The Second Opinion

Prayers and best wishes for NYgirl

Blogger NYgirl, often cited here, has been injured in a car accident.  Please join me in praying for a quick and complete recovery.

Carnival of Cordite

The latest Carnival of Cordite is here.

A lib called me a liar!

A lib called me a liar!  AND he said that I do nothing but spit Rove talking points!  He didn't say anything bad about my mother, but maybe next time.

It's a badge of honor.

FOLLOW-UP:

Though this unfortunate incident happened on Eric's blog.  Eric and I frequently comment on each other's blogs, and though we often don't agree, I've always found his posts to be thoughtful and his comments to be polite and good humoured.

Sorry that things got out of hand.

Acting locally

Captain Ed at the always excellent Captain's Quarters discusses a Washington Post op-ed that displays remarkable and totally unexpected common sense regarding government response to Katrina.  The WaPo notes:

But if blame is to be laid and lessons are to be drawn, one point stands out as irrefutable: Emergency planners must focus much more on the fate of that part of the population that -- for reasons of poverty, infirmity, distrust of officialdom, lack of transportation or lack of information -- cannot be counted on to leave their homes after an evacuation order.

Captain Ed follows up:

The editorial misses two points that complete the loop. First, we can answer the question about the National Guard troops very easily. They get mobilized on orders from the governor of the state in which they serve. All that was needed was a mobilization order from Governor Blanco before the storm hit to get them in motion. Regarding the Superdome decision, that initially made sense -- until the levees broke, local authorities assumed that their stay would only take twenty-four hours or so. However, they wasted that time without moving transportation assets into position for a potential evacuation, hundreds of unused school buses that now sit under water.

We've got to get past the idea that Uncle Sugar has to do everything in this country.  Not only does the idea make our local and state governments unnecessary, it also overlooks the fact that (typically) the best people to deal with a situation are those closest to it.  The government of the City of New Orleans more than any other agency in the country should have known what they might face if a big one hit the city and taken better precautions rather than assuming that DC would do it all... or just hoping for the best.

IMAO's Lessons from Katrina

Right Wing Duck at IMAO has a laundry list of lessons from Katrina.  They include:

• It’s basic human nature: When resources run out – people will begin to loot for the basics – food, water, and big screen TV’s.
• Katrina was named after the Greek Goddess of global warming. At least – that’s what you hear when you talk to liberals.
• Given a choice between compassion for those suffering and hating President Bush – many on the Left would choose the latter.
• The job of the Mayor is to take care of the people in his city. When he fails at that – his secondary job becomes blaming the federal government.

And in a more serious vein:

• We still have many people clinging to hope and praying for rescue. Pray for them.
• America is resourceful. That’s what I love about our people.
• If you haven’t donated to a charity yet, maybe today would be a good day.
• We have some of the best rescue people in the world. Thank you for your efforts.
• This is big. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Be patient with the rescuers. They’re doing the best they can.

One of the lessons I learned is similar to that offered by IMAO reader Nylecoj:

• A friend in Alabama said this morning that his lesson learned is that he does not have enough guns in his house.

I have enough guns.  A few (dozen) more wouldn't hurt, though, along with LOTS more ammo.

Jo on whining about Katrina

Trelaina at Jo's Cafe has also noticed the whining about the 'poor' or 'slow' response by the government to the hurricane.  She's got some great comments, including:

Why is 36-48 hours response time so horrible? There was a time when you couldn’t have expected such response at all, or if you did it would take weeks or months. There was a time when a levee breach such as we saw would have meant certain death, either immediately or later via disease, etc, for anyone still in the city. These improvements have happened within my lifetime (and I’m in my 30s). We have come a long way in terms of disaster response.

Exactly.

New blog, and a yankee who understand BBQ!

Ran across the new blog Brisket for Chucklehead today.  I was struck by the fact that his first post - yes, his VERY FIRST POST - concerns that most heavenly of foods, BBQ.  The fact that he's from Buffalo makes this surprising, though perhaps I shouldn't think so given that Buffalo is the home of my favorite BBQ sauce.

I predict great things for Scotty!

Debate and argument

One of my pet peeves whether I'm blogging or just talking is people's inability to engage in civil debate.  This is not simply a matter of being rude, though that's a big part of the problem, but also of the inability to think logically and express themselves clearly.  Please don't misunderstand: I'm not trying to say that I'm a latter-day Daniel Webster.  I make my share (and more) of forensic mistakes.  Nevertheless, they irritate me. 

I also get irritated by the word games that the BM and politician play.  Why can't people give straight answers?

These are some of the common false arguments and 'spin' techniques I've encountered:(1)

-  The ad hominem attack:  If you can't win on the merits of your argument or evidence, resort to name-calling.  VERY common.

A - "I believe that Senator Foghorn's bill is nothing but payback to the XYZ Company that helped finance his reelection campaign.  They stand to make a mint if the bill is passed."

B - "Yeah, well, you're an idiot!"

-  Closely related is taking offense when none was meant: If you can't win on the merits of your argument or evidence, claim that the other person has insulted you or, better still, a whole group of people.  The most popular form of this is the 'race card'.

A - "Perhaps there's a biological reason that women tend not to have the same aptitude for science as men."

B - "How dare you insult women by saying that they aren't as good as men!"

-  Changing the subject: If you can't win on the merits of your argument or evidence, try to shift the terms of the debate such as by setting up a 'straw man' or bringing in other topics that are not especially germane.  Many people do this unintentionally.

A - "Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who killed over 300,000 of his own people.  Getting rid of him was a good thing."

B - "But America supported Saddam in the 1980s!"

- Careful use of evidence: Attempt to prove your point by careful selection or partial presentation of evidence.  To some extent, this is unavoidable.  After all, none of us are experts in every field, and thus we almost never make arguments based on an exhaustive study of all the evidence.

A - "Injuries from accidents with fireworks were up 167% over the past two years.  Fireworks should be banned."

B - "What you didn't mention is that there were a total of eight injuries from fireworks accidents in the past two years, and three of the people injured this year were all involved in the same accident.  Further, the injuries in seven of the eight cases were minor."

- Appeal to authority: Bring in a 'name' that holds the same position as you to give your argument vicarious credibility.  Note that appeal to authority CAN be valid, but it's usually better to argue on your own.

A - "I agree with the noted historians Charles and Mary Beard when I say that the Constitution was an economic document written mostly to benefit the ruling classes in post-revolutionary America."

B - "That's all well and good, but why do YOU say so?"

-  Attack the source: Cast doubt on the other person's evidence by attacking the source as somehow non-authoritative.  This is not to say that ALL sources are authoritative, accurate, or even honest, but depending on the situation, it may be dishonest to attack the source.

A - "On XYZ News this morning, Senator Foghorn said that he supported the president's defense bill."

B - "You get your news from XYZ???"

-  'Everybody does it': Self-explanatory.  Often used by politicians and children who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

A - "Senator Foghorn is certainly in trouble now.  The FBI apparently got him on tape arranging for illegal campaign contributions."

B - "Well, it's not like everybody else doesn't do it.  He just got caught."

-  Taking things to extremes: Attempt to undermine another person's argument by suggesting the worst possible case.

A - "I believe that we need to reduce Social Security benefits, at least to some extent."

B - "Millions of elderly Americans will starve if you take away their Social Security!"

-  Guilt by association: Attempting to link, no matter how tenuously, your opponent with an infamous person, group, or cause.

A - "Arnold Schwartzenegger is from Austria.  Just like Hitler."

-  'Insufficient evidence':  Attack the other person's evidence by implying that, because it isn't completely exhaustive, it must therefore be insufficient or false.

A - "The school system in our city is a shambles.  Almost 45% of highschool students failed their basic skills tests."

B - "Well, how did the kids in the other grades do?  You don't know?  Then how can you say that the schools aren't doing a good job?"

-  Careful use of terms: This is one of my favorites (!).  Frame your argument in language that sounds 'good', or frame your opponent's argument in language that sounds 'bad'.

A - "Pro-choice."

B - "Pro-abortion."

-  Tendentious questions, or drawing a false conclusion from a response:  The BM uses this all the time when conducting polls.

A - "Given the rising number of US casualties in Iraq, are you satisfied that the president's policies are correct?" ----> 64% of Americans oppose the president's Iraq policies.

B - "Would you support an increase in the amount of the Social Security benefit paid to senior citizens who need more money to pay for their medical care?" ----> Americans overwhelmingly support increasing Social Security benefits.

-  Avoid answering the question:  Politicians LOVE this one.

A - "Do you support the bill?"

B - "What we really need in this country is less partisanship and more cooperation.  Everybody knows that I've always reached across the aisle to work with members of the other party, and I look forward to working with them on this issue."

There are many others, of course.  What are some you've encountered?

(1) I am not an expert in debate or fallacious arguments, and this is far from a comprehensive list of fallacious arguments.  The interested reader is directed to the following website:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

I blog. You blog. He / she blogs. We blog.

(hat tip: La Shawn Barber)

One of the more amusing aspects of blogging is watching people from academia and especially the BM pontificate about blogging, usually to the accompaniment of snide criticisms and predictions that blogging will go the way of the dodo any day now.

The latest addition to the 'will blogs become extinct' chorus is Dr. David Perlmutter of  LSU.  He writes:

Read some of the sensational headlines about our newest genre, medium and technology of mass media and you get deja vu. Almost everything people boast today about the online personal journal was also claimed for dotcoms in the late 1990s. If we are in a similar period of irrational enthusiasm about the weblog as the new new thing, will we also soon face a "blogbust," its eventual collapse or winnowing out?

Unlike those who've criticized bloggers as being nothing by pajama-clad diletanttes who don't do 'real' journalism and don't have editors, Perlmutter has some good things to say about blogs:

Blogs are indeed a democratic wonder -- the first instance in human history where an ordinary individual can communicate her or his thoughts to the entire planet, instantly, and without editing by the elites of journalism or government. They provide a real service, as a complement and a watchdog to the mainstream sources of information and analysis.

However, he goes off the reservation when he wrings his hands over the worry that blogs might degenerate into nothing more than shills for corporations, lobbyists, etc.  Even more amusing is his assertion that blogs are somehow non-egalitarian because:

Bloggers tend to come from the higher-education and higher-income portion of the population. This is as true in Egypt or Nigeria as it is in the United States. Peasants don't blog.

Quite aside from chuckling (I can't help but think of the "Bloody peasant!" line from Monty Python and the Holy Grail), I wonder if Prof. Perlmutter actually KNOWS any bloggers?  While there are bloggers such as Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit who have advanced degrees ), quite a number of bloggers I've read are just common folks.  Maybe they have a BA, MA, or PhD, or maybe they don't.  It's irrelevant in any case: there are no 'Must have a BA or equivalent education / experience' requirements to have a blog (can't quite say the same to be on the faculty at LSU, eh, professor?).

As for his concern that blogging is going to 'go corporate', I think he can rest easy on that score, too.  People read blogs because the topics INTEREST them, not because the design or layout is snazzy.  I don't think we'll see people stampeding to a GE or Ford blog any time soon.  Further, bloggers tend to be a lot more sophisticated that people like Prof. Perlmutter seem to believe.  We can tell the difference between a fellow blogger, even a very professional one like Michelle Malkin, and a corporate / political site that's just trying to sell a particular product or idea.

Blogs may well disappear in the near future, but if they do, it will only be because they've been replaced by a better medium of communication.  People have a need to connect with others and to share their ideas, and whether they use the medium of cave painting, carving on stone tablets, standing on a soapbox at the street corner, posting broadsides and pamphlets, or blogging, they aren't going to stop.

Jo vs Jesse

Jo at Jo's Cafe has Fisked a news article about Jesse Jackson. 

Jo - 1

Jackson - 0

Check it out.