the reasons are true, and the conclusion could still be false, then the argument is called valid. If you can imagine a situation such as this, then the argument is invalid.
Secondly, check for any fallacies. These can be found easily with a simple google search, and they are so numerous it would take up an entire article just to list them all. However, one of the most commonly used is known as the ad hominem fallacy. This is when a person, instead of responding to the argument, attacks the person instead. For example, if Uncle Bob makes the claim that marijuana should be legalized, and Aunt Sue says Uncle Bob is just a free loader that wants to get high all day, she has not even come close to evaluating the claim, and instead attacked Uncle Bob personally.
And finally, check for vague or ambiguous terms. Vague simply means a word has such a wide variety of definitions it's hard to know what the person using it means, and ambiguous means there are two distinct definitions of a word, but it's unclear which is meant by the term or phrase. So an example of vague would be calling someone a liberal or a conservative, and not explaining anything about what they mean by those terms. An example of ambiguity would be the statement "I ate lunch by the bank." Does this mean a river bank, or a commercial one? From the statement alone, it is unclear. Often ambiguity can be cleared up with context. So if the person works at a bank, and there are no river banks nearby, it is probably safe to assume they ate lunch just outside of the bank, at say a restaurant or a park.
To quickly sum up, an argument is a series of claims that attempts to prove another claim is true. And arguments must be evaluated on logical (valid or fallacious questions) and semantic grounds.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Intellecual Honesty is Dying
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts released his year end report to defend his colleagues trustworthiness on the highest court in the land. However, his feeble attempts have done nothing but show just how blind his faith is in the ability of his peers "to determine when recusal is warranted." There is something called the Code of Conduct federal judges are supposed to all follow, but it does not apply to the Supreme Court. What critics are arguing is that it should, with an example being Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia appearing at a Federalist Society dinner where they were guest speakers and a fund raiser was held. For lower court justices, this would be unacceptable ethical behavior.
The most striking case of a justice that appears to have no regard for ethical appearances at all is Clarence Thomas. His wife was paid by the Heritage Foundation for many years, and he did not disclose it on his tax returns. And issues this group cares about will be coming before the Supreme Court. So much for "calling balls and strikes" Mr. Roberts...
Intellectual standards must be developed to ensure that people are not allowed to act with impunity when it comes to situations like this. Poor reasoning, denying scientific findings, and prejudiced opinions have no place in a 21st century dialogue.
The most striking case of a justice that appears to have no regard for ethical appearances at all is Clarence Thomas. His wife was paid by the Heritage Foundation for many years, and he did not disclose it on his tax returns. And issues this group cares about will be coming before the Supreme Court. So much for "calling balls and strikes" Mr. Roberts...
Intellectual standards must be developed to ensure that people are not allowed to act with impunity when it comes to situations like this. Poor reasoning, denying scientific findings, and prejudiced opinions have no place in a 21st century dialogue.
Birtherism LIves!
Just when you thought birtherism was dead, it has come back to life in the great state of...New Hampshire. You thought I was going to say Texas didn't you? Two Republican lawmakers, as if that needs to be pointed out anymore, Laurence Rappaport and Carol and Lucien Vita, are making the claim that Obama cannot be President because his father was Kenyan. Apparently, it does not matter where the child is born, only where the parents are! They want an investigation as to whether he can legally appear on the 2012 Presidential ballot in the state.
Racism will never die. It's hard to tell whether the lawmakers are actually racist, or if they are simply pandering to racist voters in order to appease them, knowing full well that questions about Obama's citizenship are idiotic as best. The amount of pandering the majority of Republican lawmakers have done on this issue in order to attract racist white votes is appalling. And history will look back at the first black President of the United States and see that the opposition party's claim to fame was saying no to anything of significance, and questioning the citizenship of the man.
Racism will never die. It's hard to tell whether the lawmakers are actually racist, or if they are simply pandering to racist voters in order to appease them, knowing full well that questions about Obama's citizenship are idiotic as best. The amount of pandering the majority of Republican lawmakers have done on this issue in order to attract racist white votes is appalling. And history will look back at the first black President of the United States and see that the opposition party's claim to fame was saying no to anything of significance, and questioning the citizenship of the man.
Chris Gregoire Pushing Marriage Equality
Chris Gregoire, the current governor of Washington, is backing legislation that is expected to be put forward in the Washington legislature that will legalize same-sex marriage. The legislature has majority Democrat in both chambers, but some conservative Democrats are not backing the bill, so with the conservative Democrats, along with the obvious Republican homophobic opposition that nearly always surfaces when marriage equality comes up for a vote, it could be a long road to hoe.
What is hopeful about this move by governor Gregoire is that, if the legislation were to pass, it would make Washington the seventh state to legalize gay marriage, joining Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. There seems to be significant momentum on the gay rights side, and it does not seem likely to die. In fact, with the younger generation of voters, like myself, there are very few of us actually against gay marriage. The future of America on marriage equality looks bright.
What is hopeful about this move by governor Gregoire is that, if the legislation were to pass, it would make Washington the seventh state to legalize gay marriage, joining Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. There seems to be significant momentum on the gay rights side, and it does not seem likely to die. In fact, with the younger generation of voters, like myself, there are very few of us actually against gay marriage. The future of America on marriage equality looks bright.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Montana Supreme Court Shows Intellectual Honesty
The 2010 Citizens United ruling by the United States Supreme Court caused a major backlash among many members of the populace. Why? Well the ruling overturned decades of precedent that limited the amount of corporate spending in elections. Now, it is legal for a corporation to spend an unlimited amount of money on their preferred candidate. If there was any question whether our politicians are already bought and sold by rich special interests, there is no question now thanks to the Supreme Court's conservative majority.
But something funny has happened. The Montana Supreme Court is not lying down and just accepting the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. They are not a monarchy that rules by decrees. The Montana Supreme Court explicitly is rejecting the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court's conservatives that unlimited corporate spending does not cause, or at least make it appear as though, there is corruption. It will be interesting if Western Tradition Partnership will appeal.
I applaud them for their intellectual courage. If more intellectually honest Americans would stand up and fight back against the horrific attempt at logic these 5 conservatives on the court used to justify their decision, then America would become great once again. Conservatives everywhere need to be called out on their inability to correctly assess evidence and make good decisions.
But something funny has happened. The Montana Supreme Court is not lying down and just accepting the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling. They are not a monarchy that rules by decrees. The Montana Supreme Court explicitly is rejecting the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court's conservatives that unlimited corporate spending does not cause, or at least make it appear as though, there is corruption. It will be interesting if Western Tradition Partnership will appeal.
I applaud them for their intellectual courage. If more intellectually honest Americans would stand up and fight back against the horrific attempt at logic these 5 conservatives on the court used to justify their decision, then America would become great once again. Conservatives everywhere need to be called out on their inability to correctly assess evidence and make good decisions.
Iowa Caucus
Mitt Romney has won the Iowa Caucus, by a narrow range of only 8 votes. Who says voting doesn't make a difference? The most surprising thing, however, about the race was that Rick Santorum was the man he was tied neck and neck with. Santorum is an extremist.
Right up until the votes were counted, Santorum was still making outrageous claims about states having the right to ban birth control and sodomy. And then there is this jewel, where Santorum says welfare for low-income African Americans is apparently a bad thing, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
Mitt Romney has been called the foregone conclusion in this circus called the Republican primary. And with Santorum's comments, it does not seem like he has much competition. And with Romney's win in Iowa, which has one of the most socially conservative Republican bases in the country, it seems highly unlikely Romney will not be the future Republican challenger to Barack Obama. More moderate primary voters in other states will nominate him in landslide wins.
Right up until the votes were counted, Santorum was still making outrageous claims about states having the right to ban birth control and sodomy. And then there is this jewel, where Santorum says welfare for low-income African Americans is apparently a bad thing, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
Mitt Romney has been called the foregone conclusion in this circus called the Republican primary. And with Santorum's comments, it does not seem like he has much competition. And with Romney's win in Iowa, which has one of the most socially conservative Republican bases in the country, it seems highly unlikely Romney will not be the future Republican challenger to Barack Obama. More moderate primary voters in other states will nominate him in landslide wins.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Santorum's Extremism is Back
Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator and current Republican Presidential hopeful has come out openly in favor of teaching creationism, saying "It's very interesting that you have a situation where science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-Creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific. Well maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things. And if it does point to that, then why don't you pursue that? But you can't, because it's not science, but if science is pointing you there how can you say it's not science? It's worth the debate."
It's hard to figure out what to even make of this. Santorum does not seem to understand what the definition of science even is. God may exist, but God is NOT a scientific question. God is not verifiable, falsifiable, nor does it offer any predictive value. His ignorance of the scientific method is quite stunning actually, and it just goes to show he cannot be trusted to make rational decisions for the entire United States. Intellectual competency does matter!
It's hard to figure out what to even make of this. Santorum does not seem to understand what the definition of science even is. God may exist, but God is NOT a scientific question. God is not verifiable, falsifiable, nor does it offer any predictive value. His ignorance of the scientific method is quite stunning actually, and it just goes to show he cannot be trusted to make rational decisions for the entire United States. Intellectual competency does matter!
Newt Gingrich's Freudian Slip
The secret is out. For those who believe that Fox News has any intellectual honesty left, Newt Gingrich has a few words of wisdom on the matter. And what are these words you may ask? That when he was on Fox he didn't have to know what he was talking about!!! The revelation came in the context of a question asked by an audience member in South Carolina about Obama's AIDS policy. To Gingrich's credit, he answered honestly that he was not familiar enough with the information to give an answer at the time, but that his staff would get back to the woman in question. And this is when he tried to use humor to deflect attention away from the fact he couldn't answer by using Fox News as an example of a time when he did not have to know what he was talking about. Thank you Mr. Gingrich for speaking truth to power!
Friday, November 25, 2011
Mitt Romney Furthers Attempts to Blend In
Mitt Romney is now joining almost all the rest of the groupthink GOP Presidential candidates by saying he does NOT favor a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already in the United States and have been living here for an extended period of time. For these people, Romney says the process "consists of going to their home country, applying for citizenship or permanent residency just like everybody else, and getting back in the line." However, in 2005, Romney said "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society. In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with." Furthermore, he agreed with Bush and McCain plan at the time, defending it by stating "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine,"
It's sad Romney has flip-flopped AGAIN. Along with flip-flopping on global warming, gay rights, abortion rights, and the individual health care mandate, he has now done it with immigration. It's sad that the man actually held many respectable positions in the past, and that the current mood of the GOP is so anti-intellectual anytime someone even comes close to sounding reasonable they either have to flip-flop or backtrack. There should legitimate competition when it comes to choosing parties, but in the present climate, the GOP cannot intellectually compete with the Democrats. The Tea Party talks about revolution. The GOP should take note and revolutionize themselves so they can be a respectable voice in the 21st century.
It's sad Romney has flip-flopped AGAIN. Along with flip-flopping on global warming, gay rights, abortion rights, and the individual health care mandate, he has now done it with immigration. It's sad that the man actually held many respectable positions in the past, and that the current mood of the GOP is so anti-intellectual anytime someone even comes close to sounding reasonable they either have to flip-flop or backtrack. There should legitimate competition when it comes to choosing parties, but in the present climate, the GOP cannot intellectually compete with the Democrats. The Tea Party talks about revolution. The GOP should take note and revolutionize themselves so they can be a respectable voice in the 21st century.
Conservatives Outraged Obama's Failure to Mention God
During Obama's annual Thanksgiving address to the nation, he left out one important detail. And that is he did not mention God in the address. This has enraged some conservatives who see this as clearly a blasphemous sin, with Ben Shapiro commenting that Obama was a "militant atheist." Aside from the downright idiocy that Obama is a "militant atheist," there is something else seriously wrong with the conservative movement when it sees a lack of moral character in a man who does not mention God in a Presidential address, but sees a morally upright citizen in the previous President.
George W. Bush admitted openly that he approved torturing select detainees. And he has claimed he would do it again. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE??????? On something that is a clear violation of human rights, the conservatives have either said it's not "really" torture, calling water boarding "enhanced interrogation" (one thinks of Orwellian euphemisms here) or saying that the torture led to valuable intelligence. Both claims are false. Americans prosecuted Japanese who water boarded Americans for war crimes, but then we ourselves did it and the people responsible have not been brought to justice. It's also false that torture led to valuable intelligence. Torture makes people talk to make the procedure stop, but it does not guarantee reliable information, which is obvious to anyone who has not deluded themselves into believing it is somehow morally justifiable to torture another human being.
And recently all but two of the Republican Presidential candidates (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) said they believed torture should be continued in select circumstances. The hypocrisy of the American right never ceases to stun me.
George W. Bush admitted openly that he approved torturing select detainees. And he has claimed he would do it again. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE??????? On something that is a clear violation of human rights, the conservatives have either said it's not "really" torture, calling water boarding "enhanced interrogation" (one thinks of Orwellian euphemisms here) or saying that the torture led to valuable intelligence. Both claims are false. Americans prosecuted Japanese who water boarded Americans for war crimes, but then we ourselves did it and the people responsible have not been brought to justice. It's also false that torture led to valuable intelligence. Torture makes people talk to make the procedure stop, but it does not guarantee reliable information, which is obvious to anyone who has not deluded themselves into believing it is somehow morally justifiable to torture another human being.
And recently all but two of the Republican Presidential candidates (Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul) said they believed torture should be continued in select circumstances. The hypocrisy of the American right never ceases to stun me.
Police Misplaced Priorities
Why, as Americans, do we allow our drug policy to be ridiculously out of date? Police continue to crack down on citizens who smoke marijuana, while bankers are allowed to get off free, and in some cases with massive bonuses, after they nearly brought our economy to the brink of collapse. There is something fundamentally unfair about this. Perhaps it is because marijuana smokers who get caught tend to be lower income, and bankers have money to contribute to political campaigns or to hire lawyers that will protect them from their due justice.
Or another possibility is that Americans are just stupid, and support right-wing moronic politicians that seem to lack the ability to think critically, with their denial of global warming, evolution, and also still believing being gay is a choice and therefore it is somehow immoral. In order to fix the drug laws, Americans MUST come out openly and support legalizing marijuana. It can be regulated and taxed. This will take the criminality out of the process, and it will also bring in MUCH needed revenue to the United States government.
Or another possibility is that Americans are just stupid, and support right-wing moronic politicians that seem to lack the ability to think critically, with their denial of global warming, evolution, and also still believing being gay is a choice and therefore it is somehow immoral. In order to fix the drug laws, Americans MUST come out openly and support legalizing marijuana. It can be regulated and taxed. This will take the criminality out of the process, and it will also bring in MUCH needed revenue to the United States government.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Bill Cunningham's Shocking Words
On the Fixed News channel, specifically on the show Hannity, Bill Cunningham decided it was a good idea to bring up the Bible in a discussion about parenting, which conservatives who don't think for themselves often do. But that isn't the controversial part about it. The controversy is over what he said next, "I say beat kids appropriately and with love." What kind of person makes such a claim? Living in the 21st century, there is ample literature on how to discipline children, and "beating" is not one of the recommendations.
Something else that is also telling is the fact that Sean Hannity did not express surprise or concern over the statement. He just pretended it was normal. However, it is anything but normal to beat another human being in order to force them to comply with your will. Perhaps Hannity would think otherwise if a 350lb weight lifting Democrat decided to apply the same logic on him to force him to vote for Obama. But I would never expect Faux News to be able to recognize such poor reasoning when their entire network is dedicated to the practice thereof.
Something else that is also telling is the fact that Sean Hannity did not express surprise or concern over the statement. He just pretended it was normal. However, it is anything but normal to beat another human being in order to force them to comply with your will. Perhaps Hannity would think otherwise if a 350lb weight lifting Democrat decided to apply the same logic on him to force him to vote for Obama. But I would never expect Faux News to be able to recognize such poor reasoning when their entire network is dedicated to the practice thereof.
Jeb Bush Continues Anti-Scientific Trend in Republican Party
Jeb Bush, former Republican Governor of Florida and brother of President George Bush, gave an interview to Fixed News where he said this about global warming, "It is not unanimous among scientists that it is disproportionately manmade. What I get a little tired of on the left is this idea that somehow science has decided all this so you can’t have a view. Science has decided that embryonic stem cell research is the way to go and if you don’t agree with that then somehow you’re Cro-Magnon Man or something like that. Governor Perry, as it relates to global warming has every right to suggest that it’s not a certainty.” This is a patently false easily falsifiable statement, yet of course he is allowed to say such things on a network that has predetermined answers to the issues that conservative so often like to do.
When the majority of ALL scientists are saying it is most likely due to human actions, then the most rational thing to do at that point is to take necessary action to try and stop it from getting worse. It is a matter of saving the planet and humanity. If we destroy the planet, there is nothing left. We are doomed. The shit will hit the fan and we will all perish, all because our political system was so infested with people who's intellectual capacity is far below what is needed to execute the offices they currently serve in. Welcome to 2011.
When the majority of ALL scientists are saying it is most likely due to human actions, then the most rational thing to do at that point is to take necessary action to try and stop it from getting worse. It is a matter of saving the planet and humanity. If we destroy the planet, there is nothing left. We are doomed. The shit will hit the fan and we will all perish, all because our political system was so infested with people who's intellectual capacity is far below what is needed to execute the offices they currently serve in. Welcome to 2011.
Michigan Attacks Unions
Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder is set to sign a law that will cap how much the state will pay towards health coverage for public employees. This is another example, just like in Ohio and Wisconsin, of right-wing extremist Governors attacking unions. When workers band together, they get paid better wages and get better benefits, but it seems as though the Republicans don't want this to happen.
Republicans try to portray themselves as the party of the little guy, up against the big bad government that is taking away their rights and hard earned money. However, unions are most beneficial to people who in fact are "little" in the sense that they have no political power to change the system. They don't have the funds. And then Republicans take away benefits from these people, and claim they are helping everyone in the process. George Orwell would be impressed by the amount of double think that goes on in American society today.
Republicans try to portray themselves as the party of the little guy, up against the big bad government that is taking away their rights and hard earned money. However, unions are most beneficial to people who in fact are "little" in the sense that they have no political power to change the system. They don't have the funds. And then Republicans take away benefits from these people, and claim they are helping everyone in the process. George Orwell would be impressed by the amount of double think that goes on in American society today.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Huntsman's Telling Attacks
Jon Huntsman, a current Republican presidential candidate and former governor of Utah, is blasting fellow candidates for their extremist positions. He attacked Rick Perry for denying man-made global warming and Michele Bachmann for recently saying that if she were president gas would be under 2 dollars a gallon. His overall message was that the current contenders for president are pandering to specific groups of people and that they are not trying to find middle ground and be reasonable candidates.
This is very encouraging to see. All moderates are not dead in the Republican party after all!!!! There are still a few left, and I applaud Huntsman first for actually serving in the Obama administration as ambassador to China even though he is a Republican, and for calling out the current field for their insane views. If Obama were to lose to a Republican (which I do not want to happen) Huntsman seems like a candidate that could be trusted to run the country in a fair and efficient way.
This is very encouraging to see. All moderates are not dead in the Republican party after all!!!! There are still a few left, and I applaud Huntsman first for actually serving in the Obama administration as ambassador to China even though he is a Republican, and for calling out the current field for their insane views. If Obama were to lose to a Republican (which I do not want to happen) Huntsman seems like a candidate that could be trusted to run the country in a fair and efficient way.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Homophobic Teacher of the Year
Jerry Buell, a Florida high school teacher who won "Teacher of the Year," has been caught in engaging in hate speech towards homosexual Americans. On his facebook page, he said "If they want to call it a union, go ahead, but don't insult a man and woman's marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool as same-sex whatever!God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable???" Some of his facebook friends saw the post and decided to push back, which caused Mr. Buell to respond saying "If one doesn't like the most recently posted opinion, based on Biblical principals and God's law, then go ahead and un-friend me. I'll miss you like I miss my kidney stone from 1994." Buell is now suspended. He is crying foul saying he was just exercising his first amendment rights to free speech and that it was not done on school property. However, a thought experiment will show just how wrong-headed he is.
Imagine for a moment this was the EXACT same situation, except that it was about interracial marriage, which at one time in U.S. history was widely opposed. If someone in the modern day were to post that seeing an African American and a Caucasian getting married made him sick and said the union should not be recognized the same way marriages of the same race are, would not there be a justifiable reaction of outrage from the community? The man would end up being fired, and the school would be better off as a result. However, because it is homosexuality and many people still hold bigoted ignorant views, people like him are not scorned as badly as they deserve to be. I am calling for his resignation immediately.
Imagine for a moment this was the EXACT same situation, except that it was about interracial marriage, which at one time in U.S. history was widely opposed. If someone in the modern day were to post that seeing an African American and a Caucasian getting married made him sick and said the union should not be recognized the same way marriages of the same race are, would not there be a justifiable reaction of outrage from the community? The man would end up being fired, and the school would be better off as a result. However, because it is homosexuality and many people still hold bigoted ignorant views, people like him are not scorned as badly as they deserve to be. I am calling for his resignation immediately.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tom Coburn's Insensitivity
Tom Coburn, a Republican Senator from Oklahoma (the state I happen to live in), has caused some controversy for his comments at a town hall meeting recently. He said "It's just a good thing I can't pack a gun on the Senate floor." This comes on the heels of the fort hood shooter and Gabrielle Giffords, the Democrat from Arizona who was shot, returning to Congress for a vote on the debt-ceiling. This enough shows a lack of sensitivity to the situation America is in with regards to violence. His statement implies if he had a gun on the Senate floor he would have actually shot people, which is disgusting. However, that is not the worst thing he said.
Coburn was asked by a constituent whether or not he thought Obama was trying to destroy America. Coburn said no that Obama was a smart guy, but that he had a problem. He said Obama being African American meant he had a "tremendous advantage" from the government. Going further, he said Obama's "intent is not to destroy, his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," It is difficult to determine exactly what this means. However, that it seems to be implying is this. Obama is a black man, and this means he had advantages from the government to help him succeed. As if all black men are dependent on the government, and getting help from the government is somehow a bad thing to do. And it's factually false Obama depended on the government. Obama went to Harvard law school, something not many people, white black Hispanic anything, are able to accomplish. He also managed to get elected President of the United States without having his daddy pave the way for him. Perhaps it was the previous President who was "dependent on others for his 'accomplishments."
Coburn was asked by a constituent whether or not he thought Obama was trying to destroy America. Coburn said no that Obama was a smart guy, but that he had a problem. He said Obama being African American meant he had a "tremendous advantage" from the government. Going further, he said Obama's "intent is not to destroy, his intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him," It is difficult to determine exactly what this means. However, that it seems to be implying is this. Obama is a black man, and this means he had advantages from the government to help him succeed. As if all black men are dependent on the government, and getting help from the government is somehow a bad thing to do. And it's factually false Obama depended on the government. Obama went to Harvard law school, something not many people, white black Hispanic anything, are able to accomplish. He also managed to get elected President of the United States without having his daddy pave the way for him. Perhaps it was the previous President who was "dependent on others for his 'accomplishments."
Christine O'Donell's Telling Actions
On the CNN show Piers Morgan Tonight, Christine O'Donnell was doing an interview about her new book and was asked about her views on homosexuality. Her answer bordered on complete nonsensical blabber. She said “I’m not talking about policies. I’m not running for office, ask Michele Bachmann what she thinks. Ask the candidates running for office what they think." However, her book is all about political positions and trying to energize the Tea Party. At the end of the interview she decided to end prematurely, she said Piers Morgan was being rude by asking her about homosexuality.
To me it shows that Tea Partier's don't like questions on their extremist views. They don't like the mainstream media because they get questioned and shown to be wrong on the facts. Sunlight is a good disinfectant, and the more Americans learn about what the Tea Party REALLY stands for (even though they don't like to get specific in interviews on what they will actually cut) the less they like them and realize they are simply a movement that wants to go back to a mythical time in America that never actually existed.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM REIGNS SUPREME
Another conservative Texan has denied global warming is a problem, even when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Academy of Sciences and 98% of practicing climatologist say that it is being mostly driven by human activity. Perhaps all of these scientists could be wrong, but it is highly unlikely at this point. The melting ice caps, the rising sea levels, warming global temperatures, and extreme weather all bolster the case that it is occurring.
This causes me to wonder about other things. Does Perry believe in evolution? Is he homophobic? I would like answers to these questions. Texas also executes more people than any other state. Any governor that would reside over just a blood thirsty state and do nothing to change it is not fit to be president. He is a moral coward.
This causes me to wonder about other things. Does Perry believe in evolution? Is he homophobic? I would like answers to these questions. Texas also executes more people than any other state. Any governor that would reside over just a blood thirsty state and do nothing to change it is not fit to be president. He is a moral coward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)