Recently in Politics Category
While spending some time at the ACLU site in the summer of '08, I excerpted this excellent example of effective political sophistry from their About page:
Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs
Consider their reference to our Bill of Rights (sophistry). The term "Bill of Rights" entered our collective mind circa 1790 with tremendous prestige and that august history is brought to the reader's mind; especially the reflexive defense of it.
By providing the date of ratification and other facts (sophistry), the reader is invited to accept their point of view as that of a knowledgeable, scholarly, historic authority.
They write:
Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments ... adopted in ...
If they meant to describe how majority power is limited, they would have written:
Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights -- which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791 -- plus the three post-Civil War amendments ...
Instead, they add 4 amendments to the Bill of Rights (sophistry), skipping forward over 70 years for their first addition, and almost 130 years for their last.
Next, the ACLU claims to be on a:
"... mission ... to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:"
Typically, the first thought to enter the reader's mind will be that the protections and guarantees the ACLU is referring to are those just mentioned in the previous text regarding the Bill of Rights. Here, the implication is that all who support the Bill of Rights should support their champion, the ACLU (elementary sophistry).
Now, with the deft use of a colon (sophisticated sophistry), the reader expects to find an enumeration of "... all of [the] protections and guarantees..." acknowledged by our Bill of Rights. Instead, the reader finds a 4 point summary of the ACLU's agenda, which the uneducated and unwary conclude is a complete list of our rights under the Bill of Rights.
If the ACLU's rhetoric is successful, they create another supporter - hopefully, dues-paying and card-carrying -- and gain the reader's acceptance as a worthy defender of the Bill of Rights and an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution.
Bumper Stickers that caught my eye:
"Friends don't let friends vote republican."
"Guns don't kill people. I do."
The police often say 'We put our lives on the line every day to serve and protect' and as far as it goes, they do. A typical, well known example is the cop approaching the driver of the car he just pulled over - will the driver pull a gun and try to shoot the cop? Some few times the answer is yes and some fewer times the cop ends up dead.
But what about the times they don't risk their lives? What about the times they blast away at someone rather than risk their lives?
Consider that time in NY, February 4, 1999, when 4 undercover cops blasted away at Amadou Diallo, a civilian in the shadows who was attempting to show them his identification? One cop said he thought the victim was pulling a gun, and in fear for his life, this cop opened fire on the victim. When his brother cops realized the first cop was shooting at the victim, they joined in.
These cops didn't know if the victim had a gun, they were just 'afraid' he did. Rather than risk their lives in order to determine if the victim intended them harm, they shot him down in a hail of 41 bullets.
"We risk our lives." Compare that statement to the soldier's: "We give our lives." What does it mean when someone risks their life but stops short of giving it? Or contrast the cop's stance with that of those hero's of Search and Rescue who say "If I have to give my life for yours, I will".
Sometimes cops actually go beyond merely risking their lives to giving them. On That 2001 NY day, scores of cops became rescue workers, and three score perished.
As harsh as it sounds, I want the cops to default to dying rather than killing innocents.
"Self-sacrifice enables us to sacrifice other people without blushing." George Bernard Shaw
Fun Facts to Know and Share:
Per year averages for the 15 year period from 1980 through 2005:
§ 10,751 cops were assaulted by folks using weapons - 22% of these assaults involved firearms
§ About 50,000 assaults on cops without weapons
§ 140 cops were killed - 56% of these deaths were accidental, the remaining 62 were felonious
In 2004 there were more than 800,000 full-time sworn law enforcement officers in the United States, yielding an average of 8 deaths per 100,000. The homicide rate from 1976 through 2005 was 7.8 per 100,000. While my calculations here are only approximate, it seems that being a cop is about as risky as not being a cop.
"The changes in the U.S. homicide rate over time are interesting. In 1900 there were few gun laws. New York had no handgun law and California no waiting period. Guns of all types could be ordered by mail or bought anonymously. And the homicide rate was 1.2 per 100,000." David C. Stolinsky, MD
Bumper stickers that caught my eye:
"The only thing that I feel when I kill, is the recoil."
In a speech early in his campaign, Sen. Obama said "We will end poverty in America". Even though this is a common theme for liberals, I still wondered why he would say such a thing, Here's my best guesses:
Maybe he's an idiot?
The word "poverty" is defined as the financial condition of those having the lowest values along a range of wealth. It's like the word "cold". "Cold" is not a temperature, like 42 degrees Fahrenheit; it's a range of temperatures that are lower than those temperatures which are called "Hot", or warm or cool, etc... To a person, 32OF is cold, but to a Penguin maybe it's only cool; or even warm? Maybe Sen. Obama doesn't know this; that poverty is relative? That would certainly make him a idiot.
Maybe he's a Communist?
If Sen. Obama set it up so that everyone had the same amount of wealth, there would be no range of wealth at all ,and so no poverty. We all know what communist societies are like. I suppose it's possible that some folks actually want to live under tyranny. I personally know some folks who would love to be a tyrant. And if George Washington, or even Timoleon, were the tyrant, life probably would be better.
Maybe he's a Child?
'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.' This promise of Marxism is certainly attractive to many of us; even compelling. Such a society might be a Utopia, and who wouldn't want to live in Utopia? Unfortunately, history teaches us that Utopia is currently an unattainable ideal. Only children believe in such things.
Maybe he's using a sophism?
This would get my vote as the most likely reason Sen. Obama said "We will end poverty in America". He's lying through his teeth; shoveling it out by the truck full to secure the support of those who fall for such tricks..
If one isn't liberal while they're young they probably have no heart. And if one isn't conservative when they're grown up they probably have no brain. Or they don't use it. Or they're tyrants. Or I don't really know as I've spent decades searching, futilely, for a liberal willing or able to explain it to me.
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary at www.m-w.com/dictionary:
Pronunciation: \ˈi-dē-ət\
Function: noun
2: a foolish or stupid person
Pronunciation: \ˈpä-vər-tē\
Function: noun
1 a: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
Pronunciation: \ˈsä-ˌfi-zəm\
Function: noun
1: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an argument used to deceive
Quotes:
"Some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
Mark Twain
Bumper stickers that caught my eye:
"My mind is like a steel trap; rusty and illegal in most states."
"Don't believe everything you think".
Fun Facts to Know and Share:
Gold is so dense that where a cubic foot of water weighs 64 lbs, and a cubic foot of iron weighs 500 lbs., a cubic foot of gold weighs 1,200 lbs. If that gallon of milk you buy were gold, it would weigh 150 lbs.
We humans, smart as we are, oft confuse complicated with difficult, and simple with easy. In my experience, it's the other way around plenty of times; the simple can be extremely difficult. Ask any physicist about the difficulty of dealing with an equation as simple as
E = mc2
Or a person simply trying to do the right thing; Or even just counting out loud to 10,000 without error.
Much of the beauty scientists find in their work is in the elegant, and simple, laws underlying their reality. But this hasn't been the case in the "soft" sciences. Ask one of them why? and instead of writing a few figures on the blackboard, they will tell you volumes, and still not have it completely correct. I don't believe this is only because of the subject matter; I suspect it's mostly the attitude of the practitioners thinking that the truths of their field are frightfully complicated.
Well, I'm not a practitioner of any soft science, so it could only be my ignorance talking, but some "human" things are very, very simple. For instance ...
In the case of our current violent conflict with the "islamists", they will win because they are willing to kill, and we aren't willing to die.
It really is that simple.
If you don't believe me, do your own brief survey of the armed conflicts
Isn't that just about the same as surrender?
Quote:
"American supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today." George Soros, MoveOn.org's billionaire benefactor
I have seen this quote attributed to Soros many times in many places, but was unable to verify it on the net. After checking the web thoroughly, the closest I found was a transcript of CNN Crossfire, Aired May 31, 2004 - 16:30 ET which says " ...Soros explained to 'The Washington Post' this fall ... Soros went on to compare the president of the United States to the Nazis. And then he said something even more offensive. Soros described the
Fun Facts to know and share:
There is an intersection in
Bumper Stickers that caught my eye:
If You Don't Vote, DON'T WHINE
Don't Worry What People Think. They Don't Do It Very Often
Or, one of the things surfers have in common with every mature, experienced person.
I find everything about surfing a blast. I like riding the wave the best. Next best I like getting outside. Next best I like wipeouts. They can be as cool as a marble in a shoe box, or better still, a sock in the washer. And best of all wipeouts, a sock in the drier, going round and round and round. Of course, if you hit something it could mess you up, and sometimes it seems as if the Ocean will never let you up; I only like these wipeouts when reminiscing.
The overriding lesson surfers learn, is that the Ocean always wins. If you fight her, she will win. Always. You've just got to learn to live with her under her rules. When she has you, many ordinary things become impossible, like breathing for instance. If you don't recognize or accept her omnipotence, you'll get into trouble. You'll get into trouble anyway, but if you learn the things she'll let you do, and learn to do them the way she likes, you'll hardly be powerless.
So in the surfer's world, there is this group of things that are just impossible to do; they know this group intimately. There is also this other group of things that can be done, but only if you do them 'just so'; they know this group intimately also.
It is in the acceptance of the world the way it is; it is in the letting go of the impossible; it is in the learning what can be done and how to do it; it is in these that the surfer is the same as the conservative.
When a conservative looks at society, she sees lots that's impossible to do; and puts those things away until they become possible. Then she gets busy learning what can be done and how to do it. Then she does it and it works.
I've just come from the ACLU page listing their 100 greatest successes from 1925 through 1999. Out of these, 35 involve our 1st Amendment right to speak freely:
a) The 1st three defended those who call for the violent overthrow of our government.
b) Next, in 1938's Lovell v.
c) Next, they defend an anti-Semite in 1949's Terminiello v.
d) Then 16 cases through 1976 protecting: civil-disorder speech, obscene speech (twice), political defamation, political speech( twice), violent over-throwers (again), war potesters (twice), hecklers, flag-burners, Presidential-life-threateners, and some others.
e) Then in 1977 the Jehovah Witnesses again, though this time not a religious case, but a "Right to Not Speak" case.
f) Next, 1978's Smith v. Collin, the famous Skokie
g) Then 3 more cases, including another defense of flag desecration, and one protesting a School's desire to exclude some material from their library,
h) Next, in 1992's R.A.V. v.
i) Next, 1993's notorious
This last one is sophistry at its best! They couldn't possibly make thinking illegal; they couldn't even come close to it here in
They know that the vast majority of us believe that murder, rape, robbery, etc., should be illegal and we're glad that they are. Building on this foundation, they point out that a jury will consider many things while choosing between the verdicts Guilty or Not Guilty: Where did the alleged crime take place? What time was it? What devices were used? What precipitated, or at least preceded, the crime? Did the accused know they were breaking the law? What type of planning took place? And so on ...
Now they demonstrate that the "Evidence" a jury examines lies somewhere along a continuum from 100% physical action all the way to 100% abstract thought. AND. Juries already examine stuff that's pretty close to 100% thought, like: did they know their intended action was illegal?
It took a deft touch, but we come to understand this ruling as merely a trifling modification of this continuum. The planning of the crime is a part of the crime brought to the attention of the jury in a conspiracy trial. Planning is a type of thinking, and the jury is required to consider planning in a conspiracy trial. They're only allowing the jury to examine a little more of the defendants criminal thinking, and even then only if that particular thinking was associated with the commission of a crime.
They get a lot from this sophistry:
- The pervasive belief that the addition of Hate Crime laws doesn't entail any drastic, even major, changes to The Law; it merely throws a few more things into the pot when considering criminal behavior. Some more things just like some of the things already in the pot.
- It creates a new concept, Hate Crime, and they get to name it.
- They also get to populate it and so have defined it for current dictionaries for all time.
- They reinforce the idea and actuality of Protected Classes: Hate Crime only applies to Protected Classes.
- They claim the mantle of Civil Rights Crusader for protecting those classes.
- They introduce, and gain widespread acceptance of, the belief that these Hate Crime laws are just like those conspiracy laws which prohibit conspiracy type thinking.
It's critical that they accomplish this last point. They need to sell you their analogy that Hate Crime law is just like Conspiracy law. Once they do that, they can successfully demonstrate that as "conspiracy type thinking" is illegal even when the underlying crime remains nothing but a plan, so should "hate type thinking" become illegal, all by itself.
And Poof! Thought Criminals!!! The ACLU; those folks are experts!
Dear Governor Kaine,
I am deeply saddened by the terrible events at VA Tech; and perhaps more horrified than some because of the conclusions published by the Review Panel this Wednesday, which stated:
"There does not seem to be a plausible scenario of a university response to the double homicide that could have prevented the tragedy of considerable magnitude on April 16."
In other words, the panel 'said' they believe there is nothing that could have been done differently that would have stopped or reduced the bloodshed.
I know many folks fear and hate guns, and I am sympathetic to their feelings; but only up to a point. Just as I am grieved by the slaughter and the incredible pain their loved ones must feel, I am just as angry with the typical liberal's blind hatred of our 2nd Amendment.
If Even One of the Victims or Witnesses Were Armed, they could have Stopped the Carnage. If a Handful Were Armed, they Certainly Would Have Stopped It!
Tragically, the mass murder of our youth is a price the gun-haters are only to willing to pay, if it means keeping arms out of the hands of normal, law-abiding citizens.
I beg you! Please don't continue to pursue policies which guarantee our loved ones will be helpless when the next madman comes around.
Respectfully yours,
P.S. I've found that many folks are surprised by the truth about firearms in America and the world, so I included a few facts that may be new to you:
· Between 1,500,000 and 3,600,000 crimes were prevented in 1994 by armed citizens, according to a Department of Justice report, and the L. A. Times, respectively. In most of these cases, the citizens merely demonstrated they were armed by displaying their firearm to the criminal.
· You are over 16 times as likely to be killed by your Doctor, than you are by a gun (in 2002, there were 195,000 deaths due to medical error - 2004 study by HealthGrades, a healthcare quality company; and 11,829 homicides involving firearms - 2007 World Almanac).
· "Reducing firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens does nothing to reduce violence worldwide", conclude Kates and Mauser, in their "Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy" article: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence".
Bumper stickers that caught my eye:
"Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with my guns"
"Gun Control means hitting what you're aiming at"
TO: The Leaders of my Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
RE: The 2007 Assembly's decision regarding Ordained/Ordaining practicing homosexuals
Dear Leaders,
I have spent many hours at our website, elca.org, researching our Church's thoughts and actions regarding Ordained/Ordaining practicing homosexuals. Our most recent position is the result of the 2007 assembly which states:
Assembly Encourages Restraint in Discipline of Congregations, Leaders
The Churchwide [sic] Assembly made no changes to ELCA standards for professional leaders, declining proposals that suggested specific policy changes. By a vote of 538 to 431, the assembly asked its synods and bishops to 'refrain from or demonstrate restraint in disciplining' people and congregations that call otherwise-qualified candidates in mutual, chaste and faithful committed same-gender relationships, and it called for restraint in disciplining rostered leaders in committed same-gender relationships. The proposal was adopted as a substitute for a recommendation of the Memorials Committee.
Following the decision, Hanson said, "These are words of counsel. They are not words that change the standards of the church. They reflect the mind of this assembly as it seeks to give counsel to the leaders of this church."
I am sorry to say that I think Presiding Bishop Hanson is dissembling (see above - ...not words that change...); the previous standards of the Church called for the removal of practicing homosexuals from all official positions, whereas our current position is to condone (as in 'refraining from disciplining') homosexual behavior among our Leaders.
By the various votes is clear that our church is deeply divided on this issue and that an official position of disciplining those engaged in homosexual behavior might fracture our church as it has the Anglican/Episcopal Church. I suspect that at least some of you Leaders wish to prevent this at all costs; some of you see it as a Civil Rights issue; some of you see it as tolerance, or acceptance, of diversity; some of you see it as the loving inclusion of practicing homosexuals into the life of the Church; and so on... Some may even see it as a financial issue in terms of the potential lost revenue if thousands leave our Church. The rest of you see it as I do; a
By accepting practicing homosexuals as Ordained Priests, you are declaring them to be approved role-models worthy of emulation by all in our congregations.
In my opinion, Protestantism had come to a point analogous to that of Roman Catholicism right before Luther began the Reformation, where the common Christian could no longer support the corrupt institution the Church had become. The current state of extreme and pervasive secularism and licentiousness in
While we may all, hopefully, "love the sinner", please let those that also 'love the sin' go; let them leave our church for one of their own. Let our church stand fast in 'hating the sin'.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." John Milton
"I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by a conscious endeavor." Henry David Thoreau
He who walks with the lame learns how to limp. - Latin Proverb
Bumper Sticker that caught my eye:
"If Bush is the answer, it must have been a STUPID question."
Background: From the Guttmacher Institute (the CDC asserts that this institute has the most complete/accurate abortion info):
- 49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; 1/2 of these are terminated by abortion. 24% of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
- Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion.
- 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.
- The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion.
According to the American Medical Association:
The term 'partial birth abortion' is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term "intact dilatation and extraction" (or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester.
According to Warren M. Hern, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. testifying before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate 17 November 1995:
While about 1% of all abortions are performed after about 20 weeks of pregnancy, only about .03%, or fewer than 500, are performed after 26 weeks. The majority of these are now performed by me or one of my medical colleagues. These abortions are almost always performed for the most tragic reasons of severe fetal anomaly, genetic disorder, or immediate risk to the woman's life. They are not performed for frivolous reasons, contrary to statements by those opposed to abortion.
According to gentlebirth.org, on Nov. 29, 2005, the LA Times published an article by Stephanie Simon called "Offering Abortion, Rebirth" in the "Start Page: A.1 Section: Main News; Part A; National Desk". In order to read the actual article I'd have to pay the LA Times, so instead I'll rely on this extract posted in the Midwife Archives:
According to Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate [sic] of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
Approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb. Usually not discovered until LATE in the second trimester, it is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain ... close to two gallons ... of cerebrospinal fluid. (The average *adult* skull is about 7 to 8" in diameter.)
Dr. Harrison says the partial birth and the "draining" of the fetus' skull is actually drawing off of this fluid from the brain area of the fetus. The collapsing of the fetal skull is to allow the removal without the brutal rupturing of a woman's uterine passage or necessitating a classic cesarean section that poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies. The fetus with severe hydrocephalus cannot live and we wish someone would let people like Ralph Reed, Orin Hatch, Pat Robertson, and Pope John Paul II know that they are condemning women to death for no reason - no reason except their damned puny male egos.
Approximately 500 women face this procedure each year. Mild to moderate hydrocephalus can be sometimes be treated in utero and the fetus saved, and some very mild cases can be delivered and treated after birth. Those which have advanced or severe hydrocephalus cannot. Without the "partial birth" abortions, their births can easily kill their mothers with no chance of fetal survival.
"The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within." Mohandas Karamchand (Mahatma) GANDHI
Bumper stickers that caught my eye:
"I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it."
"Ever stop to think and forget to start again?"
Fun Facts to know and share:
As cowboys sat around in saloons in the latter part of the 19th century, they often played poker. To reduce cheating, the deal would change hands and the next in line to deal would be given a marker. This marker was often a knife which often had buck-horn handles; hence the marker becoming known as a buck. When the dealer's turn was done he 'passed the buck'. Silver dollars were later used as markers and this is probably the origin of the use of buck as a slang term for dollar.
From: "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day (copyright 2004), by Joe Scarborough, ex US Rep, from Florida; now has news show on MSNBC:
Joe proposed the following contract which is to be signed by anyone running for Congress or Pres/VicePres. If they don't sign it, you don't vote for them.
- Ban congressmen, senators, and White House officials from lobbying for 5 years.
- Freeze the pay of congressmen, senators, and White House officials until the federal budget is balanced. This includes cost-of-living adjustments!
- Force political candidates to immediately scan and post all campaign contributions on their campaign website. Failure to do so results in criminal penalties.
- Pass term limits